« PoprzedniaDalej »
The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KASSON. I move to add the following as an additional section:
And be it further enacted, That the lands hereby
have the grant made directly to the company
Mr. JULIAN. Had not the Legislature of
river to the Missouri river was not made to the
Now, we had a great deal of difficulty in Iowa
Mr. PRICE. I accept that amendment.
Mr. KASSON. The reason for that amendment is that it is necessary in order that settlement of these western lands shall not be retarded by any great land monopoly.
Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] allow me to make a statement in regard to this bill?
Mr. PRICE. For how long?
Mr. PRICE. I will yield for three minutes. Mr. JULIAN. There is a novelty in this bill which I wish the House to understand. Up to this time the policy of the Government has been uniform, with, I believe, the single exception of the grants to the Pacific railroad, where the nationality of the measure made it impossible to make the graut to a State. The uniform policy has been in favor of grants to the State in trust for a particular company to do the work. Now, I object to the innovation which this bill seeks to make in our policy as unsafe, as making us embark in a line of policy at variance with the whole legislation of the past, a line of policy upon which we better not enter.
Two or three minutes will
Now, I hope that this bill, which ought to have gone in the first place to the Committee on Public Lands, may now be referred to that committee, so that it may be examined, the extent of the grant ascertained, and the propriety of departing from the old policy of the Government fully considered.
I know that there were two or three cases in the last Congress in which grants were made directly to companies, but they were companies which the State Legislatures had previously designated as the fit instruments for executing the trust.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Those companies were designated under the act of 1856.
Mr. JULIAN. Which was a grant to the State. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That was a grant to the State; but Congress afterward granted the lands directly to the company.
Now, I will state to the gentleman, also, that under the legislation of the State of Iowa and the articles of incorporation adopted by this company the company is as much designated by the State of Iowa for the construction of this road as the other companies were for the construction of the other road. Under the general incorporation law of the State, this company organized for that purpose; and it therefore has an authorization under the laws of the State of Iowa for the construction of that road. There are no other competing lines; no other companies have been organized; no one proposes to build a road there except this single company.
Mr. JULIAN. I desire to inquire of the gentleman whether, under the graut contained in this bill, the Legislature of Iowa will have any control over the selection of the company to do the work.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. No, sir; of course not; because under the laws of the State of Iowa that company is now authorized to proceed with the work, and unless it shall abuse its fra. chises and powers it has the right to go on and construct the road. It can only be deprived of its powers by a judicial proceeding in which the company shall be found to have abused its powers.
Mr. JULIAN. Suppose the company should fail to do the work.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. PRICE. I now yield the floor for three minutes to my colleague, [Mr. GRINNELL.]
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I should like to have read the act of incorporation of this company. I would like to know to whom we are giving these lands.
Mr. GRINNELL. I will yield to the gen-
The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot enter-
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is
The SPEAKER. It has been ruled uniformly that any bill which by its own force will have the effect to take money out of the Treasury is an appropriation bill, even if the money is to be paid in and paid out afterward. Mr. KASSOŃ. I ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] not to insist on his objection.
The SPEAKER. If there is no objection the amendment will be entertained.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I ask the gentleman from Iowa to yield to me for a moment.
Mr. PRICE. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. BENJAMIN. I am opposed to this bill in its present shape. As has been stated, it is a grant to a railroad company in the State of Iowa. This road passes near the line of the State of Missouri. I suppose there is not much land in the State of Missouri that will go to this company under this grant; but I apprehend there is some; how much I am not able to say. It does not matter, however, whether it is more or less. Here is a railroad company chartered by the State of Iowa. It becomes the owner of land in the State of Missouri to hold for all time to come so far as the State of Missouri is concerned. The State of Missouri will have no control over this company. It cannot by its legislation control a company that is chartered and controlled by the Legislature of the State of Iowa. This of itself should be sufficient to defeat the bill.
The SPEAKER. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa provides that the Government of the United States may sell these lands, put the money into the Treasury of the United States, and pay that money out of the Treasury to this company. Such an amendment would make this an appropriation bill, and therefore it could not be considered in the House except by unanimous consent.
Mr. KASSON. I would like to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the amendment does not propose an appropriation of money in the Treasury. It is a simple proposition for the substitution of the money for the land when the land shall be sold.
Mr. PRICE. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I desire to know to whom we are giving these lands. I find this bill is for the purpose of aiding the Iowa and Missouri State Line Railroad Company (the same being a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Iowa) to con struct and operate a railroad. I should like to have that act of incorporation read, so that we may know who are these parties and what are the powers they possess. It may be that we are giving lands to this company not located within the boundaries of lowa, and putting those lands under the control of Iowa, which would be a wrong thing for this Congress to do. I want to know how much land is proposed to be granted. It occurs to me we should know that. I hope that the motion of my friend from Ohio, Mr. SPALDING,] to refer this bill to the Committee on Public Lands will be adopted, so that we may vote understandingly. As it is now we are all groping in the dark.
Mr. PRICE. I will answer the gentleman's questions, and I ask his attention and that of others who may have the same objections. This company is organized under the general laws of the State of Iowa, and not under special charter, for the purpose of constructing a railroad along the southern tier of counties of that State to the Missouri river. This is to aid in the construction of that road without regard to the organization of a company whatever. That is all there is of it.
the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes, with an amendment, and with a recommendation that it do pass. The bill was read.
many things for the next fifty years. I do not know whether they will ask for more lands; but if they do, there are no more.
Mr. DAWES. It is the last bite. [Laughter.]
Mr. GRINNELL. A friend of mine on the other side, though differing in politics, just came to me and remarked, I want to appeal to the honest member from Iowa to know how this matter stands. I replied we were taking a great deal of time over a simple thing. will ask the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. JULIAN,] who is so much troubled about this great grant of lands, what it is, really. Some twenty or thirty thousand acres of land, of refuse lands, which even Missouri"Pukes" would not take up, and has been in the market for years at a few cents an acre.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Then why do you want them?
Mr. GRINNELL. Let the company take them, and see what they can do with them by draining and otherwise.
Mr. EGGLESTON. What does this company want with these poor refuse lands? Mr. GRINNELL. They want to have a variety to show my friend's constituents when they come there, bad lands as well as good lands. This road passes through a county in my district: and the people are making great sacrifices for what they need. Let us vote, and help a noble enterprise.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I ask leave to move the following:
Provided further, That the lands granted by this bill shall not exceed forty thousand acres.
Mr. PRICE. I do not yield to that amend
Mr. HALE. I wish to ask the chairman of the Pacific Railroad Committee whether under the fourth section of this bill this company may not connect their western terminus with the Union Pacific road, or one of its branches, by a north and south road, instead of a road running westerly? I notice that the section specifies no eastern limit of the point of junetion with the Pacific road, but a western limit only. I do not understand that it is our policy to grant lands to enable these companies to build north and south roads.
Mr. PRICE. I do not think that can hap pen under the bill as amended. Idemand the previous question.
The House divided; and there were-ayes 35, noes 58.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. PRICE and SPALDING were appointed.
The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 47, noes 57.
So the previous question was not seconded. Mr. WENTWORTH. I have no remarks to make. I am satisfied that this bill has got a large majority of friends in this House, and if it could be sent to a proper committee and put in a proper shape, I believe that this House will give the State of Iowa for this purpose any amount of land she asks for. I now move that it be referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and on that I demand the previous question. Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WENTWORTH. I insist upon the demand. I do as the gentlemen did; they would not let me speak. [Laughter.] The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the motion was agreed to. Mr. WENTWORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was referred; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. PRICE. I am instructed by the Committee on the Pacific Railroad to report back House bill No. 414, to secure the speedy construction of the Northern Pacific railroad and telegraph line and to secure to the Government
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a point of order. This is an appropriation bill, being a pledge of the credit of the United States Government to pay certain interest money and pay the principal in case of the failure of the company.
Mr. PRICE. I would like to say a word on that.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman before he decides it.
Mr. PRICE. The gentleman makes the point that this is an appropriation bill because it provides that the Government shall pay from the Treasury certain sums of money. I have not the bill before me, but I do not think such language as that is to be found in the bill. It only provides that the Government shall guaranty the payment of certain sums of money.
Mr. SPALDING. When the first twenty-five miles are completed we have to pay $47,000. Mr. PRICE. No, sir.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Read two or three lines of the bill.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa desires to say a few words before the Chair decides the question.
Mr. PRICE. I maintain that the point of order is not well taken because this bill only guaranties the payment in a certain contingency which may never arise. It is a guarantee in the happening of a contingency, and until that arises there is no money to be paid. There is no appropriation made for the payment of money.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I beg pardon; the Speaker will see from the very language of the bill that it is an appropriation bill.
The SPEAKER. The bill pledges the "credit of the United States, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, to the payment of the interest of the stock of the said company from the date of issue of the same, and for a period not exceeding twenty years from the date of said issue, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually on the 1st days of July and January in each and every year, in the legal currency of the United States, at the Treasury of the United States." The second section provides that certain moneys shall be applied by the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse the Government for any moneys paid for interest as aforesaid."
Mr. BINGHAM. I beg leave to suggest whether it is not very apparent that not one dollar of interest can ever be paid without an act of appropriation subsequently passed by Congress.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman please point out what part of the bill so declares?
Mr. BINGHAM. The language of the bill is, "to pledge the credit of the United States in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe to the payment of the interest of the stock of the said company for a period not exceeding twenty years from the date of said issue, at the rate of six per cent. per annum payable semi-annually." That is a pledge of
the credit of the United States. What then? Before it can be paid there must be an appropriation passed by Congress authorizing its payment.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is a pledge of this payment "on the 1st days of July and January in each and every year, in the legal currency of the United States at the Treasury of the United States, or any of its depositories." If that is not an appropriation there is no language that can make an appropriation.
The SPEAKER. The Chair might as well decide the point of order. He is very clear in regard to it.
Mr. DELANO. I would like to say a word. The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. DELANO. I desire to call the attention of the Chair to the clause making provision for the use of the money that may be placed in the Treasury from the sale of the lands. It is in these words:
Shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States by the treasurer of said company on the 1st days of April and October in each and every year, to be applied by the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse the Government for any moneys paid for interest as aforesaid.
Now, I ask whether any further legislation is necessary to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to pay out this money which is to be thus applied and which is here appropriated.
The SPEAKER. The Chair referred to that very section in his remarks.
The Chair sustains the point of order that this is an appropriation bill for the reason that by its own force it takes money out of the Treasury. This bill on every 1st of January and every 1st of July would take money out of the Treasury by its own force. There are two sections in the bill which involve appropriations.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I submit that the bill must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. STEVENS. I move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and upon that motion I demand the previous question.
The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.
Mr. ROSS moved to lay the bill upon the table.
YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Boyer, Broomall, Buckland, Cobb, Delano, Dixon, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Finck, Garfield, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, James R. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Latham, William Lawrence, Marston, Morrill, Nicholson, Orth, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Thayer, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, and Williams-43.
NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin. Bergen. Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Darling. Dawes, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Ferry, Grinnell, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Hulburd, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, McClurg, MeRuer, Mercur, Miller, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, Niblack, O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Price. John H. Rice, Rogers, Rollins, Smith, Stevens, Trowbridge, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, William B. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-65.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Allison, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barker, Blaine, Brandegee, Bromwell Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Conkling, Cullom, Culver, Davis, Dawson, Defrees, Deming, Denison, Dumont, Eckley, Eldridge, Glossbrenner. Goodyear, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones. Kerr, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, McIndoe, McKee, Moorhead, Noell, Paine, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble, Van Aernam, Ward, Whaley, Winfield, and Wright-75.
So the House refused to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
The question recurred on Mr. STEVENS'S motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad; and being put, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted; and also moved to lay the motiou to reconsider upon the table.
But there is the question of the reception of the report, which may be raised. The Clerk will read the rule.
The Clerk read as follows:
The question was put; and there wereayes 38, noes 65.
So the motion was not agreed to.
The question recurred upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted; and being taken, it was not agreed to.
Mr. PRICE. I am instructed by the Committee on the Pacific Railroad to report back with amendments House bill No. 414, to secure the speedy construction of the Northern Pacific railroad and telegraph line, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes, with a recommendation that it do pass.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that the Committee on the Pacific Railroad has not ordered any such report to be made.
Mr. PRICE. That is a question of veracity between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] and myself, which can best be settled elsewhere.
Mr. WASHIBURNE, of Illinois. I make the point of order that the committee has had no meeting since this bill was recommitted, for the gentleman from Iowa and all his colleagues have been upon the floor of the House all the time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. If the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] states that he is authorized by the committee to make the report, the Chair has no right to go behind his statement.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a still further point of order: that it is within the knowledge of the Chair that the bill had not been recommitted to the committee two minutes when the gentleman from Iowa stated that he had been instructed by the committee to report it back, and therefore it was utterly impossible for the committee to have had a meeting; and that the committee has had no meeting, for the members of the committee have all been in their seats here since the bill was recommitted. Therefore, it cannot be true in point of fact that the committee has ordered this bill to be reported back since it was recommitted.
The SPEAKER. The uniform rule of those who have occupied this chair is that when the chairman of a committee rises and states that he has been instructed by his committee to report a bill, that statement is assumed to be true.
The Chair has before him a precedent in the last Congress which, after the discussion, was assented to by the whole House, and no appeal was taken. It was the case of the Illinois ship-canal bill, which was reported from the Committee on Roads and Canals. The Speaker ruled that it was an appropriation bill, and it was recommitted to the Committee on Roads and Canals. The chairman of that committee, Mr. Arnold, of Illinois, arose in his place and reported the bill back, modified so that it did not contain an appropriation in it. The point of order was made that he had no right to report the bill back at that time, because it was immediately after it had been recommitted, and there had been no action upon it by the Committee on Roads and Canals since its recommitment. The point of order was overruled by the Chair, and no appeal was taken.
The House cannot determine what instructions the committee may have given their chairman. They may have instructed him to report a bill which would be acceptable to the House; or they may have given him alternate authority, to report a bill in one form or in another; or he may have had an enlarged authority over the subject. The Chair cannot determine, nor can the House determine, what authority any committee may have given its chairman. If he states that he is authorized by the committee to make a report, the Chair is bound to receive the statement as correct.
"If it is disputed that a report has been ordered to be made by a committee, the question of reception must be put to the House."-Barclay's Digest, page 59. The SPEAKER. That is the only question that can be raised.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let that question be put.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I rise to another point of order; that is, that the Committee on the Pacific Railroad has no authority to sit during the sessions of this
The Chair sustains that
The SPEAKER. point of order.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. This bill was recommitted during the present session of the House; and the House has continued in session all the time since the bill was recommitted.
The SPEAKER. The committee may have authorized the chairman to report an amended bill, in case the one first reported should be
recommitted to them.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe I have the floor.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois rises to discuss the question of the reception of the report.
Mr. PRICE. I wish to say a word in reference to this question. I have stated that I am authorized by the Committee on the Pacific Railroad to report this bill; and when I make a statement of that kind here or anywhere else, I warn gentlemen that I do not intend that my veracity shall be called in question with impunity.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that gentlemen have the right to raise these points of order.
Mr. PRICE. They have the right to ascertain what is the fact; but when the fact has been ascertained by the statement
Mr. ROSS. I rise to a question of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ROSS. It is that brethren should dwell together in unity. [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains that point of order. [Renewed laughter.]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have the floor, and I yield it to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER,] that he may move to adjourn.
Mr. THAYER. I move that the House adjourn.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. On that motion I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 47, nays 58, not voting 78; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Baker, Broomall, Buckland, Cobb, Cook, Delano, Dixon, Farquhar, Finck, Garfield, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Julian, Ketcham, Latham, Marston, Miller, Newell, Niblack, Nicholson, Orth, Patterson, Samuel J. Randall, William II. Randall, Ritter, Ross, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Thayer, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wright-47.
NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bergen, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Sidney Clarke, Darling, Dawes, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Ferry, Grinnell, Henderson, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, McClurg, McRuer, Mercur, Morris, Moulton, O'Neill, Perham, Price, John H. Rice, Rollins, Schenck, Smith. Stevens, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, William B. Washburn,James F. Wilson. Windom, and Woodbridge-58.
Indoe, McKee, Moorhead, Morrill, Myers, Noell, Paine, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy. Radford, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rogers, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble. Van Aernam, Ward, Whaley, and Winfield-78.
So the House refused to adjourn.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, obtained the floor.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Allison, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barker, Blaine, Boyer, Brandegee, Bromwell, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Conkling, Cullom, Culver, Davis, Dawson, Defrees, Deming, Denison, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Mc
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois rises to debate the question of the reception of the report. The Chair will state that debate must be confined within a very limited range. The only question is as to whether the House will receive the report under the circumstances stated by the chairman of the committee.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I propose to proceed within the limited range stated by the Speaker.
Mr. BANKS. I raise a point of order, which is that the question presented by the gentleman from Illinois is a question of the order of business, and is not debatable. If a discussion is to proceed upon the allegation that the chairman of this committee has re
ported a bill without authority, it is a question of privilege, and must be presented distinctly as such, and not as a question of the order of business. A question of privilege such as that would require an investigation into the transactions of the committee, which cannot be had at this time, and which cannot be discussed at this time.
Mr.. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will endeavor to confine myself within the limits laid down by the Speaker. I debate this in Iowa [Mr. PRICE] is mistaken in the position no spirit of faction. I say that my friend from he assumes, and the House will bear me out in what I say.
Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman debates this, when he gets through, can the other side be heard? I raise the point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois has not transgressed the proper limit of debate. The House will see there may be a time when the question of reception may be important. A chairman may rise and say he has been authorized to make a report, although a majority of the committee may be opposed to it. If his report be conclusive, the House would have to consider it.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I wish my friend from Iowa to distinctly understand I do not impugn anything he has said. Such is not my habit "here or elsewhere," to use the slang of the day. [Laughter.] But I call attention to this fact, and the House will bear witness to its truth, that this bill was reported back within two minutes after it was recommitted to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, a committee consisting of fifteen members. I am certain my friend from Iowa was not five feet from his seat all that time.
Mr. STEVENS. If the question on the reception is decided now we may adjourn.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I want to raise a point of order on the reception.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is rather late, as the previous question is ordered on that subject. The Chair will state that if the House should adjourn this would be the unfinished business, and would come up as soon as the Journal is read.
I suggested what I know to be true as a matter of fact, that the committee had not in any parliamentary sense a meeting by which they could have ordered the reporting back of that bill. I will read the rule as laid down in the Manual.
But first I will state a case, which I think the Speaker will recollect, a case which arose in the Thirty-Fifth Congress, when Mr. Orr was Speaker. Mr. Clingman, as chairman of a committee, undertook to report a bill, when the question arose whether he was authorized to report it. He said he had consulted a majority of members upon the floor and considered he was so authorized. The Speaker held he had no such authority after consulting the committee one by one when they were not together as a body. It is laid down in the Manual as follows:
"A committee meet when and where they pleaseif the House has not ordered time and place for thembut they can only act when together, and not by separate consultation and consent, nothing being the report of a committee but what has been agreed in committee actually assembled."-Manual, p. 85.
I appeal to my friend from Iowa as an honest, candid, and like myself a somewhat hasty man, whether he comes within that rule. If he will say in the presence of the House he has had the committee together and they have considered the bill and amendments made to it, I will withdraw my opposition. I object to the reception of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I can understand perfectly the case of Mr. Clingman referred to. He stated distinctly they had not a session. It is not this case at all. The chairman here was instructed to report this bill. He has so stated, and no member of the committee has denied it. I call the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
Mr. SPALDING moved the House adjourn, and demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 40, nays 60, not voting 83; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Baker, Bromwell, Broomall, Cobb, Cook, Delano, Dixon, Finck, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, James R. Hubbell, Jenckes, Julian, Ketcham, Latham, William Lawrence, Marston, Newell, Niblack, Nicholson, Orth, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Ross, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Thayer, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Wentworth, Williams, and Wright-40. NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames,. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bergen, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Sidney Clarke, Darling, Dawes, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Farquhar, Ferry, Grinnell, Henderson, Higby, Asahel W. Hubbard, Halburd, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Laflin, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, McClurg, MeRuer, Mereur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Perham, Price, John H. Rice, Rollins, Schenck, Smith, Stevens, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, William B. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-60.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barker, Benjamin, Blaine, Boyer, Brandegee, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Conkling, Cullom, Culver, Davis, Dawson, Defrees, Deming, Denison, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hill, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, McIndoe, McKee, Morrill, Noell, Paine, Patterson, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rogers, Rousseau, Sawyer, Scofield, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble, Van Aernam, Ward, Welker, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, and Winfield-83.
So the House refused to adjourn. The question recurred on seconding the demand for the previous question on the reception of the report.
The previous question was seconded-ayes 58, noes 38, and the main question was ordered.
Mr. SPALDING. I demand the yeas and nays on the reception of the report. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. House adjourns, Mr. Speaker, will this be the first business in order in the morning?
39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 136.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that the House adjourn.
The question being put, there were-ayes 48, noes 49.
Mr. DELANO. I demand the yeas and
The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. BANKS: The memorial of Daniel S. Young & Co., and many other firms and dealers in tobacco, for a change in the tax on imported from a gradual to a uniform scale of duties.
By Mr. BAXTER: The petition of Joel Jones, and 26 others, of Wolcott, Vermont, regarding the reconstruction of the revolted States.
Also, the petition of Mrs. Lucinda Gates, asking that the pension granted her husband, a soldier of the war of 1812 be continued to herself.
By Mr. BENJAMIN: The petition of citzens of Schuyler county, Missouri, that Congress require ample guarantees from the rebel States before their members are admitted to seats in the national Legislature.
By Mr. BINGHAM: The petition of Gordon Lofland, Hugh Wilson, and others, of Guernsey county, Ohio, for protection to wool.
Also, the petition of James Stockdale, Benjamin Harris, and others, of Guernsey county, Ohio, asking protection to wool.
Also, the petition of W. Emerson, John Gray, Philip Inhart, and 280 others, citizens of Tuscarawas county, Ohio, asking protection to wool.
Also, the petition of wool-growers of Tuscarawas county, Ohio, asking protection to American wool.
Also, the petition of W. N. Camden, Henry Hartly, and others, of Guernsey county, Ohio, asking protection to wool.
Also, the petition of John English, Thomas Dixon, John S. Hull, and others, of Tuscarawas county, Ohio, asking a reduction of tax on the sale of agricultural implements.
By Mr. BUCKLAND: The petition of George H. Adams, and 29 others, citizens of Tiffin, Ohio, for a law regulating inter-State insurance.
By Mr. COBB: The petition of Richard Mann, and 87 others, of Sauk county, Wisconsin, on the subject
Also, the petition of J. S. Maxon, and 44 others, of Bradford and Evansville, in Wisconsin, on the same subject.
Also, the memorial of Edwin B. Wagoner, late second lieutenant in the twenty-fifth regiment of Wis
By Mr. DARLING: The petition of dealers in leaf tobacco and manufacturers of cigars, in the city of New York, for an increase of tariff on those articles. By Mr. DONNELLY: A remonstrance of citizens of Read's Landing, against the obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi caused by the Clinton railroad bridge.
By Mr. HAYES: The petition of 308 citizens of Ohio, against restoring to the Union any State lately in rebellion, until adequate security has been obtained against a renewal of the attempt to secede.
By Mr. KUYKENDALL: The petition of A. B. Safford, and others, of Cairo, Illinois, praying for a uniform law regulating insurance companies.
By Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania: A petition from citizens of Washington county, Pennsylvania,
asking an increase of duty on foreign wools.
By Mr. MOULTON: The petition of 17 citizens of Keidy's Farm; also, the petition of 21 citizens of Sandoval; also, the petition of 13 citizens of Cottonwood, all of the State of Illinois, praying that no rebel States be admitted into the Union without guarantees and securities for the future.
By Mr. ORTH: Remonstrances from many citizens of Indiana against the restoration of the late rebel States until guarantees of future security are obtained.
By Mr. PERHAM: The petition of 80 citizens of Maine not to restore any State recently in rebellion as a governing power in the Union till adequate security has been obtained against its renewing the attempt to secede, against any payment of debt in
curred in the rebellion, and any distinction on account of race or color, and in favor of certain amendments to the Constitution.
By Mr. PRICE: The petition of 239 citizens of the State of Iowa, asking Congress not to restore any State that has rebelled and warred against the United States to its place and power as a governing partner in the Union till adequate security has been obtained against its renewing the attempt to secede; against its being represented in Congress beyond its just proportion according to its voting population; against any payment of debt incurred in rebellion, or for its emancipated slaves; and against any distinction in its constitution, laws, or municipal regulations on account of color or descent.
WEDNESDAY, April 25, 1866.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
PROTECTION TO UNITED STATES OFFICERS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed as the committee of conference on the part of the Senate on the bill (H. R. No. 288) to amend an act entitled "An act relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, approved March 3, 1863, Mr. CLARK, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. HENDRICKS.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented a memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Dakota, praying that certain settlers in that Territory may be indemnified for losses which, it is represented, they will suffer by the terms of the treaty with the Pecan Indians, now pending in the Senate; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed.
He also presented a communication from the New York East Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, expressive of the views of that body in relation to the present state of the country; which was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. WILSON presented a petition of unmarried daughters of revolutionary soldiers, praying that they may be granted the same pension that was received by their mothers while living; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.
He also presented two petitions of white voters in the southern part of Florida, praying that commissioners may be appointed to award damages for property belonging to them which was confiscated and sold by the rebels; which were referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. GRIMES presented a petition of citi zens of Burlington, Iowa, who represent that the laws and regulations touching the business of insurance now in force in the several States are dissimilar, and tend to the detriment of trade, and they therefore pray that Congress will enact such just and equal laws for the regulation of inter-State insurances of all kinds as may be effectual in establishing the greatest security for the interests protected by policies, and promotive of the greatest good and convenience to all concerned in such transactions; which was referred to the Committee on Com
Mr. SHERMAN. I offer the petition of James Smith, of New York, praying Congress, in behalf of himself, and others, citizens of New York and Brooklyn, to pass a joint resolution abolishing the fractional part of a cent now exacted for each passenger in street railroad cars, or otherwise to exact the entire cent for the internal revenue, in lieu of the fractional part, which the citizens will not complain of; but they do seriously complain of the extortion of these monopolists, whose stock cannot be purchased for two hundred per cent. above the par value. I move the reference of this petition to the Committee on Finance. The motion was agreed to.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 345) for the relief of Christina Elder, reported it with an amendment, and submitted
a written report; which was ordered to be printed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of fifteen petty officers and twenty-six seamen of the Western flotilla, praying for prize money or compensation for captures made at Island No. 10, Memphis, and other places on the Mississippi river, have instructed me to report it back, and ask that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. I am also instructed to say that the committee were not willing to report against the petition, but there was not sufficient evidence accompanying the petition, nor were the committee able in the Department to find sufficient evidence to justify a favorable report or a report of a bill appropriating money. The report was agreed to.
Mr. LANE, of Indiana, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition|tion of Andrew Branstetter, praying for a pension, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, as it does not come within the purview of the Committee on Pensions; which was agreed to.
He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 494) for the relief of Martha J. Willey, reported it without amendment.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution.
He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Josephine Rice, widow of Brigadier General James C. Rice, praying for a pension, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, upon the ground that the petitioner is already entitled to a pension under the general law.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 203) to enable the New York and Montana Iron Mining and Manufacturing Company to purchase a certain amount of the public lands not now in market, reported it with an amend
Mr. CRAGIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Edward St. Clair Clarke, acting assistant paymaster United States Navy, praying to be relieved from all responsibility in consequence of money lost by robbery in May, 1863, while attached to the United States steamer Sumter, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S. No. 283) for the relief of Edward St. Clair Clarke. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.
He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 453) for the relief of Cornelius B. Gold, late acting assistant paymaster United States Navy, reported it without amendment.
Mr. WILLEY, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Otway H. Berryman, of the Navy, praying to be allowed an amount equal to the balance found against him on the settlement of his accounts as acting purser while in command of the United States schooner Onkahye, and which he has been obliged to pay over to the United States, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S. No. 284) for the relief of the children of Otway H. Berryman, deceased. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am instructed by the Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred a letter of the Commissioner of Agriculture giving information in relation to the rinderpest or cattle plague, to state that that communication has been considered by the committee, and after consideration they have directed me to report this resolution:
Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the Senate ten thousand copies of a letter of the Commissioner of Agriculture communicating information in relation to the rinderpest or cattle plague.
I ask for the present consideration of the resolution.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Committee on Agriculture would like very much indeed to report some measure of a practical character to counteract if possible the cattle plague now prevailing in Europe; but we did not see that Congress had authority to pass an effective measure. In Great Britain, after various orders in council and various efforts to stop the progress of the cattle plague, they have recently passed a very stringent law, embodied in this letter, authorizing certain districts, supposed to be infected, to be first inspected, and then, when they are pronounced infected, authorizing the destruction of cattle in those districts. Under it the officers or inspectors may enter any man's field, barn, or close and seize and summarily destroy cattle affected by or even subject to the plague. It contains provisions for the destruc
of hides, offal, hay, straw, or other material likely to convey the infection. It requires the active assistance of justices of the peace, constables, and the whole machinery of local laws and levies a local tax under the name of a cattle rate. It is manifest if such a law is needed to accomplish the purpose we must appeal to the State authorities. That such severe measures are needed to accomplish the wished-for result is shown, not only by this act of Parliament, but by the actual execution of similar measures in France, where by immediate destruction of cattle infected they have
checked the disease.
The destruction which this disease has occasioned is much more fearful than I had any idea of until I read this communication and recent communications from England. As a simple illustration of the destructiveness of this disease, I will state that of 203,350 cattle attacked in a short period of time in certain districts in Great Britain, 39,487 were killed, 120,834 died, and only 28,656 recovered. There is great danger-it is manifest that it is impending that this disease may come to this country. It has pursued very much the same march in Europe that the cholera has done, and it probably will come here, notwithstanding all the efforts that may be made by the Government and people of the United States to exclude it. It is an important subject for the States to consider whether measures ought not immediately to be adopted, founded upon the experience of other countries, to prevent the spread of the cattle plague.
The letters of our consuls in Europe have recently contained authentic statements of its progress. Mr. Dudley, our consul at Liverpool, under date of February 2, 1866, writes that the plague is not confined to England and Scotland, but prevails on the Continent in Belgium, Holland, Prussia, some of the German States, and in parts of Russia.
In the same letter he says:
"Inclosure No. 2 contains the returns made to the authorities at London of the cases reported in the kingdom during the week ending on the 27th of January, as taken from the papers of to-day, and two or three articles showing the fatality of the plague in certain localities it has visited. In one there is a list of persons who have suffered in the parish of Northenburg, with the number of cattle they have each lost, and the number left. In Cheshire, the county just across the river from Liverpool, up to last Monday, 160.41 cattle had died of the disease, 700 had been killed, 5,247 were under treatment, and 1,245 had recovered. Upward of 3,000 were buried in this county during the week. From an article taken from the Scotsman, a paper published in Edinburgh, it would appear that the plague has entirely ceased in that city, either having exhausted itself or else been stamped out. But the article goes on to say, "The vastness of the loss, however, that may be incurred before the disease runs its course in any district where it once makes entry is indicated by the fact that about four fifths of all the cows in Edinburgh, when the disease broke out here, died or have been killed.' As fearful as is the mortality, I fear it is rather under than overstated, and many other counties and towns have been and are suffering by this terrible plague equally if not worse than there. All kinds of remedies have been tried, but up to the present time no specific has been found; and if vaccination fails, no preventive has been discovered.
week. Thus far there have been reported to the authorities 120.740 cases, of which but 14,162 have recovered: the rest have either died of the disease, been killed, or are still under treatment."
By the official returns you will see that there isno abatement but a still further increase of the disease for the week ending on the last Saturday. (See inclosure No. 2.) The footings show 11,745 new cases, being an increase of 1,704 cases over the previous
The rinderpest prevailed on the Continent for some time before it crossed the English Channel. In 1862, 152,000 cattle died with it in Austria. It spread over all southeastern Europe with an average of more than seventyfive per cent. It was carried to England by an importation of Russian bullocks, and already 200,000 very valuable cattle have perished. We cannot estimate the destruction of such a disease if by probable contingency it should be brought to our shores by any one of the numer ous vessels daily arriving from the infected regions. We do not underrate the importance of the subject or the imminence of the danger.
But the question with us was, whether we had any power under our system of government to pass such a law as that which has proved to be somewhat effective in England, because the operation of that law, although very severe, has stayed to some extent the cattle plague, and has prevented it from spreading into regions where it might possibly, but for these very severe measures, have spread. We could not see that under our form of government Congress has the power to order the summary destruction of the private property of individuals in the States, nor use the vast number of local officers to make it effective. We thought, therefore, the only thing we could do was to report a resolution for the publication of a number of copies of this letter, so that the information which it contains may be generally distributed for what it is worth among the people of the several States. I am only sorry that the Legislatures of the different States did not take some action upon it before most of them adjourned. At any rate we thought it was a subject demanding immediate attention, and that if we could not do anything by law more than we have done in prohibiting the importation of foreign cattle and hides, we might invoke the attention of our countrymen to an impending peril.
Mr. SUMNER. I was sorry to hear two remarks of the Senator from Ohio. The first was that the cattle plague was coming. I hope that by proper precautions it may be averted. I do trust it may never come. I hope the Atlantic ocean at least may be a barrier. I was sorry also for the other remark that, in his opinion, Congress could not apply any remedy. I do not venture to question the accuracy of the remark; but I was sorry that the Senator who had the question in charge had arrived at that conclusion. It does seem to me that under our Government Congress ought to be able to apply a remedy in such a Is not our Government defective to a certain extent if Congress has not that power? I merely open the question interrogatively now, without undertaking to express any opinion upon it. I agree with the Senator from Ohio that it is of great importance that our people should be put on their guard. He therefore is right in causing the circulation of all public information on the subject; but I do hope that the Senator having the subject in charge will consider carefully whether it be not within the power of Congress, in some way or other, directly or indirectly, to apply a precise remedy. Mr. SHERMAN. The honorable Senator