Obrazy na stronie

gave a broader meaning to my remarks than they would bear. I did not say that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of this dis


f said that it had no power to pass such a law as was recently passed in England, the only one which seemed to be effective for the purpose; that is, Congress has no power to direct the officers of the United States to go into particular districts or States of the United States, and there seize all the cattle of private citizens within a given State or district and destroy them. I doubt very much whether such a power exists in Congress. It is a power that ought to be exercised by the States. Congress may, however, by commercial regulations, do all it can to prevent the coming of this disease into the country, and it has already done so. A bill reported by me some time ago was passed, and under that bill the Secretary of the Treasury has excluded all cattle, hides, and everything that can communicate this disease from infected districts. If the Senator can suggest any other remedy or any other measure I should like very much to have the benefit of it. The Committee on Agriculture have not concluded themselves by their consideration of the subject from acting on any measure or reporting any measure that may seem to be necessary; but we do think that under our system of government the wholesale destruction of cattle in particular States and communities will not be justified by any power conferred by the Constitution on Congress. That is the only conclusion at which we have arrived, and I think upon that there is no doubt. If the Senator can find any power in the Government of the United States thus to destroy the property of private citizens within the States according to the system adopted by the British Parliament, which is supreme within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, I should like to know where he finds it.

The resolution was adopted.


Mr. COWAN. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 193) for the relief of Mrs. William L. Herndon, have had it under consideration, and have instructed me to report favorably upon it, and recommend its passage; and if there be no objection, I ask that it be put upon its passage now.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It requires unanimous consent to consider the bill on the day it is reported. Is there any objection?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to know if it is a bill calculated to take any time. Mr. COWAN. No, I think not; it simply proposes to confer on her the copyright of a book formerly published by public authority Herndon's Expedition. I do not think there can possibly be any objection to it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know anything about this bill, but I know that we passed a similar bill a year or two ago, and afterward great objection was made to it.

Mr. CLARK. The fact is as stated by the Senator from Illinois, that two or three years ago we passed a bill of this kind, and got into considerable difficulty about it, and the Committee on Claims has been troubled with a petition from gentlemen claiming the right for 1 believe every succeeding session, and there seems to be some doubt about the relief. I do not know anything about this case; and if Senators do know that it is entirely free from doubt, perhaps there will be no objection to it, but I think it had better lie over and be printed, so that it may meet the attention of some one. Mr. CONNESS. I think if an explanation of it is made, it will satisfy the Senator now. Mr. CLARK. The difficulty is, that if we consider it now nobody will see it; but if we have it printed some Senator may see what the character of the bill is, or some person outside may get information on the subject.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Let it go over until


Mr. CLARK. I think myself it had better go over and be printed.

Mr. COWAN. Very well.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made, the bill lies over.


of said river, the cause may be tried before the district court of the United States of any State in which any portion of said obstruction or bridge touches.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out from section two the following words:

That any bridge built under the authority of this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, with aspan over the main channel of the river, as understood at the time of the erection of the bridge, of not less than three hundred feet in length; and said span shall not

Mr. POMEROY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 285) granting lands to the State of Kansas to aid in the construction of the Kansas and Red river; which was read twice by its title, be less than thirty feet above the low-water mark. Neosho Valley railroad and its extension to referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.


Mr. RAMSEY. I move to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 236.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 236) to authorize and establish certain post roads.

The bill, as introduced by Mr. TRUMBULL, proposes to make it lawful for any person or persons, company or corporation, having authority from the State of Illinois for such purpose, to build a bridge across the Mississippi river at Quincy, Illinois, and to lay on and over the bridge railway tracks, for the more perfect connection of any railroads that are or shall be constructed to the river at or opposite that point. When constructed, all trains of all roads terminating at the river at or opposite that point are to be allowed to cross the bridge for reasonable compensation, to be made to the owners of the bridge, under the limitations and conditions provided. The bridge is to be constructed as a draw-bridge, with a span over the main channel of the river, as understood at the time of the erection of the bridge, of not less than three hundred feet in length; and the span is not to be less than thirty feet above the low-water mark, and not less than ten feet above the extreme high-water mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge; and one of the next adjoining spans is not to be less than two hundred feet in length; and there is also to be a pivot draw constructed in the bridge, at an accessible and navigable point, with spans of not less than one hundred and fifty feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw. The draw is to be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats, whose construction shall not be such as to

admit of their passage under the permanent spans of the bridge, except when trains are passing; but in no case is unnecessary delay to occur in opening the draws after the passage of trains. Any bridge constructed under the act, and according to its limitations, is to be a lawful structure, and be recognized and

known as a post route, upon which no higher

charge shall be made for the transmission over the same of the mails, the troops, and the munitions of war of the United States, than the rate per mile paid for their transportation over the rallroads or public highways leading to the bridge. The ferry authorized to be established by the Illinois and Missouri Transportation Company, by the laws of the States of Illinois and Missouri, across the Mississippi river at the city of Quincy, is, during the time authorized by the laws of those States, and until the completion of the bridge, under and

according to the provisions of the act, to be recognized and known as a post route.

The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads proposed amendments to the bill, the first of which was in section one, line four,

after the word "Illinois" to insert" and Mis

souri," and to make the word "State" read 66 States;" so that the clause will read:

That it shall be lawful for any person or persons, company or corporation, having authority from the States of Illinois and Missouri for such purpose, to

build a bridge across the Mississippi river at Quincy,


The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment reported by the committee was in section one, at the end of line thirteen, to insert:

And in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to the free navigation

and not less than ten feet above the extreme highwater mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge; and one of the next adjoining spans shall not be less than two hundred feet in length; and, also, that there shall be a pivot draw constructed in said bridge, at an accessible and navigable point, with spans of not less than one hundred and fifty feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw.

And in lieu thereof to insert

That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extremo high-water mark as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall beconstructed as a pivot draw-bridge with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than one bundred and seventy-five feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet; and said spans shall not be less than thirty feet above low-water mark, and not less than ten above exteme high-water mark, nearing to the bottom chord of the bridge, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to offer some amendments to this bill. In the first section, line six, after the word "Illinois," I desire to insert and at Hannibal, Missouri."


Mr. RAMSEY. I trust this will not be done. Let each proposition of this kind stand on its own merits. If the gentleman desires a bridge at Hannibal, it might be well to introduce a bill of that kind, refer it to some committee, and have the facts investigated as they have been in this case. Representations have been heard on one side and the other, and the committee strike at what they consider to be a safe mean between the extremes asked by the railroad company and the navigation interests respectively. This proposition of building bridges across the Mississippi river is a very serious one. I think in every instance the bill ought to be referred to a committee. For that reason I trust the gentleman will withdraw his amendment at this time and introduce a bill, as has been done in every other case.

Mr. HENDERSON. I must express some little astonishment at the objection the Senator from Minnesota presents to the amendment I have indicated. He insists that the subject of building a bridge at Quincy, Illinois, has gone before a committee, and that a proposition to build a bridge across the Mississippi river at Hannibal ought to go there, because the building of bridges, across the Mississippi is a very serious thing under any circumstances. I think if the bill under consideration is to be passed, it is a very serious thing. I am not in favor of the passage of the bill, and I did not expect it to come up this morning. I have not all the memoranda here that I desire to present. I thought they were in my desk; they are not all here; and I shall be compelled to ask, eventually, a postponement of this bill until I can get them.

Now, Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Minnesota that the proposition to build bridges across the Mississippi river is a very serious proposition. The Senator is very well aware of the fact that if these bridges are to be built at all, as provided in this bill, bridges not with continuous spans, but what are called drawbridges, they will very materially interfere with the navigation of the Mississippi river, and I must express some little astonishment at the

proposition on the part of the Senator who seems to have reported this bill from the Post Office Committee to build bridges of this character across the Mississippi river. If he be willing, as a representative of the interests connected with that great river, to build drawbridges over it, I am not. The Senate of the United States may outvote me on the proposition, but I never will vote for the establishment of a bridge across the Mississippi river which is called a draw-bridge.

It has been recently demonstrated that there is but little difficulty in building bridges with sufficient spans to admit of the passage of boats; and that being the case, if bridges can be built on the Mississippi river sufficiently elevated to admit the passage of steamers, even with chimneys that can be let down as mentioned the other day, I am perfectly willing that that character of bridges may be built; but it is a matter of serious consideration, indeed, whether draw-bridges shall be constructed across the Mississippi river. We know perfectly well that they will interfere, and materially interfere, with the navigation of that great river, and I doubt whether we shall ever be compensated by railroad travel and railroad transportation for the inconveniences arising from draw-bridges.

The Senator says that this bill for a bridge at Quincy has been before a committee. What have the committee done? They have simply reported the bill which was introduced and referred to the committee for building a bridge at Quincy. They have reported the bill back, only changing the height and the span of the bridge. But, sir, if a bridge is to be built at Quincy-I live in that neighborhood; I live only thirty miles from the town of Hannibal and only fifty miles from the town of Quincy; I know that country perfectly well-let me ask the Senator why he presents an objection to the building of a railroad bridge at Hannibal. What new light can the committee shed on it that cannot now be given?

Mr. RAMSEY. Does the gentleman want

an answer now?

Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator can answer me directly. I am going to state some facts with which I am perfectly conversant, but with which, perhaps, the Senator is not. The Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company first constructed its road from Hannibal to the town of St. Joseph, and that road is now being continued across the State of Kansas in a direct west line, and is to connect with the great line of road to the Pacific ocean.

After the construction of the road from Hannibal, the State of Missouri granted a charter to construct a branch road from the town of Palmyra, some fifteen miles from the town of Hannibal, so as to go directly to Quincy. The Legislature of Missouri might have prevented this railroad connection, but we did not see fit to do so. We permitted the Hannibal and St. Jo. Railroad Company to connect with the northern cross-road, which leads from Quincy to Chicago. A road is now being constructed across Pike county, Illinois, from Naples, on the Illinois river, which connects with the Toledo road-the Great Western road, as it is calledfrom Fort Wayne directly on to Hannibal. This road will soon be finished. Now, a bridge can be constructed at the town of Hannibal just as well as at the town of Quincy, and, let me say to the Senator, much more easily. A bridge can be constructed there with much greater facility, because the river is not so wide at Hannibal as at Quincy, and there is a better steamboat channel, a more condensed and more compact channel, there than at Quincy. A great line of railroad, leading from Pittsburg directly to Hannibal, will soon be in operation; indeed, it is to the town of Naples, within a few miles of Hannibal. Again, I ask the Senator, why, if a bridge is to be constructed at Quincy, shall not one be constructed at Hannibal also?

If you look at the travel and transportation of the country, if you look at anything beyond the mere interests of the town of Quincy alone, I can see no reason whatever why you should

[ocr errors]

not also allow a bridge to be constructed at Hannibal. I do not know whether it will benefit the town of Hannibal; I care not whether it does or not. I do not know whether the construction of this bridge will be of any substantial benefit to the town of Quincy. My impression is, that the construction of railroad bridges, such as are contemplated in this bill, upon the Mississippi river will do all the towns more damage than good. However, if the Senator desires to pass bills of this character, I shall not put myself in the way.

The Senator is very well aware that there is no break in steamboat lines between the town of Quincy and St. Louis. We have no line of packets running directly to Hannibal and back; we have none running directly to Quincy and back; but the lines of packets running from St. Louis continue their trips to the town of Keokuk, and there is no obstruction in the way. The navigation of the Mississippi above the town of Hannibal is just as good as it is between Hannibal and St. Louis, and indeed better. Therefore we do not need any different sized packets to navigate the Mississippi river between those points; and why is it that it will be an injury to construct a bridge at the one point and not at the other? The same lines of boats that pass under the bridge at the one point will be required to pass under it at the other.

But, Mr. President, a short time ago we provided for the construction of a railroad bridge at St. Louis. What sort of a bridge did we provide for constructing there? Was it such a bridge as the Senator now proposes? Certainly not. The bill which the Senate passed a short time ago at the instance of my colleague [Mr. BROWN] required that the lowest part of the bridge at St. Louis should be fifty feet above high-water mark at its greatest span; that the bridge itself should have a continuous or unbroken span; that it should have one span at least six hundred feet in the clear, or two spans of four hundred and fifty feet in the clear of abutments. If the two latter spans be used, the one over the main steamboat channel must be fifty feet above high-water mark, measured to the lowest part of the bridge at the center of the span. Now, let us see what sort of a bridge is proposed here. The Senator from Minnesota provides in this bill that it may be built as a draw-bridge with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken and continuous spans. We provided in regard to the bridge at St. Louis that it should not be built as a draw-bridge at all. Then it is here provided

That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme highwater mark, as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge; nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet

in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be paral

lel with the current of the river.

It was provided, in regard to the St. Louis bridge, that the spans should not be less than six hundred feet. It is here provided that they may be only two hundred and fifty feet. Now, let me suggest to the Senator from Minnesota that if a bridge of this character is to be built, it will seriously interfere with navigation. I do not ask that a bridge of six hundred feet span shall be constructed at the point where a bridge is now proposed, but I do think that no bridge of less span than four hundred feet ought to be built upon the Mississippi even with continuous spans.

Mr. SHERMAN. It cannot be done. Mr. HENDERSON. Mechanics say it can be done. The very best mechanics of St. Louis wrote to my colleague and myself that a bridge could be built at the city of St. Louis with a span of six hundred feet.

Mr. RIDDLE. Only by iron suspension bridges.

Mr. HENDERSON. I care not how it may be done, provided the bridge is put fifty feet above high-water mark, so as to enable the steamers to pass beneath the bottom chord of the bridge. We do not ask that it shall be built

[ocr errors]

in one or the other mode; we only ask that it shall be built in continuous spans, and if they want to use iron they can do so.

But let me propose to the Senator from Minnesota, whose section of country is very rapidly growing into great importance, that in the course of a few years a great change has come about in the transportation of products upon the Mississippi river, much of which comes from his own thriving State. Instead of loading down a packet and running it through, a tow-boat is taken, with a large number of barges, requiring much more space than formerly in the transportation of the productions of that section of country. He will remember another difficulty, and a very serious one with us. From the State of Wisconsin, and his own State, perhaps, a large quantity of the lumber used in our section of country is brought upon the surface of the Missis sippi river. These rafts are sometimes three hundred, four hundred, or five hundred feet in length, and repeated difficulty in getting them through between the piers of a bridge has been experienced at the town of Rock Island. He may say that a raft is never so wide as two hundred and fifty feet. I do not know in regard to that, but I know that some of them are very wide. He will remember, however, that the current in high and low water is not always the same on the Mississippi or any other stream. The passage of rafts between the piers of these bridges will certainly require a space of more than two hundred and fifty feet. Perhaps the Senator from Minnesota can enlighten me on the subject, but if I am not much mistaken, in high water, when the current is strong, and when the piers themselves are not in a line parallel with the current of the river, a raft may be started through properly, but before the entire raft gets through it will strike the piers, as has frequently been the case at Rock Island, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. GRIMES. At Rock Island the bridge is right at the foot of the rapids where the current is very strong; but no such condition of things can exist here.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The span there is only one hundred and twelve feet.

Mr. RAMSEY. The whole difficulty at Rock Island is the obliquity of the piers to the cur


Mr. HENDERSON. That is the very diffi culty that I am suggesting.

Mr. RAMSEY. That is well guarded against in this bill. They are required here to be in the line of the current.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am very well aware of that; but the Senator will recollect that he may have them in the line of the current in low water and they will not be parallel with the current in high water. The Senator knows perfectly well that the current of the Mississippi is not always in the same line; that the current changes even in high and low water. The current of a river, I apprehend, is controlled more or less by the height of the water and by the obstructions that may present themselves, and those obstructions may be different in high water from low water. The building of a wharf at a town may change the entire current of the river for miles above and below the town. Such things have frequently occurred. The smallest obstacle in nature will oftentimes change the current even of a river like the Mississippi. The Senator need not tell me that when a pier is built at an ordinary stage of water parallel with the current of the river it is always so. We know to the contrary. We know that the current is different in high water from low water. Hence it is an utter impos sibility; and when you come to abate these bridges as a nuisance in the courts it will be found that the testimony is never sufficient to do it, and when they are once fastened upon the surface of that river we shall never get rid of them.

I would gladly say to-day that no bridge shall be constructed on the Mississippi river. I do not wish to put obstacles in the way of railroad transportation; but when you bring into com

petition with the transportation upon the Mississippi river the transportation upon the lines of the railroads of this country, I infinitely prefer that great river. Nature has made a better railroad there than man can ever make, one upon which the productions of that great country can be transported much more cheaply than they ever can be carried upon the lines of railroad built by mortal man. The road is already made. All that man has to do is to construct the car-the steamboat-and put it upon that magnificent stream. So far as I am concerned, I would not mar that stream, nor would I mar the stream of transportation that must pass upon it in all time to come, by the construction of these bridges.

But, sir, when the Senator tells me that the Senate of the United States is to enter upon a scheme of building these bridges, and proposes a bill the mere effect of which-not the object -is to benefit a little town in the State of Illinois at the expense of the people of my own State, and I offer to amend it so as to give them equal privileges with the people of Illinois, I am met with the proposition that no committee has examined it. What if they have not? I know that country perfectly well; and if ten thousand committees were to examine it, they could not enlighten us upon the subject. The Senator from Illinois knows the country perfectly well. I apprehend the Senator from Minnesota knows it. The lines of railroad from the East go directly to the city of Hannibal; and why not give us a bridge twenty miles from Quincy if a company will build it? I propose to amend the bill so as to let us have a railroad bridge at Hannibal, if Quincy is to have one. If we are to enter upon this system of railroad bridges far down immediately upon the surface of that great stream, and to have bells rung for the opening of the draws, when every half mile of that mighty stream in the course of a few years will be covered with the commerce of a mighty nation-for when I speak of the West I almost speak of this nation, and when I speak of the nation I speak of the West as it will be in the course of twenty years from to-daywhen it is proposed to have these bridges, let us make them equal, and let the people of every State be equally benefited by them, if anybody is to be benefited; and if anybody is to be injured, let all be injured alike. I do not mean to vote for the building of any bridge so far as I am concerned, even if this proposition shall be amended. I hope that the Senate will not refuse me this amendment, because otherwise the bill would be unjust. Will any Senator tell me why the Toledo and Pittsburg and Fort Wayne road should not have a connection direct at Hannibal as well as the northern cross-road? It is a direct line from Toledo, by the way of Hannibal, to St. Joseph. It is as straight as it can be, much straighter than the other road. Then why not build a bridge there? I know of no point on that great stream better fitted for building a bridge than the town of Hannibal.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is Senate bill No. 74, for the admission of the State of Colorado into the Union, the pending question being on the motion to reconsider the vote of the Senate rejecting the application of that State for admission. Mr. RAMSEY. Will it be in order to make this present bill which we are now considering the business of the morning hour to-morrow, or will it become so as a matter of course? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would not become the special business of the morning hour under the present rule of the Senate.

Mr. GRIMES. It would come up after we got through with the morning business.

Mr. POMEROY. We had better make it a special order for to-morrow at half past twelve. Mr. SHERMAN. I hope no special orders

will be made.

Mr. GRIMES. I have an amendment which I desire to propose to this bill, and I should

[ocr errors]

like to have the privilege of offering it now that it may be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the Chair will receive the amendment, and the order to print will be entered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I suggest that the bill be made the special order for half past twelve to-morrow, so as not to interfere with the morning business, and I make that motion, so that we shall be able to get it up to-morrow. Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think we ought to make special orders now, especially of a bill of this character.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will not insist upon it if the Senator from Ohio objects. We perhaps can get it up to-morrow morning without having it made a special order. I hope the Senator will allow it to come up then.

Mr. SHERMAN. I shall have no objection to its coming up, but special orders interfere with the general business of the Senate.


The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of Mr. WILSON to reconsider the vote by which the Senate refused to order the bill (Š. No. 74) for the admission of the State of Colorado into the Union to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] in the course of his remarks yesterday was pleased to allude to me as having been instructed by the Legislature of Wisconsin to resign my seat in the Senate, and as misrepresenting my constituents on this floor. It is not my purpose to-day to go into any lengthy argument to defend my course here. I may ask the attention of the Senate to that matter on some other occasion, when those resolutions shall arrive of which we have been informed in advance by the telegraph. I will only say for the present that when I entered upon my second term of office as a Senator for six years from the 4th day of March, 1863, at your desk, sir, I took a solemn oath, not to obey the resolves of the individuals who might happen to be elected as members of the Legislature of Wisconsin, or to follow the opinions or caprices of any other body of men, but to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of the office which was placed upon me; and God helping me, I shall keep that oath.

Upon the other allegation, that I stand here misrepresenting the views of my constituents, the people of Wisconsin, I will only say that by no word or vote of mine on this floor have I in the slightest degree deviated from the formally expressed opinion of the Union party in Wisconsin in its last convention, upon which this very Legislature was elected, as well as the Governor and State officers-not in one word, not in the dotting of an "i" or in the crossing of a "t."

[ocr errors]

will be voted down by a majority of thousands; four fifths of the soldiers who have come home from the field will vote against it; and the soldiers of Wisconsin who are still in the field will also vote against it."

Now, what are the facts? We went into the canvass; we put aside negro suffrage as an issue; and what did we do? We elected a Union Legislature and a Union Governor and State officers by ten thousand majority. But what became of negro suffrage? It was voted down by ten thousand majority in the State of Wisconsin. The result justified what the ma jority said in the Union convention, and what I among them said: When the soldiers of Wisconsin came to vote, four out of every five of them voted against it. What was the fact in relation to the soldiers in the field? There were still 1,172 votes cast by our soldiers in the field, and out of the 1,172 votes that were cast on the question of negro suffrage how many do you suppose voted for it? Three. And yet men talk about pressing negro suffrage as a political question before the people of the country, and denounce me because I had the courage to tell the people of Wisconsin what I tell the Senate here: place yourselves upon that issue and you will be buried out of sight. They would have been buried in Wisconsin had they not followed my advice, which saved the Union party in Wisconsin, and elected this very Legislature which now undertakes to instruct me on this question as to how I shall act and what I shall do.

The other point was whether we in Wisconsin-and there this great battle began-should insist, as a condition-precedent to the admis sion of the representatives from the South, and the admission of those States into full communion, upon negro suffrage at the South. The people of Wisconsin decided against it, and they will decide against it a hundred times


Mr. HOWE. If my colleague will excuse me, I did not quite understand what it was that the people of Wisconsin decided against. I was occupied at the time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I say the Union convention laid that upon the table by a large majority.

Mr. HOWE. What was that?"

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The proposition to insist upon negro suffrage as a condition-precedent before admitting the States of the South into full communion. The Union party of Wisconsin refused to do that, and because they refused to do it they sustained themselves in Wisconsin.

As I have said, I do not propose to go into this question at length. The members of this Legislature were elected upon a platform which rejected, as a party measure, negro suffrage in the State of Wisconsin, and rejected as a party measure the insisting upon negro suffrage at the South as a condition-precedent to their being admitted into full communion; and they could not have been elected without it, and this Legislature, that that convention, acting with me, put in power, now assume to instruct me because I do not follow their behests! Mr. President, let me warn my friends here, as I warned my friends in Wisconsin-and I do it in all sincerity--that is a rock on which you will split; if you fall upon it, you will be broken; let it fall on you and it will grind you to powder; try it on just as soon as you please.

But, sir, there were two propositions brought forward in that convention which, by a large majority, were put aside: first, the proposition to make negro suffrage, as it is called, a party test in the State of Wisconsin; and second, to make it a further test that no representative from the southern States should be admitted into Congress, and the States of the South should not be admitted into full communion until they should adopt impartial suffragesuffrage just as free to the blacks as suffrage exists in favor of the whites. Those two propositions, by a large majority of the Union con- While I insisted that it was wrong. for the vention of Wisconsin, were laid upon the table; Federal Government to undertake to dictate to and upon that vote, and because I acted with the States who should exercise the right of sufthe convention in favor of putting those reso- frage within their borders, and while I was lutions on the table, I am called in question opposed to making negro suffrage a part of the by certain gentlemen in Wisconsin and else-platform or creed of the Union party of Wiswhere. In support of the action which the consin, I, as an individual, did not object to majority of that convention assumed to take, negro suffrage in Wisconsin; and why? Be and which I advocated, and for which, so far cause the class of colored persons who reside as I had voice or influence, I admit myself to be within our State are, from habit, from educa responsible, what did we say? We said to the tion, trained as freemen among freemen, capapeople of Wisconsin, in advance of the elec-ble of exercising the right of suffrage, and I tion to come off, "If you adopt negro suffrage as a part of your party creed in Wisconsin you

advocated the extension of the right to them, and I voted for it as an individual.

Mr. COWAN. How many of them are there there?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Three hundred in the State. But, Mr. President, as I said in the beginning, I do not intend to go into that question now at any length. My purpose is to come directly to the question pending before the Senate. I agree with my honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] in very much that he has said on this question. There are some things in which I do not concur with him, but at the same time I always accord to him the highest patriotism and perfect sincerity of purpose and character. One of the points on which I differ with him is this: I maintain that one of the rights which belong to the States under the Constitution, and which they have had from the beginning, is to judge for themselves on the question of suffrage. Believing that to be the right of a State, I do not feel at liberty to vote against the admission of a State because it declares that no Indians shall vote, or no negroes shall vote; or if it declares that certain classes of Indians may vote, or certain classes of colored men may vote; or even if it should go on to declare that women may vote, I should not vote to reject the constitution for that reason. If it established a property qualification, if it established an educational qualification, although I did not agree in the principle, perhaps, which was involved in the constitution, I would not oppose the admission of a State for that reason, because I believe that is a question that the State should pass upon for itself.

There is another point on which I feel called upon to say a word. I do not fully concur in the information which my honorable friend has in relation to the gentlemen who appear here claiming seats in this Chamber as Senators from Colorado. I do not know what may have occurred in the presence of the committee on the conduct of the war, or the sub-committee

Mr. SUMNER. That is all that I quoted. I added nothing to that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I say I do not understand what may have occurred in that committee. I only know that before another committee of the body testimony was taken on the same subject; I refer to the Sand creek massacre. Governor Evans, the person alluded to, appeared before that committee on two or three occasions, and I must say that there was nothing in the testimony which led those of us who heard it to suppose or believe that Governor Evans had any knowledge of the meditated attack of Colonel Chivington upon the Indians at Sand creek. Indeed, there was some testimony before us which tended to show that Chivington made the attack without any knowledge on the part of Governor Evans. I feel that it is but just to Governor Evans to say this. As to the Sand creek affair, I shall not speak at the present time. I have already expressed my opinion on that subject in very strong terms in the Senate.

Having said thus much, I come directly to the consideration of the question that controls my mind on this subject; and that is the question of the population of the Territory of Colorado. In 1861 there was a census taken of the population of Colorado, and the census showed that there were there 18,223 males, 2,622 minors, and 4,484 females, making the aggregate population 25,329. At that time there were 10,580 voters in the Territory, or one voter to every two and a half of the population. If you assume the relative proportion of voters to the population to be as one to two and a half you can form a very correct estimate of the population during the years 1862, 1864, and 1865, for in each of those years elections were held, and the votes of the people of the Territory were taken. In 1861, as I have stated, there were 10,580 voters in a population of 25,329. At the election held in 1862 there were 8,224 votes cast, and the same ratio would give us a population of 20,560. In 1864 there was another election held, at which there were 6,192 votes cast, and the same pro

portion would give a population of 15,480. In 1865 there was another election held, and the number of votes cast was 5,905. and the same proportion would give a population of 14,762. The question arises, if the population of Colorado was 25,326 in 1861, how can it be that that population now is but 14,762? The causes are sufficient to any one who is familiar with the history of the time. Colorado is surrounded by other Territories full of mines, and these miners, who are without families generally, can, without great expense, and without any trouble or the breaking up of family ties, at once migrate from one mining district to another, and the mining districts of Idaho and Montana have actually drawn off this population from Colorado. General Pierce, the surveyor general, says, speaking of the population of Montana, that it was about 40,000, one fourth of which came from Colorado. According to that statement nearly 10,000 of the mining population left Colorado to go to Montana. Others, perhaps, went in and to a certain extent supplied their places.

Then, another cause has been in operation to diminish the number of people in Colorado. While the war was pending there were two or three regiments raised in Colorado; they were employed mostly in fighting the Indians, and some few came further east into Kansas, and into the service of the United States. The Indian wars and difficulties upon the plains interrupted the communication between the States and Colorado, and made provisions in Colorado so very expensive that it was impossible for them to sustain mining operations with any great degree of success; and it is a fact which you, Mr. President, and I very well know, (for we witnessed it with our own eyes last summer,) that very many of the mining operations were suspended in Colorado. Out of perhaps thirty mills but three or four were in successful operation. In consequence of the two facts to which I have referred, the emigration of the miners into other districts, and the interruption of communication across the plains, the expenses of living and feeding a single person were at least five dollars a day. How would it be possible in the Territory of Colorado to maintain the successful operation of mining at such a high price of provisions? Mr. President, we know very well that in the south part of Colorado, over in the San Luis Park, the greater portion of the population is Mexican, and we know from all accounts that all that portion of the population are very much opposed to Colorado coming as a State in the Union in its present condition.

How, then, stands the question in relation to the people of Colorado? Do they desire to be admitted? Sir, the balance of the testimony is decidedly against it.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but I do not understand that the people in New Mexico, or that portion of them in Colorado, are at all opposed to it, because New Mexico herself has formed a constitution, and I am glad to say they have not got the word "white" in it, and they are coming here to ask that they may be admitted. They are acting with great unanimity in New Mexico on the subject.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What I stated was that that portion of the people residing in the southern or southwestern part of Colorado, in the valley of the San Luis Park, which is the Mexican population, who speak Spanish, are very much opposed to having Colorado admitted into the Union as a State.

Mr. POMEROY. I cannot see why they should be so opposed to it, when the Mexicans in New Mexico are in favor of a State. I have yet to learn that that is so.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That undoubtedly is the fact.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Allow me to say that I have been there. The population of the San Luis Park belong properly to New Mexico; all their relations are there. They are opposed to the organization of this Territory as a State,

being compelled to connect themselves with an organization that is altogether American. They are in favor of a State in New Mexico. I examined with great care the natural boundaries; and the natural boundaries would throw that population of some seven thousand into New Mexico proper. Mere lines do not make the boundaries of States.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from California states the fact that the San Luis Park, which is separated from the residue of Colorado by immense mountains, was settled by the Spaniards, and settled from the direction of New Mexico, and it is a Mexican population speaking Spanish. They from the natural boundaries belong to New Mexico; it is an artificial line which has separated them from New Mexico and embraced them within Colorado. The fact that they desire to withdraw from Colorado or have an act of Congress to withdraw them from Colorado and allow the San Luis Park. or a portion of it, to be attached to New Mexico is one reason, perhaps, why they are opposed to Colorado coming in as a State, including them.

But, Mr. President, if we come to the votes themselves, what do the facts show? Do the facts really show that the population of Colorado desire to come into the Union as a State? We passed a law and submitted the question to the people of Colorado. They decided against it by a vote of three to one in September, 1864, when there was more population than there was last September, 1865. They decided then three to one against it; but since then, without any law, by mere voluntary election, called under a voluntary understanding of the committees of two political parties, a convention was got together which formed a constitution and submitted it to the people for their ratification or rejection; and they held an election at which the whole vote polled was 5,905, and of that vote 155 is the majority in favor of the constitution. Here are one hundred and fiftyfive persons more in the Territory of Colorado who desire a constitution and State government, than there are who are opposed to it, by the vote that was taken last fall; and yet by the vote which was taken a year ago when their population was more numerous than it was last fall, when the vote was heavier than it was last fall, they decided against it three to one; there were but 1,520 for it and and 4,672 against it.

Now, Mr. President, upon these facts, when the population is so small, when it is so doubtful even whether the people of Colorado desire or a majority of the people desire to be admitted as a State, is it wise, is it just for us to pass this bill to adimit them as a State into this Union? When I look at this as a practical question, and think that the little county of Racine, in which I live, which is principally an agricultural county, a little county twelve miles by twenty-four, has more voters and population than this proposed State of Colorado which it is sought now to admit into the Union with two Senators on this floor, it seems to me so plain that it is unwise for us to do it that I can hardly argue the question. Here is a population of not more probably than fifteen thousand. The mayor of Denver, in the last letter which has been read in the Senate bearing on this question, claims that there may be a population of thirty-five thousand in the whole Territory. Suppose there were thirty-five thousand; that is just about one fourth of the number sufficient to entitle a district to one member of Congress, for it requires over one hundred and twenty thousand population to be entitled to one Representative under the present ratio.

Sir, it is said that States have sometimes been admitted with a small population. I remember that Florida was admitted with a very small population; but who does not know that it was a question connected with slavery that forced Florida into the Union with that small population, that Florida was to come in as a slave State to balance against the State of Iowa, which was a free State? So, too, in relation to Arkansas. She came in with a small popula

tion, but it was to balance against the great State of Michigan, and the act was always regretted afterward.

Mr. President, is there any political necessity upon us to force us to adopt this bad precedent, a precedent which has been condemned by all just-thinking men in the case of the admission of Florida and the admission of Arkansas with their small, insignificant population as States in this Union? That was then pressed as a necessity in order to balance off slave States with free States. They must, it was supposed, be admitted in pairs. Is there any such necessity now, when every State in the Union is a free State and no State in the Union is a slave State? Why should we do this great wrong?

Mr. NYE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? What was the excuse for admitting Oregon with a small population?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What was the population of Oregon?

Mr. NYE. Very small when the act of admission was passed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It was alleged, if I remember aright, that Oregon contained a population of from forty thousand to sixty thousand when it was admitted, and that was many years ago, when the ratio of representation was not as high by one third as it is now. When Wisconsin was admitted she had three Representatives. When Minnesota was admitted she had two. When Michigan was admitted I believe she was admitted with two Representatives. Iowa, when admitted, had a sufficient population to be entitled to two Representatives. If, as is alleged, Colorado possesses such vast and boundless fields of agricultural and pastoral lands, if, as is alleged, her mountains are full of mines, we need not wait very long. Now that peace is once more established upon the plains, in the course of one, two, or three years Colorado may fill up sufficiently with a popu lation to be able to bear the burdens of a State government. We may then pass an enabling act and submit the question to the people of Colorado, and determine whether or not she ought to be admitted into the Union.

Mr. President, there is another consideration that ought not to be forgotten. When the election was held in September, 1864, to determine whether they would come into the Union or not, it was held, under valid law, so that persons who were guilty of the crime of voting when they were not entitled to vote or who were guilty of perjury at the election might be punished; but when this voluntary election was held in 1865, it was without law, without any authority, it was just as void as any other assembling of the people without any authority of law. Hundreds and thousands, perhaps, might not have voted at all at such an election, regarding it as an election without force; the Mexican portion of the population, in the southern part of the Territory, may not have voted at all, and in other districts they may not have voted.

Mr. President, I certainly see no such necessity, political necessity or any other necessity, for the admission of this State at this time as to justify us in doing it. I know it is sometimes claimed that the enabling act has pledged the good faith of Congress that they shall be admitted. Sir, that enabling act was passed in the belief that there were at the time of its passage from forty.to sixty thousand people in Colorado. The chairman of the Committee on Territories stated to the Senate that that was the amount of the population of Colorado at the time. That was a great mistake. It is proved by the census that there were but 25,000; and if Congress were deceived; if Congress were imposed upon; or if Congress in mistake of the fact passed an enabling act by which they could form a constitution and come into the Union it does not lie in the mouth of the people of Colorado or any one else to say that there is any want of good faith on our part after the people of Colorado have exhausted the powers under the enabling act, and the law itself has had its effect. Until some act of Congress has been passed, the faith of this Government is not

pledged anew to the people of Colorado that if they held another election we should admit them as a State into the Union. Sir, they come here precisely as if they had originated a constitution without any enabling act. An enabling act is not necessary to the existence of a State or to its admission in the Union; but when the people of a Territory proceed without an enabling act they must show themselves in a proper condition to satisfy Congress that they can assume the responsibilities and duties of a State government. They do not show it. The contrary is shown. They do not show a population amounting to one quarter of what is sufficient to entitle them to a member of Congress. For these reasons I am opposed to the reconsideration of this bill.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Mr. PresidentMr. HOWE. Will the Senator from Indiana allow me a short time on a question upon which my colleague has spoken?

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, the State of Wisconsin and the action of her Legislature and the action of the last convention which assembled in that State representing the party which sent my colleague and myself here have been referred to to-day, and were referred to yesterday, and on one or two previous occasions, and referred to in a manner which seems to me to demand some attention from myself.

Mr. President, of course I am not here to say that my colleague is not perfectly justified in his own judgment for each and every one of the votes he has given since he has been a representative of the State of Wisconsin here; but when he goes further than that, and not only assumes but asserts that he stands justified for these votes by the action of the last State convention held in the State of Wisconsin representing the Union party, or by any convention which ever assembled in that State representing that party, I think he assumes too much and asserts what the record of that convention will not substantiate. There was nothing, as I recollect the action of that convention, which could justify either of the votes which my colleague has given during the present session of Congress on which he has differed from the great body of his political friends about him. I ought not to speak very confidently on this point, perhaps. My colleague ought to be presumed to know better what was the action of that convention than I myself. It is true, as he has stated, that he was a member of that convention. I believe he was the chairman of the committee which drew and reported the resolutions adopted by that convention. If I mistake upon any of these points, he will of course correct me. He was, therefore, a prominent member of that convention. I was not a member of it at all. He saw the whole of it, and he was a great part of it, I think; but still I believe I cannot be mistaken in saying that the resolutions adopted by that convention cannot be urged here as authority for some of the votes which he has given.

I heard this, as I thought, asserted by my colleague yesterday on the floor, and I have looked for a copy of those resolutions this morning to see what there was in them that could be held up here as a justification for these votes of which the recent Legislature of Wisconsin has complained. I have not been able to find a copy of the resolutions, but I find one of them in a speech which my colleague himself made in the Senate on the 17th of January, I think-at least some time in January. Probably that resolution goes as far to justify the votes which have been commented upon in the State of Wisconsin as anything to be found in the whole series. Let me reproduce that resolution:

"That the animus which caused the late rebellion against the United States was born of the pride and ambition of an aristocracy founded upon slavery, of President Lincoln has rightfully destroyed; and which the war and the emancipation proclamation we deem it essential to the regeneration of the late slave but now free States that they should in good faith accept their new constitution as free States, not only by abolishing slavery in their State constitutions, but by the ratification by their Legislatures of

the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, submitted by Congress and now pending, which forever abolishes slavery in every State, and empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary to secure liberty to all the people, black and white. By its adoption the cause of the rebellion will be removed, slavery destroyed, liberty established upon a foundation which neither State, nor President, nor Congress, nor court, nor change of parties can shake; as enduring as the globe itself. By its adoption all the people of those States, all the world will know that they accept freedom as their situation and give up slavery, and all hope of restoring slavery, forever.'

Now, I think my colleague will agree with me that there is nothing in the whole series of resolutions passed by that convention which comes nearer to an indorsement of the particular votes of his which have been complained of than the resolution I have just read. I think I shall do my colleague no injustice if I remark that he himself was the author of that resolution, and I am certain, that I do neither him nor the resolution itself any injustice when I say that right there in that resolution is found authority for every proposition which has been advocated by any one on this floor, and which has been denounced as radical, as disunion, and as disloyal. Mr. President, there and then, and through that very resolution which I have just read, my colleague instructed the people of Wisconsin and the people of the Union that to reorganize those communities down there, it was necessary, not indeed for them to put the ballot into the hands of black or white men, into the hands of one class or another, but that it was necessary for them to do certain things, to incorporate certain provisions into their own constitutions, and to assent to an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Did he ever instruct the people of Wisconsin, or would he, without repudiation and indignant rebuke, have allowed anybody else to say to the people of Wisconsin, that the United States could tell them to put a paragraph or a word into their constitution, or to strike it out; have allowed the United States to tell Wisconsin that she must assent to one proposition or another as a part of the Constitution of the United States? Certainly not. No one yet has ventured to tell any State in allegiance to the Government of the United States what sort of constitution she shall form, or what sort of amendments she must incorporate into the Constitution of the United States.

I am not controverting the truth of what was asserted in that resolution at that time; but I do say to my colleague, to you, sir, to the Senate, and to the world, if they would only listen, that the power which can tell the State of Georgia or the State of Alabama to assent to an amendment of the Federal Constitution, or to incorporate any especial provision into her own local constitution, can do all things that we have been asked to do, and can make them put anything else into their constitution, or assent to the putting of anything else into our Constitution that we believe to be right. If you find anywhere the authority to say to the people of Georgia or Florida, "You must incorporate one amendment into the Constitution of the United States before you can be restored to the roll of States," you can tell them to incorporate anything else into that Constitution. Instead, therefore, of this resolution affording a justification for the votes which my colleague has given, or for those peculiar views which he has urged here, and which have been complained of in our State, I must say again, as I said before, that I think it affords the most ample justification for every proposition which has been urged by the great majority of his political friends here, and which he has complained of as radical if not revolutionary.

Mr. President, the minority of the committee appointed by that convention to draft resolutions did, as I understand, ask the convention to adopt two resolutions, one declaring in favor of admitting negroes to the right of suffrage in Wisconsin; and I do not recollect the phraseology of the other resolution, but it was to the effect that they ought to be admitted to the right of suffrage in this southern insurrectionary portion of the country. My col league says that those resolutions were laid

« PoprzedniaDalej »