Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

makes it a loyal State. In Colorado will be found the sons of Vermont. They bring with them the habits of industry and economy and frugality which stamp New England's greatness everywhere, and the West glories in it. It is this combined energy, this emigrating power of the older States, that is building up new ones like the gourd in the night, that will reflect back the principles of New England improved by their expansion upon the broad plains of the West. Sir, I hope we shall hear no more of that jealousy. It was a similar cry that once rent this Union in twain-North; South! I appeal to the Senator from Vermont if there has not been a new birth of this nation. We are one and indivisible. I share in the honor and glory of Colorado as much as I do in that of Vermont or Nevada.

pel the new communities springing up there to wait until by the plodding necessities of New England, Vermont included, they wended their way in wagons there, until they had population enough to be cut up into two or three States? Sir, I repudiate that idea. I say that the faith of this nation is pledged to admit Colorado. She lies now right at the gateway of this mighty West. The whistle is first heard upon her domain across the Missouri, and its last notes sound as it goes into the gorges of the Rocky mountains. With widespread pastoral fields, with fields now waving with the ripening grain, with mines rich in themselves, with an energetic population-all save one, and that is Teller-she asks to be admitted. She has stood here by her representatives and knocked until their knocks have gone far into the night in response to our own invitation. It is time that we should let this people in, and have none of this little jealousy.

Mr. President, I insist upon it that the Committee on Territories, when they laid this

I repudiate the idea that the people of Colorado are asking anything that the Government has not invited them to ask. This is the feast to which the Government invited them, and they come as soon as they may. They have come here clad in the garments of loy-report on the honorable Senator's desk, laid it alty to this Government, and I insist upon it that the honorable Senator from Vermont is not at liberty to treat them with that disrespect which he so earnestly and so short-handedly did this morning.

We had the question up a year or two ago, and the honorable Senator on my left [Mr. SUMNER] took grounds against it, because he wanted a greater number of population. Sir, it does not make so much odds what the number is as what the quality is. That is what makes a State, the energy of the people. What are you going to do with Colorado? You have admitted Nebraska on the one side with a population less than hers, or no more; you have admitted Nevada on the other to the same feast, on the same invitation; and now the honorable Senator from Vermont rises here and says to Colorado, "Notwithstanding you are invited and the feast prepared, yet two meals have been eaten, and you shall not have the other; we are going to keep that in reserve until you grow to be a great people." Look at the reasoning of the honorable Senator. He is going to wait until they grow up sufficiently to make two or three States before he will admit them. What a sensible thing that will be, to keep these Territories until they get population enough to make two or three States, so that they can be divided up! Why did you not think of that when you admitted Arkansas? Why did you not think of that when you admitted Florida? Why did you not think of that in the case of Rhode Island? We poll more votes in my State today than they do in the State of Rhode Island; and yet we find no fault about it. To be sure, we are not all huddled in together as they are there; but we are spread out upon wide extended plains, and in the mountain gorges: but what of that? We are one people. We are there beating the mountains fine, in scriptural parlance, and filling up the valleys; and yet to-day, with the marks of our swaddling clothes still upon us, the whistle of the engine and the rattling of the train is heard in that new-born State.

But my honorable friend says he would keep us in a territorial condition until we get large enough to make three or four States, so that Congress could cut it up and equalize it. Why, sir, the claim of the West is that New England has got too small States. She huddles twelve Senators right in a nest there. I share not in that feeling. The complaint of the East is that the States of the West are too large; but that gives the East always the preponderance. Sir, who would strike at Ohio because she is larger than Vermont? Who would strike off Illinois, admitted with a population of forty-five thou sand, because she spreads so widely over the prairies, and to-day attracts the eyes of the world for her aggregated wealth? Who would strike Wisconsin, because she is larger than Massachusetts, from the sisterhood of States? Who that has looked at the growth of the great Northwest, magical as it has been, would com

there with full as much confidence in its correctness as he has in the statements of Mr. Teller. There is the fruit of the examination of the committee; and I can say that this subject has not only been examined now, but it has been under the examination of that committee for more than two years.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to ask my friend from Nevada a question which I think is material to the decision we are about to make. I want to ask him the population of Colorado, and what data and what evidence he has got on that subject?

Mr. NYE. I was coming to that. I read from the report of the committee:

"The Commissioner of the General Land Office"

who is generally suspected to have about as much information as Teller

"in his last report estimates the present population of Colorado at about one hundred thousand. Others estimate it at from seventy-five to one hundred thousand. While these may be over estimates, the facts above cited show that thirty or forty thousand, as claimed by the opponents of admission, must be too low."

Then it goes on to state the population of other States at the time of their admission:

"Ohio was admitted in 1802. The census of 1800

gave her a population of forty-five thousand and twenty-eight."

Mr. FESSENDEN. representation then?

What was the ratio of

Mr. NYE. I do not remember-less than it is now.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Was not that population then equal to the ratio ?

Mr. SUMNER. That was required under the ordinance that there should be enough for a member.

Mr. NYE. Does the honorable Senator from Massachusetts mean to say that it was very irregular or illegal to admit a State with less population than that?

Mr. SUMNER. I simply mean to say that the rule under the original ordinance for the Northwest Territory required that there should be population enough to choose one Representative in the House of Representatives?

Mr. NYE. I undertake to say that according to that rule Ohio had not enough; and there was no rule then existing that does not exist now for the admission of States. I undertake to say that the rule stands as it has ever stood, precisely; and I assert that at the time Ohio was admitted she had not the requisite number for a Representative in Congress; neither had Illinois. I read from the report of the committee:

"Illinois was admitted in 1818. The census of 1820, two years after, gave her a white population of 53,188. Four years after the admission of Florida, the census of 1850 gave her a white population of 47,203. Two years after the admission of Oregon the census of 1860 gave her a population of 52,337. The census of 1820 gave the white population of Missouri at 55,988. She made application that year, and was finally admitted in 1821. A number of other States were admitted with evidence of no more population than is indicated in Colorado.'

Now, Mr. President, I have to say, in con

||

clusion, that the reason that would exist, and did exist, in 1818 and 1820, cannot by any possibility apply now. The olden time has passed away, and all things have become new. States are born with a rapidity that would have astonished the men of that day, and they are peopled with a rapidity which no human head can calculate. Sir, the great national thoroughfare through Colorado will, in two or three years, take by its cheap and rapid communication to that State a population equal to Vermont. The State of Nevada, to which my colleague on the committee alluded, will have a population of one hundred thousand ere autumn comes. I see my honorable friend from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] smiles. I hope he smiles with gladness at the prospect. Now the State of California, just born, sends out more from her borders to-day than any other State in the Union, and her fields are not half touched.

A word more, sir, and I shall have done. The committee, at its last meeting, reported an amendment to this bill which takes away all the objections of the Senator from Vermont. The Senators-elect from Colorado had been here so long waiting for my honorable friend's and other's minds to open to the occasion, that they thought their time was served out, and in order to prevent any feeling upon that score, the committee reported an amendment providing for a new election of a Legislature, with this proviso added to that section:

Provided, That before being admitted to representation in Congress, the Legislature so elected and convened shall ratify the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as the fourteenth article, and also the fundamental conditions herein imposed. And in case said Legislature shall refuse to ratify said amendment and said conditions this act shall be null and void.

If the honorable Senator has faith in the representation of Mr. Teller, that the people of Colorado do not want to become a State, let him vote for this bill, and they will have in two months the opportunity to say so by their vote. Before they can come into the Union, a new Legislature must be elected and convened, and that Legislature must ratify the constitutional amendment. Thus the people of Colorado have the full opportunity of deciding upon the question whether they will be admitted or not, and I contend that it is not fair to avoid resubmitting the opportunity this bill presents to Colorado of becoming one of the family of this nation. It is due to their interests, it is due to the interests of this Government, it is due to the growing interests of that people, that they should have the protection which only a State government can give.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I had supposed, from the statement made by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. YATES,] that this bill would excite very little controversy. I understood from his statement made on Friday

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Will the Senator from Indiana yield to me for a few moments, that I may say a few words to the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. HENDRICKS. With great pleasure. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, it is, perhaps, unfortunate that I should have permitted myself to say anything on this subject; but if I had not, I should never have given the chance for the exhibition of wit which the Senator from Nevada always has at his disposal; but take away the perversions, take away the misstatements, not intentional, of course, as to what I said, and there will be very little foundation for any of the remarks of the Seuator from Nevada. I have said nothing derogatory of Colorado, or of any of her citi

zens.

I merely called attention to the fact, as I believe, that she has an insufficient population to support a State government or to entitle her to representation in Congress. I believe the fact to be so, and notwithstanding the statements here of the Commissioner of the General Land Office upon no substantial basis that I am aware of, that he thinks there is a popu lation of eighty or one hundred thousand inhab

itants in that Territory. I believe that no vote they have given, that no census which has been taken, will show that they have at the present time any more than thirty or thirty-five thousand inhabitants.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask the Senator when was any such opinion as that expressed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I understood the Senator from Nevada to quote the opinion of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, giving an estimate of something like one hundred thousand population; but taking the estimate of the amount of population according to any vote of the Territory, and admitting that they have as large a population in proportion to the vote as Oregon or California, and they cannot have to-day much more than about thirty thousand inhabitants.

Mr. CRAGIN. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion on that point?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I only wish to say a word more myself, and then I shall yield the floor entirely. All I desire is that we shall have some rule established by which we are to admit these States, and hold out evenhanded justice to them all. I would not allude further to the vote of the State but for the fact that the Senator from Nevada has rather intimated that these votes out there are all right. Now, I have not a particle of doubt that whenever this State is admitted it will be what we sometimes call a copperhead State; and if the vote of the people is fairly taken they will be represented by those who are opposed to the gentlemen who usually sit on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. CRAGIN. The Senator from Vermont says that the vote in Colorado, nine thousand three hundred and forty-nine, would not show a population of more than thirty thousand. I beg to state to the Senator from Vermont that I have made a calculation compared with the vote of the State of Vermont. The population tion in Vermont is about three hundred and eighteen thousand. Her vote at the last election was forty-two thousand one hundred and twenty-five; about one in seven. The vote of Colorado was nine thousand three hundred and forty-nine. That multiplied by seven gives sixty-five thousand four hundred and fortythree, estimating the population in the same proportion to the vote as is the case in Ver

mont.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Will the Senator take the vote of New Hampshire, and, admitting that we have as many able-bodied men entitled to vote in Vermont as in New Hampshire, see how it is there?

Mr. CRAGIN. I am aware of the difference in the vote of the two States. I contend that a vote in a sparsely-settled Territory, especially a mining country, is no indication whatever of the population. In my State, where every man votes, where the parties are close and nearly every vote is brought out, there is a very large vote, indeed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What per cent. of the population vote in your State?

Mr. CRAGIN. About one in four and a half.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator from New Hampshire allow me to call his attention to one fact? In estimating the population from the vote in a mineral country, is the Senator not aware that the voting population is very much larger in proportion to the entire population than in an agricultural State? To illustrate, is the Senator not aware of the fact that in 1860 the census of Colorado showed a population of twenty-five thousand?

Mr. CRAGIN. Thirty-four thousand and some odd.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Twenty-five thousand is the last census that was taken in 1860; and of the entire population there were of women and children under twenty-one about six thousand, and the residue, according to the census, was a voting population; so that there were three or four or five of voting population to one non-voting.

Mr. CRAGIN. I am aware of the fact suggested by the Senator from Indiana that in the early settlement of a mining Territory the males largely preponderate; but Colorado has been settled now some eight years. In 1860, I will inform the Senator-he seems not to be aware of it-the census taken by the United States showed over thirty-four thousand inhabitants; but since that time eight years have passed away and Colorado has become settled permanently; men have gone there with their families, and the number of women and children has vastly increased in proportion to what was evidenced by the census of 1860. I have not the slighest doubt, from what appeared before the Committee on Territories, and from information that I gather generally, that the population of Colorado is to-day from sixty-five to eighty thousand inhabitants.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I now ask my friend from Illinois, [Mr. YATES,] who has charge of this bill, to allow House bill No. 605 to come up. I understood him to say he would not antagonize the bill with it.

Mr. YATES. I do not intend to antagonize, but I will say to the Senator that I do not think there will be much more debate on this bill. Mr. EDMUNDS. You cannot get a vote immediately.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Let it go over. Mr. YATES. It can be passed over informally so as to be first in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill can be passed over informally, if there be no objection.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do object, for the reason that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCKALEW] desires to be heard on this Colorado bill, and he cannot be here this after

noon.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Then I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 605, of which I gave notice, and with which my friend from Illinois assured me that he would not antagonize.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I regret to antagonize the bill before the Senate on Friday last with the one which has been mentioned by the honorable Senator from Maine, but I am really very anxious to dispose of the bill relating to the central branch of the Pacific railroad, and I gave notice on Friday that I should at the close of the morning hour to-day call up that bill for the purpose of finishing the discussion and coming to a vote upon it. I hope, therefore, the Senate will see fit to take up that bill again and proceed to dispose of it. If it be the desire of the Senate to do so, I will that in case the Senator from Maine agree wishes to proceed with his appropriation bill after the central branch bill is taken up it shall be laid aside informally in order to accommodate him.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That will be objected to. Mr. MORTON. I think this policy of discussing a bill for a time and then laying it aside to take up another bill is one very wasteful and prodigal in its character. It would be better for the Senate now to dispose of the Colorado bill, because if it is put off until to-morrow you will have this discussion all over again and perhaps more of it. Here are two other bills pressing, and if we postpone this now the time which has been spent this morning in the consideration of it will be virtually lost. I have not been here long, but I have seen much time wasted in that way, and I think the policy is a very bad one.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Maine.

The motion was agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June,

1869.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Before proceeding with

the bill under consideration, I ask the Senator from Maine to allow us to dispose of the bill for the recognition of the State government in Arkansas, which was returned by the President with his objections on Saturday. The Senate was not full when the message came in, and I suppose it will probably lead to no discussion, as the matter has already been fully discussed. It is very likely that we can take the vote on that question at once, and it is a matter that we ought to act upon, being in the nature of a privileged matter. If the Senator from Maine will consent to let the appropriation bill be laid aside for a few moments, I think we can get the vote on the Arkansas bill. I suggest, therefore, that the appropriation bill be laid aside temporarily for that purpose.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Considering the character of that measure, I will consent to the proposition, with the understanding that if it leads to discussion I shall be at liberty to resume the consideration of the appropriation bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir. Let it be laid aside informally in that way.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill before the Senate may be laid aside informally if there be no objection. No objection being made, it will so be laid aside..

Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask that the Senate now proceed with the consideration of the bill returned by the President, relative to the recognition of the State government of Arkansas.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, that bill will be regarded as before the Senate. The question is on the passage of the bill, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. This question must be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I cannot consent that the vote on this question shall be taken without some debate.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. As this leads to debate

Mr. TRUMBULL. Not a long debate.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should think it would be pretty long by the books on the desk of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think we had better go on with this bill and finish it. I hope the Senator from Maine will not interpose. We can hear the Senator from Kentucky, and then take the vote.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. But I understood the honorable Senator from Illinois to agree that if this bill led to discussion I should be at liberty to call up the appropriation bill again.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I did, and if there is to be any protracted discussion on this bill I shall not insist upon it; but I have no idea that there will be.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. There was no "protracted" about it, it was "discussion." There is discussion; and now I call for the regular order.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator insists upon it, I suppose I must give way.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order will be proceeded with. The bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legis lative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869, is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. It will be read, and as the amendments reported by the Committee on Appropriations are reached in their regular order in the reading of the bill they will be acted upon if there be no objection.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the bill, the amendments reported by the Committee on Appropriations being acted on in their order as recited in the reading of the bill.

The first amendment was to insert "clerk to Committee on Appropriations, $2,220" in lines forty-four, forty-five, and forty-six, in the clause making appropriations "for compensa

tion of the officers, clerks, messengers, and others receiving an annual salary in the service of the Senate."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line fiftythree, to strike out "$08,704 80," and insert 66 $100,924 80," as the gross appropriation for officers, &c., receiving an annual salary in the service of the Senate.

The amendment was agreed to.

66

The next amendment was in line fifty-six, to strike out twenty five" and insert "ten;" so as to reduce the appropriation for stationery

for the Senate to $10,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line fifty-seven, to strike from the appropriations for the contingent expenses of the Senate the item "for newspapers, $5,000," and in lieu thereof insert: For newspapers and stationery for seventy-four Senators, to the amount of $125 each, $9,250.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line sixty-four, to strike out second" before"session" and insert "third;" so as to make the clause read as follows, among the items of contingent expenses of the Senate:

For reporting and printing the proceedings in the Daily Globe for the third session of the Fortieth Congress, $15,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seventytwo, to strike out "three thousand" and insert "fifteen hundred," and in line seventy-four, to strike out $15,000" and insert "$10,000;" so as to make the clause read, among the items of contingent expenses of the Senate, as follows:

For paying the publishers of the Congressional Globe and Appendix, according to the number of copies taken, one cent for every five pages exceeding fifteen hundred, including the indexes and the laws of the United States, $10,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line eighty, to reduce the appropriation for packing boxes for Senators" from "$3,500" to "$1,000." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and thirty-six, to strike out "eleven" and insert "six."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out line one hundred and thirty-nine in these words "for Capitol police, $64,000," and in lieu thereof

to insert:

For one captain, $2.800; two lieutenants, at $1.800 each, $3,600; thirty privates, at $1,584 each, $47,520; twelve watchmen, at $1.000 each, $12,000; one superintendent in the crypt, $1,440; uniforms, $4.600; contingent expenses, $500; making in all $71,748; one half to be paid into the contingent fund of the Senate and the other half into the contingent fund of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to ask the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if this appropriation cannot be very materially reduced. I see here for policeman a higher rate of compensation than is allowed to gentlemen in the Departments doing clerical duty; as for instance, the captain gets more than the chief clerk of a bureau, more than the chief clerk of the General Land Office, for example. That should not be so.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Allow me to explain?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. This appropriation is in exact conformity with the provisions of the law reorganizing the police, which was reorganized in 1867; and in addition to the compensation, or as part of the compensation, that law provided for uniforming these policemen, and that enters into a part of the expense.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The clothing of these gentlemen is provided for in this same section.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. What I mean to say is that the amendment is in conformity to the statute organizing the Capitol police, which was passed last year.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think these sums ought

to be reduced. Here I see that the captain gets above two thousand dollars; two lieutenants $1,800, each, which is the compensation of a chief clerk of a bureau, I believe ; and then there are thirty privates with a compensation larger than the great body of the clerks in the Departments. First-class clerks get $1,200, but these privates are to have $1,584 each, thirty of them. I understood that the business of retrenchment was to commence somewhere, and I think we may as well commence right here. It is a small matter to notice, perhaps, but I think both the number of policemen employed about this Capitol and the rate of compensation may be very materially decreased, so as to save at least twenty thousand dollars in this item. I propose, now, to strike out "two thousand and eighty-eight dollars" as the salary of the captain, and insert "fifteen hundred dollars;" and if this be agreed to, and a corresponding reduction takes place throughout, I shall propose, at the close of the section, an amendment declaring that these rates shall be the rates of compensation, so as to change the law in that respect.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Ishould like to have the Senate understand precisely what this proposition is. It is a proposition to appropriate a less sum of money than the officer is entitled to by the law of Congress. If my honorable friend were to propose to modify or repeal so much of the law as provides for this compensation, he would be proceeding perhaps regularly, but I can hardly conceive that it would be becoming propriety to propose to appropriate for an officer a less salary than is provided for by the law creating the office.

I wish to say a word in reply to the honorable Senator from Indiana on another point. He institutes a comparison between the services of these police officers and those of clerks in the Departments. These officers are on duty twelve hours a day. The Senator need not be told, I suppose, that the clerks to whom he refers serve only six hours, and they receive all the way from fourteen hundred dollars

Mr. HENDRICKS. Twelve hundred. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. They receive from twelve hundred to two thousand dollars for a service of six hours a day; these men receive from fifteen to eighteen hundred dollars for a service of twelve hours a day; so that my honorable friend will see that upon the score of merit, or upon the score of hours' service actually rendered, the disparity is not near as great as it ought to be. În proportion to service the salary of these men ought to be increased instead of being diminished. I submit to my friend that on examination he will not find the disparity which he supposes to

exist.

Mr. HENDRICKS. We never estimate the amount of compensation by the number of hours; it is by the qualifications that are requisite to fill the place. The chief clerk of a Department must have such information, such scholarship, such business training as will enable him to take charge of very large mat

ters.

Take the case of the chief clerk of the Third Auditor's office. Millions of dollars pass through that office annually; I believe some years hundreds of millions. A man is paid about eighteen hundred or two thousand dollars a year for taking charge of that sort of business as chief clerk of the bureau. Take the General Land Office, where the operations of the bureau extend over many States and Territories, having large questions to settle, the chief clerk contributing very materially to the settlement of all questions in the office, with a salary of eighteen hundred or two thousand dollars a year. Although he may spend but six or eight hours a day, what is the comparison between him and a man who steps around here to see that there is no disturbance? There is no comparison as to the real labor that is performed. What comparison can there be between a man who sits down at his desk and for six hours closely applies himself to intellectual labor attending to important questions that come before him, and a man that is step

[ocr errors]

ping around here at his leisure holding conversations with agreeable people in the halls of this Capitol? The one is a loafering sort of life; the other is a life of real labor. A man can very well afford to step around here without fatigue for twelve hours, while there is great fatigue in the other case.

I think this appropriation can be very much reduced. My impression is that years ago there used to be four or five policemen around this Capitol. It has grown up to be a decided force. Here is provision for a captain, two lieutenants, thirty privates, and twelve watchmen-forty-five men. Forty-five men to preserve order in this Capitol, where there never has been any disorder that I have heard of, where there is scarcely any policeman necessary! The law ought to be changed. To pay them at these rates is simply remarkable, in my opinion.

In answer to the other suggestion of the Senator, I propose, if the Senate shall be of opinion that this little matter ought to be amended at all, to add at the close of this paragraph a provision that the new rates shall be fixed as the compensation of these men. I propose to put the thirty privates at just the pay that the firstclass clerks in the Departments receive, $1,200. It is the pleasure of Congress, I believe, now fixed, that the clerks of the Departments shall not have twenty per cent. additional compensation, so that they do not get the benefit of the usual provision. I think we had better come down to about the same rates in regard to men who do not discharge intellectual labor, but simply watch around this Capitol and do nothing except to step about.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana to the amendment of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HENDRICKS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have the law read which fixes the pay of these officers. I think myself the salaries are too high, but I wish to see whether the law fixes them.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will modify my amendment so as to say, instead of $1,500, $1,800 for the captain of police, and I propose further to amend the clause by fixing for the two lieutenants $1,600 each instead of $1,800, and for the thirty privates $1,200 each, so as to make them correspond with the grades of clerks in the Departments, and I propose to leave the watchmen at $1,000, as they are.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to have the Senate understand exactly what this proposition is. It is a proposition to change the compensation of the Capitol police as established by law last year. The Senator from Indiana thinks the police power of the Capitol larger than it need be. That may be so; but the committee who reported the organization last year did not think so. He says there are forty. This is a large building, and it is to be policed every hour in the year. He says the duties are somewhat unimportant and not clerical. They may not be clerical; but I think a single moment's reflec tion will satisfy anybody that they are not unimportant. They have the entire charge and responsibility of this building, its safety, its order, and the order of everybody that attends here. The Senator says he has heard of no disorder.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Does not the Sergeant. at-Arms have charge of this building?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No, sir. If my friend would reflect a moment he would see that the Sergeant-at-Arms has nothing to do with the charge of this building. The Sergeant-at-Arms is doorkeeper of the Senate. He may have some specific duties here; but he has no oversight whatever over this building. Now, I submit respectfully to the Senate that the Senator has no information which authorized him to ask the judgment of the Senate on this proposition.

If the law ought to be changed, let it be changed on the suggestion of the proper com.

mittee. A committee of both branches organized the police department last year, system. atized it; and this was the result. Now the honorable Senator proposes to organize anew, as I submit without the necessary information. There was no option on our part but to make the appropriation as it is. If the Senate think that it is safe to follow the lead of the Senator in making this amendment they will so vote. Mr. HENDRICKS. There were one or two suggestions made by the Senator from Maine that rather surprised me. He says if this is to be done at all it ought to be done by the committee. Then submit to the Senate that we adjourn and let the committee pass this bill. If my voice is not to be heard in regard to the public expenditures, I had better quit

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Senator quite misunderstood me. I said that this subject of revising the organization of the Capitol police ought not to come from this committee; that the subject having been once determined by a committee, the revision of it ought to come from the appropriate committee.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then the Senator suggested next to the Senate whether they had better follow my lead. I ask no Senator to follow my lead. The Senator from Maine is a leader; his official position makes him a leader

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Mr. President, I do not allow the Senator to misrepresent That is exactly what

me.

Mr. HENDRICKS. the Senator said.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I said no such thing, and dreamed of no such thing as admonishing the Senate not to follow the lead of the Senator. What I did suggest, most respectfully as I said, was that the Senator had not the information which justified him in moving the proposition. That is what I said. And, sir, I do not allow the Senator to rise here and put into my mouth a leadership which I neither assume nor ascribe to him.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator did not ascribe any leadership to me

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No.

Mr. HENDRICKS. But he submitted to the Senate whether, in regard to this amendment, it was best to follow my lead.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No.
Mr. HENDRICKS. That is the word the
Senator used, and I know it. I am speaking
in the best of humor.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. So am I.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not want any. thing else about this matter but the best feeling toward the Senator from Maine, for I have great respect for him; but I submit to the Senate that I have all the information on this subject that it is necessary to have to judge of it, and I say that when the laws of the country fix the salary of the chief clerk of an important bureau at $2,000, or at $1,800 a year, it is absurd that a captain of police at the Capitol must have as much. His duties are not as responsible; they are not as arduous; and in no respect ought the compensation be so large.

sons.

We can judge of the salary that ought to be given to these persons. The fact that it was fixed by a law passed a year or two ago does not prevent the consideration of the question now. I believe that the proposition I have made gives a liberal compensation to these perI am willing that they shall be well paid, but Senators know very well that this same class of men at home cannot make anything like so much money. The salaries that I propose will command the services of faithful and good men. There is no difficulty about that. I do not want to disturb the efficiency of the service by reducing the salaries below what they ought to be; but in these times the salaries ought to be fixed at such rates as will secure good service. I believe the proposition I have made will secure it. Upon that I want the yeas and nays.

Mr. YATES. Mr. President, I think it is well enough for the Senate to understand the

proposition upon which it is about to vote. I
have listened to the Senator from Indiana with
a good deal of interest, and I admire the zeal
which he shows for retrenchment and reform.
I admire also the particular point at which he
begins his policy of retrenchment and reform.
I should not be surprised if his speech would
figure in the approaching canvass for President.
But, sir, I prefer that retrenchment and reform
which aim to retrench the Government's ex-
penses in some important particular. I have
no great admiration for an attack upon clerks
or upon subordinate officers; I do not believe
in expending time in the discussion of what
the salary of a police officer shall be so that
the time costs more than the salary itself would
be. I have had no person appointed to one
of these offices; I am not acquainted with one
of these policemen that I know of; but is it
an unreasonable amount to pay the head of
the police force around the Capitol the sum of
$2,800 a year? I am not so desirous of a rep-
utation for retrenchment and reform as to say
that $2,800 is too much for the head of an
important department like this.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator is mis-
taken in the bill he is advocating. He puts
the salary at $720 more than the bill provides.

Mr. YATES. Two thousand eight hundred dollars I believe it is.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Two thousand and eighty dollars.

Mr. YATES. Then it is less than I would be willing to pay. The Senator says that this Capitol does not require a police force of forty men. I think it would be a degradation to the people of the United States to say that a building like this, so extensive, the Capitol of the United States, could be expected to have a police force of less than forty or forty-five men. I am sure that the Senate has not wisely considered this proposition of retrenchment and reform, and is beginning at the wrong end. I do not think the salary allowed this officer is at all unreasonable, and therefore I shall vote against the Senator's amendment.

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Indiana has a reason that I apprehend has not been developed for this raid of his against the Capitol police, and I desire that he shall have the benefit of it. He, perhaps, was too modest to proclaim it here; but the Capitol police, I believe, have really offended him seriously. On an occasion not long since there was a remarkable character of this country who charged himself, either at his instance or at the instance of other patriotic persons in the country, with carrying the American flag from one end of the Union to the other, or rather from the South to the national Capitol, beginning somewhere down South on the Mississippi-I do not remember now where-and he was feasted, I think, all the way through, and the late rebels gave in their adhesion to the flag, and this patriotic hero bore the standard to this Capitol. The last crowning act of his was to have been the raising of the flag from the Dome; and by some misunderstanding or other, as to jurisdiction, I think, the police interfered with his going up to perform that service. But after some consultation, I think the Sergeant-atArms, under whose direction to some extent the police are, agreed that the flag should be raised as contemplated; but by that time the patriotic men who formed the escort of this patriot determined that they had been offended in some way or other, and they refused indignantly. I am inclined to think that that has rested in the mind of our friend from Indiana from that time to this, and that the Capitol police are not acceptable to him when they perform their duty in that way.

If the Senator will state to me that that is the cause of their offense against him, and he will indorse the statement that the captain of the police force or any part of it violated what was a courtesy or a rule of right in the premises, I will agree to go with him in obtaining such meed of satisfaction as the case demands. I wished to make this statement so that the ques-il

tion shall be put upon its true ground. If the captain of the police force has offended seriously, let us punish him by all means.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, it is always fair to let a Senator stand upon the reasons that he gives for himself. One reason assigned by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. YATES,] if it had been original with him, would have entitled him to rank as a genius, perhaps ; but inasmuch as the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. NYE,] a few days ago, was the author of the suggestion about some future political movements, the Senator from Illinois has not even the virtue of originality in his suggestion. In the proposition that I have made I have not thought of the future. I do not trouble my head with that. I guess the Senator thinks a good deal more about nominations to be made in the future than I do. If he is troubled as little about that as I am his sleep will not be disturbed at nights.

The honorable Senator from California knows that there was a sufficient reason for rebuking the captain of police, and, therefore, he has suggested-I had not thought of that; I am glad the Senator has suggested it; it had not entered into my head-that a policeman here refused to do credit and honor to the flag that was honored everywhere that Sergeant Bates carried through the southern States.

Mr. CONNESS. Ah, that was his name! Mr. HENDRICKS. That flag had not received an insult anywhere until it came back, in the hands of a gallant soldier, to the Capitol of the United States. Indeed, a captain of police that would do such a thing ought to be rebuked, and I thank the Senator from California for suggesting so strong an argument.

But, sir, my only reason for moving the amendment was that I thought the compensation fixed for these men by existing law was unreasonably high, and that we might save some ten or twenty or thirty thousand dollars; not much, perhaps; it may not be worth saving. The Senator from Illinois, as a test now of the certainty and accuracy of his judg ment upon the question, thought the captain of the police was getting $2,800, and he thought that was little enough, and that it ought not to be reduced, when that was more than $700 above what the bill provides. So he is mistaken in all of his estimates on the sub

ject. I think the proposition I have offered to the Senate is enough, and therefore I submit it. If it is the pleasure of the Senate to continue the salaries as they are, be it so.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the salaries named by the Senator from Indiana are ample to secure the services of these officers, and ordinarily I should vote with him. My judgment is decidedly in favor of his amendment, but it seems that two years ago Congress passed a provision allowing all the clerks and employés in the Executive Departments twenty per cent. additional compensation, but it was so worded as to confine it to a single year; but when Congress came to legislate for their own clerks and employés they made the language so general as to increase the compensation twenty per cent. permanently, and subsequently the same year they inserted a provision in one of the appropriation bills that increased the pay of the police in the same way:

"The Capitol police and the policemen at the Executive Mansion shall be entitled to the increased compensation allowed by law to the officers, clerks, messengers, and others in the employ of the Government.'

The House of Representatives have refused to continue the twenty per cent. to the employés of the Executive Departments, but by law the compensation of the employés of both Houses of Congress, the Capitol police, &c., is permanently increased twenty per cent. There is no justice and no reason in such legislation, and no man can defend it. If there is a reason for increasing the compensation of our own officers the same reason should apply to those of the Executive Departments, and with much more force, because they are employed all the year round, while ours, on the average are not employed over five months in

the year. Such discriminating legislation in favor of our own employés is, to say the least, not very creditable to Congress.

But as this whole subject is now being considered by a select committee of the two Houses I think it would not be wise to strike down the compensation of the Capitol police until that committee report. I understand

the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] is almost prepared to report a bill from that committee. For this reason, though I agree with the Senator from Indiana, that the compensation named by him is enough, I feel inclined to vote against the amendment, in the hope that we may at the same time bring back the standard of pay of all the employés about the Capitol to what it was before the change in the law.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Before the vote is taken, I wish to say that my colleague [Mr. ANTHONY] has been called home by the death of his brother.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 11, nays 19; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Doolittle, Ferry, Harlan, Hendricks, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sherman, and Sprague-11. NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Dixon, Fessenden, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Ramsey, Sumner, Thayer, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, and Yates-19.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ross, Stewart, Tipton, Van Winkle, Vickers, Williams, and Wilson-24.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The amendment of the Committee on Appropriations was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and sixty-six, to strike out "three thousand" and insert "fifteen hundred;" so as to make the clause read as follows, among the contingent expenses of the House of Representatives:

For paying the publishers of the Congressional Globe and Appendix, according to the number of copies taken, one cent for every five pages exceeding fifteen hundred, including the indexes and the laws of the United States, $9,500.

The amendment was agreed to.

66

The next amendment was in line one hundred and seventy-five, to reduce the appropriation for folding documents, including materials," for the House of Representatives from $50,000 to $42,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and eighty-three, to reduce the appropriation for laborers" for the House of Representatives from $12,000 to $5,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to reduce the appropriation for "miscellaneous items" for the House contingent fund from $70,000 to $50,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out line

one hundred and eighty-five, in the appropriations for the House contingent fund, in these words:

For newspapers, $12,500.

And in lieu thereof to insert:

For stationery and newspapers for two hundred and fifty Members and Delegates, to the amount of $125 each, $31,250.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and ninety-one, to reduce the appropriation "for twenty-five pages and three temporary mail-boys" for the House of Representatives from $16,000 to $6,720.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and ninety-five, to reduce the appropriation for stationery for the House of Representatives from $30,000 to $15,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in the appropriations for the Library of Congress, to strike out in line two hundred and thirty-seven the word

[ocr errors]

"four" and insert "three," and to strike out in line two hundred and thirty-eight "$3,456 and insert "$2,592;" so as to make the clause read:

For three laborers, at $864 each, $2,592.
The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line two hundred and forty, to strike out "two" and insert "three," and in line two hundred and fortyone, to increase the appropriation from $2,880 to $4,320; so as to make the clause read: For three assistant librarians, at $1,440 each, $4,320. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line two hundred and eighty, to strike out the following clause:

For compensation to the Private Secretary, assistant secretary, short-hand writer, clerk of pardons, three clerks of fourth class, steward, and messenger of the President of the United States, $18,800.

And to insert in lieu thereof the following: For compensation to the Private Secretary, one clerk of class four, steward, and messenger of the President of the United States, $8.200: Provided, That so much of the fourth section of the act of July 23, 1866, making appropriation for legislative, executive, andjudicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, as authorizes the President of the United States to appoint an assistant secretary, a short-hand writer, a clerk of pardons, and two clerks of the fourth class is hereby repealed.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have some reason given for this amendment. It proposes to repeal entirely the law regulating the official family of the President. That law was prepared, I know, with a great deal of care a few years ago. There were only a small number of officers allotted to the President's House and employed by him, and they were constantly employed, and were said to be insufficient. It seems to me we ought not to change this law, especially at the incoming of a new Administration. If there is any good reason for it, I should like to hear it from the Senator having charge of the bill. It did not occur to the committee that they were interfering with the official family or the official relations of the President in any essential way. The amendment leaves the clerical force of the President precisely where it was in 1865. In 1866 the committee supposed there were some reasons for increasing the force of the President, which reasons were of a peculiar character, and which will be sufficiently indicated by reading the increased force which was then put at the disposal of the President. The increase was as follows: he was authorized to appoint an assistant secretary, a short-hand writer, a clerk of pardons, and two clerks of the fourth class. Now, it is known to Congress that about that time, in 1866, the executive department of the Government was thronged with applications for pardons, and it was thought proper to authorize the appointment of a clerk of pardons. The Committee on Appropriations supposed that that time had gone by; that there was no further necessity for a clerk with a special designation-on pardons. I submit to my friend from Ohio whether he believes, under the present circumstances, that that officer is any longer needed?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine.

Then, as to the functions of an assistant secretary, the President already has two secretaries. There are two secretaries provided for in this bill; and nobody, I suppose, knows better than my honorable friend from Ohio that in addition to that, he has his chief Private Secretary, detailed from the Army; so that, as matter of fact, he has three: two provided by law, and one provided by detail; and but for this amendment to the bill he would have four. Now, will my friend say that he believes the official family of the President is being interfered with by this bill, when, as it stands, the President will have three secretaries? As it came from the House he had four.

ever he pleases from the Army or from any branch of the service to perform just such duties as he chooses, why Congress should be called upon to make these additional appropriations.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to ask the Senator from Maine by what authority the President has the right to detail an officer of the Army to perform clerical duties? I know it has been done; but I do not know what law would authorize it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. My friend knows that such is the fact.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir; I know it is done.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Colonel Moore is a paymaster in the Army. He is one of the acting secretaries certainly of the President of the United States, as we have had occasion to know this morning, and as I suppose is well known, and he has been for, perhaps, years. Therefore I submit to my honorable friend from Ohio, that it is not interfering in any sense which would be an embarrassment to the President with his official family. He still has left to him all the force that President Lincoln had during his entire administration; all that was found to be necessary in 1865; and in addition to that he has this detailed assistant secretary. If there is anything to be said in favor of the retention of these officers the committee were not informed of it. If any argument could be made on that point it might be as to one of the two clerks that are struck out; but as to the clerk of pardons and the assistant secretary it is impossible to conceive that the President can require either the pardon clerk or an additional secretary to the two he already has. The committee were not informed that there was any state of things at the executive department that requires any force as to clerks beyond what existed in 1865. If the Senator from Ohio has any information in regard to the clerks that are struck out here he can state it.

Mr. DIXON. The proposition now before the Senate, as I understand it, is to strike out the following appropriation:

For compensation to the Private Secretary, assistant secretary, short-hand writer, clerk of pardons, three clerks of fourth class, steward, and messenger of the President of the United States, $18,800.

And in lieu of those words to insert:

For compensation to the Private Secretary, one clerk of class four, steward, and messenger of the President of the United States, $5,200: Provided, That so much of the fourth section of the act of July 23, 1866, making appropriation for legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, as authorizes the President of the United States to appoint an assistant secretary, a short-hand writer, a clerk of pardons, and two clerks of the fourth class, is hereby repealed. I am not myself entirely informed as to the clerical force employed by the President. I know very well whenever I have happened to be at the Executive Mansion they all seemed to be very busily employed; a great deal of work was to be performed; and I had not supposed that there was any necessity of reducing the force or that it could be done with any propriety. I suppose that when that portion of the act was passed which it is now proposed to repeal it was thought by Congress that the force authorized was actually necessary at the Executive Mansion. I believed it to be so then, and I believe it to be so now. I must confess it strikes me very unfavorably to change to so very great an extent as is proposed the assistants now furnished by the Government to the President for performing his duties. It seems to me that if the honorable Senator whe has charge of this bill had wished to enforce economy he might have commenced a little nearer home.

Now, sir, whether the clerical force allowed to the President is proper or not, as I have said, I am not prepared to say; but I wish to call to There is no limitation on the force he the attention of the Senate and of the country, may have, because the power of detail for sec- when we are making this great reduction in a retaries and clerks is unlimited. The com- manner which seems somewhat invidious to the mittee, therefore, saw no reason, so long as the practice of the Senate in regard to clerical President has the power to detail whomsoemployment. We have a certain number of

« PoprzedniaDalej »