than it is in its present complicated form, and that the interest on the debt should be reduced, and that for this purpose the Committee of Ways and Means are instructed to prepare and report to the House at as early a day as possible a bill providing for the funding of the public debt and the reduction of the rate of interest thereon in such manner and to such an extent that taxation may be reduced and equalized as far as possible consistently with good faith to national creditors and justice to the people.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I hope the gentleman will modify that resolution so as to insert the word "reconstructed" in place of the word "reorganized." It will correspond with our habits here.

Mr.LOUGHRIDGE. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded.

Mr. PRUYN. I want it referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The SPEAKER. It is referred to that committee with instructions.

Mr. SPALDING. I hope the word quested" will be inserted instead of "instructed."

Mr. WARD. I think the committee ought to be instructed.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I insist on the resolation in its present form.

Mr. SPALDING. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table.

Mr. HOLMAN.

nays.

I demand the yeas and

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SPALDING. I withdraw the motion to lay upon the table for the present.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was seconded.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 60, noes 36.

Mr. WARD. I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HOLMAN, and Mr. WASHBURNE of Illinois, were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 60, noes 40.

So the motion was agreed to.

The question then recurred on seconding the previous question, and it was refused.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

Mr. HOLMAN. This motion to refer to the Committee of Ways and Means defeats the resolution, and I therefore demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 67, nays 69, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Brooks, Churchill, Coburn, Cornell, Covode, Delano, Driggs, Eliot, Ferriss, Fields, Garfield, Griswold, Hawkins, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hulburd, Jenckes, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, Mercur. Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Twichell, Upson, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-67.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Axtell, Baker, Beatty, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Boyer, Buckland, Butler, Cary, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook. Cullom, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Gravely, Grover, Haight, Harding, Holman, Hotchkiss, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Kerr, Knott, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Mallory, McClurg, McCormick, Newcomb. Niblack, Orth, Pike, Polsley, Price, Raum, Scofield, Shanks, Stewart, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Trump, Ward, Henry D.Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Woodward-69.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Barnes, Barnum, Bromwell, Broomall, Burr, Cake, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Finney, Halsey, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Jones, Kelley, Ketcham, Kitchen, Laflin, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Marshall, McCullough, Miller, Moorhead, Morrissey, Nicholson, Nunn, Perham, Peters, Phelps, Pile, Randall, Robinson, Ross, Selye, Sitgreaves, Aaron F. Stevens, Stone, Thomas, John Trimble,

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION.

Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills and joint resolution of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (S. No. 450) relative to filing reports of railroad companies;

An act (S. No. 426) for the relief of Thomas Crossley;

An act (S. No. 184) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corcoran; and

Joint resolution (S. R. No. 134) authorizing a change of mail service between Fort Abercrombie and Helena.

CURRENCY DEBT,

Mr. PRICE offered the following resolution; and demanded the previous question thereon:

Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations beinstructed to inquire into the expediency of appropriating $50,000,000, to take up the matured and maturing indebtment of the United States, which is payable in currency, as the same may become due; said amount to be taken from the coin in the Treasury, to be sold for that purpose, as needed, by public proposal, and providing by law that no new indebtment shall be incurred on the part of the United States, by the sale or issue of its bonds, notes or other securities, until the coin reserve in the Treasury is reduced to $25,000,000; said committee to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. ALLISON. I ask my colleague to modify the resolution so as to instruct the committee. I think it should be so modified.

Mr. BLAINE. I do not think that ought to be done. Does the gentleman wish that the committee should be instructed ?

Mr. PRICE. I think it is better as it is. Mr. FARNSWORTH. It instructs the Committee on Appropriations; it should be the Committee of Ways and Means.

The SPEAKER. Such resolutions generally go to the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. PRICE. I prefer it should go to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SPALDING. I give notice that if the previous question is voted down I shall move to amend by inserting the Committee of Ways and Means.

On seconding the previous question there were-ayes 40, noes 64.

So the previous question was not seconded. Mr. SPALDING. I now move to amend by inserting the Committee of Ways and Means; and I renew the demand for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded-ayes seventy-three, noes not counted.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

The motion was disagreed to.

The main question was then ordered; and the question being taken on the amendment of Mr. SPALDING, it was agreed to.

The question recurred on agreeing to the resolution as amended.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired.

WAREHOUSING SYSTEM.

Mr. MORRELL, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Manufactures, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1308) to modify the warehousing system; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, together with the accompanying report, and recommitted to the committee.

Mr. ALLISON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. BROOMALL. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House upon this matter after the somewhat lengthy debate on Friday last. I wish first to have a vote taken on the question of reconsideration, which the House may or may not make a test vote.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will a majority vote be sufficient for a reconsideration? The SPEAKER. It will.

Mr. BROOMALL. It will probably be a test vote; I would like to have it such.

The SPEAKER. A majority can agree to an amendment, and upon any vote up to the very last, except upon the passage of the bill. Any auxiliary motion, therefore, like the motion to reconsider, requires only a majority vote.

Mr. BROOMALL. I will call for a vote on the motion to reconsider, and reserve my right to the floor until the present motion is acted upon. I demand the previous question.

Mr. BROOKS. I understand the gentleman to say he considers the vote on the question of reconsideration a test vote. Am I right?

Mr. BROOMALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I shall vote to reconsider, in the hope that Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, and Mr. Houston, of Alabama, will be put in.

Mr. BROOMALL. That far it will not be a test vote.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and the question being taken there were-ayes 90, noes 19.

So the vote by which the report was rejected was reconsidered.

The question again recurred on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. BROOMALL. I yield for a few moments to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. LOGAN.]

Mr. LOGAN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to take up only a very few moments of the time of the House, but inasmuch as I intend to vote for this bill I thought it was due at least that I should have a chance to explain the reasons why I do so. At the time the bill was before the House originally I opposed it, and stated my opposition to one of the names that appear in this bill. Not having changed my views at all in regard to the policy that should be adopted in reference to relieving from disabilities persons who have been engaged in the rebellion, I feel constrained to vote now for this bill, for the reasons which I will state. First, the Chicago convention, when it assembled, admitted as a delegate Governor Brown, of Georgia, and he was recognized in that convention and made a speech to the convention. The same convention passed a resolution which has become a part of the platform of the Republican party, suggesting the relieving of persons from their disabilities who have given evidence to the country that they are willing to adhere to the Government as loyal men. do not give the language of the resolution, but that is the substance of it. That being the case, I feel it to be my duty, acting with the Republican party, under the circumstances, these names having been examined by the committee and reported on favorable, to vote for the bill. I feel that, as a party man, I am acting under instructions given in our platform by delegates from all parts of this nation, States and Territories, assembled for the purpose of enunciating to the people of this country the principles on which they will stand in the campaign before the country. Believing it to be the true and proper spirit to act on, when my party has decided I am willing to lay aside my prejudices and my own views for the purpose of harmonizing on this question; and I shall vote for the bill.

I

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Speaker, in the debate the other day it was complained that we were acting without a report of the committee setting out the circumstances of each particular case. It was also complained that we were acting in the dark and without information generally. I myself felt that as to a great many gentlemen upon the floor that must be strictly true. With regard to myself, however, it is otherwise. Having been associated with other gentlemen upon this floor and elsewhere in a voluntary committee formed for the purpose of aiding the business of reconstruction, I was in a position to be acquainted with the circumstances generally of the persons embraced within the bill, and was entirely satisfied not only to vote for it, but to urge my fellow-members to do so. I will now state that so far from this list having been got up at haphazard and without proper examination, it has really gone through so many particular instances of nice scrutiny that it would be very strange, indeed, if there were left in it a single element of error.

In the first place, a long list of names, amounting to some thousands, were recommended by the different constitutional conventions, assembled for the purpose of reconstructing the States of the South, for the removal of disabilities. Those conventions were composed of persons who knew the individuals about whom they certified, who were most interested in the question, and who had most to suffer if a mistake should be made in any case. And it might be considered safe to let the matter rest with them to decide who should and who should not be relieved of disabilities. But this was not done. So earnest were the members of the two Houses of Congress, and other gentlemen who had an interest in the question of reconstruction; to prevent the removal of disabilities in any improper case, that these lists were placed before the voluntary association of which I spoke and of which I am a member, who cut down the lists very materially, striking out the name of every man about whom no definite information could be obtained beyond that furnished by the conventions, and striking off every man with whose name there was connected a single taint of suspicion as to his present loyalty and his good faith in the work of reconstruction.

By this means the list of thousands was reduced down to where it now stands, to between eight and nine hundred. But the scrutiny did not stop there. This list went before the Committee on Reconstruction of the House, and was still further scrutinized, and the circumstances attending each individual case were examined. The list then went before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, where it underwent a similar scrutiny. And after all that, prominent leading loyal men of the South, men whose loyalty never was questioned, were sent for from the different States to examine the lists again and again for fear a mistake should be made. And the result of all that scrutiny and examination is the bill upon which the committee of conferrence have reported.

I will repeat, then, that if there should be in the bill any improper name, it would be a very remarkable circumstance.

Will

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. my colleague allow me to ask him a question right at this point?

Mr. BROOMALL. Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. As the gentleman has now become the champion of this bill, I would be glad if he would state to the House, and especially for my own satisfac tion, whether there is any one case, and if so how many, of application placed upon your files by any of these individuals for the grace of the nation, an application involving the concession of past error and a profession of contrition and a desire to return to their true relations. I am not willing to have the grace of this nation forced upon anybody. I am perfectly ready, upon an exhibition of the sort I have indicated, to vote for the relief of persons from disability in individual cases where

persons have placed themselves in the category have endeavored to indicate. But to go further would be to do away entirely with the constitutional provision, and to make the whole thing a mere farce before the nation and the world.

Mr. BROOMALL. It is well the gentleman has asked me the question. I can only answer him in general terms in the affirmative. There are many, very many. I said that a great deal of this scrutiny was exercised by a voluntary association of individuals, of which I happened to be a member, and made some of it myself.

I will answer the gentleman's question further by saying that these individuals were at one time looked upon as a kind of medium of communication between the loyal men of the South and the loyal Congress. The first applications were made through that association. The members of it refused to consider any of them until they had been scrutinized by the constitutional conventions of the respective States, and to a very large extent the original applications were accordingly made to those conventions. I hope the gentleman is satisfied. Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. No, sir; not yet.

Mr. BROOMALL. All these men are asking a favor; the grace of the Government is not forced upon any individual. If my colleague [Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania,] is at all afraid that we are forcing this grace of the Government upon any of them unwillingly, then I suppose he will agree with me that they can refuse it, and if need be they can keep themselves in the same category they are in now, by committing a little more treason.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me

Mr. BROOMALL. I think the gentleman need not be afraid; I have rarely heard of an individual refusing a pardon.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I desire the gentleman to answer specifically the question I put. Is there any application on the part of these individuals, made directly or through the mediation of other persons, for the grace which it is now proposed to bestow upon them?

Mr. BROOMALL. These are applications from the conventions of their States, to which they were directed first to apply personally, being told that that was a prerequisite to having their cases considered here. Now, I do not know that it would make the case any better if we had the original applications to these conventions here upon our files; and I do not think it would make it any worse. There are also many original applications here. Mr. ARNELL. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

Mr. BROOMALL. Yes. Certainly.

Mr. ARNELL. I desire to ask the gentleman if any application has been made by General Longstreet?

Mr. BROOMALL. The case of General Longstreet bothered the parties concerned in reporting it probably more than any other case; and yet, I believe, all who have examined the matter attentively have come to the conclusion that his is a proper case. I can only say that the General of the Army is one of the most earnest vouchers for the loyalty at present and the thorough repentance of General Longstreet; and it is believed by the gentlemen acquainted with the temper of the South, and the business of reconstruction, that to take a strong case like this of Longstreet, where the sin is great and the repentance is known, open, and thorough, such as to bring down upon his head the most violent denunciations of the class of men whom he has deserted, it is such a case, in my judgment, and in the judgment of those who have examined it, which will show the South better than anything else that nothing is asked but thorough loyalty hereafter and thorough repentance of past crimes. No man has been more diligent and earnest in aiding the reconstruction of the South than General Longstreet; and I, for one, have no hesitation in voting to remit his disabilities.

Why, sir, if we condemn him where will he go? His own class would murder him if we now desert him. If we, his new friends, whom he has so much aided, now sneer at him and spurn him, he will have no inducement to do good in the future. If we treat him as such a man ought to be treated, his future course will justify our action.

Mr. LOAN. I wish to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether General Longstreet is more devoted to the Republic at this time than he was to the rebellion two years ago; and whether we have any assurance, if in case of any misfortune to us, he would not abandon us at once?

Mr. BROOMALL. I will answer that by saying I never heard that Paul was any more devoted to the Christian religion after his conversion than he was to the persecution of the Christians before that time.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whether one of the reasons he gave for including in this list the name of General Longstreet was not because he was recommended by the General of the Army?

Mr. BROOMALL. I said "vouched for." Mr. ELDRIDGE. Now, if that be a good reason, I should like to know why he has not included in this list of names the name of Robert E. Lee, because General Grant swore before the Judiciary Committee that he had recommended to the President a full pardon for General Robert E. Lee.

Mr. BROOMALL. I suppose we might get thirty-five votes on the other side by putting in the name of General Robert E. Lee.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. And also get the General of the Army with you.

Mr. BROOMALL. We do not choose to do it. I suppose we could get the votes of the thirty-five gentlemen on the other side of the House if we were to put into the bill the names of the Democratic members of the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth Congresses; but we will not, though by refusing we lose those votes.

Mr. BROOKS. Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania aware that a principal, leading, prominent man on the list of twelve hundred on the table is one of those who advised and counseled publicly the assassination of Abraham Lincoln? Is he aware of that fact?

Mr. BROOMALL. What is the name? Mr. BROOKS. Is he aware of that fact? Mr. BROOMALL. I certainly am not. Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman permit me to read?

Mr. BROOMALL. No.

no?

Mr. BROOKS. Does the gentleman say Mr. BROOMALL. I do I know that just now, at the final vote, a gentleman whose name is upon the list has been charged with certain matters. I do not know what they are, but as the charges were not made before the proper tribunal at the proper time I will not believe them now. If I were told by one of his enemies that the gentleman from New York had committed a crime last night I would not be bound to believe it.

Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman answer my question? He has not done so yet. I am going to vote for the pardon of this man who counseled the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in this list with so many others.

Mr. BROOMALL. I am glad to hear the gentleman is going to vote for the bill. Mr. BROOKS. But I do not think the gentleman is aware of the fact I refer to. Will he permit me to read?

Mr. BROOMALL. I will not allow to gỡ upon the records here with my consent any charge against any gentleman which was not brought before the proper tribunal at the proper time. I am satisfied the charge is not

true.

Mr. BROOKS. Not when it is shown he counseled the assassination of Abraham Lin coln !

Mr. WARD. Will the gentleman yield to

me?

Mr. BROOMALL. I do.

Mr. WARD. I wish to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether he knows the fact that one of the parties named in this bill has sent a communication to this House saying that he has not solicited pardon, and has not committed any crime for which he should be pardoned?

Mr. BROOMALL. I am not aware of that fact. If I were to see such a communication I would want the signature sworn to before I would believe it.

Mr. WARD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him whether he is in favor of general amnesty to all rebels?

Mr. BROOMALL. No, sir.

Mr. WARD. If you are not in favor of general amnesty to all rebels, how can you support a proposition to pardon twelve hundred of these leading rebels without a single allegation on record that they have repented, or that there is any special reason why they should be pardoned? And, further

Mr. BROOMALL. I yield no further. I am pressed all around.

Mr. WARD. A single other question. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York will resume his seat. The gentleman from Pennsylvania declines to yield.

Mr. BROOMALL. I am sorry I cannot yield to the gentleman from New York any further.

Mr. WARD. I do not design to transgress the rules of the House in any way, though I know I am a little pertinacious. I now ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether he did not agree to give me five minutes of his time, and, if that be so, whether I cannot ask him a further question?

Mr. BROOMALL. I will yield to a further question. There was something said about that.

Mr. WARD. I wish to ask the gentleman whether, if this bill is passed, any of these parties who are included in it, if elected, cannot be admitted into Congress, and whether this bill does not cover two gentlemen from the State of North Carolina who were elected to Congress and are waiting to be admitted after this law is passed, having served in the rebel army?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. No.

Mr. BROOMALL. I do not know that fact. It does not alter the case, however.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. There is not a word of truth in the statement of the gentleman from New York. This bill embraces the name of Mr. Boyden, who fed our prisoners during the war, a man who was known by every Union soldier in prison at Salisbury as their friend. He was elected as a conservative; but he received a great many Republican votes.

Mr. WARD. I do not mean him at all. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Well, then, the gentleman did not mean anybody.

Mr. WARD. I mean a lieutenant colonel in the rebel army for a year and a half; and I assert what I know.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Who is that man. Mr. WARD. I cannot give you the name, but Mr. French, of North Carolina, informed me this morning that such was the fact.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I cannot possibly let the statement of the gentleman from New York go upon the record in the face and eyes of the investigation of this subject by the Reconstruction Committee and of the committee of conference without denying it in toto. There is but one member of Congress elected from North Carolina included in this bill, and that is Mr. Boyden. There is one of the judges also embraced in the bill. But neither of these were in the rebel army. This bill does not embrace any leading rebels. It has been stated over and over again that it embraces a great many men who really have not asked for any pardon, because they have never done anything making it necessary for them to ask it; but they became disabled by reason of holding some petty office during the war, not dreaming at the time that that dis

abled them from holding office under the Federal Government. They refused to go into the rebel army. Now we find by reason of our legislation that they are disqualified.

Gentlemen ask for petitions. There are thousands of petitions before our committee besides those sent us by the congressional committee, of which my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. BROOMALL] is a member. Gentlemen ask that we make a report in the case. Why, sir, to make a report in each case of twelve hundred men would cover reams and reams of paper, and no one would read it. It is not expected that the committee should make a report in each case.

Now, I desire to say one word about General Longstreet, because there are some gentlemen here who do not understand his position. The Reconstruction Committee unanimously once reported his name, with four or five others, for relief. Upon some little discussion in the House the report was ordered to be recommitted. The committee have not reported his name again, although they are all in favor of it.

When we sent the bill to the Senate the Senate committee, upon an investigation, in adding the names of various gentlemen of dif ferent States, put in the name of General Longstreet. That is the way his name comes in the bill. We cannot amend by striking it out. We have to pass or reject the bill. General Longstreet wrote a letter more than a year ago, which was published all over the country, in favor of the reconstruction policy of Congress, which brought down upon his head the most terrible and scathing rebukes of all the leading secessionists in his country. So ostracised did he become by his former associates that he was obliged to change his residence and move to another town to engage in business for his support. Now, I ask gentlemen who oppose General Longstreet because he fought us if they have not more respect for a rebel who showed his consistency by going into the army and fighting us honorably than they have for a stay-at-home fellow who shirked out of the army himself but egged him on? I have; and I would rather relieve him than any old politician whe sneaked out of danger.

Mr. BROOMALL. I have only to say, in conclusion, that my anxiety to have this measure adopted at this time arises from the fact that the State organizations which are about to go into operation in the States of Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama cannot go into operation until the disabilities of many of these men are removed.

Mr. PAINE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a few moments?

Mr. BROOMALL. I will yield for a mo

ment.

Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARD] has asked the question of the gentleman who has charge of this measure whether he does not know that there are one or two applicants for relief under this bill who have been rebel officers or soldiers and who desire, being relieved by Congress, to come here as Representatives from the State of North Carolina. He has asked that question, leaving the House to understand that he knows that to be the fact, and he has stated to the House that he has been informed by another Representative from North Carolina that such is the fact. He has left upon the minds of Representatives the impression that his informant believes that this applicant is not a worthy subject of legislative relief and ought to be excluded from this bill.

Now, sir, it is unfair for a gentleman to allege before this House indirectly in the form of a question what he does not know to be true, what he would not be willing positively to assert. Since he has asked that question and given the House to understand that his informant is opposed to the relief of the particular applicant referred to, I have asked that Representative from North Carolina what the facts in the case are, and he tells me that there is indeed in this bill an applicant for relief from North Carolina who was in the rebel army, but

that after having served a short time in it he left that army, threw up his commission, and joined the Union party of North Carolina, and has from that time forth until this day been an efficient and faithful Union man, and he himself believes he ought to be relieved.

Mr. WARD. Now, I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to allow me a moment. The gentleman from Wisconsin has in a manner assailed me, and I do not think the gentleman can refuse me a moment to reply. I have not occupied the five minutes which the gentleman agreed to give me.

Mr. BROOMALL. I will yield for the shortest possible time.

Mr. WARD. I had no desire to say any. thing unfair in this matter or to convey a false impression to this House. I was informed that Mr. Dockery, a member-elect from the State of North Carolina, served a year and a half in the rebel army as lieutenant colonel. I understand that that is the fact. I assert it to be the fact now upon information from a member of Congress-elect from that State of the name of French. I now wish to say further, as a matter of justice, that I understand that this Mr. Dockery, after a year and a half's service in the rebel army, threw up his commission and joined the Union Army, and has been a good Union man since, and has aided in the work of reconstruction. And I desire to say further, that I am opposed to admitting anybody into this Congress, or passing any law which will permit any man to come into this Congress, who has aided in the work of rebellion, and at whose door lay the deaths of half a million of people. Mr. BROOMALL. I have learned

Mr. PAINE. Will the gentleman allow me one word more?

Mr. BROOMALL. Not now. I have learned from the best authority that the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARD] is mistaken as to the time; it was two months instead of eighteen months. But no matter about that. He has given the strongest reason why the name of the individual referred to should be embraced in this bill as that of a man who, when he found out he was wrong, turned around and not only repented of the wrong he had committed, but fought on our side. He ought to have his disability removed, and I will vote for such cases every day.

I was about saying when I was interrupted that unless these disabilities are removed those States cannot organize until after another election; and we will have half a dozen States in the South under organizations as thoroughly rebel as any organizations that existed during the actual rebellion-I mean the organizations gotten up by President Johnson and Mr. Seward upon mere proclamation and without any authority of law. And these States will be under such organizations for perhaps a year or two. And if any gentleman on this side of the House wants to see the Union men of the South remain under that kind of government any longer than is necessary I must say he has a very strange way of looking at things; and if there is any gentleman here who wants to see the next presidential election come off with the Union men of the South under the control of these rebel organizations, I am inclined to think that that gentleman must be found upon the other side of the House, and a very great way over upon the other side.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I decline to yield further to my colleague, [Mr. BROOMALL,] and demand a vote. [Laughter.]

Mr. BROOMALL. Very well, I have done. Mr. COVODE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

Mr. BROOMALL. For a question, yes. Mr. COVODE. I would inquire of the gentleman whether it is necessary to reconstruction that Longstreet should be relieved from disabilities? Does not the gentleman know that Longstreet shed more loyal blood than any other man commanding the same number of rebel troops?

Mr. BROOMALL. I have already answered that question. I now call the previous question.

The question was taken upon seconding the previous question; and upon a division there were-ayes seventy-one, noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered, which was upon concurring in the report of the committee of conference.

Mr. UPSON. Upon that question I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there wereyeas 98, nays 44, not voting 48; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Griswold, Harding, Hill, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes, Judd, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McCarthy, Mercur, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Peters, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Raum, Robertson. Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Woodward, and the Speaker-98.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Archer. Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Covode, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Higby, Holman, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Knott, Loan, McCormick, Mungen, Niblack, Orth, Pruyn, Robinson, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Aaron F. Stevens, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Trump, Ward, Thomas Williams, and William Williams-44. NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Axtell, Barnum, Bromwell, Burr, Cake, Chanler, Cullom, Dawes, Dodge, Finney, Gravely, Halsey, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Kelley, Kitchen, Laflin, William Lawrence, Marshall, Maynard, McClurg, McCullough, Miller, Morrissey, Mullins, Nicholson, Nunn, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Price, Randall, Ross, Starkweather, Stone, Taffe, John Trimble, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wood-48.

So (two thirds voting in the affirmative) the report of the committee of conference was concurred in.

During the call of the roll,

Mr. GETZ said: My colleague, Mr. RANDALL, is paired upon this question with my colleagues, Mr. CAKE and Mr. STEPHEN F. WILSON.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to reconsider the vote by which the report of the committee of conference was concurred in ; and I also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. The vote upon concurring in the report has been once reconsidered; it cannot again be reconsidered.

M'KEE VS. YOUNG-AGAIN.

The SPEAKER stated that the House would now resume the consideration of the Kentucky contested-election case of McKee vs. Young; on which Mr. Cook was entitled to the floor.

Mr. COOK. I-demand the previous question on the report of the Committee of Elections.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

Mr. COOK. I rise now under the rules to close debate, and of the hour to which I am entitled I yield thirty minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. ADAMS,] and thirty minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. UPSON.]

Mr. ADAMS. I yield ten minutes of my time to my colleague, [Mr. BECK.]

Mr. BECK. Mr. Speaker, there are two distinct questions presented by the Committee of Elections for the consideration of the House, which are argued separately, both in the majority and minority reports. The first in order is, Who was elected by the people? because if it turns out that Colonel McKee was elected there will be neither necessity nor propriety in this House considering the question as to the capacity of Judge Young to take the oath and hold the position.

It is only after this House has determined that Judge Young has been duly elected by the qualified electors of his district, and would, because of such election, be entitled to his

seat, unless he be laboring under some personal disqualification, that it either ought to, or can properly institute an inquiry as to his qualifications, under the power it claims to inquire into the qualifications of its members. It is too late now, after the decisions rendered with almost (if not) perfect unanimity at the present session, to contend that the personal disqualification of Judge Young, if any be found to exist, can in any way inure to the benefit of Colonel McKee. His right is dependent on the vote cast, and that has to be determined before the other question can arise. I shall, therefore, consider that first, and after I show, as I can, conclusively, and I mean what I say, conclusively, that Colonel McKee has no shadow of claim to the seat, I will briefly discuss the right of Judge Young to it, which I hope to establish satisfactorily, even under the ruling of this House, the legality of which I do not propose in this case to discuss or controvert. The whole Committee of Elections, with perhaps one exception, after a full examination of all the facts, agreed to the report which they laid before the House on the 23d of March, 1868, which closed as follows:

Resolved, That Samuel McKee, not having received a majority of the votes cast for Representative in this House from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky, is not entitled to a seat therein as such Representative.

That report was made after the most mature and thorough investigation, which had been prolonged for more than eight months, and after all the questions had been fully discussed before the committee by the parties and their advisers, both orally and by printed briefs. The exact question as to the validity of the votes cast by men who had been in the rebel army, and the right of returned rebels to act as officers of the election, being specially considered, as the printed briefs laid on the tables of members at the time, both of which are now before me, will show, and the committee thus disposes of the question as to the votes cast by the rebel soldiers, and as to the freedom and fairness of the election:

"The second point relied upon by contestant, in his notice is that the vote of rebel soldiers, who were paroled prisoners of war, and who voted for Mr. Young, should be rejected.

"While the testimony may tend to show that even more than two thousand paroled rebel soldiers who, at the date of the election, 4th May, 1867, were without pardon and amnesty, voted for Mr. Young, as the contestant contends, it is admitted by the contestant in his brief that the proof is not complete and satisfactory as to more than seven hundred and sixty

seven.

"After an examination of the testimony the committee are not willing to say that more than seven hundred and fifty-two ex-rebel soldiers voted for Mr. Young. Of those eighty-six are hereafter rejected in the entire vote of various precincts for other causes, which would reduce the vote of the rebel soldiers to six hundred and sixty-six. But the committee finding that there is no law of Kentucky disfranchising rebel soldiers, have not been able to see how those votes can be rejected.

"The third point in contestant's notice is substantially the same as the second. The fourth is, that in a number of counties and precincts the freedom of the election was violated, and Union men prevented, by reason of threats, intimidation, and force, from casting their votes for him, (McKee.)

The committee fail to find this allegation sustained by the testimony."

And on page 10 of this report the committee proceed, in stating McKee's claim, to show that while he claimed that returned rebels could not act as officers of the election, still he admitted what the committee unanimously assume cannot be successfully controverted, that the law of 11th of March, 1862, (known as the expatriation law)—

"Was repealed 19th December, 1865, which restored citizenship to those who had been in armed rebellion, &c., that they were restored to the right to vote, but not to the privilege of being election officers."

These views, thus expressed, would seem to me to be conclusive as to the right of the con. federate soldiers to vote, both on the committee and Colonel McKee, and to commit the committee at least to the fact that there was no fraud or unfairness in the conduct of the election. Yet in the face of all this the same committee, with the exception, I believe, of the distinguished gentleman from Vermont,

[Mr. POLAND,] and the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. McCLURG,] without any further proof or argument, reconsidered their former report, and on the 17th of June submitted to the House the report we are now considering, closing it with the following resolutions:

Resolved, That J. D. Young was not legally elected a member of the House of Representatives of the Fortieth Congress from the ninth congressional distriet of Kentucky.

Resolved, That Samuel McKee was duly elected a member of the House of Representatives in the Fortieth Congress from the ninth congressional district of the State of Kentucky.

In this last report the committee say:

"It appears perfectly clear to the committee that persons who had been soldiers in the rebel army had no right to vote or to act as officers of election. They had surrendered to the Government of the United States upon the condition that each company or regimental officer should sign a parole for his men, and each man was allowed to return home not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as he observed his parole and the laws in force where he resided. These men were especially excepted from the amnesty proclaimed by the President May 29, 1865, under the tenth exception, and there appears to have been no other act of amnesty up to the time of this election which could include them; they were paroled prisoners of war."

And they say further:

"The evidence shows conclusively that in many parts of this district at the time of the election legal voters were prevented from voting by threats and intimidation; many witnesses testified that they wholy abstained from voting lest they should endanger their personal safety, and the proof shows these fears to have been reasonable."

I desire to use the mildest language possible in speaking of this remarkable report. The simple facts are the severest criticism. That a committee of this House should, in an elaborate and carefully considered report, after patient and thorough investigation, and after both sides had been fully heard, determine, in March last, that Colonel McKee was not elected; that the returned rebel soldiers were beyond question legal voters by the laws of Kentucky; that there was no evidence to sustain the allegation that the freedom of the election had been violated or Union men prevented from voting by reason of threats, intimidation, or force, and that the same committee, without an additional fact proved, or argument presented by either party, and without giving any reason to the House for such a change, should now report that Colonel McKee was legally elected; that it is perfectly clear that persons who had been soldiers in the rebel army had no right to vote or to act as officers of election; that the evidence shows conclusively that in many parts of that district at the time of the election legal voters were prevented from voting by threats and intimidation, would appear to me perfectly incomprehensible but for the knowledge I have of the fact that the dominant majority allow no obstacle to stand between them and the accomplishment of their purposes. I have seen a war avowedly pros ecuted to perpetuate the Union and the Constitution, as pledged in the Crittenden resolutions, converted, for party purposes, into a war of conquest and subjugation. I have seen the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States adopted by reason of the votes of the Legislatures of States that were afterward declared not to be States by the party taking the benefit of the act. I have seen even the reconstruction acts, the favorite bantlings of the Radical party, trampled under foot in order to put a State government unanimously Radical over the once great State of Alabama. I have seen the grossest frauds and the most flagrant outrages perpetrated and indorsed in order to Africanize and radicalize the other southern States. I have seen the executive and the judiciary almost annihilated because they were obstacles in the onward march of the majority to consolidation and despotic power, and therefore I do not wonder at any thing that party necessity may demand. This House may reject Judge Young; may set aside his majority of 1,479 votes; all of them as much entitled to exercise the right of suffrage as any men in America. It may appoint Colonel McKee or any one else to misrepresent his district; all this will only add another count

to the indictment on which the Radical party will be arraigned before the court of last resort in November next.

But I must return to the record, and first to the Constitution of the United States, for which the people of this country still have some regard. Section two of article one provides:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures."

Will any man on this floor dare to deny that the State of Kentucky has the exclusive right to determine what portion of her people shall have the right to vote for representatives in the most numerous branch of the State Legislature? Will any man venture to assert in the face of laws of Kentucky regulating suffrage in that State, which are published in the report of the committee made to this House in March last, that these returned rebel soldiers had not the right to vote for members of the Legislature of Kentucky. I presume not. Yet if they had, they had the right to vote for a Representative in Congress. One State may allow female suffrage, alien suffrage, or negro suffrage, may remove all restrictions; another may exclude all these, and, as in Rhode Island, impose property qualifications, yet the members sent here cannot be questioned, nor their right to a seat withheld because the majority of the members here disapprove of the action of the State in saying who should and who should not be electors. Let the principle be established, as I suppose it will be by the dominant majority in this case, that Kentucky has not the right to determine who shall be electors there, and that Congress will exclude the votes of all such as the majority here do not think ought to be allowed to cast their votes for members of the State Legislature or of Congress from that State, and what is the result? Why that one House of Congress regulates and determines all questions of the right of suffrage in the States, at least so far as the members of this House are concerned.

Let there be no grumbling when majorities change. Let the rule you propose to adopt be adhered to, and it follows that every Republican member of Congress who is elected by a majority of negro votes in the eleven southern States-for I include Tennessee-may be rejected the moment we elect a majority of Democrats in the other States and their places be given to the Democrats who get the majority of the white votes in these districts. We think Kentucky has as much right to say that her own sons-many of them the most honorable, intelligent, and gifted of her people--shall exercise the right of suffrage, if they did take the part of the South, as that your reconstructed States shall say that the political power there shall be placed in the hands of ignorant and degraded negroes. I do not pretend to predict what the Democratic party will do. I know we think this is and ought to be a white man's Government. But what I do say is that if you establish the principle now asserted in the last report of the majority of the Committee of Elections, in spite of all our protestations and remonstrances, it will not lie in your mouths to find fault with any action the Democrats may hereafter see fit to take in regard to the Representatives sent here by the negro votes of the South, when their seats are contested by men who have received majorities of the white votes in the districts where they reside. Bad precedents cannot always be set aside when the immediate purpose they were intended to serve is accomplished.

It will be remembered that the question of Judge Young's loyalty or disloyalty does not enter into nor constitute an element in determining this question. If the seat is awarded to Colonel McKee because he was duly elected he would have been as much entitled to it if General Grant had opposed him as he is now. It is simply a decision that 625 votes received by legally appointed and competent judges of the election in Kentucky, the legality of which

has been certified by the Governor of Kentucky to this House, shall be set aside and disregarded solely because this House claims the right to determine who shall and who shall not have the right to vote in Kentucky, the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. The party in power will repent this decision in sackcloth and ashes, or I am very much mistaken. The constitution of Kentucky, in force when this election was held, and still in force, prescribes that all white male citizens of the State, twenty-one years of age, who shall have resided in the State two years, or in the county, town, or city in which they offer to vote one year next preceding the election, shall be electors of the most numerous branch of the Legislature of that State. (New constitution of Kentucky, art. 2, sec. 8.) It follows, therefore, that no vote cast for either Young or McKee can lawfully be rejected on account of the voter's participation in the rebellion, no matter to what extent that participation may have gone; and there is still less pretext for this claim of contestant, because Congress has never assumed to declare who shall or shall not be voters in Kentucky, even granting that there are those who may be willing to go to the extent of admitting that it has that power. It is true that the Legislature of Kentucky, by an act approved March 11, 1862, sought to deprive all who had participated in the rebellion of the right of suffrage, but this act was repealed by an act approved December 19, 1865, which is as follows:

"SECTION 1. That an act entitled "An act to amend the fifteenth chapter of the revised statutes, entitled Citizens, expatriation, and aliens,"" passed March 11, 1862, be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and all persons who may have lost any constitutional, legal, or other right or privilege by operation of said act shall be, and are hereby, restored to the full and free use and enjoyment of the same, as completely as if said act had never been passed.

"SEC. 2. This act shall be in force from its passage, and may be pleaded in bar of any prosecution on any indictment or other penal proceedings growing out of said act."-Myer's Supplement, page 687, Appendix.

The act of March 11, 1862, had also been declared unconstitutional and void by the supreme court of Kentucky, and full pardon had been granted to all who took part in the rebellion by the act of January 13, 1866. The President had proclaimed the rebellion as closed on the 28th of August, 1866, and Congress had indorsed and ratified this proclamation by an act passed March 2, 1867. So that long before the 4th of May, 1867, when this election was held, all who had in any way participated in the rebellion were restored to all their political rights and privileges, and had all the qualifications of an elector as fully as if they had never been in the rebellion at all. What difference, then, does it make in this case whether seven hundred or seven thousand of those who voted for Young had been in the rebel army? They were still, under the constitution and laws of Kentucky, qualified electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and had as much right to vote for a member of Congress under the Constitution of the United States as either of the candidates themselves.

I will notice the other laws of Kentucky touching elections when I come to speak of the precincts rejected in the last report because of the supposed ineligibility of the officers of the election there, or some of them, and will only state here that if I am right, or rather if the committee was right when, in March last, it said in its report:

"The committee, finding that there is no law of Kentucky disfranchising rebel soldiers, have not been able to see how those votes can be rejected," This branch of the case is closed, because, in order to be able to declare McKee legally elected, the committee not only have to reject by wholesale all the votes cast at all the precincts where either a rebel soldier or sympa. thizer was an officer, but have to reject the 625 votes of the men who were rumored to have been at some time or other in the rebel army, and after they have done all that they can only foot up a majority of 37 for Colonel McKee.

Of course, if the 625 of whom I have been speaking, none of whom voted at any of the precincts that were excluded, have been wrongfully stricken out, all the other questions might be conceded and Judge Young still be duly elected, as the committee can only claim a majority of 37 for McKee after rejecting all the precincts and all the individuals that any witness either knew or had ever heard of as having been at any time during the war rebels or rebel sympathizers.

But I propose to show, and as I said at first to show conclusively, that all the judges and other officers of the election at the rejected precincts were legally qualified to act as such. All the reports concede that any man in Kentucky who has the right to vote is competent to be an officer of an election. The first report intimated, rather than asserted, that there might be some question as to the legality of this election at a number of precincts, because a majority of the officers conducting the election there voted for Judge Young. The last report seeks to exclude the votes cast at these precincts for the reason that the officers, or some of them, were not qualified voters, because they had been rebels, and therefore could not be officers of the election. I will first cite the laws of Kentucky bearing upon this question, and then notice the objections made in said reports. The laws I refer to are as follows:

"Each county court shall, in the month of June or July in every year, appoint two justices of the peace, if so many there be, or one justice and one other suitable person, as judges, and a clerk of the election for each precinct in the county. It shall also in the month of March or April of every second year appoint two suitable persons as judges, and a clerk of the election for each district for the election of justices of the peace and constables in the county. Such judges and the clerks shall hold their offices till their successors are appointed and qualified."

[Myers's Supplement, p. 456.]

"An Act to amend section one, article three, chapter thirty-two, title Elections,' of the Revised Statutes.

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That hereafter, so long as there are two distinct political parties in this Commonwealth, the sheriff, judges, and clerk of election, in all cases of election by the people under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under the constitution and laws of Kentucky, shall be so selected and appointed as that one of the judges at each place of voting shall be of one political party, and the other judge of the other or opposing political party; and that a like difference shall exist at each place of voting between the sheriff and clerk of elections: Provided, That there be a sufficient number of the members of each political party resident in the several precincts as aforesaid to fill said offices. And this requirement shall be observed by all officers of this Commonwealth who have the power to appoint any of the aforesaid officers of election, under the penalty of a fine of $100 for each omission, to be recovered by presentment of the grand jury.

"MARCH 15, 1862.

"An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to amend section one, article three, chapter thirty-two, title Elections, of the Revised Statutes,' approved February 11, 1858.'

"SEC. 1. That in construing the act approved February 11, 1858, to which this is an amendment, those who have engaged in the rebellion for the overthrow of the Government, or who have in any way aided, counseled, or advised the separation of Kentucky from the Federal Union by force of arms, or adhered to those engaged in the effort to separate her from the Federal Union by force of arms, shall not be deemed one of the political parties in this Commonwealth within the provisions of the act to which this is an amendment.

SEC. 2. This act to take effect from and after its passage.'

The first act merely points out how officers of elections shall be appointed. The second provides that each political party, so long as there are two, shall be equally represented in the officers so appointed, and inflicts a fine of $100 on the judge or sheriff who violates this provision. The third, which is an amendment to the second, as its title shows, merely provides that no political organization which adheres to those engaged in rebellion, or which gives it aid or comfort, or seeks to separate Ken