tions that were put by contestant, and did not allow them to be answered, and, as is alleged by contestant, in some instances even refused to write down bis question and thus prevented him from showing what questions he asked or what he offered to prove; and the ruling made by the officer in rejecting it.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The SPEAKER. The hour for closing the debate has expired, and the question recurs on the following resolutions reported from the Committee of Elections:

Resolved, That John D. Young, having voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostilty to the United States, is not entitled to take the oath of office as a Representative in this House from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky, or to hold a seat therein as such Representative.

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

Mr. KERR. I gave notice that at the proper time I would move a substitute for the first resolution.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection it will be considered pending.

Mr. KELSEY objected; but subsequently withdrew his objection.

Mr. KERR'S substitute was received, and read as follows:

Resolved, That John D. Young was duly elected a member of this House from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky, and should now be admitted to bis seat herein, upon taking the oath prescribed by law.

Mr. KERR. I demand the yeas and nays on that substitute.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 30, nays 90, not voting, 69; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Cary, Chanler, Eldridge, Fox. Getz,Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Holman, Humpley, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Mungen, Niblack, Pruyn, Robinson, Sitgreaves, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Trump, and Woodward-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Bailey, Banks, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Butler Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Gravely, Harding, Higby, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Judd, Julian, Kelsey George V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, Mercur, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell. Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Raum, Sawyer, Schenck, Shanks, Shellabarger, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn. William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, John T. Wilgon, Windom, and Woodbridge-90.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Barnum, Beaman, Bromwell, Buckland, Burr, Cake, Reader W.Clarke, Dawes, Dodge, Driggs, Ela, Finney, Griswold, Haight, Halsey, Hawkins, Hill. Hooper, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Ilubbard, Hunter, Jenckes, Kelley, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Marshall, Marvin, McCormick, McCullough, Miller, Morrissey, Nicholson, Nunn, Perham, Phelps, Randall, Robertson, Ross, Scofield, Selye, Smith, Stewart, Stone, Taffe, John Trimble, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Ilorn, Elihu B. Washburne, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wood-69.

So the substitute was rejected.
During the roll-call,

Mr. TROWBRIDGE said: My colleague, Mr. BEAMAN, is absent on account of indisposition. He came here this morning, against the positive order of his physician, to vote on the disability bill

Mr. KOONTZ. I am paired with Mr. McCULLOUGH. I would have voted no.

Mr. McCORMICK. I am paired with my colleague, Mr. VAN HORN. He would vote no, and I would vote ay.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am paired with my colleague, Mr. HALSEY. If here he would vote and I would vote ay.

no,

Mr. GETZ. My colleague, Mr. RANDALL, is paired with Mr. CAKE.

I am paired with Mr.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I am desired by Mr. BURR to state that he is paired with Mr. HopKINS. He would vote ay if here, and my colleague would vote the other way.

Mr. WARD. My colleague, Mr. VAN HORN, is absent on leave; he would have voted no. The result having been announced as above recorded,

The question recurred on agreeing to the first resolution reported by the committee as follows:

Resolved, That John D. Young, having voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States, is not entitled to take the oath of office as a Representative in this House from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky, or to hold a seat therein as such Representative.

The resolution was agreed to.

The question then recurred on the second resolution of the committee as follows:

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

The resolution was agreed to.

The question recurred on the third resolu tion of the committee as follows:

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.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. On that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 43, not voting 84; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blaine, Blair, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell,Covode, Donnelly, Eggleston, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Gravely, Harding, Higby, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, George V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McCarthy, Mercur, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Paine, Peters, Pike, Polsley, Price, Raum, Sawyer, Shanks, Starkweather, Stokes, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Wyck, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, and John T. Wilson-62.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams. Archer, Axtell, Bailey, Baker, Barnes, Beck, Bingham, Boyer, Brooks, Cary, Chanler, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Hawkins, Holman, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Loughridge, Moorhead, Niblack, Orth, Poland, Pruyn, Robinson, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Taber, Taylor, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Trump, and Woodward-43.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barnum, Beaman, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Eckley, Ela, Eliot, Finney, Griswold, Haight, Halsey, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Jenckes, Kelley, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Marshall, Marvin, McClurg, McCormick, McCullough, Miller, Morrissey, Mungen, Nicholson, Nunn, O'Neill, Perham, Phelps, Pile, Plants, Pomeroy, Randall, Robertson, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Smith, Aaron F. Stevens, Stone, Taffe, John Trimble. Twichell, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windoin, Wood, and Woodbridge-84.

So the resolution was agreed to.
During the roll call,

Mr. McCORMICK said: I am paired with my colleague, Mr. VAN HORN.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am paired with my colleague, Mr. HALSEY. He would vote ay and I

would vote no.

Mr. GETZ. My colleague, Mr. RANDALL, is paired with Mr. CAKE.

Mr. KOONTZ. I am paired with Mr. McCULLOUGH. My vote would be ay.

Mr. MERCUR. Mr. VAN HORN, of New York, is absent on leave; if here he would vote ay.

The result having been announced as above recorded,

Mr. UPSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. On that I demand the yeas and nays. I do not believe Mr. McKee

is any more elected to this Congress than the man in the moon.

Mr. UPSON. I withdraw the motion. I rise to a question of privilege. I ask that the oath of office be administered to Mr. McKee. Mr. BROOKS. From what State? Mr. McKEE presented himself and took the oath prescribed by law.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

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

An act (H. R. No. 455) granting a pension to David Van Nordstrand;

An act (H. R. No. 152) for the relief of the widow and children of Henry E. Morse;

An act (H. R. No. 246) to grant a peusion to Milton Anderson;

An act (H. R. No. 257) for the relief of James L. Dickerson;

An act (H. R. No. 258) for the relief of Mary B. Craig;

An act (H. R. No. 280) to grant a pension to Margaret Huston;

An act (H. R. No. 454) granting a pension to John Kelley;

An act (H. R. No. 516) for the relief of the widow and minor children of Benjamin B. Naylor, late a pilot on the gunboat Patapsco;

An act (H. R. No. 517) granting a pension te Cornelia K. Schmidt, widow of Adam Schmidt, deceased, late a private in company A, thirtyseventh Ohio volunteers;

An act (H. R. No. 519) granting a pension to Eliza J. Rennard, widow of William K. Rennard, deceased, late a private in tenth Ohio volunteers of war of 1861;

An act (H. R. No. 520) to place the name of Josephine R. Bugher on the pension-roll; An act (H. R. No. 524) granting a pension to Austin M. Partridge;

An act (H. R. No. 526) increasing the pension of Susan A. Mitchell;

An act (H. R. No. 659) granting a pension to Sarah E. Pickell;

An act (H. R. No. 665) granting a pension to Susan V. Berg;

An act (H. R. No. 667) granting a pension to Mary Graham;

An act (H. R. No. 668) granting a pension to Elizabeth Butler, widow of Cyrus Butler; An act (H. R. No. 769) granting a pension to David Howe;

An act (H. R. No. 772) granting a pension to Robert McCrory;

An act (H. R. No. 774) granting a pension to Amos Witham;

An act (H. R. No. 776) granting a pension to Zephaniah Knapp, of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania;

An act (H. R. No. 823) granting a pension to George W. Locker;

An act (H. R. No. 824) granting a pension to Annie Vaughn;

An act (H. R. No. 826) granting a pension to Michael Mellon;

An act (H. R. No. 827) granting a pension to Ann Wilson;

An act (H. R. No. 828) for the relief of Captain William McKean;

An act (H. R. No. 829) granting a pension to Mrs. Susan Ten Eyck Williamson;

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 262) authorizing certain distilled spirits to be turned over to the Surgeon General for the use of the Army hospitals; and

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 266) to authorize the enlargement of the Hygeia Hotel, at Fortress Monroe, Virginia.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. HULBURD for one week.

LEAVE TO PRINT.

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to Mr. ADAMS to print remarks on the Kentucky contested-election case. [See Appendix.]

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. SCHENCK. I desire now to ask the House to proceed to the consideration of the tax bill.

Mr. HIGBY. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me to ask the House to take up a Senate bill from the Speaker's table and put it upon its passage.

Mr. SCHENCK. If it will not require a division of the House or consume time I will do so.

Mr. HIGBY. If it does I will not press it. If the bill is not passed before the 1st of July it will be of no consequence.

Mr. SCHENCK. What bill is it? Mr. HIGBY. It is a bill to extend a railroad grant to the State of California.

Mr. SCHENCK. I know that bill will occasion a division.

Mr. HIGBY. I think not. The chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands simply wishes to move an amendment which I am willing to accept.

Mr. SCHENCK. There will be no difficulty in passing it before the 1st of July if the gentleman will aid us in pushing the tax bill through.

Mr. HIGBY. It will be put off from day to day until it is too late.

Mr. SCHENCK. It is a matter about which there will certainly be a division of the House. Mr. HIGBY. It will not take five minutes. Mr. SCHENCK. I yield now to my colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. ALLISON,] who desires to correct the Journal.

CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.

Mr. ALLISON. On the final vote on Monday last on the resolution of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. SHANKS,] in regard to the tax bill, I voted in the negative. On examining the record I find that my name is not recorded. I ask that the Journal be corrected. The SPEAKER. The Journal will be corrected accordingly.

Mr. SCHENCK. I yield now for a moment to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE.]

ADDITIONAL BOUNTIES.

Mr. BROOKS. I demand the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. That is in the nature of an objection, and the joint resolution is not before the House.

AMERICAN SHARPSHOOTERS.

Mr. SCHENCK. While gentlemen are asking to make corrections, I am directed by the Committee of Ways and Means to ask for one. We reported a little bill authorizing the Germans to import a number of medals and other prizes presented to them, to be shot for at the great festival to which your committee is to go in New York. In transcribing the bill the assistant clerk-not the regular clerk of the Committee of Ways and Means, but an assistant who was volunteering for us-made a mistake and put it that they should not exceed in value $1,000, whereas it was distinctly written $10,000. The bill has passed both the House and the Senate, and I am told that the President will sign another bill, which has the correct amount, instead of the first bill, if the House will only pass it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair remembers that it was distinctly stated to the House by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] that the sum was $10,000.

Mr. SCHENCK. All the records will show that. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for consideration at this time, a joint resolution to remit the duties on $10,000 worth of these articles.

No objection was made; and accordingly a joint resolution (H. R. No. 306) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to remit the duties on certain articles contributed to the National Association of American Sharpshooters, was introduced, and read a first and second time.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

SALE OF DAMAGED ORDNANCE.

Mr. BROOKS. I withdraw my objection to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] reporting from the Committee on Military Affairs the joint resolution in relation to the sale of damaged ordnance.

No further objection being made,

Mr. GARFIELD reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a joint resolution (H. R. No. 292) directing the Secretary of War to sell damaged or unserviceable arms, ordnance, and ordnance stores, with a recommendation that the some do pass.

The question was upon ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read a third time.

The joint resolution, which was read, directs the Secretary of War to cause to be sold, in such manner and at such times and places, at public or private sale, as he may deem most advantageous to the public interest, the old cannon, arms and other ordnance stores in possession of the War Department, which are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, or for the militia of the United States, and to cause the net proceeds of such sales, after paying the proper expenses of sale and of transportation to the place of sale to be deposited in the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. VAN WYCK. Is not that rather an unwise proposition, to allow these stores to be sold at either public or private sale?

Mr. GARFIELD. I have information from the War Department that they have been offered more at private sale for small lots of these articles than they could possibly get offered at public sale, and they specially recommend that the power to dispose of these articles at private sale be given to the Depart

ment.

M. GARFIELD. That has been done again and again. And many of these articles have been withdrawn from public sale because there have been no bidders. The following letter from the chief of ordnance will explain the matter fully:

ORDNANCE OFFICE, WAR DEPARTMENT,

WASHINGTON, April 1, 1868.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the reference to this bureau for report of the letter of the Hon. R. C. SCHENCK of the 18th ultimo, in relation to the execution of the joint resolution of Congress reducing the expenses of the War Department by concentrating the business of the different bureaus of the Army now scattered in and around New York city, and requesting that the chief of ordnance might be directed to report in regard to the collection of salable cannon, arms, ammunition, and other surplus ordnance stores at a common point for such disposition of them as the Secretary of War may have directed, or may hereafter direct to be made, and what room would be needed for the storage of such articles; and beg leave to submit the following report:

The arms of foreign manufacture and obsolete patterns, with the ammunition for the same, and the cannon of caliber and models which have become obsolete, and are no longer required for arming the forts, or for the field service, and all other surplus ordnance stores which are unsuitable for our military service, should be sold whenever prices can be obtained; and as several attempts to sell arms and other condemned stores by public auction at the arsenals have been unsuccessful, (more than two hundred thousand stands of arms out of an aggregate of three hundred and seventy thousand advertised and offered at auction having been withdrawn either because no bids could be obtained en fair prices offered,) I am decidedly of opinion that the sales of arms and other ordnance stores should not, as a general rule, be by public auction.

The average prices obtained for arms at private sale have been nearly double that obtained by public auction for similar arms.

If the policy of selling the surplus arms and other ordnance stores at private sale, and when fair prices can be obtained, should be adopted, it will, in my opinion, be for the interest of the Government to collect the arms, ammunition, and other surplus ordnance stores, not including cannon, at or in the vicinity of New York city, which is the only great market for these articles, to be there classified, arranged, and held in readiness for sale.

There are a million of arms of foreign manufac ture and irregular and obsolete patterns, and sixty million cartridges for the same, besides a large quan tity of leather-work-accouterments, horse equipments, artillery harness, &c., which have been in service and should be sold, but which are worth more than the scrap value of the materials-which may be advantageously disposed of in the manner herein recommended.

Should it be decided to collect this property at New York city not less than a million and a half cubic feet will be required for its proper storage.

The views expressed in the accompanying report of Brevet Colonel Crispin, the agent of this department at New York, to whom the letter of Hon. R. C. SCHENCK was referred, are concurred in and adopted by this bureau.

The letter of Hon. R. C. SCHENCK is herewith returned. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. B. DYER, Brevet Major General, Chief of Ordnance. Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War.

Mr. VAN WYCK. Will the gentleman consent to amend the joint resolution so as to require the Secretary of War to first offer these articles at public sale on thirty days'

notice?

Mr. GARFIELD. Very well; I will consent to that amendment.

Mr. VAN WYCK. Then I move to amend as I have indicated.

The amendment was agreed to. The joint resolution, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CALIFORNIA AND OREGON RAILROAD. Mr. SCHENCK. If the bill concerning

which the gentleman from California [Mr. HIGBY] appears to be so anxious can be disposed of without a division of the House I will consent to its being considered at this time.

Mr. HIGBY. The chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands [Mr. JULIAN] and the chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad [Mr. PRICE] have both examined it, and they do not object to it if the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. JULIAN] can be allowed to offer a small amendment, to which I will not object.

No objection being made,

A bill (S. No. 216) to amend an act entitled "An act to grant land to aid in the construetion of a railroad and telegraph line from the Central Pacific railroad, in California, to Portland, in Oregon," was taken from the Speaker's table and read a first and second time.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be read a third time.

The bill, which was read, provides that sec tion six of the act entitled "An act to grant land to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Central Pacific railroad, in California, to Portland, in Oregon," approved July 25, 1866, shall be so amended as to provide that, instead of the time now fixed in said section, the first section of twenty miles of said railroad and telegraph line shall be completed within two years after the passage of this act, and at least twenty miles in each three years thereafter, and the whole on or before the 1st of July, 1880.

66

Mr. JULIAN. I move to amend the bill

by striking out "two years" and inserting eighteen months;" also by striking out "three years" and inserting "two years.'

Mr. HIGBY. I have no objection to that. The amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was then read the third time, and passed.

Mr. HIGBY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES WILKES.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1309) for the relief of Charles Wilkes, rear admiral of the Navy; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXPENSES OF INDIAN PEACE COMMISSION.

Mr. WARD, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and adopted:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to transmit to this House copies of all vouchers on file with the accounting officers for expenditures made by authority of the Peace Commission so called, under the act to make peace with certain hostile Indian tribes, approved July 20, 1867. Mr. WARD moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

PERSONS UNDER MILITARY SENTENCE. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution:

Resolved. That the Secretary of War be directed to inform this House the names of all persons now under sentence by military commissions, courts, or authority at Dry Tortugus, together with the nature of the crimes charged and the term of sentence and the unexpired time now remaining. Also the same information with reference to all persons imprisoned at Atlanta, Georgia, where it is reported some twenty persons are confined in military dungeons. Mr. SCOFIELD. I object.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. PRICE. I ask unanimous consent to take up and pass Senate joint resolution No. 137, extending the time for the completion of the Pacific railroad. It is similar to the one called up by the gentleman from California. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I object. CAPTAIN D. W. M'DOUGAL.

Mr. ARCHER, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 307) ten40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 212.

dering a vote of thanks to Captain D. W. McDougal; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. GLOSSBRENNER, by unanimous consent, was granted leave of absence for ten days.

LAWS OF UTAH.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the acts, resolutions, and memorials of the Legislative Assembly of Utah;

which were referred to the Committee on Territories.

INTERNAL TAX BILL.

Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will read in the presence of the House the resolution which now operates in regard to the tax bill. It was adopted on the 15th of June:

Resolved, That after the report of the tax bill by the Committee of Ways and Means in pursuance of the order just passed, no other business shall be in order but the consideration of the bill so reported by said committee, except reports from the Committee on Enrolled Bills.'

As the House sees, that rescinds the morning hour every day and excludes every other business but reports from the Committee on Enrolled Bills. Every morning the demand for the regular order of business will put the House in Committee of the Whole on the tax bill, as was the case during the trial of the President, when the House, under its own order, each day at a certain hour resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole and proceeded to the bar of the Senate.

This resolution only excepts the reports of the Committee on Enrolled Bills. There are two cases beside, arising under the Constitution of the United States, which the House cannot exclude. One is a veto of the President of the United States. The Constitution says that the House shall "enter his objections at large on their Journal and proceed to reconsider it." That is an imperative mandate of the Constitution that the House shall proceed to reconsider the question on the passage of the bill, and although a majority of the House may postpone its consideration, still the question must come up when the Speaker lays a President's veto message before the House.

The other case is where a member claims the right to be sworn in from any State in regard to which there has been recent legislation. The question may be referred to a committee; it may be postponed, but it must come before the House.

The Chair has stated these two exceptions. All other business, save these two and the reports from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, will be superseded by the tax bill until it is disposed of.

Mr. PRUYN. How about messages from the Senate?

The SPEAKER. The Chair intended to refer to those first. Of course they will always be received.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Suppose a resolution is brought in to impeach the President?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule upon that when it is presented. It is not now pending.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not know, it may not come up from the committee now holding a post mortem examination of the preceding impeachment.

Mr. GARFIELD. Can business be done by unanimous consent.

3

The SPEAKER. It can, but a demand for the regular order of business will be an objection.

Mr. SCHENCK. Before going into the Committee of the Whole I move that the first reading of the bill for information, as it is printed, be dispensed with.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. ROBINSON. I wish to ask the Speaker when it will be in order to move a substitute for the bill covering only the points desired by

the House so we may be able to get away from here in reasonable time?

The SPEAKER. It will be in order at any time, but must be reserved until the committee has gone through with the pending bill. As it is a substitute for the bill, under the parliamentary law the original bill must first be perfected before the substitute can be acted upon.

Mr. ROBINSON. I would like to have the privilege of offering this sometime before the bill is perfected. The House may be three weeks in considering the long bill reported by the committee. It will never pass as reported, I apprehend.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will have an opportunity to offer his substitute at the proper time in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. ROBINSON. May I ask to have it read?

Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; it can be offered in Committee of the Whole at any time. I now move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. The bill has not yet been referred to the Committee of the Whole. It is yet in the House.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Why not consider it in the House as in Committee of the Whole? The SPEAKER. Experience has proved that a bill of this kind can be proceeded with more rapidly in Committee of the Whole than in the House, where the yeas and nays can be called on every proposition.

Mr. ROBINSON. I move to recommit the bill. I presume that would take precedence of the motion to refer.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] still has the floor.

Mr. SPALDING. I desire to state that I withdraw my objection to the introduction of the resolution offered a little while ago by the gen tleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CovODE.]

Mr. INGERSOLL and others called for the regular order.

Mr. SCHENCK. As the regular order is insisted upon, of course the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania cannot be considered. I renew the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. ROBINSON. I move to recommit it with instructions to report the substitute I have indicated. I believe I made the motion to recommit after the gentleman from Ohio had surrendered the floor.

The SPEAKER. In the first place the gentleman is mistaken in the fact that the gentleman from Ohio had resumed his seat. In the. second place the motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole has priority over the motion to refer to a standing committee.

Mr. SCHENCK. I demand the previous question on the motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. ROBINSON. I will not press my mo tion further. I wanted to save time.

The previous question was seconded; and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that when the House shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the internal tax bill all general debate terminate within say one hour.

Mr. MUNGEN. On that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused.

The motion of Mr. SCHENCK was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and proceed to the consideration of the internal tax bill.

The motion was agreed to; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, (Mr. BLAINE in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the

bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, I think it propable that all the time I shall claim of the House will be less than that limited by its order. I think I can make all the explanation I desire to submit in less than an hour. The committee of Ways and Means have instructed me to report the bill now before this committee for consideration, which has been framed in direct obedience to the orders of the House. By the resolution of last Monday the committee was instructed to report only that which related to the revision of the tax upon distilled spirits and upon tobacco. Two days afterward there was sent to the committee from the House an order to include in the bill and report such changes as might be deemed necessary in relation to the tax on banks. The title of the bill which is now before members in conformity with those orders explains just what the bill contains. It is "A bill to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks."

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that we have had to report a bill such as this. I am sorry that this House thought it necessary to call on us to present only some partial and piecemeal work in connection with the revision of the internal tax system of the country. It is but| adding one more act to the quarter of a hundred which now cumber the statute-book upon this subject. Fdoubt the policy of these partial attempts at a revision admitted on all hands to be generally needed, and I was never more convinced that we ought not to have undertaken our work after that manner than when I came to consider the effect of the bill which we passed in March, and which on the 31st day of that month in the present year received the approval of the President-a bill to exempt certain manufactures from tax. If that bill had not been passed a general revision of the tax system would undoubtedly have taken place. But I see now in different directions in this House gentlemen who were eager for the passage of that special legislation who fell away from us as soon as they had accomplished what they particularly desired, a relief of local and special interests in which they felt the most immediate concern. And so, I fear, it may be hereafter. I fear that when gentlemen shall have accomplished an amendment of the law in regard to internal taxes, so as to make some reform in the system so far as distilled spirits, tobacco, and banks are con cerned, we shall find many of them growing indifferent to any further reform embracing the general needs of the country upon all subjects which present objects of taxation. I am sorry on another account. I do not wish to revive an old controversy, nor to say anything which shall not be in perfect good temper; but the Committee of Ways and Means thought they were not particularly well treated before by this House, and the House, as the committee predicted, has gained nothing by the course which it has pursued.

The first instance upon record, perhaps, is exhibited of a committee of this House, deemed generally to be one of the most important, after they were half way or two thirds of the way through with the consideration of an important bill in Committee of the Whole, stopped by an order of the House, and the committee not even permitted to explain, in a few minutes allowed for that purpose, the condition of the bill, their views in regard to it, and what might or might not be the best policy of the House, until they obtained that privilege by filibustering for it, and then not except upon the condition that they should do it after a vote had been taken and when gentlemen had committed themselves on the question, and not then except upon the further condition that they should be replied to without opportunity of response by those who desired the House to take that course. It was predicted then that nothing

would be gained. What has been gained? I think that if we had gone on through all the past week, from Monday until Saturday, with such opportunities as we could have had, we should, by this time certainly, as the committee predicted, have gone through with the whole matter of distilled spirits.

Mr. BUTLER. I rise to a question of order. This debate is not germane to the bill, and does not explain its provisions.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair cannot prescribe a line of debate to the chairman of the Committtee of Ways and Means.

Mr. SCHENCK. I thank the gentleman for his anxious desire to have this matter fully understood. The committee then said it would probably take that week, and we are still of that opinion. And in obedience to the orders of the House, we now report upon these particular subjects. The length of time that will yet be occupied will depend upon the disposition and temper of the House to take up and press forward in good faith, according as we can agree upon the special provisions contained in the bill now under consideration, all that relates to the tax upon these articles.

But there was another reason assigned then, to which I wish now to call the attention of the House, and it is my duty to do so, why we ought not to have given the go by to, ought not to have thrown aside the greater portion of the original bill over which we had gone in order to confine ourselves to distilled spirits and tobacco only. That reason is to be found in this: throwing aside the work of the Committee of Ways and Means, which had been already revised by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, we threw aside provisions made for such an addition to the revenue of the country that we are very much afraid now that the revenue may fall short of the wants of the country.

Mr. BUTLER. How much short?

Mr. SCHENCK. I will tell the gentleman. If there be retained in the present bill the additions made to the tax on banks, an increase of one half of one per cent. per year on deposits, three per cent. upon public moneys deposited with them, and an addition which the committee now propose of one per cent. per annum upon the circulation, the whole together will make an increase of taxes amounting to about three million seven hundred thousand dollars. The average deposits of Government moneys I have ascertained are about twenty-three million dollars, which, at three per cent., will give $690,000. An increase of one half per cent. upon the average deposits of other moneys, of $538,000,000, will give $2,690,000, and there will be an increase of over a million dollars from the additional tax we propose upon the circulation of the banks. If that be retained in the bill, and I am told it is doubtful whether such will be the disposition of the majority of the Committee of the Whole, for it is said the House was surprised into adopting the order giving the Committee of Ways and Means authority to include banks in this new bill-if that be retained there will still be a loss by not adopting the other portions of the old bill of about twelve million five hundred thousand dollars, as we estimate it after the most careful examination.

For instance and this is the principal itemby the bill which has been thrown aside for the present, we put dealers, wholesale and retail, particularly wholesale dealers, upon the same footing with manufacturers, and required them to pay, not one tenth of one per cent., as under the present law, but one fifth of one per cent. upon their sales above $5,000 per annum. That alone would make a difference of about eight million dollars. Then when you add to that what is lost by not putting an increased tax upon lotteries, brokers, insurance agents, lawyers, jewelry, pianos, fire-arms, public amusements, &c., the whole together, exclusive of the increased tax on banks, amount to about twelve and a half million dollars. We regret,

on that account, that we should be confined to

this tax upon distilled spirits and upon tobacco, even if we include the tax on banks.

There is another thing which it is properand I am instructed by the committee to do so I should call to the attention of the Committee of the Whole. Under the absolute instructions of the House we have felt constrained to confine ourselves to that which, directly or indirectly, relates exclusively to the tax upon the articles embraced in this bill. In doing this we had necessarily to abandon a large portion of the general bill which we would gladly have held on to as a part of a system, all dove-tailed together, which we had attempted to adopt as a general revision of the present tax laws.

For instance, we had a provision that there should be a division of labor in the office, or the department of internal revenne, whichever it might be. I throw aside the question now whether it should or should not be an inde pendent department; for I confess it seemed to be the opinion of the House that it should not be an independent department. We had provided for a division of labor, which would have resulted in much more efficiency and security in the proper execution of the law.

We had also provided for a strict accountability for money and stamps, running through several sections of the bill, all of which is now lost; and there remains the same old loose system under which I am surprised there has not been more fraud and loss than really there has been.

Then, again, we had provided seizures should be made hereafter with the consent of the col lector and assessor, and upon a division of opinion between them, under the umpirage of another and a superior officer, so there should not be oppression of the tax-payer by arbitrary seizures to the extent that now occurs.

We had also a section which did away, to a great extent, with that loose system of compromising which now prevails, and hedged round the power to make these compromises, and limited the exercise of functions' in that direction, on the part of the Commissioner, by restraints which would have prevented so much license as now prevails in that direction.

We had a provision against drawbacks; and I will call the attention of the House particularly to the fact we proposed to have a supervision in the different judicial districts of the collection of taxes under the authority of the collectors and assessors, and of their conduct and the conduct of all inferior officers in connection with their duty, and to dispense with the roving officers which infest the country in all directions.

We had proposed to break up the whole sys tem of authorizing the collector or assessor to be sent from his district into another district to make seizures at his will, and usurp the functions of the local officer; and we had also done away with that old system so fruitful in the vicious practice which has heretofore and will still exist if the old system continues of appointing special agents and roving inspectors to traverse the country, seizing right and left, levying black mail, and imposing generally upon the people of the country, while they profit more than occasion, by their services, to be paid into the Treasury.

We did not believe we had the right to insert any of these general provisions; and I make these preliminary remarks for, though the committee felt itself restrained from inserting such things in the bill, if the House gets along smoothly and it is able to agree to that now reported, the committee may feel it to be its duty to move separately some of the features of the old bill along with this, so as to make the collection of the tax, on even these articles, effective.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I hope the gentleman will let me ask him a question. Do I understand the Committee of Ways and Means, who reported this bill, are opposed to it, and believe the machinery provided in this bill and in the general law is insufficient for the purpose collecting this tax?

of

Mr. SCHENCK. We are by no means opposed to the bill, and if gentlemen will not think it a vain assumption I think we have reported still a good bill. But I think the bill, being taken out of even a better system and leaving out certain provisions which would have made it still more effective, can hereafter be made more effective if the Committee of the Whole is willing to concur with us in reporting some provisions in regard to the subject. For instance, the matter of which I spoke last. We will propose, outside of this tax to which we were directed to confine our attention, to have ingrafted upon this bill a provision, if the Committee of the Whole think proper, to sweep away some sixteen or seventeen hundred offi cers on roving commissions and have a more rigid system of supervision.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I think, Mr. Chairman, from this statement it is idle for the House or the committee to go on attempting to perfect this bill if after all it is a fragmentary, incomplete system, and I am rather of the opinion it is better. Now if the Committee of Ways and Means do not feel itself justified in reporting this as a perfect system as far as it goes, to recommit the bill now so as to have the Committee of Ways and Means devise a perfect system for the collection of the tax on distilled spirits and tobacco. It seems to me the consideration of the subject requires the consideration of the machinery in connection with the tax, whatever the system may be. I should be sorry to go on with this bill, and before we adjourn be compelled to consider another bill containing a system for the collection of the tax we levy in this. If we are in that condition I think we ought to take some other steps.

Mr. SCHENCK. It is due to the Committee of the Whole that I should go further in my explanation. My friend from Massachusetts was not here, I think, when that order was made. The order, it will be remembered, was imperative. By a majority of ten the House instructed the committee to bring in a bill confining our report to these particular subjects. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I think we have presented a bill which will, to a very great extent, remedy the abuses and provide against the evils of the present system, while regulating at the same time the tax upon those articles which are the special objects treated in the bill. But because we did not feel authorized to introduce one or two other special matters of regulation, because they do not pertain particularly to whisky and tobacco, we have prepared one or two amendments, which at the close of the bill we shall submit to the committee for their adoption or not, which we think will bring some of this machinery to the aid of the bill we have reported. But, with that exception, I think it due to the House to say that while we think we have a bill reasonably perfect, we do not wish to be understood as claiming all the responsibility of this bill. This is not a bill of the Committee of Ways and Means. It is the best bill we could make up under the instructions of the House, and we wish gentlemen to be advised that we expect them to share with us any imperfections there may be in the bill for want of its covering the ground generally. And I suppose by their votes they are willing to do that.

Now, sir, these are no new views. These are just what were in substance the remarks made at the time the committee were instructed; and with all due deference to the gentleman from Massachusetts, and to others who take a different view, we were not directly, as we thought, met upon these grounds. We were more or less jocularly and with more or less propriety, as gentlemen might so regard it, characterized as a mutual admiration society," and we were upbraided with certain views that some of us had given on other subjects. But so far as the views we submitted to the House were concerned, I beg leave to say there was not much of argument in reply to the argument or statement we made. Itis true it was said with some ingenuity that we had taken six or seven

months to prepare a bill, and it must be expected that gentlemen in the House would want six or seven months, or, at all events, some considerable time to consider it. I recollect the gentleman from Massachusetts went so far in his arithmetic as to say that the whole of the next short session added to the present one, according to his view, would hardly be sufficient to dispose of the bill.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] thinks I am not representing fairly his objections made at that time. I think I recollect them very well. I think we were treated to a sort of arithmetical problem, that if it took so many months to prepare a bill, it|| must necessarily take a great deal of time to consider it in the House, a great deal more for the Senate to consider it, and so it would consume more time than the remainder of this session, so that he really thought, admitting his premises, that he had made out a clear case that we should not be able to finish it before the 4th of March next. We were not allowed an opportunity to reply, but I thought at the time that we might have said to the House that it by no means followed because so much time was taken in the preparation of the bill that anything like the same proportionate time must necessarily be occupied in considering the bill in the House. I have always thought that just in proportion to the labor and care and assiduity with which a bill is prepared and sought to be perfected in committee, does it stand a chance of requiring less time in the House. However that may be in other cases we have had an example in this House of the readiness on the part of a great many of us to follow the lead of the committees of managers and other important committees of this House, and, under the previous question, have manifested so great a confidence in their work as to take what they offered us even almost entirely without debate, yielding our judgment to theirs.

Now, we had asked nothing of this kind. We had gone regularly into Committee of the Whole, examining the entire work of the Committee of Ways and Means, section by section, and clause by clause, with the fullest and freest opportunity for amendments. And yet we are thought to have been extravagant in our expectation that that would have been in some degree satisfactory when we have seen that in other important cases, and with other committees, a very different rule has prevailed.

But, sir, I have been by interruptions betrayed into saying a great deal more on this subject than I had intended. My desire was simply to apprise the House that abandoning for the present, at least, the general system dovetailed together, by which we had sought to fuse into one law the twenty-five laws you have now on the statute-book, under the order of the House we have selected the two or three matters segregated from the rest of that long bill to which the House seemed willing by its vote to turn its attention and did the best we could with it. But we desire to explain that before we are through with the bill, we shall probably feel it our duty to advise the House, that if they will accept one or two amendments, which will bring something of the machinery to which I have adverted into this bill to go in connection with it to the country, it will not only be to the benefit of the revenue system at large, but will particularly aid in that portion of it to which we have been required to confine ourselves in the bill reported.

What have we done on those subjects to which we have been directed to confine our attention? I ask the attention of gentlemen now while I explain in a plain conversational manner just what they will find to be the provisions of the bill.

The first subject, distilled spirits, we have treated of by introducing with some revision all or a large number of the minute details to enforce obedience to the law and the collection of the tax which gentlemen will find in the original bill from which we have taken, having

recently prepared them, those provisions. Then on the subject of the tax itself we have agreed, after discussion, to settle down upon a recommendation to the House to make the tax a direct tax on distilled spirits of sixty cents a gallon. In connection with this we have provided that the payment of that tax shall be at the distillery warehouse. We have provided, as gentlemen will find as they follow the sections, that there shall be no removal of spirits from the distillery without the payment of this tax, except in four specific cases which are the only exceptions. That is, it may be removed for direct exportation; it may be removed to be redistilled into alcohol, that alcohol being for exportation; it may be removed for manufacture into medical preparations and compositions, as provided under the present law in section one hundred and sixty-eight, and returned under bond to be exported; and it may be taken out of bond to be used in this country by scientific associations and colleges for the preservation of objects of scientific interest and curiosity. This last is a part of the present law. Gentlemen, perhaps, have not known how much alcohol is used in that way, but I believe some forty or fifty thousand gallons at least were used during the last year. They have used more than twenty thousand gallons at Professor Agassiz's museum alone.

These, then, are the only removals that can take place from the distillery without payment of the tax, and with the exception of one of them, the use of alcohol in scientific institutions, every such removal is connected entirely with the transportation of the article abroad. It may be laid down, therefore, as a general proposition that the tax we propose is sixty cents a gallon paid at the distillery, and no removals can take place from the distillery warehouse to the export warehouse for any other purpose than for exportation. There is to be no removal, as we had at first in the original bill thought of proposing to the House, from an export warehouse for any consumption in this country.

Mr. GARFIELD. Before my colleague [Mr. SCHENCK] leaves this point, I wish he would explain fully the particular reason for adopting the rate of sixty cents per gallon rather than fifty cents, or any other sum. I do not know but there may be some principle involved, which leads him to adopt sixty as the specific number, or perhaps it was merely an arbitrary choice."

Mr. SCHENCK. I have no objection to answering that question, although it is perhaps infringing a little upon the right of the Committee of Ways and Means not to expose its action. My own particular reason was this: I had satisfied myself that if the tax was put as low as fifteen cents per gallon it would crowd out this illicit distillation of molasses and prevent general illicit distillation in the country by making it unprofitable; and if seventy-five cents per gallon was not low enough for that purpose, I felt satisfied that some ten or fifteen cents lower in the rate of taxation would merely accomplish that result. For one, therefore, I was willing, if I must fall below seventyfive cents, to go at least as low as sixty cents per gallon.

There may be gentlemen here in the House who are of opinion that we ought to have gone down to fifty or twenty-five cents per gallon in order to stop illicit distillation. Without going now into an argument on that point, I will simply say that comparing all the authorities on the subject, the information obtained from distillers, traders, revenue officers, and persons disconnected with either of those, but having some knowledge of the operation of the former law-putting together the information derived from many hundreds of these persons, with all the communications received upon the subject, amounting to cords of manuscriptthis was my general conclusion. I do not know that I can make my answer any clearer. It was not arbitrary; it was not a piece of mere guess work. It was a decision in which the members of the Committee of Ways and Means