could concur; dividing between those who would go lower and those who would have the amount higher. This was a decision in which we all could concur, as one which would be likely to accomplish a great reform and break down the whisky frauds about which we were all so anxious.

But we did not suppose that sixty cents direct tax would be a sufficient burden upon this article that ought to contribute so largely to carry on the operations of the Government. If we therefore put it at sixty cents, lessening the temptation to fraud, bringing under the eye of the law more distinctly, so that it might give microscopic observation, beyond what could be done when there was a broad tax of two dollars per gallon, with all the efforts made to accomplish frauds under a tax of that kind, we thought we ought not to confine temptation to only one point, but should scatter it, so that the temptation being made small at one point, and at another, and another, and another, yet by the aggregate taxes at those points we should make it something on the average like what that article ought to pay.

Leaving the direct tax, then, at sixty cents, we come next to the consideration of what special taxes should be imposed upon distillers, to make up the aggregate contribution toward the wants of the Government. We propose that every distiller who distills fifty barrels or less in a year, shall pay $200 as a special tax, and four dollars as a further special tax upon each barrel above the fifty barrels.

Gentlemen will find that provided for in section sixty-five of this bill. It is the same system which we had introduced in the general bill; but we have modified it in this respect; instead of imposing a special tax of $1,000 upon every distiller who makes two hundred barrels or less a year, we have brought it down from two hundred to fifty barrels or less, so as not to crush out altogether the small distilleries in Kentucky, Tennessee, or elsewhere, where they make few barrels in a year and that of a superior quality. The principle is the same, four dollars per barrel, only the starting point is set lower down.

In the same way we propose that every rectifier who rectifies two hundred barrels or less in the course of a year, shall pay a special tax of $200, and fifty cents additional for each barrel above the two hundred.

We have put a tax of twenty-five dollars upon the compounders of liquors. We have divided retail dealers, those who sell any less quantity than a quart of liquor to be used at the place where sold, and have classified them so according to their sales they shall pay twenty-five, fifty, one hundred, two hundred, or one thousand dollars, upon the principle that the man under the Astor House, New York, or the St. Charles, New Orleans, or elsewhere, who sells $10,000, or even $100,000 of liquors in this way, shall not be left off like the little retail dealer on the cross-roads, who keeps one of the groggeries of the country.

Upon wholesale dealers we have increased the tax on sales. We charge each wholesale dealer $100 to begin with, and then three per cent. upon all his sales above $3,000 per

annum.

We charge the manufacturer of stills fifty and twenty dollars for each still or worm that he manufactures, and thus by a specific tax upon him and a special tax upon his trade, we will realize a considerable amount never before obtained from that source.

Mr. INGERSOLL asked a question which was entirely inaudible at the reporter's desk. Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; we propose a special tax on whisky.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Suppose the wholesale dealer sells for exportation a thousand barrels ? Mr. SCHENCK. If he takes his liquor from the distillery warehouse to the export warehouse, in bond and with all of the securities provided, and sends it out of the country, then of course it escapes tax; but if it leaves the distillery warehouse and becomes free

whisky upon the market, it must stand the tax on sales, and all the other taxes.

I must go back and repeat my original explanation. Direct tax is collected at the distillery, and whisky, when it comes from the distillery warehouse, must be taxed, except in those particular instances where it is intended for exportation or preserving specimens in museum jars.

tation under which such large frauds have been committed. But while we take care not to make it too low, and yet to make it low enough in regard to each particular mode of taxation, by scattering it over the whole prod uct in all its various stages, this is as low as we could get a combined tax that would produce something like a sufficient revenue.

Now, as to the other question, how we ascer tain the quantity of spirits, I wish the gentleman would have saved me the labor of going over several sections by having read the bill itself. He would have found in the first place that we cast around the production of the liquor such safeguards as have never been before placed around it, so as to prevent any of it from escaping from between the worm of the still or the receiving cistern and the distil

We have in the bill, as gentlemen will find, strict provisions. Unless notice is served of their stopping, they are to be taxed as if running all the time. They are by law considered always running unless it is otherwise made to

appear.

One thing more. They pay two dollars a day when they do not run as a sort of tax for having a distillery which may be used.

These, then, are the three modes of taxing distilled spirits: by direct tax, all sorts of specific taxes on distillers, rectifiers, manufacturers of stills and worms, and a tax upon the capacity of the distillery to mash and ferment.

As to what amount we can collect under this system of taxation by repeated calculation I cannot make any revenue less, with any due enforcement of the law, from this source than from sixty-five to seventy millions a year.

Mr. BUTLER. What is the tax per gallon on whisky taking all these direct and specific taxes together?

Mr. SCHENCK. It is very difficult to say. The special tax of four dollars per barrel will amount to about ten cents per gallon. We have computed the barrel to contain forty gallons of proof. Then there is sixty cents to be added to that, making seventy cents. Then we cannot tell how much the tax on sales will amount to per gallon, because of the difficulty of applying it to the retail dealer and the difficulty of making the calculation between the price of the liquor and the percentage put upon that price. We have no statistics showing the prices at which the sales are made, but only the aggregate sales. But I suppose some twelve or fifteen cents will be added in that way per gallon. Then if you add the other special tax I presume the whole tax upon the liquor, spread out in this way, will amount to something over a dollar per gallon. It may amount to more, but I put it at what I suppose to be the lowest estimate. I think the aggregate of this tax will exceed a dollar a gallon.

Mr. MYERS. I desire to ask the gentleman a question, or rather two questions. In the first place, how, by the system proposed, will you be able to ascertain how many gallons the tax is to be assessed upon? Are you to ascertain it by a meter, or how? In the second place, if the system of the capacity be so good as the gentleman seems to think-and I am glad to know that he entertains that belief-why may it not be a proper mode of assessing the tax altogether? First, how do you propose to ascertain the proper tax and prevent fraud, and second, why may not the capacity system be enlarged so as to cover the whole tax?

Mr. SCHENCK. I will answer the last question first. Our object has been not to make the tax upon any particular branch of production so high as to renew the old temp

out to the warehouse without the tax being paid, and it is to be proved to be paid by a stamp to be attached to the barrel.

Then for a further security we have provided that in making up the account of what is produced at the distillery there shall be certain calculations always made by the assessor, and every distillery shall be presumed to have produced so much in proportion to the amount of grain or mash that has been used. That is another security, all of which will be better explained if the gentleman will take the trouble to refer to the sections on that subject.

Mr. MYERS. One question further. I have read that part of the bill, and the gentleman is explaining to us what we all may here read. But I want to know whether the system does not provide for meters at the expense of the Government?

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir; we have provided that the Government may adopt meters, hydrometers, saccharometers, or whatever may be deemed necessary for the enforcement of the tax, and whatever is adopted shall be at the expense of the Government. We have done that in order to take away what may seem to be a reasonable complaint by distillers of the imposition practiced upon them in having had to deposit a very considerable amount of money and wait till it is determined how much they shall pay for a meter they are required to use. We have also followed out the same principle in regard to storekeepers, as we explained once before to the committee, that they shall be paid by the Government hereafter and not by the distiller; so that, unlike the present whisky inspectors, they shall not be the slaves and bondmen of the distiller himself, but shall be under the direction of the Government, to be removed from place to place like any other officers, and not permitted to grow fast like attachments and fixtures in the distillery, as much belonging to the distiller as any other part of his apparatus.

Now, I have spoken of the mode of payment, which is to be by stamps. The committee, after examining a great number of plans and suggestions, finally provide in their bill for a stamp, and after having determined what kind of stamps should be used they procured the execution up at the Treasury Department of specimens so as to satisfy the House that such a system is practicable. All the stamps are to be put up in this form, [exhibiting a number of stamps bound together in book form.] Every collector who receives such a book is to be charged with the value in money of all the stumps and the stamps attached to them. Here is a book of stamps for forty gallons and a fraction-between forty and fifty gallons. A man has forty-seven gallons of whisky on which he pays tax. You cut off one of the stamps, which is forty gallons, and then seven of the coupons, which are between the stamp and the stump, and then the forty-seven gallons of whisky exactly are paid for, and the collector is charged with forty-seven gallons for which he is presumed to have received the money, and he is only credited on his return of the book with as many coupons as remain attached to the stump. We have had a series of experi ments performed at the Patent Office by which

it is ascertained that these stamps may be put upon a smooth surface of wood with an adhesive substance and covered with a transparent varnish, so as to prevent abrasion or destruction by water, and that engraved stamp will be evidence that the whisky sold has paid the tax. If whisky is found traveling without such evidence of course it is to be presumed to be whisky with the tax unpaid.

Some gentlemen may say here that the committee acted, perhaps, a little partially in this matter as between Mr. Clark, of the Treasury Department, and other persons. I desire to explain that this is not the invention of Mr. Clark, or of any other person; but it is a combination of ideas first agreed upon by the committee before any engraver knew anything whatever about it. Then an engraver was called in to see whether he could execute such a stamp according to the ideas of the committee. This is another portion of the system

man whether it would not be practicable for the committee to propose amendments by which whisky on hand in bonded warehouses shall be subject to a duty additional to the sixty cents per gallon, which shall substantially meet the requirements of the case?

Mr. SCHENCK. That may possibly be done. But then there is another thing to be considered: there is very little honest tax-paid whisky out of the bonded warehouses now already manufactured; and in the endeavor to do justice to the Government and as between individuals by putting an additional duty upon that which is in bond you would at the same time confer a great benefit upon those who are holding illicit whisky, whisky the tax upon which they have defrauded the Government out of, which whisky is outside of the bonded warehouses.

I do not know that there is any other matter connected with this article of distilled

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. CHURCHILL.

ORDER FOR EVENING SESSIONS.

Mr. SCHENCK. I now ask unanimous consent that after to-day and until the tax bill, now in Committee of the Whole, be disposed of, the House shall hold evening sessions, taking a recess daily from half past four until half past seven o'clock.

Mr. HARDING. With the understanding that no other business but the tax bill shall be considered.

The SPEAKER. No other business can be transacted except by unanimous consent. Mr. KERR. I object.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose indicated.

The rules were suspended; and the order'

upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Each of these stamps-the specimens that I now exhibit-has a hole through it and a thin piece of tissue paper upon the back of it, the whole being engraved together, as upon one sheet of paper. It will adhere to the wooden surface of the barrel, so that it is impossible to take the stamp off without tearing the tissue paper and revealing that the stamp has been removed; so that it cannot be transferred from one barrel to another.

These are things which are left, of course, to be carried out in the administration of the law. All that the committee undertook to satisfy themselves of was that such a thing was practicable, and then to provide that those charged with the administration of the law should adopt something of the sort.

Mr. STEWART. Can the gentleman state the number of gallons of whiskey now in bond and upon which no tax has been paid?

Mr. SCHENCK. It amounts at this time to between twenty and twenty-five million gallons. Mr. STEWART. One other question. Mr. SCHENCK. It is a little over twentyfive million gallons. It has been increasing lately.

Mr. STEWART. If the bill as reported by the Committee of Ways and Means is passed will not the owners of those twenty-five million gallons of whisky have a monopoly of the trade in whisky at a tax of sixty cents a gallon, while that hereafter made will have to pay a tax of a dollar a gallon?

Mr. SCHENCK. We have made a provision in our bill, as the gentleman will see, that every gallon of this whisky shall be taken out of bond, and the tax paid upon it in one hundred days. That settles the matter at once, so far as the payment of the tax upon that whisky is concerned. But there may be some advan tage to those men who hold whisky free from this special tax, for that is what I suppose the gentleman refers to.

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHENCK. That is a matter, however, which we cannot help. Every change in the law benefits somebody and injures somebody.

Mr. STEWART. Will not this change benefit the whisky ring?

Mr. SCHENCK. It is impossible to do anything with the law without treading upon some one's toes and helping others, though it may not be intended. That was one of the reasons why I was very reluctant to give up the twodollar tax. I think in many cases there is more harm done by frequent changes of the law than by adhering to the law, though that law may not originally have been the best that might have been enacted. But as we finally determined to change, and come down to a lower rate of taxation, we concluded that we would make the complete change at once. And I know of no way in which we can prevent some persons from getting some benefits, and some persons from suffering some injury, in the transition from one law to another. Mr. BOUTWELL. I would ask the gentle

will

now submit a few words of explanation in relation to the article on tobacco.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time assigned by order of the House for general debate has now expired. The bill will now be read by sections for amendment.

The first section was read, as follows

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be levied and collected on all distilled spirits on which the tax prescribed by law, has not been paid, a tax of sixty cents on each and every proof gallon, to be paid by the distiller, owner, or any person having possession thereof; and the tax on such spirits shall be collected on the whole number of gauge or wine gallons when below proof, and shall be increased in proportion for any greater strength than the strength of proof spirit as defined in this act; and any fractional part of a gallon in excess of the number of gallons in a cask or package, shall be taxed as a gallon, Every proprietor or possessor of a still, distillery, or distilling apparatus, and every person in any manner interested in the use of any such still, distillery, or distilling apparatus, shall be jointly and severally liable for the taxes imposed by law on the distilled spirits produced therefrom and the tax shall be a first lien on the spirits distilled, the distillery used for distilling the same, the stills, vessels, fixtures, and tools therein, and on the lot or tract of land whereon the said distillery is situated, together with any building thereon, from the time said spirits are distilled until the said tax shall be paid.

Mr. VAN WYCK. I move to amend the first clause of this section, which provides for the tax per gallon on distilled spirits, by striking out "sixty cents" and inserting "fifty

cents."

Mr. INGERSOLL. I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] will consent that

the committee now rise.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have occupied so much time in explaining this bill, that I am willing to move that the committee now rise, and will then submit to the House the question whether they will or will not have night sessions after to-night.

The motion that the committee rise was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BLAINE reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union pursuant to the order of the House had had under consideration the

Union generally, and particularly the special order, being House bill 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, and had come to no resolution thereon.

*

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate having proceeded in pursuance of the Constitution to reconsider the bill entitled “An act to admit the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress," returned to the House of Representatives by the President of the United States with his objections, and sent by the House of Representatives to the Senate with the message of the President returning the bill, have resolved that the bill do pass, two thirds of the Senate agreeing to pass the same.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, informed the House that that body had passed a joint resolution (H. R. No. 264) to provide for the sale of the site of Fort Covington, in the State of Maryland.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill (S. No. 536) for the relief of Elizabeth Carson, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

CAPTAIN CHARLES N. GOULDING.

Mr. COBB. I ask unanimous consent to report back from the Committee of Claims Senate bill No. 251, for the relief of Captain Charles N. Goulding, late quartermaster of volunteers.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I object.

Then, on motion of Mr. INGERSOLL, (at five o'clock p. m.,) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees:

By the SPEAKER: A remonstrance of R. McKechnie, president, and John Collins, secretary, inclosing resolutions of National Typographical Union, against the proposed copyright law.

By Mr. DONNELLY: A memorial of William L. Banning, D. W. Ingersoll, John L. Merriam, and others, citizens of St. Paul, Minnesota, for the improvement of St. Mary's river and St. Mary's ship canal; also, a similar

memorial from the Chamber of Commerce of St. Paul, Minnesota.

By Mr. ELIOT: The petition of Richard Borden and others, citizens of Fall River, Massachusetts, praying that the collector of customs at Fall River may have an increase of salary.

By Mr. HUMPHREY: A memorial of the cigar manufacturers and dealers in Buffalo, of the internal revenue tax on cigars. New York, remonstrating against the increase

By Mr. KETCHAM: The petition of Buchanan & Fogg, of New York city, contractors for carrying the United States mail on route No. 6435, asking for increased allowance for such services.

By Mr. LINCOLN: The remonstrance of W. H. Baldwin and others, of Watkins, New York, against an increase of the tax on cigars.

By Mr. PRICE: The petition of 326 citizens of the States of Missouri and Iowa, asking for a grant of land to aid in the construction of the Iowa and State Line railroad.

By Mr. TWICHELL: The petitions of bookbinders and printers of Boston, Massachusetts, representing that the productive interests of the country are suffering and its industry paralyzed for want of protection against the cheaper labor and capital of foreign coun

tries; that customs duties, which were sufficient under a high gold premium to create and foster manufactures, have become inadequate and must shortly prove ruinous; that much of the distress now prevailing would be relieved by the legislation suggested in the report of Special Commissioner Wells, as perfected in the tariff bill passed by the Senate, which failed in the House March, 1867, and praying that Congress will resume consideration of that measure and enact it into a law at the earliest practicable moment.

IN SENATE.

TUESDAY, June 23, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. E. E. S. TAYLOR, D. D., of Brooklyn, New York.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. YATES presented a memorial of Darnielle & Grout, and others, cigar manufacturers of Alton, Illinois, praying Congress to authorize the use of revenue stamps instead of inspectors' stamps, and to retain the tax on cigars at five dollars per thousand; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HOWARD. I present the petition of Charles Foster and numerous others, soldiers of the war of 1812, living at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in which they say that the soldiers of the late civil war have been rewarded with a munificence unexampled in the history of nations. They received, in most instances, bounties hitherto unheard of; liberal pay and sufficient clothing from the Government. Cities, counties, and States vied with each other in contributing to their comforts, and the nation did immortal honor to itself in thus rewarding its gallant defenders. But they ask how it is with the soldiers of 1812? They did not receive one cent of bounty; the volunteers provided their uniforms, the officers their side arms, and the militiamen their clothing at their own expense. They were not paid till four or five months, or even a longer period, after the Government alleged they were discharged; whereas the soldiers of the late war were paid when discharged in par money, while those who served in the war of 1812 received depreciated Treasury notes for their services, and the privates only eight dollars per month. They pray, therefore, that the surviving officers and privates of the war of 1812 may receive pensions and be inserted upon the pension-roll. I move that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Pensions, and I venture to call the special attention of the committee to this eloquent memorial.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BAYARD. I present the petition of William Notson, M. D., and others, citizens

of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania,

who state that in order to encourage the volunteers and militia to prompt and energetic action, and as an act of justice to the survivors of the war of 1812, all who served in that war, whether as soldiers or sailors, or were actually engaged in action, and the surviving widows of any who have died, or who may hereafter die, should be placed on the pension-roll of the United States, it now being fifty-three years since the termination of the war, while the soldiers who served in the revolutionary war with Great Britain were placed on the pension-roll in 1818, being only thirty-five years after peace was declared. I move the reference of this petition to the Committee on Pensions.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CHANDLER presented a petition of B. Wilkins and twenty citizens engaged in the business and commerce on Lake Superior, asking a grant of lands for the extension of the Portage Lake and Lake Superior ship-canal to Keweenaw bay; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN presented the petition of George C. Hutter, formerly a paymaster in the United States Army, praying to be

relieved from the payment of certain money deposited by him in banks in the so-called confederate States, and seized and used by the confederate government; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 768) concerning the rights of American citizens in foreign States, reported it with amendments.

Mr. FERRY presented the petition of Linus Parmelee, a soldier of the war of 1812, pray: ing to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I, in common, I think, with every other Senator here, have received a petition which purports to come from citizens of the county of Philadelphia, residing at Chestnut Hill, in the State of Pennsylvania, which represents what my honorable friend from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] read, and is signed by fifteen or twenty persons, none of whom I know, and none of whom, according to the statement in the petition, are soldiers or widows of soldiers of the war of 1812. do not know anything as to the authenticity of the petition; but inasmuch as the right of petition is sacred, I will assume that it is authentic, and move that it be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

The motion was agreed to.

I

Mr. CATTELL presented a petition of citi zens of Philadelphia, praying that pensions be granted to the soldiers and sailors of the war of 1812, and the widows of such as have deceased; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. SHERMAN. I present a petition of citizens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pray. ing that pensions be granted to the soldiers

and sailors and the widows of soldiers and sailors in the war of 1812, similar in character and place of paternity to those presented by other Senators. I move that this petition be referred to the Committee on Pensions. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I present a remonstrance of between seventy and eighty noncommissioned officers and soldiers of the Army stationed in this city, setting forth the fact that they have been residents of this city for more than a year, and residents of the fifth ward of the city for more than three months, having no other residence, and no right to vote anywhere else than in the city of Washington; that without a hearing or an opportunity to establish their rights their votes have been denied them at the recent municipal election; and that a bill recently passed by the Senate cuts them off from a proper hearing to establish their right. They therefore present their petition to Congress, that they may have

hearing before this body. I suppose it is proper that their petition should go to the I move that reference. Committee on the District of Columbia, and

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON presented the petition of Anna R. Voorhees, widow of Commodore Philip F. Voorhees, United States Navy, praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred

to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. POMEROY presented a petition of Joel Hyatt, praying for compensation for property taken for the use of the Government; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. SUMNER presented a petition of Thomas Symmes, praying for an honorable discharge from the United States Navy; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, it was

Ordered, That the petition and papers of Lizzie R. Smith be withdrawn from the files of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. SUMNER, from the Committee on

Mr. FERRY. I am instructed by the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 530) relating to patents, to report it back without amendment, and with a recommendation that it pass. I desire to call up this bill for its passage at some time this session at as early a day as possible. I therefore call the attention of Senators to it.

Mr. CORBETT. I offer the following resolution, and ask its present consideration:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill securing the right to Indians in such manner that they may testify in cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, &c., as between whites and Indians.

There being no objection, the Senate proIceeded to the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. CORBETT. I desire to state that I hold in my hand a letter from an Indian agent in Idaho Territory, setting forth a case of murder wherein an Indian was murdered by a white man, and where the case was tried in the court there twice, and the white man was acquitted in consequence of the Indians not being allowed to testify. I desire to submit the letter with the resolution and call the attention of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to the case.

The resolution was adopted.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. STEWART asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 564) for the relief of Hulnigs Cowperthwaite and Enoch H. Vance, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to intro duce a bill (S. No. 565) to authorize the Secretary of State to adjust the claim of Gustavus J. Cushman for office rent while commissioner under the reciprocity treaty; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 566) to authorize a bridge to be constructed between Boston and East Boston; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. WILSON. I move that the bill be

referred to the Committee on Commerce; and

I will simply say to the chairman of the committee that the Legislature of Massachusetts have authorized the construction of a bridge, and this is to see whether Congress will sanetion the act. I call his attention to it, without committing myself in any way to the measure. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

ELECTION OF SENATORS. Mr.-EDMUNDS. If there be no further

morning business I move to take up Senate bill No. 538, relating to the election of SenIt will pass without any objection, I

ators.

suppose.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the honorable member permit me to say, before the bill is taken up, that I have received a note from my colleague [Mr. VICKERS] stating that he is very much indisposed, and is detained from the Senate in consequence of it at his residence in Maryland. He hopes to be here in a few days.

The motion of Mr. EDMUNDS was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 538) in addition to an act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in

Congress. It provides that whenever any person shall have been elected a Senator in Congress, in the manner provided in the first section of the act to which this is an addition, and shall have died or shall die, or refuse to accept the office, before the commencement of his term of office and during the session of the Legislature by which he shall have been chosen, then the Legislature is to proceed, on the second Tuesday after it shall have notice of such death or refusal, to elect another person Senator in Congress in the manner provided in the first section of the act to which this is an addition.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill with an amendment, to strike out in lines five and six the words "or shall die;" ia line six to add the letter "d" to the word "refuse;" in line seven to strike out the words "and during the session of," and in line eight to strike out the words "by which he shall have been chosen as aforesaid, then said Legislature;" so as to make the bill read:

That whenever any person shall have been elected a Senator in Congress, in the manner provided in the first section of the act to which this act is an addition, and shall have died or refused to accept said office before the commencement of his term of office, the Legislature shall proceed, on the second Tuesday after it shall have notice of such death or refusal, to elect another person Senator in Congress in the manner provided in the first section of the act to which this act is an addition.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was not here when the bill was reported by the honorable member from Vermont, and I am not certain that I know what its contents are. I rise, therefore, to ask him whether it takes from the Executive of a State, where a vacancy occurs during the recess of the Legislature, the authority to appoint.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Of course not.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask that in reference to my own State, as our Legislature meets only biennially.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The bill is only intended to provide for an omission in the present. law; so that if a vacancy happens by the death or declination of the person elected if the Legislature have not yet adjourned they may proceed to elect and fill it. It does not interfere with the executive power of appointment as it now exists.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. Mr. DAVIS. I ask for the reading of the bill as amended.

The bill, as amended, was read.

Mr. DAVIS. I would suggest one difficulty in relation to this bill. If the Legislature of the State is not to convene in its regular or adjourned session until after there shall have been a session of Congress, and of the Senate, it would be a very great expense and inconvenience to convene the Legislature expressly to make such an election.

Mr. STEWART. It does not require that. Mr. DAVIS. It does from the reading of it.

Mr. STEWART. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. It provides that the election shall be made by the Legislature.

Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me?

Mr. DAVIS. Let us have the bill read again.

The bill, as amended, was read.

Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senator from Kentucky be kind enough to tell me whether there is any precedent or authority under which the Governor can appoint to fill an office of which no person has ever been the incumbent? In other words, if a Senator-elect dies or declines before he receives his office, so that in truth he was never in it, can the Governor fill that vacancy?

Mr. DAVIS. I have not examined that question; but the statement of the Senator does not reach the objection I made at all. I understand this to be the provision of the bill: whenever there is not a Senator in the cases provided for by it, by reason of death or dec.

lination of the Senator-elect, then, within a certain time, and a short time after the Legis lature shall have received notice of the death or declination, it shall proceed to another election. If the Legislature is not then in session, it must be convened for that purpose according to the requisition of the bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Allow me to correct my friend from Kentucky.

Mr. DAVIS. I may not comprehend, as I am informed I do not, the provision of the bill.

I have been asking for a copy of it, and I cannot get it. If I were to read it probably I could understand it. But that is my comprehension of the meaning and effect of the amendment adopted as in Committee of the Whole, and if I understand it correctly I think that is a conclusive objection to the measure.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend from Kentucky is entirely mistaken as to the meaning of the bill as amended. It provides that where a Senator-elect shall die or refuse to accept, the Legislature at a certain time after it shall have notice of that fact shall proceed to elect again. Now, I will suggest to him that if such a fact should occur during the recess of the Legislature, the Legislature could not by any possibility have notice until they inet. The bill does not call on the Governor to convene an extra session or do anything else. It says that when the Legislature of the State have notice that an office which they have once filled will fail, because the person whom they have elected has declined or died, then they shall go on and elect over again. That is all it provides. It is a mere omission in the present law. It does not require the Legislature to meet, but if they are met and receive notice they shall act.

Mr. DIXON. Will the Senator allow me to suggest an amendment to this bill which possibly may obviate all difficulty?

66

27

Mr. EDMUNDS. There is no difficulty now. Mr. DIXON. I would insert after the word Legislature" the words "if in session.' That will meet the objection. I understand that now the law does not provide for any new choice in the case of the death or refusal to accept of the person elected. The Senator says the Legislature cannot act unless in session, because they cannot be informed unless in session. Then why not put in the bill the words if in session?"

Mr. EDMUNDS. The objection to that is that it would make the law, if my friend will pardon me for saying so, appear almost ridiculous on the face of it. The idea of a Legislature, which is a corporate body, which has no existence as a Legislature until it is met in its hall, being spoken of as a Legislature having notice if in session, as if it were possible that it could have notice otherwise, is a species of law making that I for one would prefer to be excused from going into. The bill is not open to any dispute, when you look into it, now.

Mr. DAVIS. If the amendment is intended to have the meaning just expressed by the honorable Senator from Vermont, it is certainly worded, I think, with a good deal of infelicity. The bill, as amended, provides

That whenever any person shall have been elected a Senator in Congress

I should say "to Congress" myself; I would point that out as one of the infelicities of the bill

in the manner provided in the first section of the

act to which this act is an addition, and shall have died

I will confine it to that casebefore the commencement of his term of office, the Legislature shall proceed, on the second Tuesday after it shall have notice of such death, to elect another person Senator in Congress.

I understand from the honorable Senator that the Legislature can only be notified when it is in session. If that be his meaning and the meaning of the bill, it might have been much better and more distinctly expressed. Every member of the Legislature, when the Legislature was in recess, might be informed of the death of the Senator elect, and a ques

tion might well be made then whether the Legislature had not been notified of the death of the Senator-elect, and whether, according to the literal provision of this act, the Legislature from some indefinite time, when each and every member of it had been notified through the newspapers of the death, would be required to convene for the purpose of electing another Senator.

I probably do not understand the provision as the honorable Senator who framed the bill intended; but I think it is his fault, and not mine. I do believe that the language is indistinct, vague, and very infelicitous, especially for a gentleman of the acumen and learning of the honorable Senator from Vermont. It ought to have been redrawn, and redrawn in better form. I think the honorable Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] ought to have this bill referred back to his committee, and he take up the pen and put it in shape. It certainly is a little obscure and a little difficult to understand in the language in which it reads.

Mr. DIXON. According to the construction of the Senator from Vermont, the bill only provides that the Legislature on receiving notice of the death or refusal to accept shall proceed to a new election, and he says that the Legislature cannot receive such notice unless it is in session at the time. On looking at the bill I think he is right. I do not see how a Legislature can be informed of a vacancy in the office of Senator unless that Legislature is in session. I suppose the object of this bill is to provide for a case which is probably omitted in the first law.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is it exactly.

Mr. DIXON. I have not examined the law; but it is certainly a great omission if that law has not provided for a second choice at the same identical session of the Legislature. I did not suppose such was the case; but I am told that under the law the Legislature becomes functus officio as to this function immediately upon having chosen a Senator, and cannot, in case of his death or refusal, elect another. This provides for that case, as I understand; and if that is the object the bill is perfectly proper.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is the whole purpose. Mr. DIXON. I do not say that it is not proper in other respects. Now, as to the Legislature receiving notice, some States have one mode of calling a session, and some another. In Connecticut, I think, the Legislature can only be summoned by the Governor unless they themselves provide for it by an adjournment. But I must confess, with that understanding, if that is the meaning of the bill, I see no objection to it, and I do not think it will be necessary to make the amendment that I suggested.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I desire to call the attention of the Senator having charge of this bill to a provision in the original law that acts very inconveniently for the Legislature of my State in its election of a Senator. We have two sessions each year, one for the purpose of organization in the spring, and the other in the winter for legislative business. The Legislature meets and organizes on Tuesday at the spring session, and has always adjourned each year on the following Friday, only using the week for organization preparatory to legislative business in the win

ter.

Now, by the provision of the original law they are required to meet on the second Tuesday after the organization, in the case of an election of a Senator, and recently they were compelled to adjourn over for two weeks, which was very inconvenient for our farmers. They desire to have an effort made to modify that act, so that the election shall be held on the Tuesday after the organization and meeting of the Legislature. Therefore, I suggest to the Senator from Vermont to allow an amendment to be made of this character: that when the Legislature of a State meets and organizes on Tuesday it shall be lawful to elect a Senator the Tuesday following. That would meet our case, and would not interfere, in my judgment, with the regular working of the law.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope my friend from Rhode Island will not offer or insist upon that amendment. This same subject was discussed when the law was passed two years ago, and the very large concurrence of opinions then was that the most satisfactory and feasible method was to adjust it in the way that the law did, on the second Tuesday after the meeting of the Legislature, which would carry it usually about ten or twelve days into the session. It was thought just and right, as a matter of political expediency-and I use the term in its appropriate, and not in its party sense-that members of the Legislature should have an opportunity to consult with each other as to the person whom they would honor by the appointment to represent their State, and therefore that the election ought not to be brought on immediately on the meeting of the Legislature. If you were to have it at an earlier time, say the first Tuesday after the notice, or the first Tuesday after the meeting, it might sometimes happen that it would be the very next day, or even the first Tuesday of the meeting, the very day; so that the more the thing was discussed two years ago the more it seemed proper that the law should be left as it was left in the statute. I know that in the State of Rhode Island it is somewhat inconvenient, but these elections only happen once in six years, and where the Legislature of Rhode Islandas I hope they may continue to do-go through so agreeable an occupation as they have recently in meeting again for the purpose of unanimously returning my friend, I am sure it ought to be rather a jubilee than a burden. I hope my friend will not insist on the amend ment.

Mr. DIXON, I beg leave to make one additional suggestion to those I have already made, and I ask the attention of the Senator from Vermont who reported the bill. This bill, it seems, is to provide for an omitted case, where the law provides for an election and the Senator-elect is supposed to have died or to have refused to accept. It strikes me, on a little further reflection, that although that may be called an omitted case, it does not leave the Legislature functus officio by any means. It is a case in which the Congress of the United States, having power to make rules and regulations with regard to the election of Senators, has failed to act at all. It is a case in which no law has been passed. That, I think, on reflection, is the situation of it. A Senator has been elected under a law of Congress in the supposed case. A vacancy occurs. There is no existing law of Congress. What then? Is the Legislature deprived of its power to elect a Senator? It can go on and elect a Senator under its own law and its own regulations, Congress having failed in that case to make a rule or regulation or alter a rule or regulation. I doubt whether Congress has the power to deprive the Legislature of the power to act in such a case as that.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I agree to all that. Mr. DIXON. Therefore, although I have no objection whatever to this bill, and I do not say that it is not proper, and that it may not be the best way to regulate it, still I do not think there would be an impossibility of action on the part of the Legislature in such a case.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I agree to that entirely. But the same reason which produced the original law ought to produce this completion of it. If the different branches of the Legislature were of different political views, they might be unable to meet but for a regulation which this act of Congress in 1866 was intended to provide, to cause the representatives of the State under the Constitution to meet and elect; and this bill is only a completion of that. I agree to the law that the Senator lays down.

Mr. DIXON. I understand the Senator to say that the Legislature would not be deprived of the power to act.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir; I say that. Mr. HENDRICKS. At first I thought this bill was not necessary; but there are one or two cases that may occur, not likely to occur,

perhaps, that are not provided for in existing laws, and as I examined the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary I could not see any serious objection to it. There is no danger of the Governor calling the Legislature together to fill a vacancy which he may fill himself. I do not think there is any danger of usurpation in that direction. Therefore, I thought it proper to support the bill, although the occasion for this legislation may not arise very frequently.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

SENATORS FROM ARKANSAS.

Mr. THAYER. I present the credentials of the Senators-elect from the State of Arkansas, Mr. Rice and Mr. McDonald, and ask that they be read, and the oath of office administered to them.

The Chief Clerk read the credentials, as follows:

STATE OF ARKANSAS, to wit:

The General Assembly of this State, assembled under the provision of section two of article five of the constitution as adopted by the convention on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1868, a copy of which is hereto annexed, having on the 15th day of April, A. D. 1868, in pursuance of an act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress," approved July 25, 1866, chosen Alexander McDonald a Senator of the United States for the term ending on the 4th day of Marc', A. D. 1871.

Therefore we, John N. Sarber, president pro tempore of the Senate, and John G. Price, Speaker of the House of Representatives, do hereby certify the same to the Senate of the United States. Given under our hands this 15th day of April, A. D. 1868.

JOHN N. SARBER, President pro tempore of the Senate. JOHN G. PRICE, Speaker House of Representatives.

STATE OF ARKANSAS, to wit:

The General Assembly of the State, assembled under the provisions of section two of article five of the constitution as adopted by the convention on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1868, a copy of which is herete annexed, having, on the 15th day of April, A. D. 1868, in pursuance of an act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress," approved July 25, 1866, chosen Benjamin F. Rice a Senator of the United States for the term ending on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1873.

Therefore we, John N. Sarber, President pro tempore of the Senate, and John G. Price, Speaker of the House of Representatives, do hereby certify the same to the Senate of the United States. Given under our hands, this 15th day of April, A. D. 1868.

JOHN N. SARBER, President Senate pro tempore. JOHN G. PRICE, Speaker House of Representatives. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Those gentlemen will advance to the desk

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I hold in my hand the credentials of two other gentlemen for the same office of a prior date. I will ask the Clerk to read them.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They will be read if there be no objection.

Mr. HOWARD. Before the reading of those credentials I should like to understand from the Senator from Kentucky what was the authority under which the credentials he has now presented were issued? Who are the men? By whom were they selected, and when?

Mr. DAVIS. The credentials upon their face will show that. They have been on file in the office of the Secretary of the Senate for two years.

Mr. HOWARD. I suppose the matter rests right here: that the two persons whose names are mentioned in the credentials just presented by the Senator from Kentucky are persons elected under the Johnson Government; under his proclamation of 1865. Is not that the case, I will inquire of the Senator?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, the papers, if read, will tell exactly how the fact is, and that will prevent any discussion of the question of their contents between the Senator and myself. I propose that the Clerk shall read them, that the Senate may be possessed of their contents, and I then propose to make a motion.

Mr. HOWARD. Indubitably the fact is as I stated, and therefore move now to lay

those credentials presented by the Senator from Kentucky on the table; and I call for the question.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is not a debatable motion. The rule is that when a paper is proposed to be read, if the reading is objected to it can only be ordered by a vote of the Senate; but the motion now is to lay the paper on the table.

Mr. DAVIS. I suppose there is no motion before the Senate except the motion to swear in the Senators whose credentials have been presented by my honorable friend from Nebraska. I move that the credentials which he offers and the credentials which were presented and received by the Senate two years ago, and which are on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, that that committee may report which class of Senators are entitled to be received.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on laying the papers proposed to be read on the table, and the motion is not debatable.

Mr. CONKLING. I rise to make an inquiry of the Chair. If these papers which it is proposed to lay on the table are before the Senate, they are offered, I take it, in connection with the other credentials or as a substitute; and I inquire of the Chair whether, if we lay them on the table, it carries the whole subject on the table or not?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair cannot determine that there is any connection between the two sets of papers. The motion, if it prevails, will carry the papers embraced in the motion to the table.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator from Nebraska moves that these gentlemen be sworn in, and presents the papers on which that act shall be grounded. The Senator from Kentucky offers other papers in connection with these; and now the motion is to lay them on the table. I should have some doubt, it seems to me, if I were in the Chair, if the papers were before the body, as I do not suppose they are, in holding that the motion to lay on the table could prevail without carrying the whole subject.

Mr. HOWARD. The Senator from New York will understand that my motion related only to the credentials offered by the Senator from Kentucky, and not to the others which have been read. Now, sir, if my motion to lay on the table is in order, I object to any further debate, and ask for a vote upon it.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, I rather think we are entitled to a ruling from the Chair, and to the opinion of the Chair, whether the gentleman objects to it or not.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York rose to a question of order. That is proper, but it is not debatable.

Mr. CONKLING. I rose for that purpose, and I beg to submit to the Chair a suggestion. In words the motion was of course confined to certain papers, which I submit are not before the Senate, and therefore not the subject of such a motion; but if they are, they are before us in connection with the credentials first presented, and I submit that the effect of the motion would be to carry all the papers on the table. I suggest, however, that the papers to which the motion of the Senator from Michigan applies are not before the Senate at all.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is im possible for the Chair to determine that there is any connection between these papers. We have not heard them; we do not know what they relate to. The reading of them is objected to. The Senator from Kentucky asks that certain papers be read; that is objected to; and we know nothing about any connection between them and other papers.

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise to a question of order. A motion is made to lay certain papers on the table. Any Senator has a right to have them read to know how to vote on the ques tion of laying on the table. He has a right to ask that the papers may be read so as to inform himself what they are in order to decide