same capacity, in 1862 he went into one of the hospitals as steward or waiter or in some position of that kind. He never served as a soldier. While about the hospital he was sent once or twice into the rebel lines and brought back contrabands, sometimes one thing and sometimes another. There was no evidence that he was regularly employed as a spy. This is to give him $1,000, when he was never in the Army as a soldier. He was there as a servant, not as a soldier. It will be unjust to those who did serve as soldiers to make this appropriation, and I hope it will be rejected. Mr. HARDING. The gentleman is mistaken.

His remarks do not apply to this man. There is nothing in reference to this man having been in the hospital. He has reference to some other man.

Mr. HAWKINS. I have reference to this identical man. There was a paper showing his connection with the hospital, but I do not know whether it is there now or not.

Mr. HARDING. We have the testimony of Major General Hunter and of other officers in favor of this man. I ask that the report be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. HARDING, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial and evidence of Walter D. Plowden, makes the following report:

That claimant, who was born a slave in Washington county, Maryland, emancipated in early life, found his way to the city of New York, and, in 1861, at the breaking out of the rebellion, accompanied the forty-third regiment New York volunteers as servant to Major White, surgeon of the regiment, into South Carolina.

After the discharge and muster out of Major White, with whom he had gained a large experience with the colored people and the troops on the coast, he was employed by Major General Hunter, then in command of the Federal forces at Beaufort and Hilton Head, as a scout and spy, and as a guide in various expeditions from the coast into the interior of the State.

In the spring of 1863 he was sent by night on a secret expedition, with a row-boat and eight colored men, up the Combahee river one hundred and thirtyone miles to the crossing of the Charleston and Savannah railroad, in the vicinity of the Pocotaligo, from which he returned in five days, reporting the condition of the bridges and trussel work, and the strength of the military guard of the enemy at that crossing.

Immediately following, he accompanied the wellknown expedition of Colonel Montgomery, thirtyfourth United States colored troops, against Pocotaligo, as a guide, which was successful in the destruction of the railroad bridge and the release from slavery and the service of the enemy of eight hundred colored men and a large amount of property, which were used by the United States Government. Soon thereafter, in May, 1863, he was sent on a third expedition as a scout and spy to the Coosawatchie river, with a boat and five colored men, with orders to cut the telegraph on the Savannah and Charleston railroad at Gardner's Corners, the crossing of the railroad over the Coosawatchie. This bridge was so strongly guarded that after several efforts, by night, to cut the wires, the attempt was abandoned, and the expedition was unsuccessful.

In June following he was sent up the Ashepoo with a boat and eight colored men, and was perfectly successful in setting the bridge of the Savannah and Charleston railroad on fire and burning it up. The rebel guard attacked his little crew in their flight, and they barely made their escape.

In July following he was sent up the Broad river with a boat and eight colored men, making progress by night, and scouting out into the country to the camps of the enemy by day, taking observations of the location and strength of picket posts, and the position of military forts and works of the rebels. He returned with all this information to General Hunter. Immediately thereafter he accompanied General Benham's expedition up the Broad river to Chisholm's Landing, as guide and spy. The force was four gunboats and a brigade of troops, which inflicted serious punishment for two days to the rebels, capturing prisoners and destroying military works and

materiel of war.

After his return from this expedition he was sent ten miles within the rebel lines from the main land at Hilton Head, and returned bringing information to General Saxton, by which he captured the rebel pickets on the next day.

In September following he was sent as foot spy to Bluffton, within the rebel lines, and returned with the information which led to its immediate capture by General Hunter. He accompanied the troops as

guide to Bluffton.

In December following he was sent as spy up Stono inlet to Waupo cut for information as to the condition of the rebel ram there building, and which was expected to come out of the inlet very shortly. On this expedition, for want of sufficient force to out-row the rebels, he was captured in his flight from Waupo cut, when he was almost within shot of the Pawnee the Federal man-of-war, to which he hoped to escape, lying at the mouth of the inlet.

1864, and closely confined, without food but just suffiHe was put into prison at Charleston, January 2

cient to support life, for more than fifteen months, and was released when General Sherman's army marched into South Carolina.

In this service he invariably reported to General Hunter, General Saxton, General Benham, or General Terry, and received nothing as pay except the necessary outfit of arms and subsistence.

The committee have carefully collected this history from Major General Hunter himself, from General 0.0. Howard, and from Chaplain Mansfield French, who was present and had knowledge of the circumstances here detailed.

At the time when this claimant was employed by General Hunter that officer states that he had not in his possession secret service money in order to pay him, and that he is well aware that he never was paid for the important services thus rendered.

Owing to his captivity the claimant lost his health and strength, and now remains broken and almost physically incapacitated from manual labor.

From these considerations, the committee recommend that a bill be passed for his relief, appropriating $1,000 in compensation for his services as scout and spy in South Carolina during the war for the suppression of the slaveholder's rebellion.

Mr. HARDING. I now ask the Clerk to read the letter of General Hunter.

The Clerk read as follows:

DEAR GENERAL: The bearer, Walter D. Plowden, a colored man from South Carolina, was in my employ as a spy when I commanded during the rebellion in that State. He was sent a number of times within the rebel lines, always bringing valuable information, until he was finally captured and detained as a prisoner. Plowden never received compensation for his services, and is now an applicant to Congress for remuneration. I do not know of any more just claim against the Government; and if you can assist him you will greatly oblige me, and confer a great favor on a very worthy man. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, D. HUNTER, Brevet Major General United States Army. General A. C. HARDING,

United States House of Representatives. Mr. HARDING. I demand the previous question.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 42, noes 42.

Mr. HOLMAN called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HOLMAN and Mr. HARDING were appointed.

The House again divided; and there wereayes 44, noes 51.

So the House refused to second the previous question.

Mr. HOLMAN. I move that the bill be recommitted.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HARDING. I move that the report be printed in the Globe.

The motion was agreed to.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. MARY HARRIS.

Mr. HARDING, from the same committee, also reported a bill (H. R. No. 1324) for the relief of Mrs. Mary Harris, of Oregon; which was read a first and second time.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay out of any money not otherwise appropriated the sum of $786 30 to the applicant, widow of George W. Harris, late of the State of Oregon, in her own right, for supplies furnished and services rendered volunteers in the Oregon Indian war of 1856.

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

Mr. HARDING 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.

B. B. FRENCH.

Mr. MERCUR, from the Committee of Claims, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1325) for the relief of B. B. French; which was read a first and second time.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to B. B. French, late Commissioner of Public Buildings, for service performed from the 2d to the 14th days of March, 1867, inclusive, for which he has not been paid, the sum of eighty-five dollars..

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Read the report.

Mr. MERCUR. There is a report, but I will state the facts in a word. On the 2d of March, 1867, Congress passed a law abolishing the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings, but no military officer was detailed to take charge of the office until the 14th of March. The Secretary of the Interior requested Mr. French to retain possession of it during that interval, which he did. The Secretary of the Treasury declined paying him for that service. This bill proposes to pay him for those twelve days' service. I demand the previous question.

Mr. MAYNARD. I raise the point of order that this contains an appropriation, and must receive its first consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HOLMAN. The objection comes too late.

The SPEAKER. The Chair rules that the objection comes too late.

Mr. UPSON. I desire to ask the gentleman what service Mr. French performed.

Mr. MERCUR. He took charge of the rec cords and continued to discharge the duties of the office for twelve days.

Mr. UPSON. I understand the duties were simply nominal.

Mr. MERCUR. He was requested by the Secretary of the Interior to retain possession, and he did, so far as he could, discharge all of the duties during the interval. The sum appropriated is a very small one, a meager pittance only, being the amount which his salary would amount to for so many days.

Mr. MAYNARD. It seems to me if the Chair will consider a moment his ruling, he will find that it prevents any bill from being sent to the Committee of the Whole, because if the point of order must be made before anything is heard on the subject of the bill no objection will be likely to be made. It is only after we have heard a bill explained a little that we must decide whether it should go to the Committee

of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman renews the point of order. The Chair again overrules it on the ground that the point must be made when bills are reported at the Clerk's desk. After debate has commenced, if it is only one sentence, it is to late. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MERCUR] rose to explain the bill, and proceeded some time before the gentleman made the point of order.

Mr. MAYNARD. I hope the previous question will not be sustained.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof, the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MERCUR 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.

ADVERSE REPORTS.

Mr. MERCUR, from the same committee, reported adversely on the following cases, and the same were laid on the table:

The petition of Howland Hemphill, for relief; The petition of James Crux, for compensation for property taken and destroyed by the Army of the United States;

The petition of Thomas H. Mules; The petition of John H. Garges; House bill No. 709, for the relief of Margaret Ward;

The petition of J. S. Jackson;

The petition of Mary G. Williams, of Cumberland county, Kentucky, praying for compensation for a horse pressed by the United States authorities; and

House joint resolution No. 76, for the relief of Gallus Kirchner.

ANTHONY BUCHER.

Mr. HARDING, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1326) for the relief

of Anthony Bucher; which was read a first and second time.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired.

EXCUSED FROM COMMITTEE SERVICE.

By unanimous consent, Mr. ROBINSON was excused from further service on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the Committee on the Expenditures of the Treasury Depart

ment.

ANDREW S. CORE.

Mr. MAYNARD, by unanimous consent, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported back with an amendment the bill (S. No. 522) to authorize the Commissioner of the Revenue to settle the accounts of Andrew S. Core.

The bill was read. It proposes to authorize and direct the Commissioner of the Revenue to settle the accounts of Andrew S. Core, late collector of internal revenue for the second district of Virginia, now West Virginia, upon the principles of justice and equity.

The amendments reported by the Committee of Ways and Means were, in line three to strike out the words "Commissioner of the Revenue is" and insert in lieu thereof the words "proper accounting officers of the Treasury are," and to make a corresponding amendment in the title.

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. MAYNARD. I will not take time to explain the facts. I will merely say that the Committee of Ways and Means were unanimous in the recommendation that the bill pass.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MAYNARD 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.

PUBLIC DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL BANKS. Mr. KELLEY. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to this House the amount of publie money on deposit in national banks at the end of each month from October 31, 1867, specifying the total amount so deposited at the end of each month and the amount in each bank at the same date. Mr. POMEROY. I object.

TAX ON MANUFACTURES.

Mr. BROOKS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1327) to amend an act entitled "An act to exempt certain manufactures from internal tax, and for other purposes," approved March 31, 1868; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

PURCHASE OF RUSSIAN AMERICA.

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the House some days since that after the tax bill was disposed of I should move to take up the bill appropriating money for the purchase of Russian America. The gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN,] one of the minority of the committee opposed to the passage of the bill, has been appointed by the Speaker to some service which requires his absence on Monday, and he desires that that bill may not be taken up until Tuesday; and, with the consent of the House, I should be glad that it may be postponed for his accommodation until Tuesday next.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. The bill is now in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and can only be reached by a vote passing over all the other business which has precedence. It has been said that the enemies of this bill intend to make factious opposition to it, and, if possible, pass it over until the next session of Congress. So far as I know anything on the subject they have no such intention. They desire to meet the question now, and to meet it upon its merits. As was stated by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I expect to be absent for a day or two, and as I understand from him that

he does not intend to call the previous question until those who are opposed to the bill shall have had an opportunity to be heard, I shall make no opposition to the bill coming up on Tuesday or on Wednesday; I would rather say Wednesday.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope Tuesday will be the day agreed upon, and for this reason: I hope on Monday next to be able to report from the Committee on Appropriations the deficiency bill, and I will ask that it be made the special order for Wednesday next. Therefore I hope it will suit the House to make the Alaska bill the special order for Tuesday.

Mr. PAINE. I desire to ask a question of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS. A proposition was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs by the House to consider the claim of the estate of Mr. Perkins, who sold a large quantity of powder, of the value of several hundred thousand dollars, to the Russian Government during the Crimean war, for which no payment was ever made. It was thought the duty of the Government of the United States to look after the claim of a citizen of the United States against, not a citizen of Russia, but the Russian Government. Although I have very little knowledge concerning the case, it seems to me it is but fair that the committee should look into that matter and report upon it to this House, so that we may know whether we are in duty bound in this matter to protect the interest of a citizen of the United States. And I would ask whether it is the purpose of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to present to this House at the same time, or before they present the bill appropriating money for the purchase of Alaska, a report on this claim of a citizen of the United States.

Mr. BANKS. It was the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs that the claim referred to by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] could not be offset against the money appropriated under a treaty, which treaty requires the payment of a stipulated sum and in a stipulated manner. And the representatives of the claim have presented to the committee a resolution the passage of which will be satisfactory to them. I think the committee will agree unanimously to report that resolution. I am willing to state, for the satisfaction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, that I will recommend the passage of that resolution; but I cannot agree to make it a part of this question.

Mr. PAINE. What I was most anxious for was a report as to the facts of the case. I do not know that I would vote for such a reso lution.

Mr. BANKS. A report of the facts will accompany the resolution.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I would inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] if he intends to call the previous question on the bill soon after it comes up?

Mr. BANKS. I do not; I desire to have the subject fully considered and discussed.

The SPEAKER. As the bill is now in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the previous question cannot be called on it until it has been reported to the House.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. What is the proposition now? To make it the special order for Wednesday or Tuesday?

Mr. BANKS. I ask unanimous consent that it be made the special order for Tuesday next after the morning hour.

Mr. ALLISON. If the river and harbor bill is disposed of before that time.

The SPEAKER. The river and harbor bill will take precedence if not disposed of by that time.

No objection was made; and it was ordered accordingly.

BLACK RIVER BRIDGE, OHIO.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I ask unanimous consent to report back from the Committee on Commerce House bill No. 1027, to authorize the construction of a bridge over Black river,

in Lorain county, Ohio, with a substitute. It is for an unimportant bridge over an unimportant stream in the State of Ohio.

No objection was made; and the bill was received.

The substitute was read. The first section provides that it shall be lawful for the county commissioners of the county of Lorain, State of Ohio, to build a bridge across the Black river, near the village of Black river, at the point where the county road leading east from the village crosses the stream; provided there shall be placed in said bridge a draw of not less than one hundred and forty feet in width, with a center abutment twenty-five feet wide and ten feet above the water line, having a passage on each side of the abutment of not less than fifty-seven feet in width, and so constructed as not to impede the navigation of said river, but to allow the easy passage of vessels through the draw. The second section reserves the right to alter or amend this act so as to prevent or remove all material obstructions to the navigation of the river by the construction of the bridge.

The substitute reported by the committee was agreed to.

The bill, as amended by the adoption of the substitute, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. EGGLESTON 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.

ELECTION CONTEST-SWITZLER VS. ANDERSON.

Mr. POLAND. I desire to give notice that on Monday after the morning hour I shall call up the report of the Committee of Elections on the case of Switzler vs. Anderson, from the sixth district of Missouri.

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE DISTRICT.

Mr. SPALDING. I give notice that at the first opportunity, after the river and harbor bill has been disposed of, I shall endeavor to bring before the House the two bills making appropriations for benevolent institutions in this District.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

Mr. DELANO. I call for the regular order. The SPEAKER. The regular order is the bill (H. R. No. 1046) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works, and for other purposes. The pending question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO,] to recommit the bill to the Committee on Commerce with instructions to report a substitute.

Mr. DELANO. I have made some slight modifications in my substitute. I ask the Clerk to read it as modified.

The Clerk read as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That the following amounts of money are hereby appropriated to be expended by the Secretary of War, under the advice of the Bureau of Engineers, for the repair and preservation of certain harbors. for the improvement of certain rivers, and for the protection of existing works of improvement from deterioration, and for such extension of the same and the continuation and completion of works under contract as the safety of commerce at their respective places may demand:

For the improvement of harbors on the northern lakes and for the St. Clair flats, $500,000.

For the improvement of harbors on the sea-coast, $150,000.

For the improvement of rivers, $1,300,000.

For the completion of reports, maps, and diagrams on bridges on the Mississippi river, $3,000, and for purchase and repair of instruments, $1,000, and for a survey for deepening the ship-canal at Sault Ste. Marie, $1,000.

And be it further enacted, That all work done under the authority of this act shall be performed under contract to be made with the Secretary of War, who shall prescribe suitable rules for issuing proposals for materials or labor, having regard to the most effective use of moneys hereby appropriated: Provided, That separate proposals and contracts shall be required in all cases when the same can be, in the judgment of the Secretary, judiciously and properly made:

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the - gentleman from Ohio to yield to me for five minutes.

Mr. DELANO. I will do so.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few remarks upon this bill and the proposition which has been offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO,] the more particularly as the remarks of my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] have -I do not say intentionally-tended to prejudice the House in reference to my position on this subject. I do not think I can better state my position than by reading a brief extract from the views which I have heretofore submitted as expressing the reasons of my dissent from the opinions of my colleagues on the committee. Before referring to that document I will say a single word. I do not deny that this bill proposes appropriations for many objects which I think meritorious and worthy the approval of the House. But I am opposed to the measure as a whole; and although it contains items in which my constituents have the greatest possible interest, items of the greatest possible merit, yet rather than consent that those meritorious propositions shall be used to carry through all the riff-raff in this bill, I will vote against the whole bill and take the responsibility before my constituents.

In the statement to which I have already referred I said:

The

"My first objection is, that there is no money in the Treasury to meet the amount appropriated by the bill, and I am opposed to borrowing money for the purpose of meeting appropriations which are not absolutely required for the public interest. amount appropriated and assumed by this bill is $6,150,500. With the reduction of taxes and the robberies of the revenue by whisky, tobacco, customhouse, and other rings, the receipts of revenue must inevitably fall short of the amounts appropriated by Congress, and the credit of the Government will be ruined, and we will be disgraced as a nation.

Though it is a bad time for the Government to extend this system of improvement of rivers and harbors, I am willing to make reasonable appropriations for continuing operations on works of national importance, and for harbors of refuge for the protection of commerce. Many of the items in the bill are for merely local improvements, and in which commerce has no general interest, and I am opposed to taking money out of the public Treasury for the purpose of benefiting particular localities, and which would be no benefit to the public at large."

I now wish to call attention of the House to what we are entering upon if we pass this bill. I wish the gentleman from Massachu setts [Mr. ELIOT] would tell the House the amount of appropriations which we are committed to by the passage of this bill. The second item in the appropriation is $40,000 for the improvement of the Wisconsin river. Now, General Warren estimates that to complete the work will cost from two to three million dollars.

But look down a little further. "For improvement of the harbor of Ontonagon, Lake Superior, $20,000." It will take $292,000 to complete that work, and we shall have another appropriation to make at the next session, and so on session after session clear through. Then we have "for improvement of Pere Marquette harbor, Michigan, $20,000.' It will take, according to the report of the engineer department, $385,000 for that.

But I cannot go through with all these items in five minutes. I wish gentlemen to look at the bill, and tell us if they can what they know about them. For instance, here is the harbor of Pere Marquette, in Michigan. Where is Pere Marquette? What interest have the people at large in making an appropriation of $20,000 for this harbor for a work which is going to cost $385,000? I believe there is scarcely a settlement at that place. We are appropriating money for a harbor for the benefit of parties interested and in which the public have no general interest at all. Again, where is Muskegon harbor? What do we know about that?

Mr. FERRY. Does the gentleman ask for information?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do.
[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. I propose to answer the in

quiries of the gentleman from Illinois as well as I can in the time allotted to me. He wants to know where the harbor of Pere Marquette is. Why, sir, in 1866 he had an appropriation in his bill for the harbor of Marquette, in the State of Michigan.

Mr. EGGLESTON. And voted for it, too. Mr. ELIOT. And the gentleman last year and the year before voted for an appropriation for that same point.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is the gentleman certain of that?

Mr. ELIOT. Will the gentleman deny it? He will find if he looks at the records that he reported a bill

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I want to know whether the gentleman refers to Marquette or Pere Marquette?

Mr. ELIOT. I did not undertake to interrupt the gentleman when he was speaking, and I do not propose to be interrupted myself. I see in that one-horse" bill which the chairman of the committee [Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois] has reported no principle upon which it can be justified. If there is no money in the Treasury then let the bill which the committee has reported be laid on the table. If there is no money, and nothing can be appropriated, then let us appropriate nothing. But in reference to the bill which the gentleman himself has reported, after long deliberation, from the minority of the committee, there is no theory upon which it can be defended that will not also justify the appropriations asked for in the bill which the majority of the committee has reported.

The gentleman says we are entering upon a course of large expenditure. Do we not all understand that that must necessarily be so, and that it was so when we first determined upon these works in the Thirty-Sixth Congress? Do not gentlemen understand that the policy of improving rivers and harbors in this country must involve the expenditure of a large amount of money? I say we ought, as one of the natural, proper, and regular expenses of the Government. to appropriate some three million five hundred thousand to four million dollars annually for these works for some years to come. We are met every year with this same opposition.

I agree now that the judgment of the House may as well be ascertained upon this proposition to recommit as to go on and debate the bill item by item. I do not propose to tell the gentleman from Illinois where Pere Marquette

harbor is until we come to the discussion of the bill in its regular order.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. He cannot tell.

Mr. ELIOT. I will tell the gentleman more than he knows; and when we come to the discussion of this appropriation, if I cannot defend it let it be rejected. I do not propose to take the bill up now and undertake in five minutes to defend it item by item.

Mr. FERRY. Will the gentleman allow me to answer the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] and tell him where Pere Marquette is?

Mr. ELIOT. Why, I suppose the gentleman from Illinois really knows; I suppose he knows something. [Laughter.]

Mr. FERRY. I can show him the locality of Pere Marquette, and the necessity for the expenditure.

Mr. ELIOT. Go on, sir, if you will take my time.

Mr. FERRY. I do not wish to take the gentleman's time, but at the proper time I will seek to answer the gentleman, and state to the House not only where Pere Marquette is, but show the necessity for an appropriation in order to keep up the works that have been started by the Government, and prevent the waste of the appropriations already made.

Mr. ELIOT. I believe that there is no appropriation called for here that is not needed by the general interests of commerce. The gentleman from Illinois has always been of the belief that he now is, as I understand from him

in his report, that appropriations ought not to be called for where local interests, and local interests only, are involved. I agree with the gentleman fully, and I will undertake; as far as I may, to satisfy the House on each of the items I have recommended that the general interests of commerce require that the appropriations shall be made. Whether we ought to spend one dollar now or postpone the whole thing is a question for the judgment of the House. In my belief it would be a policy most disastrous to the material interests of the country, and mainly of the West and of the Northwest, to postpone the work which has been commenced under the care and jurisdiction of the engineer department. Sir, I do not think that it can be needful for me to say more at this time on the general question.

Mr. PAINE. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the last word. I wish to reply more particularly to the remarks which have fallen from the lips of my friend from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.] I have in my hand his bill, reported by the minority of the committee. I am opposed to it. I am in favor of the bill now before the House reported by the committee. He tells us that he has within his own district, and in his own State, interests of the greatest magnitude which he would be glad to see fostered if they could be fairly and properly fostered by such a bill as this. But he is unwilling to ask Congress to gratify or benefit his constituents or the people of his State at such an expense to the country at large as would be involved in the other appropriations embraced in the bill of the committee; he is unwilling to saddle upon the country such an enormous expense, even for the purpose of securing for his own constituents and the people of his own State appropriations to which he believes them to be justly entitled. He is not willing that his claims, which he believes to be just, should carry so many claims which he believes to be unjust. Now, I ask the House to look at the bill reported by the minority of the committee, that is to say, by the gentleman from Illinois, and see how he is inclined to sacrifice the interests of his State and district in order to avoid overwhelming the country with the extravagant appropriations made by this bill. The bill contains, among others, twenty-two small appropriations for twentytwo harbors on Lake Michigan. They are cut down, some one half, some three fourths, some four fifths below the appropriations recommended by the proper officers of the engineer department. But when the gentleman comes in with his substitute, with his minority report, he omits twenty of those, notwithstanding they have been reduced one half or two thirds or more, and all of the twenty that he omits lie out of his own State. He puts in the only one that lies in his State, the harbor of Chicago, and he puts it in for the whole amount estimated by the board of engineers. Chicago stands in his bill for an appropriation of $48,000, the entire amount recommended by the chief of engineers in his first report, the highest amount estimated in any report.

Then, sir, if you turn to the other appropriations for his own State, you will find that he allows for operating dredge-boats on the upper Mississippi river $36,000; for the improvement of Des Moines rapids $100,000; for Rock Island rapids $100,000, and for the purpose of completing the reports, maps, and diagrams for bridges on the Mississippi river, $6,000. Now, I should like to know what interest of his constituents he has sacrificed for the benefit of the country? The fact is, that while he has cast off all the rest of us, this self-sacrificing gentleman has taken pains, in his substitute, the provisions of which will be practically carried out if the instructions moved by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] prevail, to secure every interest of his constituents, which he professes himself to be so willing and ready to sacrifice for the public good. Sir, I would rather see the virtue of economy exhibited in this House in some other direction and in some other spirit than that which will take away

everything which my constituents and the people of my State need and turn it over to the people of a State so well represented by that distinguished gentleman. I make no complaint of the gentleman for seeking to promote the interests of his constituents and of the people of his State; but I do find fault with him for undertaking to secure for his constituents, and for the people of his State, under the specious guise of a public economy, all that he wants for them, and at the same time strip from us all that we want and which we so imperatively need.

Mr. PILE. The precise question before the House, as I understand it, is the substitution of the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] for the bill reported from the Committee on Commerce. Now, I am opposed to any such substitution, and I rise to oppose the amendment for the purpose of making a few remarks on the general question.

I wish the House to bear in mind that the question before them is not the adoption of the substitute in whole, or the adoption of this bill in whole. If there are items in this bill which are not meritorious, and for which no appropriation should be made, then as each successive item comes up and the facts are stated it can be retained or stricken out by the House acting on the bill as in Committee of the Whole, according as the merits of each case may seem to require. And if it be true, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] says, that there are some items in that bill for which appropriations ought not to be made, as may be the case, he and other gentlemen can oppose them, and when the facts are stated the House can act upon them. But if the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] is adopted, and this bill is recommitted to the Committee on Commerce with instructions to report a bill in accordance with the substitute he has proposed, the effect will be to confine the committee and the House to the subjects embraced in that substitute when it is brought back into the House. Now, I want to know if the House cannot judge as well of each successive item in this bill as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] or the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE?]

But I have another objection to this substitute. It proposes to appropriate $1,300,000 for rivers and for Hell Gate; that is, for all the rivers of the United States; and leaves it discretionary with the Secretary of War where the appropriation shall be expended. Now, we do not know, judging from our experience in the past, who will be Secretary of War in one, two, or three months from this time. Every dollar of that appropriation may be expended upon some single work, in this or that locality, to the injury of public works now in process of completion, and which will be destroyed unless work upon them shall be prosecuted during the coming season. Cannot this House judge where appropriations are needed, and what amounts are required? And is it not far safer to discuss the different items

here and make the specific appropriations than to make in a single gross sum an appropriation for all the rivers of the country, leaving it to be expended here or there, its disposition to be affected by the influence and log-rollings that may be brought to bear upon the Secretary of War through the Bureau of Engineers. I think that this House, upon the information furnished by the Committee on Commerce, who have gone over this whole field and understand all the facts, ought to decide upon and designate specific appropriations for each public work, as the necessities of the case may require. We should not make one general appropriation; embracing the whole river improvements of the country, leaving that appropriation to be expended upon one or two works to the exclusion of all others.

I hope, sir, that the motion to recommit will be voted down. The Committee on Commerce have gone over this whole subject, and they have brought in a bill giving the items of appropriation-such a bill as they believe is required

by the country for the completion of works of improvement already in progress, and for the commencement of new ones.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BAILEY. I move to amend the substitute so that it shall read as follows:

One million dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys not already appropriated, for the preservation of public works commenced, for the improvement of rivers and harbors, and for the performance of contracts heretofore legally made by the Government for such works, which money is to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this amendment with an earnest hope that the House will adopt it. It seems to me the alternative now presented to us is this: either we must pass this bill with its appropriations to the amount of six millions and more, or we must mutually agree that the whole subject shall be postponed. On this point I fully concur with the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ELIOT.] I do not believe any other proposition can prevail. If this bill is postponed, my own State must suffer from such a course more, perhaps, than any other State; but unless we are willing thus mutually to give up what we want, we must pass the whole bill. I therefore say that we had better give up the bill. Most assuredly, sir, this House ought not to pass this appropriation of over six million dollars. The money is not in the Treasury. Every penny of every dollar of this $6,000,000 must be drawn from the productive industry of the country by taxation. In the present circumstances of the country there is absolutely no justification for any appropriation of money except under the plea of absolute necessity.

Sir, I am not opposed to internal improve. ments; I know how desirable many of these works are; but I submit that that is not the question now to be considered. Other considerations imperatively demand the attention of Congress and of the country. When we shall have reëstablished the material prosperity of the land; when we shall have restored the credit of the Government to its normal position, then, and not till then, ought we to undertake works like these. This is no time,

Mr. Speaker, to talk about liberality and generosity. There is no liberality, no generosity that wants the element of justice; and will any one tell me that it is at this time just to tax our people to the amount of six or seven millions for the commencement of works of internal improvement? No, sir; it is not just, and the people will never so regard it.

Now, I insist that, as a practical question, we must either pass this bill, embracing appropriations of $6,000,000, or we must agree to postpone the subject, and merely

Mr. EGGLESTON. The gentleman will

allow me to correct him. The bill does not appropriate $6,000,000.

Mr. BAILEY. It appropriates over six million dollars.

Mr. EGGLESTON. Only $4,580,000. Mr. BAILEY. I have not time to permit myself to be interrupted. I desire to ask members of this House when they intend to begin to practice economy? We are always willing to apply our economical principles to something indefinite, something not immediately before us; but when shall we apply them to an actual case? Here is a case in which we can, without injury to the public interests, save the country at least $6,000,000. Shall we do it? [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call attention to a statement made by Governor Seymour in his recent speech at the Cooper ing the Republican party for extravagance be Institute in the city of New York. In arraignmakes the following declaration, as reported in the New York World, which I hold in my hand:

Since the war closed in 1865 the Government has spent for its expenses, in addition to its payment on principal or interest of public debt, more than one thousand million dollars. Of this sum there has been nearly eight hundred millions spent on the Army and Navy and for military purposes. This is nearly one third of the national debt. This was spent in time of peace."

The charge thus brought by Governor Seymour is that in the three years that have transpired since the war closed our Army and Navy have cost us eight hundred million dollars, or at the rate of nearly two hundred and seventy millions per annum in time of profound peace. The statement is cunningly made with the evident purpose of misleading the public mind, for while it is quite true that the military and naval expenses since the close of the war have been eight hundred million dollars, it is absolutely untrue that they have been twe hundred and seventy millions per annum.

When the war closed by the surrender of Lee on the 9th of April, 1865, the armies of the Union bore the names of nearly a million mea on the rolls, and our Navy in its vast and widely-extended duty of blockading three thousand miles of coast, had nearly five hundred vessels in service, with a corresponding number of men. The first result of Grant's magnificent series of victories and final triumph over the rebellion was to muster out these countless hosts which had borne our standard with such glory on the land and on the sea. Months of pay were due to more than half the Army; the well earned closing bounty was due to all, and the sailors, besides their back pay, were to receive millions of prize money honestly their own. The vast and almost incalculable amount needed to be provided for these purposes must be had at once, and thanks to the patriotism and the wealth of our people it was had at once. I have this morning visited the Treasury Department, and by the official statements which I hold in my hand it appears that the disbursements for the Army and Navy for the one hundred and seventy-four days following Grant's closing victory amounted to six hundred and twenty-five million dollars. Hence it will be seen that more than three fourths of the eight hundred millions so triumphantly paraded by Governor Seymour as the War and Navy expenses of the past three years were really disbursed almost in one sum at the close of hostilities as the necessary expenses of mustering out our enormous military and naval forces. To supply this vast sum the current receipts of the Government were consumed, and the people directly advanced five hundred and thirty millions by subscribing that amount to the evermemorable seven-thirty loan.

Do Governor Seymour and his friends find fault with the expenditure thus incurred in mustering out the Army? Do they begrudge the soldiers their back pay and bounty, and the sailors their hard-earned wages and their prize money? If not, let them cease to attack the Republicans for promptly discharging the honorary debts of the Republic, for thus gladly paying the men who risked their lives to save

the life of the nation.

Six hundred and twenty-five millions of Governor Seymour's eight hundred millions being thus expended in mustering out the volunteers, his own figures show that the current and legitimate expense of both Army and Navy for the past three years of peace have been but one hundred and seventy-five million dollars, or a little more than fifty-eight millions per annum for both branches of the service. The Governor's figures thus reduced are not far from the truth, and they show a degree of economy quite unknown in Democratic times. Take the year 1858 for example, in the administration of Mr. Buchanan, and we find that the expenses of the Navy were fourteen millions, and of the Army nearly twenty-six millionsfor the two well nigh forty millions-and that was in gold, and with an Army and Navy of less numbers than have been deemed necessary for the security of the public peace during the past three years. Taking the difference in the amount of force and the fact that the expenditures of Mr. Buchanan's administration were in coin and the present expenditure in paper, it will be seen that the result shows strongly in favor of the economy of Army expenses as administered by General Grant. The Army to-day in fact costs much less per regiment in paper than it cost per regiment in gold under the