Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

with valuable cargoes have been sunk this fall at the very entrance, which, it is most probable, would have got in safely had this proposed pier been built."

Mr. POMEROY. The losses last year were twenty times what is asked to continue this extension of the west pier, which is absolutely necessary if the harbor is to be entered with any safety. I have seen there myself in a storm a single vessel come in when people would be out by the thousand watching it with as much anxiety as they would watch a runaway thief on the street.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. I move pro forma to strike out "$60,000" and insert "$55,000." I do it not only for the purpose of drawing attention to this proposition but to the one previously offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. VAN AERNAM.] In point of fact the committee some time ago took, under the direction of the House, the judgment of the Bureau of Engineers as to the lowest amount that could probably be called || for at this time in view of the present condition of the works under the charge of that bureau. It so happened that in regard to the place of which the gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN AERNAM] spoke, the report of the engineer was that nothing was wanted this year, and of course in the bill of the committee there was no appropriation made for that purpose. By subsequent information from the War Department it turned out that they were under a misapprehension, and they satisfied the committee that, instead of no appropriation being proper the one which was called for ought to be made, and it has now been put in the bill.

mine the other day for a harbor in my district,
on his own responsibility?

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I will say,
in answer to the gentleman, that I introduced
a resolution here at the beginning of the session
calling on the Secretary of War for informa-
tion with reference to this harbor, and the pro-
priety of making an appropriation for it, and
that there is an answer to that resolution on
our files.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will my friend vote for the omnibus bill if his amendment is put in?

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. you mean by the "omnibus bill?"

What do

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. This bill.
Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. Certainly
I shall vote for it. I am in favor of appropri
ations for these purposes.

Mr. WELKER. I have not had an oppor-
tunity of reading the report the gentleman
speaks of, and I want to know whether it rec-
ommends such an appropriation as this?

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. It does; an appropriation of $50,000.

Mr. WELKER. Then why did not you ask for that?

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. Because the committee would not give it.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I move to amend the amendment by increasing the amount $200, for the purpose of saying a word. If this subject had been presented to the sub-committee of the Committee on Commerce, at the time we looked over the other reports, we would have undoubtedly recommended this appropriation to the general committee. I am therefore authorized to say in behalf of the majority of the committee-of all of the committee, save one that this appropriation should be made. It has been recommended, as has been stated by the gentleman from New York, and I believe it should be made. I shall cheerfully vote for it. I now withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

The question was taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. VAN HORN, of New York, and it was agreed to.

The following was read:

For improvement of Plattsburg harbor, New York,
$10,000.
I move to amend by

Mr. GRISWOLD.

Now, in regard to this appropriation, I am sorry that it has been brought to the attention of the House, because I do not want to appear in the position of one who admits an appropriation to be enlarged. And I do not propose to assent to it; but I do propose to state what the facts are that influenced the committee in making up this bill and reducing the estimate from the War Department. Gentlemen who will turn to the report will find that $60,000 was asked for for Oswego, New York; but on examining the reports that were submitted to us from the War Deportment, and making up estimates from them, we found that the sum of $12,000, and a further sum of $25,000, making $37,000, should be applied, and not $60,000. The committee accordingly inserting the following after the paragraph just reduced the amount from $60,000 to that now in the bill-$37,000. Reports from the engineer department, which were subsequently furnished to the committee, showed that the amount called for, $60,000, was the lowest sum which, under the circumstances, in view of the wants of the port of Oswego, ought to be appropriated. The gentlemen from New York [Mr. POMEROY] has therefore proposed the amendment, and although I do not assent to it, yet I have stated the facts to the House in order that they may see what the case is, and that the amendment ought, in point of fact, to have been originally $60,000, and not $37,000. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

The question was taken on Mr. POMEROY's amendment, and it was agreed to.

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I offer the following amendment to come in at the end of line eighty:

For the improvement of the harbor of Wilson, Niagara county, New York, $10,000.

I will only say a word in favor of that amendment. I had not an opportunity at the proper time to present the amendment before the Committee on Commerce. I have, however, consulted with the committee and with the sub-committee, and all the members of the committee, I believe, except the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] have consented to this amendment. I therefore introduce it with the approbation of the committee, and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. WELKER. I would inquire of the gentleman whether any one has recommended an appropriation to improve this harbor, or whether he makes the application, as I did

read:

For improvement of harbor at Whitehall, New
York, $10,000.

[blocks in formation]

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. GRISWOLD; and upon a division there were-ayes 41, noes 40; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. ELIOT were appointed.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 49, noes 49.

The SPEAKER. The Chair votes in the affirmative, and the amendment is accordingly agreed to.

Mr. PILE. I desire to give notice that I shall call for a separate vote on this item.

The SPEAKER. Upon the engrossment of the bill any member can call for a separate vote upon each paragraph or item of the bill. The next clause was read, as follows: For improvement of harbor at Burlington, Vermont, $40,000.

Mr. BAKER. I move to amend by insert. ing after the clause just read for improvement of harbor at Alton, Illinois, $56,000." I will explain briefly the grounds upon which I rest this amendment. I offer it upon its own merits, without any connection or combination whatever with any other appropriations in the bill. I make no question but what it is as meritorious, as just, and as proper as various items of appropriation contained in this bill.

In consequence of obstructions in the Mississippi river a process is going on, and has proceeded already to a very great extent, by which the entire harbor of Alton is being choked up. Major H. C. Long has made a report, under the direction of the Secretary of War, brief extracts from which I will read, and which will indicate the nature of the difficulty. He says:

**

*

[ocr errors]

*

"Very serious apprehensions are entertained by persons competent to give an opinion in such matters, who have watched the operations of the Mississippi in the vicinity of Alton for several years past, that at any of the annual floods such changes in the current and general course of the river may take place as to entirely prevent steamboats from approaching the landing during ordinary and lowwater stages at least two thirds of the year, thus greatly injuring the commerce and consequent prosperity of the city." The dry bar A A (referring to a diagram published with the report) is about five thousand feet long by fifteen hundred feet in width, and nearly overlaps the head of the island below. It has been gradually working down stream, and it is feared that a connection will be formed with the island, and the water making its way behind both, the main body of the river and low-water channel will be permanently changed to the Missouri shore, the bar forced over toward Alton, and the city absolutely blockaded."

*

*

[ocr errors]

*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"This bar (BB) is encroaching rapidly upon the city landing, extending along its front and connecting with the main Illinois shore, until it has monopolized three fourths of the levee, entirely obstructing the low-water harbor for that distance.'

I offer that amendment because the harbor at Whitehall is, perhaps, as deserving of consideration in an appropriation bill of this kind as almost any harbor mentioned in the bill. It is at the head of Lake Champlain, through which passes all the commerce between the Canadas and New York which passes along Lake Champlain and the Hudson river; and it will compare in importance with the majority of the harbors included in this bill. It is eminently entitled to consideration, and I hope Island-the situation of the proposed dike is shown the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. ELIOT. I rise to oppose the amend
ment. In doing so I must say that while I
have no doubt that all the gentleman has said
of the point named in his amendment is cor-
rect, yet the Committee on Commerce, after all
that was stated by him, did not find that they
could with propriety give the appropriation
which he calls for. It is one of those cases
which have not been so much under the exam-
ination of the War Department, and about
which such surveys and recommendations have
not been made, as to bring it within the rule
adopted by the committee. Therefore, although
the committee would have been glad to have
acknowledged the correctness of what the gen-
tleman has said, yet the case does not come
within the rule prescribed, and it has therefore
been omitted by them. This appropriation bill
would have been doubled at least if the com-

mittee had not with all the power they possessed
kept it within such limits as seemed to them
proper, in view of the imperative demands of
the commerce of the country.

These extracts will indicate pretty exactly the state of the harbor. To remedy this dif ficulty he proposes the following plan:

"The proposed remedy is a stone dike across the head of the slough, near the upper end of Ellis's

on the sketch-and a wing-dam or breakwater at the head of the dry bar AA. The exact location of this work to be determined by the United States engineer at the time of constructing them, and also the height which it is necessary to raise them.

"It is believed that the combined action of these structures, by throwing the river over against and along the Illinois shore, will give a sufficient depth of water at all seasons of the year, and wash away the sand bar BB below the city, and from the strong and direct current thus produced have a tendency to modify the extensive abrasion going on opposite the mouth of the Missouri.

"At the locality last mentioned the Mississippi is rapidly encroaching on the American bottom, and working its way into a succession of lakes and bayous-old beds of the river-to such an extent that fears are entertained that the river will again pursue its course along the Illinois bluffs, and forsake its present channel in front of St. Louis."

The cost of this dike is estimated at $112,000. I have offered an amendment asking for just half the amount, assuming that the citizens of Alton will supply the balance. In recommending the appropriation Major Long says:

"I am not aware that Government assistance of this or any other sort has ever been extended to Alton, although for many reasons, arising from her geographical position, she may be entitled to it more

than other cities of greater pretensions, who claim and receive it.

Alton lies on the left bank of the Mississippi river, about twenty-five miles above St. Louis, and three miles above the mouth of the Missouri river. It contains nearly sixteen thousand inhabitants. The importance of the city trade and commerce may be understood by a reference to the report of Messrs. Dobelbower and Frick, the committee appointed by the Board of Trade to procure statistics of the business of Alton for 1867, from which it appears that the business of the city for that period amounted to $12.673,734, and that the revenue collected and paid to the United States during the year was $180,000. (See report of committee, Appendix B.)

"While reserving to myself the privilege of a more extended treatment of the subject, and perhaps different opinions relative to the causes opera ing to produce the results complained of, after careful and comprehensive surveys I have no hesitation, in view of the necessity of some determined action, in seconding the wishes of the citizens of Alton, by recommending the dike at the head of Ellis's Island as promising speedy and present relief sufficient for all practical purposes, and as an experiment that will be of value as a precedent in settling the many vexed questions relative to works of this character now agitating the public."

General Warren approves the report of Major Long. I will simply add that this is an improvement similar in principle to the improvements of some harbors upon the shores of our lakes, as for instance that at Oswego, where a pier is constructed for the purpose of deflecting the action of the water and preventing the sand from choking up the harbor. Here in this case a dike is proposed for the purpose of deflecting the action of the water and preventing the sand from blocking up the harbor. In the one case the improvement is made upon the shore of a lake, supplying several thousand miles of navigation; in the other case the proposed improvement is upon a river, also supplying several thousand miles of navigation. The principle appears to be the same with that upon which other appropriations in this bill are made. The case, in my judgment, presents as just a claim as these; and I therefore ask the House to sustain my amendment.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BAKER] has, I believe, on every proposition which has come before the House voted against this bill. He has voted to lay it on the table and to postpone it. All his votes have indicated a hostility to the bill which certainly does not, in my judgment, warrant that he should anticipate a very favorable reception for the amendment which he offers.

Mr. BAKER. The gentleman will allow me to correct him. I did not vote to lay the bill

on the table.

Mr. ELIOT. I thought the gentleman did. Mr. BAKER. I did vote to postpone the bill; I did vote for the substitute of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO ;] and I will add that I do not know why the rights or interests of my constituents should be prejudiced because I do not combine with the representatives of other interests on this floor.

Mr. ELIOT. I agree to that, and now as the gentleman has taken up quite enough of my time I will say a word as to the merits of his amendment. There is no such appropriation in this bill as that which the gentleman proposes. According to my recollection, no appropriation of a similar kind has ever been made. The gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] the chairman of the committee, informs me that there was once an appropriation of this character for Dubuque. If that is so, the case must stand alone. The appropriation now proposed is to make a harbor. It is not to improve navigation, but to benefit the town of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BAKER.] That town, it appears, is being injured by the water, and this appropriation is designed to prevent that injury. Now, sir, we do not propose to dig out any harbor in order that after vessels have got into the harbor they shall find sufficiently deep water. That is not the object of this bill. It is to improve harbors and to improve the navigation into harbors. The gentleman from Illinois brought this matter before the committee, and certainly there is no member on this floor whom personally I should be more desirous to accommodate than that gentleman. But for the considera

tions I have named-the importance of having this bill proceed upon a uniform and consistent principle and the necessity of keeping the appropriations within proper bounds-the gentleman's proposition would, I doubt not, have received more favorable consideration from the committee. But there is nothing in this bill to justify this amendment. It has no such claim to our approval as the appropriations contained in the bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will not adopt it.

Mr. CARY. I move that the House now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the House (at four o'clock and forty minutes p. m.) adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

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

By Mr. EGGLESTON: The petition of Andrew Althausen and others, workmen in the manufacture of chemicals at Cincinnati, Ohio, representing that the depression of the manufacturing industry of the country affects disastrously every form of production and business, and must reduce the revenues and endanger the credit of the Government, and praying for such increase of protective duties as will revive manufactures and restore prosperity to the country.

By Mr. PETERS: A remonstrance of George Stetson and others, of Bangor, Maine, against a reduction of the tariff on lumber.

Also, the petition of Mahala Jane Robertson, for relief.

By Mr. POLAND: A remonstrance of J. J. Esty and 120 others, of Brattleboro', Vermont, against the extension of Howe's patent on sewing-machines.

IN SENATE. MONDAY, June 29, 1868. Prayer by Rev. J. V. SCHOFIELD, of St. Louis, Missouri.

On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unaniSaturday last was dispensed with. mous consent, the reading of the Journal of

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. HOWARD presented the petition of Dr. Robert Lebby, praying a removal of the civil disabilities imposed on him by acts of Con. gress; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SUMNER. I present the petition of Professor Agassiz, of Cambridge, and a large number of others, professors of Harvard University, and also professors of the Institute of Technology in Boston, in which they plead that Congress take steps that the statute of the Legislature of California with regard to the Yosemite valley shall not receive the sanction of Congress. They say that it is inconsistent with the just fulfillment of the purposes of the original grant, and with an honest, patriotic pride; and they respectfully and earnestly protest against the ratification or confirmation by Congress of any conveyance of any part of the Yosemite valley by the State of California to individuals. I believe that this subject is under the consideration of the Committee on Private Land Claims, and I move the reference of this petition to that committee.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, presented a petition of citizens of Boston, Massachusetts, praying the passage of the House bill to encourage commerce and internal trade by facilitating direct importations; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. TRUMBULL presented a petition of citizens of Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania, praying that the survivors of the war of 1812, whether soldiers or sailors, and the surviving widows of any who may have died or who may hereafter die, may be placed upon the pensionroll; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

[blocks in formation]

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 415) to create an additional land district in the Territory of Dakota, to be called the Pembina district, reported adversely thereon.

He also, from the same committee, reported a joint resolution (S. R. No. 152) to extend the time for the completion of the West Wisconsin railroad; which was read, and passed to a second reading.

Mr. NYE, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Frederick Vincent, administrator of James Le Caze and others, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 580) for the relief of Frederick Vincent, administrator of James Le Caze, surviving partner of Le Caze and Mallet. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. THAYER, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 240) to amend section thirteen of an act entitled "An act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," reported it without amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 65) for the relief of William McGarrahan, reported adversely thereon, and submitted a report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 449) to revive and continue in force the act of the 29th of July, 1850, and the act amendatory thereof of the 2d of April, 1852, reported it with an amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. No. 522) to authorize the Commissioner of the Revenue to settle the accounts of Andrew S. Core, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

FUNDING OF PUBLIC debt.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to report from the Committee on Finance an amendment to be proposed to the civil or miscellaneous appropriation bill. I wish now to say to the Senate that this amendment, proposed by the unanimous vote of the Committee on Finance to be added to the civil appropriation bill, contains some important provisions in regard to funding the public debt. I submit it now, and ask that it be printed, so that their attention may be called to it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does it increase the appropriation?

Mr. SHERMAN. appropriation in it.

There is no item of

The proposed amendment was ordered to be printed.

INTEREST ON STATE BONDS.

Mr. MORGAN. If there be no further morning business, I ask the Senate to take up Senate joint resolution No. 94. This joint resolution was considered some time since, and

debated, and laid aside at the request of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. MORTON.] He has now, I understand, no objection to it, and I ask that it be taken up.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is very desirable that the bill relating to the removal of causes from the State courts to the United States courts should be taken up and passed to-day, if it is to be passed at all; but I presume this resolution will occupy but a moment.

Mr. MORGAN. It will occupy no time, I think.

Mr. SUMNER. I am very desirous to move an executive session for some fifteen or twenty minutes, in order to act on a certain matter. have a note from the Department of State in my hands expressing a great interest in a matter which is now pending before the Senate in executive session and inviting immediate action upon it.

Mr. CONNESS. That can afford to wait. There is no need of that.

Mr. MORGAN. I think we had better pass this joint resolution. It will take no time.

Mr. SUMNER. I will not interfere with the Senator.

The motion of Mr. MORGAN was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. R. No. 94) directing the Secretary of the Treasury, whenever any State shall have been or may be in default for the payment of interest or principal on investments in its stocks or bonds held by the United States in trust, to retain the moneys due to such States from the United States.

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution. Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not know that I understand the force of the resolution that is before the Senate. My impression is, however, as I heard it read, that it may, perhaps, affect some of the interests of the State of Indiana, and I should like to have it read again.

The Chief Clerk again read the joint resolution, as follows:

That whenever any State shall have been, or may be, in default of the payment of interest or principal on investments in its stocks or bonds held by the United States in trust, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to retain the whole, or so much thereof as may be necessary, of any moneys due on any account from the United States to such State, and to apply the same to the payment of such prinpal and interest, or either, or to the reimbursement of any sum of money advanced by the United States on account of such interest.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I hope that resolution will not pass without some further consideration. The Government of the United States holds some of the bonds of the State of Indiana, issued about the year 1836. She has, as I understand, withheld upon these bonds the per cent. which was due to the State of Indiana upon the sales of the public lands within that State. I never knew that it had been proposed before that any other claims the State of Indiana may have upon the Government for advances should be withheld from these bonds. The truth is that the Government of the United States ought to acquiesce in the adjustment of the indebtedness of the State of Indiana made between her and her creditors in 1846. This bill will make it impossible, perhaps, to secure such an adjustment between the State and General Government. I know of no present necessity for the passage of it. I do not know enough about the measure to say very much, but I think it is not called for.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, this joint resolution differs but in one particular from a law that was passed in 1845. Whenever a State does not pay the interest on its bonds in the possession of the General Government, and the Government is indebted to that State for any purpose, the accounting officers now feel authorized to retain, and do in fact retain, the money due by the State to the General Government; but inasmuch as the power to do that has been disputed, they ask for the passage of a measure of this kind. I send to the desk a letter from the Secretary of the Interior explaining the whole matter fully, and ask that it be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The letter will be read if there be no objection. The Chief Clerk read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 27, 1868. SIR: I have the honor to submit for the consideration of the Finance Committee the accompanying draft of a joint resolution.

It differs but in one particular from a resolution aproved March 3, 1815, (Statutes-at-Large, vol. 5, p. 801.) The latter directed the retention by the Secretary of the Treasury of moneys due to a defaulting State on account of the percentage of proceeds of the the public lands lying within her limits. This resolution makes it his duty to withhold any moneys due to such State from the United States on any account whatever.

The propriety of the original legislation has never been questioned. Its terms were limited, as at the time of its passage no moneys were due from the General Government to any State, except on account of such proceeds. It was in keeping with the provisions of an act approved September 4, 1841, (St. Id., p. 453) giving to certain States ten per cent. of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands within their respective limits. The fourth section provides that money due to any State on account of such proceeds should be first applied to the payment of any debt due and payable from such State to the United States.

Without such special provision it may be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, or of the accounting officers, in adjusting a claim by a State against the United States, to ascertain and withhold the sum due from the former to the latter. To relieve the subject of all doubts, I respectfully suggest, however, that a positive legislative direction in the premises, such as the joint resolution contemplates. should be given.

This Department is the depository of a large amount of overdue State bonds which the United States hold in trust for certain Indian tribes. The annually-accruing interest for many years was unpaid by the respective States, but was advanced by Congress from the Treasury.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 0. H. BROWNING, Secretary. Hon. JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman Finance Committee, United States Senate.

Mr. POMEROY. I think there must be some mistake in that letter. It speaks of a State receiving ten per cent. on the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. The largest amount ever paid to any State was five per cent. The Clerk either made a mistake in reading the letter, or the Secretary of the Interior made one in writing it.

Mr. MORTON. I think it ought to be provided in this bill that there shall first be an accounting between the United States and the State as to what funds or moneys may have been withheld from the State on account of interest due on its bonds, or as to what money there may be in the Treasury due to the State on account of the sales of public lands. It is my understanding that for a time what was known as the two or three per cent. fund which was due to certain western States through which the national road ran was withheld from the States and applied to the interest of their bonds held by the General Government. Whether there has ever been a formal settlement on the books of the Treasury of those accounts I do not know; but as a matter of justice such deductions should be taken from what the Government owes the States. For example, the Government owes the State of Indiana a large sum on account of advances made during the and before the gross amount is deducted from the interest on the State bonds held by the General Government there should be an accounting as to what may have been withheld from the State on account of the sales of the

war,

public lands to pay the interest on those bonds. In a little time I will prepare an amendment to that effect, and then I shall make no objection to the passage of the measure.

Mr. MORGAN. This joint resolution was laid aside three months ago for the same purpose.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is only proposed to be laid aside informally, to be called up again. Mr. MORGAN. Very well; if it does not lose its place I shall not object.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES FROM STATE COURTS. Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask that this matter be laid aside informally, and the Senate proceed to consider the bill (S. No. 402) for the removal of causes in certain cases from the State courts to the United States courts.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think that bill ought not to be taken up in the morning hour. It is

not that sort of business which can be disposed of in a few minutes. It is a bill which ought to be fully and carefully considered by the Senate, as it is important in its nature and general in its character. It seems to me that what we have of the morning hour, after disposing of the regular business, ought to be devoted to such bills as excite no discussion. This bill will take up the whole morning hour, and two or three mornings, in my opinion.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not want to occupy time on this motion. My friend from Indiana does not mean that the bill shall ever be taken up or ever passed. He is opposed to it. The rest of the committee are in favor of it. It is just like all the bills that are taken up in the morning hour and proceeded with as far as possible. I do not blame the gentleman for defeating it in this way if he can, but I hope the Senate will take it up.

Mr. DAVIS. When the honorable Senator from Vermont proposed to take up this bill a few mornings ago he said, with very distinct emphasis, that there was nothing wrong in it. I have seen no bill before the Senate at this session that has more of wrong in it, in my opinion. If the honorable Senator expects to pass this bill without discussion he is greatly mistaken. It is a bill that ought not to pass for many reasons, and he may expect a stubborn resistance whenever it comes up.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That I am ready for

now.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on taking up the bill for consideration.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 20, noes 9; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 402) for the removal of causes in certain cases from the State courts to the United States courts, the pending question being on the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary as a substitute for the original bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Before the question is taken, in printing the amendment reported there is a misprint in the fourth section, which needs to be corrected; and so I move to amend in line three, section four, of the amendment by inserting after the word" States" the words "while in the performance of his official duty;" and in line five, at the beginning of the line, before the word "every," by inserting the same words, "while in the performance of his official duty." These words were in the original report of the bill, but in printing they were accidentally omitted.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment reported by the committee as amended.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, this bill proposes to extend very essentially the jurisdiction of the courts of the United. States far beyond the warrant of the Constitution that creates and organizes the jurisdiction of the judicial department of the Government. The bill provides

That whenever any civil or criminal suit (whether commenced before or after the passage of this act) may be pending in any court of any State against any person, in which suit such person shall intend to make any defense based upon the authority of any law of the United States, or upon the authority of any department of the Government thereof, or upon the authority of any officer acting under any such law or department, or upon any right exercised under, or title held in behalf of the United States, such person may, at any time before the final trial in such suit, in person or by his attorney, file a petition in such suit, &c.

for the transfer of the case to a Federal court.

Now, Mr. President, so far as the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon any of the courts of the United States, it is already fully invested. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is defined by the Constitution in a few simple words, and so far as it is defined and ordained there are existing laws of Congress investing it to its uttermost limit. The measure under consideration proposes far to transcend the limits of the Constitution. It provides that if the defense is based "upon the

authority of any law of the United States" it shall be transferred or may be transferred. That is very proper. There are existing laws of Congress that authorize the transfer of any suit in which the right of the plaintiff or the defense of the defendant results directly or by implication from a law of Congress. It is, therefore, not necessary to pass this bill to give the right to a party to transfer a case to a Federal court, either where his claim or his matter of defense originates under a law of Congress. Therefore, with a view to produce that result, this bill is unnecessary, because it is already fully done by existing laws. But the bill goes

on:

Or upon the authority of any department of the Government thereof.

I ask the Senator from Vermont if Congress can pass a law authorizing the transfer of a suit brought in a State court to a Federal court on the ground that the matter of defense rests upon an order or direction by a department of the Government? Why, sir, the position is absurd and unsound in the extremest degree. A Department of the Government authorizes a totally illegal act; it authorizes a subordinate acting under the head of a Department to do an act of trespass or any other wrong to a citizen of the United States without any sanction of Constitution or law whatever; and this bill provides that if an officer of the Govern ment has been proceeding to act under such an illegal order of a Department and is sued for trespass by the party injured, he may set up that he was performing that act under the order and direction of a Department, however illegal and unconstitutional that order of the head of the Department might be, and that state of case authorizes and requires the State court in which such a suit is pending to transfer it at once into the Federal courts.

That is only one class of the wrongful and enormous cases in which this bill would have application. There is another:

Or upon the authority of any officer acting under any such law or Department.

If, then, the head of any Department gives any arbitrary and illegal order to one of his subordinates, however that order may conflict with the Constitution and law, if the subordinate proceeds to do the act by the order and direction of an employé and subordinate in any particular Department, this bill provides that if he is sued for the wrong or the trespass he has done he may come into court and file his petition setting forth that the act was done by order of a subordinate of any Department of the Government, and thereupon the State court is required immediately to order the transfer of the case into the Federal court.

Sir, a more wrongful or enormous measure never was introduced into the Congress of the United States. The honorable gentleman is active in piling up measures of this character. He is exceedingly fertile and indefatigable in presenting them to the consideration of the Senate and urging with all of his accustomed zeal and ability their adoption. He and his friends are now in power; but if the tables should be turned upon them all the punishment that could be asked in reason and justice of him and his friends would be that the dominating party which supersedes his should just turn upon him and execute inexorably the measures and the perverted principles which he is now endeavoring to enforce under the provision of this and other acts of Congress that have heretofore been passed.

The honorable Senator is a lawyer and a constitutional lawyer, and he professes, I suppose, to be guided by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and to square the legislation of Congress and his own action by the principles of that instrument. Here, sir, is the provision of the Constitution that defines the jurisdiction of the judicial department:

[ocr errors]

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime juris

diction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands undergrants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects."

The latter branch of jurisdiction has been abolished by a special amendment of the Constitution. Now, I ask the honorable Senator for his authority in the Constitution where a head of Department for providing that a man acting under the authority of a head of Department who has committed a trespass against the rights of a citizen without authority of the Constitution or the law may transfer that case from the State courts to a Federal court. For instance, the head of the War Department does an act that is without the sanction of Constitution or law, that is in flagrant violation of both; he presents himself in the position of a simple trespasser or wrongdoer, and he is liable to be sued and to be held to the same responsibility with any other trespasser; but the honorable Senator's measure provides that if the Secretary of War or any other Secretary commits an act thus without the sanction or authority of the Constitution or law, but in violation of both, and he or the person by whom he directs the execution of his order is sued, the party sued upon filing his petition in the State court where the suit is brought shall be entitled to have a transfer of the case into the Federal court. Sir, the Constitution vests jurisdiction in no such case or class of cases in the Federal judiciary.

The honorable Senator, though, proceeds a step further. The Secretary may choose not to become a trespasser in person; he may direct a subordinate officer of his Department to execute his order, and in that aspect it would be a double trespass. The Secretary would be a trespasser and the person by whom his order to do the wrong was executed would be a trespasser also. They would be co-trespassers, and would be liable to a joint suit by the party injured in the State court. The honorable Senator's bill provides that if the case be presented in that form, where the head of a Department authorizes one of his subordinates to do an act in contravention of the Constitution and laws of Congress, which amounts to a naked simple trespass without color of authority, without the sanction even of an unconstitutional law of the United States, if the party thus committing such a flagrant trespass shall be sued in a State court he by filing his petition is entitled to have the case transferred into the Federal court to be tried, in many States, at a great distance from the locality where the trespass was committed and where the parties and all the witnesses to the trespass reside.

The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States as defined by the Constitution cannot be enlarged by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has settled that principle again and again, and no judicial decision was necessary to settle it. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain classes of cases, and it has appellate jurisdiction in other classes of cases, and the Supreme Court has decided that an act of Congress cannot increase its appellate jurisdiction. That court has filed decision upon decision establishing the principle that no act of Congress can enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and take them outside of that jurisdiction that is created and ordained by the Constitution itself. The honorable Senator proposes, then, to create two indefinite, undefined classes of jurisdiction wholly outside of the provision of the Constitution and of that jurisdiction in the Federal courts which is created by the Constitution. There is no principle in the provisions of the Constitution establishing the jurisdiction of the judicial department that authorizes a case of trespass that has originated under the illegal and unconstitutional act of a head of a Department to be transferred to the Federal courts. That is one class of the cases for which the honorable Senator's measure provides; but he is not satis

fied with that; he goes a bow-shot beyond that limit, and he provides in the next branch of the sentence that where an act is done by anybody under an order of a Department, or of any person acting under an order of a Department, without regard to its legality, without regard to its constitutionality, without regard to the fact whether it is authorized by any law or has any color of authority whatever, though it may be as wanton, as unjust, as violent as a trespass can be, notwithstanding all these features of atrocity and illegality, still the party sued for such a trespass may, upon his petition, compel the transfer of the case from the State to the Federal courts. Sir, the proposition is an atrocity. There is no warrant for the passage of a law with such a provision. There is no warrant for the courts of the United States to take jurisdiction of the cases provided for in the language of this bill which I have been commenting upon.

The fourth section has been mitigated by the amendment suggested by the honorable Senator; but before he proposed that it should be thus modified, it was the most abhorent attempt to impose a despotic exercise of power without authority of Constitution or law that ever was brought to the contemplation of my mind. I will read it as it was reported:

That if any person shall willfully and unlawfully impede, hinder, assault, or beat any officer under the United States, or shall willfully and unlawfully injure or destroy the property of any such officer, every such person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, and be imprisoned not exceeding five years.

Was there, ever such a proposition made in an assembly that professed to be governed by law? Was there ever anything more atrocious than this proposition brought to the contemplation of civilized man before? All the officers of the Government of the United States of every degree or class have this indemnity thrown around them by the provisions of this fourth section as it was reported by the committee. When any man shall unlawfully and willfully impede, hinder, assault, or beat any officer under the United States, or injure or destroy the property of any such officer, he is to be subject to the severe penalties denounced in the section. When a citizen meets with any officer of the Government of the United States and is grossly insulted by him, and he strikes that officer, not in the discharge of the duties of his office, not in his office, not in the place where his duties are to be executed, but anywhere, upon the public highway, at the residence and domicile, if you please, of the insulted man, if that man receives the grossest indignity and personal insult, and he resents it by striking the man who is covered with the panoply which is proposed to be manufac tured by this bill, the person insulting him being an officer of the United States, he immediately subjects himself to a penal prosecution that may bring upon him a fine not exceeding $5,000 and imprisonment not exceeding five years. If that does not create an official oligarchy I do not know what measure would. Take the case of a member of Congress being insulted by one of the guard or other attendants who are doing duty around this Capitol. Stung with the insult he strikes the officer. Then, according to this bill, the officer makes complaint to Judge Cartter or some other corrupt judge in the District and institutes a criminal proceeding, and that member of Congress is subject to be arrested and to be tried and have a judgment passed upon him that may subject him to the payment of $5,000 fine and imprisonment for five years.

Sir, how many officers of the United States are now in being in our vast land? The broad and correct definition of an officer is every man who executes any power or any duty under the Government of the United States; it makes no odds whether he is commissioned or not, or what the class or the creed of his office may be, whenever a man clothed with the panoply of an officer of the United States and of this law commits any trespass upon the property or upon the person of any citizen the citizen

may be sued civilly, and in addition to that may be prosecuted penally and criminally in the courts of the United States and be subject to this punishment. Why, sir, I cannot express my disgust and detestation of a law or proposed law that has any such provision in it. I concede freely that an officer or a gentleman of the Government of the United States in the discharge of his official duties, and in their proper discharge, ought to be protected by the laws; and there are many laws in full force to embrace and protect all such cases. If the laws are defective supply their defects, and make the amount of protection that is given to every officer, without regard to his grade or class, sufficient to secure him in the proper exercise of his legal and constitutional duties. But to clothe a man, who is called an officer, any and everywhere with the protection which this bill gives him, both as to his person and his property, is the most extravagant and absurd and revolting attempt to exercise power that I have ever known.

If I understood the modification which the honorable Senator suggested, it was that this liability to suit and prosecution should apply only where the act done to the officer or to his property was while the officer was in the discharge of his duty. Even in that form the proposition is very objectionable; it destroys all proper proportion between the wrong and the. punishment. I will give an example: in the southern States, if you please, a man goes to the polls to vote; there are negro officers of election; a negro officer who is presiding at the election sees this man approach; he knows that he is an anti-Radical, and he orders him away, saying to him, "Get away, you damned rebel; you are not entitled to vote here." The insulted man may strike him; he may spit in his face, or he may simply put himself in an attitude to strike without striking, and he will be held to have committed an assault. The

honorable Senator's bill would permit that man to be prosecuted penally and criminally in one of the United States courts, and would allow that court, if it chose, to inflict punishment upon him to the extent of $5,000 of fine and five years of imprisonment. Does the honorable Senator maintain that between that offense and the amount of punishment that may be inflicted upon the trespasser or the wrongdoer, if in truth there was any wrong done at all, there would be any just proportion? No, sir.

Mr. President, I have been a great admirer of the legal acumen of the honorable Senator from Vermont, of the fertility of his invention in bringing up expedients to punish the rebels, to manacle the rebels, and this measure of his is only another device to impose upon them a grievous and most galling fetter. He anticipates that the coming elections may produce outbursts of passion and conflict, possibly, between the people of the southern States and the negro officers who are to conduct those elections.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, the unfinished business of Saturday is before the Senate, being the bill (S. No. 11) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WILSON. The bill to establish rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States was under consideration, and was laid over informally for the Colorado bill. I desire now to call up that bill; I gave way all day on Saturday.

Mr. HARLAN. I will state to the Senator from Massachusetts that I understand an agree ment has been made for a modification of the amendment of the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING] to the Colorado bill, which I suppose will be satisfactory all around the Chamber; and if it shall prove to be so, a yote can be had in a very few minutes on that bill. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senate would consent that we should go on with that bill.

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 224.

Mr. WILSON. I am willing to give that bill fifteen minutes.

Mr. EDMUNDS. As I have not been any party to the alleged agreement, I do not want to consider myself bound by it until, at least, I know what it is.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I move that all prior orders be postponed, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 818, which is the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the unfinished business of Saturday and all prior orders be postponed for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the bill mentioned by the Senator from Maine.

Mr. RAMSEY. I hope that will not be done. I hope the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will give us at least fifteen or thirty minutes for the consideration of the Colorado bill.

||

the Colorado bill, and shall not attempt to enter into any discussion; but I speak merely in reference to the business of the Senate. That bill has been repeatedly before the Senate, and has met with unexpected opposition. It has assumed the shape now rather of an enabling act, and it does seem to me that if we are ever to dispose of that subject at all now is the time to do it. It has been debated at very considerable length. Why not dispose of it in some way, and have a definite vote upon it? I am sure we shall advance the business of the session better in that way, because if it is postponed now it will come up again. Suppose the Senator from Maine takes up his appropriation bill. After that is disposed of there will be another struggle. After the time that has been spent on this bill I am sure it will be economy of time to take it up and finish it. Let us dispose of it definitively. I hope we shall adhere to the order of the day. Mr. CONKLING. I think the Senator is quite mistaken in supposing that the Colorado bill can be voted upon presently. I have been shown this morning already, in different forms, amendments proposing to commit the ratification or rejection of the constitution to a special election held for that purpose, to take it away from the general election at which a full vote is to be cast. I feel very sure that such an amendment will be resisted, and that provisions in the Colorado bill will be insisted upon which will lead to considerable debate. Now, one word as to the appropriation bill. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. YATES] sug

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I would not object to giving fifteen minutes, but I wish to say to the Senate that the appropriation bills, from causes which need not be stated here, are behind; and I am conscious that if they are not pressed and considered in preference to other matters, when the Senate want to adjourn it will be kept here beyond its inclination by the delay of those bills. Here is the miscel laneous appropriation bill, which will occupy some days. The Indian appropriation bill is behind it, and several small bills, and then there is the deficiency bill, which is preparing, and which is to come from the House of Rep-gested that the Colorado bill must go to the resentatives. If these appropriation bills are not put out of the way before the Senator from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, comes here with his funding and tax bilis, I can see that the Senate is to be very much embarrassed and delayed in its action on these bills. I therefore feel it my duty to apprise the Senate of this condition of things, and to move to take up this bill at the present moment. Of course, if the Senate were ready to vote on the Colorado bill, that would present another question; but I see the Senator from Vermont rises

Mr. EDMUNDS. I had the floor upon it on Saturday, and have got some reasons why I do not want to vote for the bill, and I expect to give them, if I ever have a chance to do so.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. So that I am sure we are not going to vote on the Colorado bill now. We are not going to vote on it today in all probability. It is a bill that is to be contested and I submit to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. YATES] whether, under the circumstances, he will not take an opportunity when he will not be obliged to antagonize it with these appropriation bills, which it is obvious enough must demand the attention of the Senate.

Mr. YATES. I desire to submit to the Senator another view of the case. This bill has been pending all the session. The Committee on Territories have not occupied much of the time; neither has there been a great deal of business before that committee. This bill has to pass the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, and the appropriation bill must pass anyhow. We are nearly through the debate upon it; the Senate is now ready to vote upon it; and I think, as it is the order of the day, that the Senate ought not to postpone it for the consideration of any other bill. I think postponed. these are good reasons why it should not be

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on postponing the order of the day for the purpose of considering the appropriation bill.

The question being put, there were, on a division-ayes 20, noes 18.

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

Mr. TRUMBULL. As the yeas and nays are to be called on this question I trust the Senate will indulge me in saying a word. have not taken any part in the discussion upon

I

House of Representatives. So, I beg to remind him, must the appropriation bill go to the House, because a large number of amendments are reported, which amendments' will be the subject of controversy, and will go ultimately to a conference committee, which the Colorado bill is not likely to do.

Again, the Senator says the appropriation bill must pass at all events. Yes, Mr. President; and that, I submit, is precisely the reason why it ought to be taken up now. The appropriation bill must pass at all events, and those who have served in Congress as long as most of the gentlemen around me have know how appropriation bills pass at the last when all legislation is finished except the appropriation bills. They understand the haste and the casual way in which appropriation bills are passed under those circumstances. I hope that we shall take up the appropriation bill now. I wish we could have taken it up before, as we should have been able to do but for casualties which could not be controlled. We have reached now the latest time in the session, looking to what we know is the condition of business, when it can be taken up and deliberately considered, and it seems to me that it is a great mistake to put it aside for other business.

Mr. CONNESS. I do not suppose there is any time worse spent than the time spent in the discussion of the precedence of business here; but I rise, nevertheless, to occupy a minute, and to say that I hope this motion will not obtain. I hope, as said by the Senator from Illinois, that we shall finish something; because otherwise we shall go all over these discussions again. We were all prepared to vote on Satur day as to whether the constitution of Colorado should be submitted to the people of Colorado or not, and all the speeches that might be made in a month could not throw any light on that proposition as to how each Senator had determined to vote; but we did not vote. Of course we have got to submit to discussion; but I hope we shall finish something; and I object now, and hope the appropriation bill will not be taken up. Why take it up? Is this session to close immediately? I think we had better put that idea out of our heads. We must stay here until the public business is done, and well done. There is no demand except the demand of our own convenience to call us hence. I hope, sir, that we shall not procrastinate the consideration of this bill further by putting it aside.

« PoprzedniaDalej »