neglect or fail, for sixty days after the passage of this resolution, to make and guaranty the agreement specified in the act of appropriation aforesaid, approved March 2, 1867, then the Secretary of War shall be, and is hereby, authorized and required to direct the removal of the existing bridge and to direct the construction of the bridge aforesaid, and expend the money appropriated for that purpose in said act; and the said Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company shall not have, acquire, or enjoy any right of way or privilege thereon, or the use of said bridge, until the agreement aforesaid shall be made and guarantied according to the terms and conditions of said act of appropriation. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with these resolutions are hereby repealed.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I merely desire to have the Senate notice that this section is the one which authorizes and requires the Secretary of War to tear down the existing railroad bridge there.

Mr. HARLAN. I do not understand the logic of the Senator from Vermont. He first tells the Senate that this measure is in the interest of a corporation, and then moves to strike out that feature of it which is unfavorable to the corporation to enable them to keep their present structure and defeat the whole enterprise, for of course if that is stricken out the company will have no inducement to conclude the contract which the first section provides for.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. My logic is that I desire to kill the bill. If I can kill one part of it at one blow I desire to do it, and with another blow the rest of the bill. If we are to be involved in an expenditure here of $1,800,000 I desire to strike off $600,000 if I possibly can.

Mr. HARLAN. I am gratified at the last announcement of the Senator. He says the purpose of this amendment is to destroy the joint resolution. I hope, therefore, that those who are friendly to this measure will understand it in the light in which the Senator has last presented it.

I wish to correct another statement made by the Senator, also, in his former speech, and that was that after an appropriation of $200,000 had been made an investigation had been had and a report of commissioners. If I understand the history of this transaction correctly-I was not in the Senate at the time, however a commission was appointed under the direction of the War Department and made a report, and in pursuance of that report an appropriation of $200,000 was made. I ought to say here that I think the Secretary of War originally approved the proposition, and the present Secretary of War also approves it in a letter which I have in my hand.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not know that I have any opposition to this resolution, but I rise simply, as the yeas and nays are called, to understand if I can what the question really is. I should like to ask the Senator from Iowa, who has charge of this resolution, by what authority this bridge has been constructed?

Mr. HARLAN. I think under a law of the State of Illinois, and perhaps a similar law enacted by the Legislature of Iowa.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Has it ever been adjudged a nuisance or obstruction to navigation?

Mr. HARLAN. Litigation has been in progress for a number of years, eight or ten years, I think, on that subject. It never has been removed. It has not been removed in pursuance of any decree of any court. I do not remember the history of the litigation on the subject; but it has been in the courts for a long series of years, and is regarded as a nuisance by those engaged in navigating the river. It is an obstruction to some extent, I have no doubt; perhaps a serious obstruction.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. One question further. Do we understand that this is a direction to the Secretary of War in a certain contingency to remove the bridge?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes, sir, I so interpret the

resolution, that in case the company does not comply with the contract the Secretary of War shall have authority to tear down the bridge that is now regarded as a nuisance. But I ought to state, for the information of the Senator and of the Senate, that this resolution was drawn up in the War Department in pursuance of an understanding entered into between the railroad company and the War Department. So I do not apprehend that there will be any difficulty on that subject whatever. I do not suppose that the necessity will arise for tearing down the old bridge by the War Department.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Then it is to enforce the conditions of a certain contract by which the company undertake to do that particular thing?

Mr. HARLAN. That we may have the history of the whole affair, I ask leave to read the original law, to be found on page 485 of the fourteenth volume of the Statutes-at-Large:

"For the erection of a bridge at Rock Island, Illinois, as recommended by the chief of ordnance, $200,000: Provided, That the ownership of said bridge shall be and remain in the United States, and the Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company shall have the right of way over said bridge for all purposes of transit across the island and river, upon the condition that the said company shall, before any money 18 expended by the Government, agree to pay and shall secure to the United States, first, half the cost of said bridge; and second, half the expenses of keeping said bridge in repair, and upon guarantying said conditions to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War by contract or otherwise the said company shall have the free use of said bridge for purposes of transit, but without any claim to ownership thereof."

In attempting to carry out that understanding, as provided for in this law, I have been informed that a legal difficulty was interposed. The Attorney General thought the company had not, perhaps, the right to bind the stockholders. It is thought that that difficulty is remedied by this resolution; that if this resolution becomes a law carrying out the original understanding it will be effective, and that the new structure will be erected.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Allow me to ask the Senator, then, whether the difficulty which leads Congress to interpose is, that the company does not perform its conditions, or that it has built a structure which obstructs navigation?

Mr. HARLAN. The existing bridge was built a number of years ago. Of course the fact that that old structure does, to some extent, obstruct navigation was the primary reason for making this appropriation in the law of 1867, in order that a bridge may be constructed below at a point on the island where it is supposed it will not interfere materially with navigation.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment striking out the second section, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 12, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS- Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Conkling, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Sherman, and Van Winkle-12.

NAYS-Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Harlan, Howard, McDonald, Morgan, Osborn, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Wade, Weloh, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-24.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Rice, Ross, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, and Willey-22. So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CORBETT. I desire to inquire what is the estimate made by the commissioners of the cost of the bridge? I see it is referred to in the first section of the resolution.

Mr. HARLAN. I regret very much that I have not had an opportunity to lay my hands upon the report of the commissioners appointed by the War Department to examine this question originally; but I have been told that the estimates were about a million dollars for the whole structure. The Senator from Vermont says $1,200,000. But I do not consider that question material. Congress decided two years ago to put up this bridge according to this plan. That question therefore has been

settled, as it seems to me, and now this is merely a remedial act to enable the War Department to earry into effect what Congress heretofore has determined on. The law originally was passed when I was not a member of the body, under the guide and auspices of other Senators, and I should regret very much if the Senate should now turn its back on the State when it is differently represented.

Mr. CORBETT. I understood the Senator from Vermont to say that it would be about one million eight hundred thousand dollars. That was the reason why I made the inquiry. I thought that the Senator who has this matter in charge ought to know what the estimate of the commissioners was, and give information to the Senate on that question. I think the gentleman who has it in charge ought to be able to inform the Senate of the estimated cost of the bridge.

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator's criticism would be perfectly just if it were an original proposition; but Congress heretofore has passed a law directing this bridge to be constructed, and made an appropriation of $200,000 to prosecute the work. That law, as it turns out, is somewhat defective, and this is intended merely to remedy that defect. Congress has, therefore, originally decided the main ques tion, that it is a proper thing to be done, and has made an appropriation for that purpose. I do not ask for any additional appropriation.

Mr. CORBETT. I understand that by the former law the company was to pay half the cost of the bridge; but this resolution provides that in case they do not the Government is to proceed to build the bridge, does it not?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes; but the Senator will perceive that if the old structure is torn down by the order of the Secretary of War, the railroad company not agreeing to pay half the cost of the bridge, they will have to build a new bridge for themselves, which makes it perfectly obvious that they will close in with the propo sition.

Mr. WILSON. I think the main question before us is, Why it is necessary for the Government to build this bridge at all? I should like to have that considered.

Mr. HARLAN. I have the same answer for the Senator from Massachusetts that I have just given to the Senator from Oregon. That would have been pertinent two years ago, when the original proposition was before Congress; but the same reasons that then induced Congress to make the appropriation and direct the structure to be erected, I suppose, still exist; in fact I know they do. In the opinion of the War Department the bridge ought to be built for the convenience of the Government, there being a vast amount of property on Rock Island where the principal depot of arms and the manufacture of arms for the entire Northwest is to be erected. A vast amount of money, the Senator from Vermont says, has already been appropriated and expended in Government works upon that island-not for the State of Illinois or lowa, as the Senator intimated, as I thought unjustly, but for the Government itself, to promote the interests of the people of the United States, in order that there might be proper depots and manufactories for arms for the people of the United States at a convenient point for use when any emergency may arise requir ing it. I have a letter here from the present Secretary of War approving and recommending the carrying into effect of the original proposition.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am really somewhat surprised at the opposition that is elicited to this measure in the Senate, particularly by older members of the Senate. I was aston ished at the motion of the Senator from Ver mont, to strike out the second section of thi bill which authorized the Secretary of War, in case the railroad company did not carry out their contract with the Government, to remove the bridge that is now there. He talks about damages. The Mississippi river is a highway by treaty and several acts of Congress, and the United States has a right, at any time, to

remove any obstructions in that river without paying any damages to anybody; and we would have the authority to remove this Rock Island bridge. It has never been declared a nuisance by any court. There have been various lawsuits in regard to damage to property in passing up and down the river.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Has there ever been an act making it a post route?

Mr. TRUMBULL. No, sir; there have been various attempts to do that, but that has not been accomplished. The proposition now, to build a bridge, is not for the benefit of the railroad company. This bridge is recommended by the engineer officers of the Government of the United States, and approved by the Secretary of War for the convenience of the armory and arsenal established upon the island of Rock Island. The Senator from Massachusetts does not know why there should be any bridge, why there is a necessity for any at all. The Senator from Iowa replies to that that that was settled two years ago. We discussed it two years ago, and appropriated $200,000 to commence this work. I suppose I might say to the Senator from Massachusetts, where is the necessity of the armory at Springfield, Massachusetts? Why are we appropri ating $1,000,000 every year there? Probably there is no necessity for it; we might as well abolish it.

Mr. WILSON. I have no objection. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator says he has no objection. Well, I have an objection. I would not vote for abolishing it. I think we have need for a manufactory of arms at Springfield; and that we must have arms in case of war. I know how this country suffered, and particularly the West, for the want of arms when the recent rebellion broke out; I know that there was not an arsenal with arms in it from the Atlantic to the Rocky mountains, on the line of the northern States.

Mr. FESSENDEN. My friend talks about that, but that is a settled matter. I ask him to confine himself to the reasons showing the necessity for this bridge.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have stated that the engineer department say that a bridge is necessary. They recommend the construction of a bridge. The island of Rock Island, as the Senate knows, is separated from the main land by water, and there must be some means of aceess to it; and the engineers say that a bridge is necessary, and they have recommended it. In the construction of that bridge it is thought desirable and economical to the Government to bring in this railroad company and make them pay half the expense. I am informed that the engineers estimate the expense of the bridge at $1,000,000; and the railroad company have entered into a contract to pay one half of the expense of that construction, 80 that it will cost the Government of the United States $500,000 and the railroad company $500,000

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. The Senator does not state that precisely as the Senator from Iowa does. The latter Senator says he does not want the second section stricken out, so as to compel them to do it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. They have already come to that understanding; and this bill, it has been stated to the Senator from Vermont by the Senator from Iowa certainly once, and I think twice, was drawn up at the War Department on an understanding between the company and the War Department, and the first section provides that the railroad company shall pay one half the cost of the construction of the bridge from the island of Rock Island to the Iowa shore, and shall build at their own expense the entire bridge on the Illinois side.

Mr. HOWARD. Then the bridge on that side will probably be worth $500,000.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know what it would be on that side, but the provision of the bill is:

That the ownership of said bridge shall be and remain in the United States, and the Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company shall have the right of way over said bridge for all purposes of transit across the island and river, upon condition that the said railroad company shall pay to the United States. first, half the cost of the superstructure of the bridge over the main channel and half the cost of keeping the same in repair, and shall also build at its own cost the bridge over that part of the river which is on the east side of the island of Rock Island, and also the railroad on and across said island of Rock Island; and upon a full compliance with these conditions said railroad company shall have the use of said bridge for the purposes of free transit, but without any claim to the ownership thereof; and said railroad company shall, within six months after said new bridge is ready for use, remove their old bridge from the river and their railroad track from its present location on the island of Rock: And provided further, That the Government may permit any other road or roads wishing to cross on said bridge to do so by paying to the parties then in interest the proportionate cost of said bridge.

The railroad company pays half the expense of the bridge over the main channel, which is west of the island of Rock Island, and the bridge belongs to the United States, the United States controls it, and the company is to have the right to pass over it, and it is to be a wagon bridge as well as a railroad bridge.

Mr. HOWE. I wish to ask the Senator a question. My attention is just called to this measure for the first time, and I wish to ask of him if he conceives that Congress has the power to declare any structure placed by private parties over that river to be a nuisance and upon their own motion to abate it without paying damages to the owners of the structure?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I consider that the United States has the authority at any time to remove an obstruction by declaring it a nuisance, or without declaring it a nuisance, in the navigable waters of that river, without damages to anybody. We appropriate millions of dollars nearly every year to remove obstructions to the Mississippi river.

Mr. HOWE. But the question is whether the determination of Congress that a certain structure is a nuisance is final on the parties?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Congress has a right to remove it whether it be an obstruction or not.

Mr. HOWE. Remove a structure put there by a private individual?

Mr. TRUMBULL. If a structure made by any private party is an obstruction to the navigable waters of the Mississippi, Congress by law has a right to direct any officer to remove it without incurring damages to anybody.

Mr. HOWE. I must say that upon that question of law, I am obliged to differ with the Senator from Illinois, with great diffidence and respect. I think he is entirely wrong about that. I think the only right that the Government has to interfere with the private property of any individual over waters or in waters, is upon the ground that it is an obstruction to navigation.

Mr. FESSENDEN. A part of the present bridge of course rests upon Rock Island. Is not that the exclusive property of the United States?

Mr. TRUMBULL. The island is, and you can direct the bridge to be removed.

Mr. HOWARD. What is to be the expense of building from the island to the Iowa shore? Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know the expense of that part of it, but the whole superstructure is estimated at $1,000,000.

Mr. HOWARD. On both sides?

that the bill is destructive of the rights of private individuals and private property, and that they can come upon the Government for damages. Unless there is an amendment made in that respect, I cannot vote for the measure. Mr. WILSON. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, the unfinished business of yesterday is regularly before the Senate.

Mr. HARLAN. I ask that we be allowed to take the vote upon this joint resolution. I think a vote can be had in a few minutes.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, let us have the vote.

Mr. WILSON. I propose to discuss this question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent the unfinished business of yesterday may be laid aside informally.

Mr. WILSON. If the consideration of this bridge bill is to be continued, I propose to dis

The motion was not agreed to, there being on a division-ayes 17, noes 19.

REPORTS FROM PRINTING COMMITTEE. Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a motion to print the report of the Secretary of War, communicating information relative to the purchase and sale of vessels by the War Department during the war of the rebellion, have directed me to report it without recommendation. I move its indefinite postponement. There is no use in printing this document.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. The same committee, to whom was referred a resolution to print four thousand additional copies of the report of the Committee on Retrenchment upon the diplomatic and consular service of the United States, have instructed me to report it back without amendment and recommend its passage. I ask for its present consideration.

By unanimous consent, the resolution was considered and agreed to, as follows:

Resolved, That four thousand extra copies of the report of the Committee on Retrenchment upon the diplomatic and consular service of the United States be printed for the use of the Senate.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 600) to authorize the sale of portions of the military reservations at Forts Leavenworth and Riley, in the State of Kansas; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOWE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 601) granting land to the Territory of Dakota in aid of the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company, authorizing said company to extend said road through the Territory of Dakota; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. McDONALD asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 602) to provide levees to secure the low lands of Arkansas and Missouri from in

undation, and to encourage the settlement thereof; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railread, and ordered to be printed.

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 603) to aid in the construction of the International Pacific railroad from Cairo, Illinois, to the Rio Grande river, to authorize the consolidation of certain railroad companies, and to provide homesteads for the laborers on said roads; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WELCH asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 604) regulating the times and places of holding the district and circuit courts of the United States for the northern district of Florida; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN NEW MEXICO.

Mr. YATES submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, that the Secretary of the Interior be requested to inform the Senate what action, if any, has been had in consequence of the ninth section of the act approved March 2, 1867, directing him to procure an examination to be made of the condition of the public buildings in the Territory of New Mexico, and report to the next Congress an estimate of what amount is necessary to complete the same, and also the sums of money, if any, which have been expended in making such survey; also what sums, if any, have been expended in repairing or completing said public buildings since the date of the above-mentioned act.

REPORT OF ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

Mr. SUMNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved, that there be printed of the report of the National Academy of Science for the year 1867, together with the scientific memoirs appended to the same, one thousand extra copies for the use of the academy.

NAVY-YARD EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, that the Secretary of the Navy be directed to report for the information of Congress the number of persons employed in the navy-yards, and in what capacity, on the 1st day of January, 1863, and the number so employed on the 1st day of July, 1868.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had agreed to some and disagreed to other amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes, and agreed to other amendments of the Senate with amendments; asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the said bill, and appointed Mr. ELIHU B. WASHBURNE of Illinois, Mr. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER of Massachusetts, and Mr. WILLIAM S. HOLMAN of Indiana, conferees on the part of the House.

The Serate proceeded to consider its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the House, and the amendments of the House of Representatives to other amendments of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, it

was

Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments to the said bill, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and disagree to the amendments of the House to other amendments of the Senate thereto, and agree to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the President pro tempore.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. MORRILL of Maine, Mr. HARLAN, and Mr. COLE.

RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ABROAD. Mr. CONNESS. I wish to move to make

the bill reported by my friend from Massachusetts, to protect American citizens abroad, the special order for Friday evening next, at half past seven o'clock. I wish to say in this connection that-

Mr. SHERMAN. I must object. I call for the regular order of business.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order is the unfinished business of yesterday, and nothing else is in order except by unanimous consent.

Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator will allow me to make this motion. It will not interfere with business.

Mr. SHERMAN. It will lead to debate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to the motion?

Mr. SUMNER. I prefer that the Senator should withhold his motion for the present, and that we may take the bill up some day next week. I have my reasons for it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I object, then.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is objected to, and cannot be received. Mr. SHERMAN. Let us go on with the tax bill.

INTERNAL TAXES.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal tax on distilled spirits and tobacco and to amend the tax on banks is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] is entitled to the floor on an amendment which he was about to offer, and has not yet sent it to the Chair.

Mr. CONNESS. Now, with the leave of the Senator from Kentucky, and on this bill, I wish to say what the courtesy of my friend from Ohio would not permit me to say before, that in the report of the Associated Press made of the proceedings of the Senate the other day when a motion was submitted for evening sessions, it was stated that the Senate refused to order evening sessions for the purpose of considering the bill that I referred to a moment since. That was not a correct report. The Senate did not make any such refusal, and that statement I desire the reporters to take notice of this morning, because it is not just to the Senate. I now desire, in conclusion, to say that I accept the suggestion of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and with him or through him will hope for the consideration of the bill at an early day.

Mr. SUMNER. I should be glad to have an understanding with the Senator at an early day next week in regard to that bill.

Mr. DAVIS. I have had an amendment prepared on consultation with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which I now propose. It is to add to the third section of the bill the following provision:

But any person may produce alcoholic vapor by vaporization from fermented mash, using such vapors in the manufacture of vinegar in the same building where produced; and such person shall be deemed a distiller and subject to all the provisions of law relating to distillers, except that the special tax to be paid by him shall be twenty dollars instead of the special tax laid on distillers, and except that the vinegar produced not containing any alcohol shall not be deemed distilled spirits within the meaning of the law relating thereto, but upon vinegar so manufactured there is hereby laid a tax of five cents per gallon; and the method of return, assessment, and collection of such tax shall be regulated by the provisions of law relating to manufacturers, as those provisions existed on the 30th of March, 1868; not, however, to the exclusion of any provision relating to distilled spirits which shall be capable of being applied to the manufacture bereby allowed.

I will state to the Senate that I was up to see the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in relation to this proposition, and he called in his chemists and other officers to the number of about half a dozen, and after full consultation this amendment was agreed upon. It will provide more revenue, and is so guarded, as these gentlemen think, as to be impossible to be the cause of any fraud upon the revenue.

I will remark further that a patent for making vinegar upon this principle was obtained. It is prepared as though it was to be distilled; it

is vaporized, and in that state it is mixed with the mash, and it then makes vinegar; and when it is made into vinegar or in any intermediate stage it is wholly incapable of being put into alcoholic form. That is what all the gentlemen up there said this morning. This proposition is made with the approval of the officers of that bureau. It was drawn up by them after full and patient consideration, and I think it well guarded.

, Mr. SHERMAN. The Committee on Finance examined this matter very carefully. The person claiming to have made an invention for making vinegar by this process came before the committee and made an explanation; but we were satisfied that this provision could not be complied with with safety to the revenue. The process of making vinegar according to this patent is a distillation of spirits precisely as in the form of ordinary distillation, but the spirits are held in vapor, vaporized instead of being condensed into whisky. It is transferred and forms the component part of the manufacture of vinegar. By this process a very cheap kind of vinegar has been made and sold in the market, and in this way this inventor has undersold all the ordinary forms of home-made or old-fashioned vinegar made out of cider, out of the pummice of apples. The only difference between his mode of distillation and the mode of distilling whisky is that he does not condense the vapor into spirits, but uses the vapor to make vinegar. It is nothing but whisky. According to his statement but five per cent. of the aggregate of the vinegar is whisky; and it is much safer and much better for him to pay the tax, which will be about equivalent to $1 20 on a barrel of vinegar, than to open the door to wholesale frauds. While I do not impute to this gentleman any desire to commit frauds, yet as a matter of course, if this privilege is given a vast amount of the whisky instead of being condensed in the form of whisky will be transferred in the form of vapor into vinegar or other substances. It seems to me it would not be safe. The old-fashioned mode of making vinegar was by the very simple process of converting cider, or the drippings of the pummice of apples, into vinegar.

The Army regulations prohibit the use of this manufactured vinegar, and my own impres sion is that it is deleterious to the public health and ought not to be used by any one. The proper vinegar to be used is that made in the ordinary way by the simple process of souring cider. It seems to me that this proposition is encouraging an unwholesome practice at best to the danger of the public revenue. That is the conclusion to which the committee came. As to the information that is now given from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, I only know that so far as we had any information officially he was opposed to it. Perhaps he has been able to draw up a section that he thinks they might with great care prevent frauds under, but we have no official information froin him on the subject. I do not at all question what the Senator from Kentucky has said; but I do not think it will be wise for us to adopt this amendment without further examination.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I hope the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky will be adopted. I have had a personal interview with one of the manufacturers of vinegar in Chicago, a former friend of mine in the State of Indiana, in whose statements I have entire confidence. I think the liquor used in the manufacture of vinegar ought not to be liable to be taxed. It has not heretofore, as I understand, been subject to tax, but it is supposed by the manufacturers that the phraseology of this bill will compel them to pay that tax. It is very sure that it would not be the purpose of Congress to tax an article so indispensable for domestic use as vinegar.

Mr. SHERMAN. We do not tax vinegar except that made under this patent process by the mixture of whisky. We do not tax vinegar made by the old process.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Of course there is no

direct tax on vinegar, but the phraseology of this bill imposes this indirect tax. and, as this gentleman informs me, it will very materially, and perhaps almost ruinously interfere with the business. I do not know anything about the quality of the vinegar that is thus produced. I take it that the people who buy and use it can judge of that. The parties claim to manufacture a good article. How that is, or what may be the decision of Army officers on the subject, I have no information; but it is vinegar that is very much used, and in the manufacture of which it is necessary to use some distilled liquor in the form, I suppose, mentioned by the honorable Senator from Ohio. It seems to me there will be no difficulty about preventing frauds. The great fear of frauds ought not to induce us to tax an indispensable article of food.

Mr. SHERMAN. There is one other consideration I wish to mention. If you yield to this demand that there shall be no tax on the spirits actually used in vinegar, you must also yield to the same demand in regard to medicines indispensably necessary for human life. There are a number of medicines, the names of which I could give, that are admitted to be excellent, which contain more or less of spirits. These spirits are not used in the raw form, but in various processes by distillation and redistillation. The very moment you open the door and allow any commodity that has spirit in it to escape tax, you must extend the same exemption to a multitude of articles that are much more meritorious than manufactured vinegar. There are a great many preparations that are necessary and proper medicines, and if you make this exemption in favor of whisky used in the manufacture of vinegar, how can you deny it to them? Here is a manufactured article that I think is deleterious. Vinegar is supplied cheaply and in great quantities by a natural process. This process simply reduces the price of ordinary vinegar about four or five dollars a barrel, according to the statement of this gentleman, while the whole tax levied by this act on the spirits in the barrel would be only $1 20. The manufacturer may well afford to pay the tax on the two gallons of whisky consumed in manufacturing a barrel of vinegar, and he can then undersell the home-made article. I do not think it will do to open this door.

Mr. DAVIS. The proposition contained in the proposed amendment subjects the manufacturer of vinegar to two taxes, first to a specific tax of twenty dollars for the privilege of making vinegar, and second, it subjects the manufacturer of vinegar to tax on the amount of alcohol that he uses in the manufacture of the vinegar. There are from two and a half to five gallons of alcohol used to a barrel of vinegar, and whatever amount of alcohol may be used is subject to taxation by this proposition.

I admit that the manufacturer of vinegar by this process makes his mash precisely as mash is made to distill whisky. He then transfers the alcohol in the mash into the aeriform condition; but the amount of alcohol in each barrel of vinegar, it is provided, shall be ascertained and be subject to the taxation of fifty cents per gallon.

In relation to the article that is produced by this process, I say it is the best vinegar, as tested in the city of Louisville, that has been made by any process for the manufacture of vinegar. It is preferred by those who consume vinegar in all shapes and for any purpose, to any other article of vinegar, and the effect of its production has been in the city of Louisville to reduce the price from $12 50 per barrel to $7 50 per barrel. This manufacture under the present patent is yet in its infancy; but in that city the effect has been already to reduce vinegar at the rate of five dollars a barrel, and to produce a superior article. The gentleman who is engaged in manufacturing vinegar in that city is the patentee, and he has associated with him men of capital, and they have erected an establishment at a cost of

upward of fifty thousand dollars, which is now in full operation and making one hundred barrels of vinegar per day. Now, after this citizen has made a useful discovery, and has reduced it to practice, and has obtained from the Government letters-patent for the use of his improvement in the mode of making vinegar, and when he has expended $50,000 in erecting a manufactory to distill it, and when he comes here with a proposition in which he agrees that he will pay a specific tax of twenty dollars for the privilege of making vinegar, and that every gallon of alcohol which he uses in the process shall be taxed fifty cents per gallon, and when all the revenue officers have devised the means of preventing fraud which they think will effectually prevent it, the question is whether the Senate will insist upon his losing the benefit of his patent-right and of his investment of $50,000 for machinery and buildings for the purpose of manufacturing this article, or whether the Senate will consent that he shall manufacture it on the terms which he has assented to, and which make it impossible, with any degree of fidelity and vigilance on the part of the officers, that there should be any fraud whatever in the manufacture of the article. It seems to me that it would be peculiarly hard to refuse this to a man who has invented this mode of making vinegar, and who, with his associates, has adventured so much money in the preparations necessary for manufacturing it. Now, to deny to him the privi lege of manufacturing it by insisting on terms that would amount to a suppression of the manufacture, would be acting in an improper manner, as I think.

I am sorry that this proposition encounters the opposition of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Finance. Here is a great necessity of absolute and universal use all over the country, the article of vinegar. Here is a great improvement in the manufacture of that article that improves the manufacture of the article itself, that cheapens it in the course of twelve months about thirty-three per cent. to the consumer, in which a large sum has been adventured for the purpose of continuing and expanding the manufacture; and it seems to me that it would be harsh and unjust in the extremest degree now to subject this man to conditions that would preclude him absolutely from the further continuance of the manufacture of the article. I trust that the amendment will be adopted. I ask for the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. HENDRICKS. 1 understand from the Senator from Kentucky that this amendment was prepared at his suggestion in the Department, and that it is supposed that it will avoid any possibility of fraud or evasion. It only, then, leaves the question whether we are willing to tax such liquors as are necessary in the manufacture of vinegar.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator's own reflection will convince him that the cost of watching this distillation and avoiding fraud will be more than all we receive from vinegar. Another thing, we have provided here a small tax of twenty or twenty-five dollars as a special tax for a compounder of liquor. The vinegarmaker would be a compounder, because he would have the alcohol already made, condensed from the worm, and use that in his business. There is no trouble in his carrying on his business. Instead of taking the alcohol in vapor, as he proposes, he would take his alcohol in the ordinary state and use it in the manufacture of vinegar, and he pays a special tax for that of only twenty-five dollars. Under the present law as it stands, there is no difficulty in his carrying on his business, provided he is willing to pay the ordinary tax of sixty cents a gallon on whisky.

Mr. DAVIS. I will merely remark that this vapor is not condensed in the process of manufacturing vinegar, and the gentleman engaged in the manufacture would be perfectly willing to agree that if any condensing apparatus should be found upon the premises the

whole establishment should be forfeited. He entered upon this manufacture with the single purpose of making the best article of vinegar without any frandulent intent whatever. He and his associates present themselves here, consenting to such guards as the officers of the Treasury upon full consultation have agreed to as sufficient for that purpose, and if they are not sufficient they are willing to submit to any other guards that the officers of the Treas ury or the Committee on Finance may choose to impose upon them. They do not condense nor propose to condense the alcoholic vapor. They use it before it is condensed, and at any stage of the process to final conversion of it into vinegar, or any intermediate process, it is utterly impossible to extract alcohol from it. All the chemists, in the presence of the Commissioner this morning, at the Department so stated; and they drew up this proposition themselves, as calculated to protect the Treasury and the Government against all fraud; and if it is not sufficient, they may devise any other means that they please for the purpose of rendering fraud impossible, and especially they may make the presence of any machinery for condensing upon the premises evidence of fraudulent intent, and forfeit the whole establishment in consideration of the presence of any such machinery for condensing.

It is certainly, I think, a very hard case to this patentee, after having made this discovery of the most useful and the speediest and the cheapest way of manufacturing vinegar, and manufacturing it, as he does, at a cost of thirtythree and a third less than it has heretofore been manufactured. He has paid for his pat ent-right; he has the pledged faith of the Government that he shall be allowed to use that patent-right. He then goes on to invest $50,000 in the construction of a building and the necessary manufacturing apparatus to continue the production of this article, and it would be, in my opinion, a want of faith on the part of the Government to deny him the right of continuing the manufacture when the Treasury officers themselves report that he can continue it without the possibility of fraud. I hope that the Senate will adopt the amendment.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 8, nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Fowler, Hendricks. Johnson, McCreery, Van Winkle, and Wade-8. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Chandler, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-25.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Ross, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, Vickers, Welch, and Willey-25.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. FOWLER. I move to amend the bill by striking out in line eight, of section three the words "the distiller," and inserting “the United States."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment is not now in order. It will be in order when the bill is reported to the Senate. The third section referred to has been inserted as an amendment, and is not now amendable. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

Mr. FOWLER. Now I move to amend the third section by striking out in line eight the words "the distiller' and inserting "the United States;" so as to read, "and the same shall be furnished and attached to the distillery at the expense of the United States."

I suppose the object is to collect the largest amount of revenue we can, and in this view we are to encourage this interest of the country. It is to be considered for the purposes of this bill as one of the interests of the country in the same light as other interests are considered. It is to be viewed in the same light as the manufacture of iron, or the manufacture of cotton or woolen goods, or any other pursuit. There are a large number of distilleries that this provision would impose a burden of from twenty