Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

in a yielding soil for the purposes of machinery

than to excavate solid foundations into the hard rock. That is the evidence of all men who are skilled in these things. There can be no doubt about that. Besides, you have given to you two miles of water front upon two broad rivers, the Delaware upon one side, and the Schuylkill on the other. League Island seems, indeed, to be a place marked out by nature for this navy-yard. I will now bring my remarks to a close, as other gentlemen may desire to address the House on this question. I think there is a general disposition to have a yard for iron-clads. We of Philadelphia want it established at the best place, which, according to the Secretary of the Navy, and others, is League Island. As I have said before, we ask for nothing as a mere local favor. We desire that the country should have its "navy-yard for iron vessels and machinery" located for the advantage of the Navy; and we have seen no arguments presented why this House should hesitate to decide for this most eligible and convenient locality.

Mr. BROOMALL. I offer the following amend

ment to the substitute:

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert the following:

That the President be, and he is hereby, empowered to appoint a commission of seven scientific and practical men, three of whom shall be officers of the Navy not below the rank of captain, who shall select a site for a navy-yard and naval station for iron-clad vessels, having regard to advantage of location as well as economy of construction,and make report to the President for his confirmation.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if said report shall be confirmed by the President, the Secretary of the Navy shall forthwith procure the title of such site to be properly vested in the United States, and adopt measures for the immediate commencement of the work.

No member of this body can have read the repeated recommendations of the Secretary of the Navy and the reports from the Naval Committee, and listened to the arguments on the question, without seeing the necessity for such a work as is contemplated by this bill. The only question, it seems to me, for us to decide is the best mode of fixing upon the proper site for the construction of such a navy-yard, and it is with a view of hitting upon what I conceive to be the best means that I have offered this amendment to the substitute of

my colleague from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY.]

I find again that the action of sea weather and sea water upon the surface of iron is not regular; that in some places the corrosion will scarcely be seen, while in other places it will be very material; that in some instances the iron upon the same plate will corrode away three times as fast as the average, and in other instances scarcely be corroded at all. The calculations and statements of the committee are based upon the average. We have to take into account the maximum of corrosion, because we must guard all points of the iron against attack. The maximum will then be three quarters of an inch in thirteen years. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] speaks of the effect of sea water upon iron as not a material matter. He treats it as of little consequence, and thinks it has been greatly exaggerated by the advocates of a fresh-water site. I think if he will turn to his own statement and make the calculation that I have made of the time in which the effect of sea water upon the armor of an ironed vessel will almost absolutely destroy it, he will see that it will be done in the course of thirteen years.

It is said, however, by the gentleman from Connecticut, as an argument against the corrosion of iron by sea water, and as an argument in favor of the existence of fresh water at New London, that a certain chain, belonging to a marine railway, after being in the water for twelve years, was taken up and found to be scarcely corroded. The answer to that is that this particular iron may have been of a kind not likely to be corroded by salt water; because some iron is scarcely perceptibly affected by the sea; some portions even of the same plate are scarcely perceptibly affected, while others are absolutely destroyed. It is to be borne in mind, moreover, that this chain was a chain belonging to a marine railway, upon the shore of a river, where, if anywhere, the fresh water of the river above would float upon the surface of the salt water. Everybody knows the difficulty with which different waters mingle with one another. Everybody who has seen the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi passing down the river after the junction of the two, side by side for miles, with a distinct line of demarkation between them, will admit with me that waters do not readily mix; and where two waters are of different specific gravity, as in the case of fresh and salt water, the difficulty of mixing is even still greater, and a considerable length of time will elapse, and a considerable commotion of the waters must be had, before the salt and the fresh water will mingle. Now, the fresh water of the river Thames, flowing down into the sound below, naturally overflows the salt, at the shore and in the middle of the channel. Now, the returning tide, as every one familiar with the action of tides well knows, floats everything lighter than the sea water itself to the shore, so that the shore would have the fresh water from above while the tide is running down, and it would have the fresh water turned from the middle of the channel while the tide is running up. We may therefore set it down as fact, that if there is any fresh water in that har

No member of this body can have read the majority and minority reports of this committee, and heard the able arguments upon this subject, without feeling that there are serious and perhaps insurmountable objections to both the sites named, the city of New London and League Island. I will proceed to consider shortly some of the objections which have been urged against each; and first upon the question of salt water. It has seemed to me, from the Secretary's recommendation, and from the arguments made here upon both sides, that fresh water is at least best adapted to the business of iron ship-building. I find in the report of the majority of the committee-and I believe the statement made by that majority to be correct upon that subject-that the corrosion of iron from the action of salt water is, as they say, one half inch upon the surface in every ninety-bor at all, it is upon the surface of the water, and one years.

I find, also, that the influence of the sea water upon such surfaces, where the surfaces are sometimes wet and sometimes dry, is one half more than the influence of clear salt water; which would make the amount of corrosion three fourths of an

inch in ninety-one years upon surfaces so exposed.

1 find, also, from the same report-and I believe it, by other authorities I have read, to be correct in this particular-that foul sea water, such as is found in the holds of vessels, and which attacks the iron upon the inside, corrodes the iron at the rate of one inch in ninety-one years.

Now, when we consider that the inside of a vessel comes constantly in contact with foul weather, and foul sea water, and that the outer armored portion comes in contact almost exclusively with the sea weather outside, that is with water and air alternating, we will find by a simple calculation that the iron upon the inside and outside together, affected upon the outside by the clear sea water, and upon the inside by foul water, and in each instance by the air, will corrode at the rate of one and three quarters of an inch in ninety-one years, two inches in one hundred and four years, or one quarter of an inch in thirteen years, which is a small portion of the life of a sea-going vessel.

at the shore. The argument drawn from that chain at the shore, therefore, falls to the ground.

But the gentleman from Connecticut denies that the waters are salt at New London. He cites, and cites as powerful authority upon all other subjects, the commission which examined New London, as well as the waters of the Delaware river, and that commission expressly say that the waters at New London are salt. I do not know what better means of information the gentleman from Connecticut has than the commission. Ido know that both the gentleman from Connecticut and the commission have better means of information than I have, and I am not going to vote upon questions involving these disputed facts in favor of or against New London or League Island without further inquiry. The gentleman visited New London with the Committee on Naval Affairs. I had not the good fortune to be with them upon that occasion. I requested the gentleman, if my recollection serves me, to bring me a bottle of the water, in order that I might test it, and see whether it was salt or not. Whether the gentleman found all the bottles at New London filled with other fluids, so that there was no room for salt water, I know not; but certain it is that the bottle did not come, and therefore we are left in the dark on that question.

But the gentleman from Connecticut, and those who argue on his side of this question, and the commission also, I believe, propose various means of avoiding this difficulty of salt water at New London. They propose, in the first place, that vessels when not in use shall be raised out

of the water. I suppose the idea is to elevate them some fifty or sixty feet above the water on Long Island sound and let them stand there on stilts. Another proposition from the same source is this. Somewhere near this proposed site at New London there is a basin of fresh water elevated at some one hundred feet above the level of the tide. The gentleman proposes to use that as a means of obviating this difficulty of the salt water. He does not tell us exactly how it is to be contrived, but I suppose the only way would be to put the vessels in the basin at the elevation of a hundred feet above the tide. Well, I rather incline to think that that would avoid the difficulty to a very considerable extent, but I would like to know in what state of readiness the gentleman would be with his armored fleet in the harbor of New London, one halfperched upon stilts a hundred or a hundred and fifty feet high, and the other half in the basin, if the harbor should be suddenly attacked.

These contrivances for obviating the effect of salt water upon armored vessels show that the gentlemen themselves hardly believe what they say when they say that salt water is not injurious, and also, that the river water at New London is not salt.

Again, some argument has been used by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] against the peculiar topography of League Island. Some argument, equally strong, has been used by my colleague [Mr. KELLEY] against the topography of the site proposed at New London. Let us look at them a moment. It is said, and I will not dispute that here, because it is not necessary to do so for the purpose of my amendment, that League Island will require to be raised some nine feet by filling before it can be adapted to the purpose of a navy-yard. Grant that; and grant, too, that the calculation made by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] is correctthat the raising two hundred acres to the height of nine feet, at the cost of one dollar per cubic foot, will require an outlay of $3,120,000. We have that as an argument against the adoption of League Island. But, on the other hand, it is alleged by my colleague [Mr. KELLEY] that New London is between twenty and one hundred and twenty feet above high tide. Every one knows that the site for a navy-yard should not be more than six or seven feet above high tide, at the most. The lower the better, so as not to be liable to overflow. Now, to cut down this average of sixty feet to the proper level, at the same rate of cost, would require an outlay of $20,800,000. I do not see, therefore, that, in this respect, the argument is in favor of New London. It should rather lead us to look for some site where such enormous outlay would not be necessary.

But the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] denies the height of the site of New London, as alleged by my colleague from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY.] So, also, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] deny the depth assigned to League Island; and I, for one, for the purpose of my argument, am perfectly willing to set off these disadvantages against one another. I suppose that if New London could exchange a part of its height for the lowness of League Island, if the earth and rock of New London could be transported to League Island, we might, in the course of a century or so, have very good sites for navy-yards, as far as that point is concerned, at both of these places.

In favor of the alleged height of New London, I will remark that the gentleman from Connecticut speaks of a basin a hundred feet in height, covering a hundred acres of ground, supplied by a river which enters just above and contiguous to the proposed site. The height of that position would argue, at least, that the assertions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] are not so wide of the mark, when he says, in effect, that the excavation at New London will be, at least, an average of sixty feet.

Something, too, has been said about the defensibility of these points. It is said, on the one hand, that New London is not easily defensible, while,

on the other hand, it is said that League Island is not easily defensible. I am willing to set off these assertions against one another, and to find a place which is easily defensible for this navy-yard. Both sites, for aught I care, may be considered to be wanting in that particular. But there is this to be borne in mind as a difference between them, that if the harbor of New London should be blockaded at tide-water, there would be no way for vessels in the harbor to escape. They would either have to run the blockading squadron or remain in the harbor; whereas vessels at Philadelphia, or anywhere in the Delaware river, have either of two alternatives to get to sea. The Delaware and Raritan canal could be enlarged and made a ship canal of, so that vessels could get to New York in that way, or a ship canal could be cut between the Delaware and Chesapeake bays, and vessels could escape by that way, so that an enemy would have to blockade the Delaware, the Chesapeake, and the harbor of New York to prevent the escape of vessels from the vicinity of Philadelphia, whereas the blockading of the harbor of New London would effectually prevent vessels escaping from that harbor. So much upon that question.

Again, it is urged, and with a good deal of propriety and force, on the part of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL] who has just addressed the House so ably, that the materials for building these ships are furnished largely by the State of Pennsylvania, and he asks, with a good deal of force, why this business should be taken so far away from the materials. Let me look for a moment at the figures in the report. I find by that that Pennsylvania furnishes sixtythree per cent. of all the iron furnished by the entire United States. I find also that it furnishes seventy-three per cent. of all the coal furnished by the United States. It is also a truth that the Delaware river furnishes greater facilities for obtaining timber for the building of ships than probably any other river emptying into the Atlantic. The ship-building timber from the State of Delaware, and the State of Maryland, is brought without any transhipment by railroad to any site upon the Delaware river, because the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore railroad touches the Delaware almost the entire way from Philadelphia to Wilmington.

Why, I ask again, should this business be taken directly away from the material to a place where the material will have to be transferred at a very considerable expense, the extent of which I will not now take time to consider? Why should it be taken to a place where, it seems to me, there are no advantages at all commensurate with the expense of such transfer?

Again, it is admitted by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] that the town of New London contains but about ten thousand population. He admits that that population affords a very insufficient supply of workmen for the business contemplated here. But he says that workmen can be brought from the city of New York, a point which is nearer by fifty miles to any proposed site on the Delaware river than is New London. I do not know whether the gentleman contemplates the workmen living in New York, and visiting their homes every night and returning every morning to their work. Probably he does not. It would be about as feasible as his project of a navy upon stilts.

Now, in regard to the facility of obtaining workmen, any point upon the Delaware river presents advantages which can hardly be found anywhere else, which no point upon this continent that I know of presents; and Philadelphia, which embraces League Island, is within half an hour's ride by railroad, at an expense of only eight cents per man, of any site upon the Delaware river which has been presented. Why then take the workmen and the material from the place where they now are and remove them to a site which, to say the least of it, does not show advantages commensurate with the expense?

but they cannot operate to the disadvantage of any site that may be chosen below it.

But the gentleman from Connecticut lays great stress upon the report of this commission that was appointed to visit these sites and choose between them. A commission appointed by a resolution of this House visited New London and

pass without difficulty, while the attacking force, ignorant of the channel, would probably be wholly wrecked in trying to avoid the crooks and turns in it. The gentleman from Connecticut also points out that there are certain shoals in the river Delaware below Philadelphia which are objectionable. Those, too, give an advantage in the way of defense. They increase the defensi-League Island, and, after extended examination bility of a navy-yard on the Delaware river, provided only that those shoals are not such as to prevent the passage of vessels of the requisite size.

Now, by looking at the reports, and at the coast survey, you will find that the channel of the river Delaware is eighteen and a half feet deep at low tide, and twenty-five feet at high tide, and that these points occupy a very small portion, indeed, of the channel between the mouth of the Delaware and the city of Philadelphia. It is not necessary that a vessel passing out of the river should choose extreme low tide. A vessel drawing twenty feet of water can readily enough pass out over these few shoals, which are well known to the Government. All they have to do is to avoid extreme low tide and take advantage of high tide.

If you will turn to the report you will find enumerated there the harbors of the United States, and that not more than five or six of them will admit the entrance of vessels of more than twenty feet draught of water. The harbor of Charleston has only eleven feet depth of water at low tide; that of Savannah but eleven feet-I mean at the entrance of the harbor; Mobile has twelve feet; Galveston twelve feet; the Mississippi river thirteen feet; Portland sixteen feet; Boston eighteen feet; Salem nineteen feet; and then come about as many harbors which will admit the passage of vessels of more than twenty feet draught of water.

Now, we must adapt our vessels to the purpose for which they are intended, and with this considerable list of harbors which have only a small depth of water, it is the duty of the Government to adapt vessels to this small draught of water. It is not intended by the United States to build vessels for the purpose of having armies transported across the ocean and invading foreign waters. The object of our iron-clads is to defend our own country and its harbors, and a considerable portion of their effectiveness in this respect will consist in their being of sufficiently light draught of water to enable them to enter the most of the harbors.

I therefore throw aside the argument that the Delaware river is too shallow, that shallowness being an advantage upon the score of defensibility, and no disadvantage when we consider that our vessels must be adapted to the harbors that they are destined to defend.

and discussion, found considerable disadvantages in each place, but preferred New London, not so much because it was the best, as because it was the least bad of the two. If the gentleman will turn now to the resolution by which that commission was appointed he will find that it differed widely from what I propose now. He will find that its jurisdiction, if I may so term it, was limited to the two sites-League Island, upon the Delaware river, and New London, with power to look at Narragansett bay. Such was the duty of the commission. They had no power to select the best site in the United States as I propose that this commission shall have. They had only the power to choose between those two; and after enumerating and admitting the manifold disadvantages of both they chose New London as the least bad.

Again, the gentleman argues something upon the services of the Naval Committee who visited both these sites, and preferred New London as the least bad. I do not know what peculiar facilities the Naval Committee may have for judg ing of sites for iron-clad navy-yards. My experience in reference to traveling committees of this House and of other bodies would lead me to suppose that the chief business of such a committee is of an entirely different character from that of looking at sites for navy-yards; and I will do justice to this committee by saying that, so far as I saw their operations, they performed the duty, which I believe is the general duty of such committees, most admirably. They did eat and drink in a manner that would do credit to any committee of this House. I do not attach any great weight to the opinion of the Naval Committee, any more than to the opinion of a like number of gentlemen selected anywhere in this House. Not a man of them, so far as I know, is either a scientific or a practical man in reference to this question. The members of that committee could have very little means of information that this House itself cannot have; and I am sure I do them entire justice when I say that I admit their claims to statesmanship, but I do not believe that they know how to drive a bolt in a vessel..

say, marshy at that? Are there not points that are not liable to the objections alleged on account of ice? Are there not points better in all requisite particulars than either of the places alluded to? Are there not places that will not require cutting down from twenty to one hundred and twenty feet to make them eligible at all? Is there not some eligible point within the limits of fresh water? I cannot believe there is not. But if a commission such as I contemplate in my proposition should fix upon New London, I, for one, would be satisfied. If, on the other hand, it should fix upon League Island, I shall also be satisfied. I shall then believe that these places, while they are bad, are still the best within the reach of the Government of the United States, and on that ground only will I consent to such a selection.

Now, it would appear to me almost impossible that, throughout the entire territory of the United States there should not be places that would avoid the difficulties of both these sites. Are But the gentleman from Connecticut complains there not points that are not at least four, six, or that the ice of the Delaware river affords obstruc-eight feet below the level of the tide, and, as they tions to the passage of vessels and renders the site ineligible upon that account. Why, sir, I do not know what the gentleman means by going further north to avoid ice. I have always been under the impression that the way to avoid ice was to get nearer the equator. I have yet to learn that, in fresh water, at the latitude of New London, there ought to be less ice than in the Delaware river, at the latitude of Philadelphia. But probably the explanation of the matter may be found in the fact that the water of New London is too salt to freeze. If so, I answer it is too salt to build iron-clad vessels in. But the ice upon the Delaware river is no formidable obstruction. The ice upon that river is rarely found fast at the town of Chester; it is never found fast below it. I remember, during the course of my life, but two instances in which the Delaware was frozen over as far down as the town of Chester. Those instances were in 1856 and 1857, two very cold winters in succession, during both of which, if I remember aright, the ice was so thick in the Susquehanna, at the crossing of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore railroad, that the track was actually laid upon the ice, and the locomotive and cars were for a considerable time taken across in that way. Only on those occasions, within my recollection, has the Delaware river been frozen over as far down as the town of Chester. It is usually

But the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] Complains of the tortuous character of the channel in the Delaware river. Why, sir, that very tortuous channel is one of the means of the defense of the sites on the river. The Gov-kept open all the way to Philadelphia during all ernment of the United States can have a knowledge of that channel that no one outside of this country can obtain. The city of Philadelphia can furnish pilots to take vessels where they can

seasons of all years. I remember only those instances in which it has not been. Those instances may probably operate to the disadvantage of a site nearer to Philadelphia than the town of Chester, ||

Now, there are two or three sites on the Delaware river, a considerable distance below the city of Philadelphia, which are not liable to some of the objections that operate against League Island. One of them is Chester; another, Marcus Hook; another, New Castle. This traveling committee looked at one of these sites and then condemned them all. They do not say upon what ground they condemned them. They do not say that these sites are open to most of the objections alleged against League Island. They do not pretend to say that any of these sites require filling. They do not pretend to say that either of them can be charged with lacking proper foundation. Yet these things are assumed by a general sweeping condemnation. They will admit, too, these

sites are nearer the ocean than League Island, and therefore less objectionable, according to their argument, on that account.

Why these gentlemen did not visit all of these sites it is difficult for me to say. The Naval Committee was not limited, as the commission was, and might and ought to have visited all of these sites. What I complain of, then, is that they did not, but condemned them without examination.

Let me say to this House that Chester of Marcus Hook furnishes all of the advantages which I know of for an iron-clad navy-yard. The population of that vicinity is about equal to that of New London, somewhere between eight and ten thousand. They are upon the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore railroad. Workmen can come from Philadelphia or Wilmington in half an hour, at an expense of only eight cents by buying a season ticket.

I wish to add that at the point of Chester, of which I speak, the building of iron-clads has been going on since the commencement of this war, and from eight hundred to a thousand men have been so employed. Why, sir, more iron-clads have been turned out from the town of Chester than perhaps the gentleman from Connecticut has ever seen. Materials, too, can be brought from the very mines and furnaces, and landed upon the very spot where they are to be used, at either of these sites, or at the town of New Castle below, without the cost of a single transhipment.

So, then, these towns are within the vicinity of workmen. They are within the vicinity of materials. They are in fresh water. They are free from the danger of ice. They are better defensible than New London. They present advantages which it is worth while for a commission to look at. All I ask is that all places be examined, and that selected which is best adapted to the purpose. It is with that view I offer the amendment, and I sincerely trust the House will adopt it.

You will recollect the surprise of Lord Lyons,
when he asked whether this Government really
intended to blockade the whole southern coast.
It had in addition to that to hunt the piratical
cruisers of the first naval Power into their various
hiding-places, all over the world of waters; and
when it came to warfare, it was the most difficult
kind of naval warfare, that of attacking land bat-
teries; and who will say that in all of these par-
ticulars the Navy has not accomplished its pur-
pose?

The enormous price in the confederacy of arti-
cles which have to run the blockade, and the
nineteen hundred and seventy-nine prizes taken
by our vessels, tell with a certainty that the
blockade has been most perfect. And we have
seen, in following the history of the war, that
in its various attacks upon land batteries the Navy
has been equally successful. The genius of Du
Pont devised a new mode, and a most success-
ful one, at Port Royal, of attacking land forces,
and this added greatly both to his own fame and
that of our Navy; while the gallantry and intre-
pidity of Farragut at New Orleans and Mobile
placed our Navy foremost in the annals of ma-
rine warfare. And we all but lately felt that the
gleams of victory streaming across the Atlantic
from the guns of the Kearsarge off Cherbourg
strengthened the loyal heart of the country at a
time when it was greatly given to despondency.

The blockade has been rigorously enforced, the warfare against land forces has been successfully conducted, and the British pirates sunk and driven into confederate ports, as the ocean with its myriad hiding-places was no longer safe for them. A brilliant record for our gallant Navy.

And the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, at which I arrive from the brief survey of the increase, the present condition, and the action of the Navy for the last four years, is that we have vessels enough for the present. We can afford fifty steamers lying off and on to blockade the port of Wilmington. We fill the harbors of Charleston and of Savannah, and the bay of Mobile, with our armed ships, and still have enough to protect northern ports against the possibility of attack.

It is apparently idle to talk about taking any of the principal southern ports without the assistance of the Army, but when Lieutenant General Grant is ready to detail a sufficient force for the purpose, the Navy will be, as it always has been, ready to furnishi vessels of the fittest class

mington, Charleston, or Mobile.

Mr. PIKE. Whoever reads the lucid and very able report of the Secretary of the Navy must be gratified, if not surprised, at the rapid and enormous increase of the Navy since the commencement of this rebellion. It now consists of over five hundred thousand tons of shipping-a very considerable fraction of the whole tonnage of the country. All sizes of vessels are embraced, from the tug of one hundred tons up to the Dunderberg of Mr. Webb, of more than seven thousand tons burden. Almost all of the kinds of ships known to naval architecture can be found in our Navy-for coöperation in the work of the capture of Wilall the practicable shapes and models, if not some which are entirely impracticable. Machinery of all the approved patterns has been introduced to propel these ships. The Navy Department has called upon the whole mechanical genius of the country for the construction of these admirable engines of war. It has gone into the widest variety of experiment in order to bring about the completest vessels which can be obtained. Any one disposed to criticise its action would say that it has been too experimental. I know that this is not the general opinion, but those who have watched the detailed action of the Department must come to the conclusion that if it has erred at all-and I do not say that it has-it has been in being too experimental, in trying too many new devices rather than in adhering to the old models.

In accomplishing this purpose, Mr. Speaker, there will have been expended during this Administration $280,000,000, a very generous sum, and one which would startle us were it not that we have become accustomed to the bewildering figures of the War Department. This large sum, on the whole, has been wisely and prudently expended. The most rigorous examination has been made by committees of both branches of Congress, some of them constituted strongly adverse to the present officers in charge of the Department, and nothing of misconduct worthy of the attention of Congress has been found. Frauds, of course, there have been, but they have been ferreted out in the Department itself, and the guilty punished; and, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the action of the Navy since hostilities broke out, it is only bare justice to say that it has accomplished all that could have been expected of it. It had to do the dull, tedious labor of the blockade, according to the strictest of the latest decisions on that vexed subject-a blockade of a coast over thirty-five hundred miles in extent, and which was pronounced impossible by the European diplomats.

And now, having accomplished thus much, I insist that for the purposes of this rebellion we need not stretch another keel, at any rate not for any vessel of considerable size. All we have to do now with our Navy is to keep the present force in repair. With six hundred and seventy-one vessels now in the service, the larger portion built since 1860, and with an ordnance production during the last year of more than fifteen hundred guns, I say our private and public ship-yards are abundantly sufficient for present purposes. We need no other facilities for the production of still more vessels. Let us finish those we have on the stocks, and then keep the whole in fighting trim, and we shall not lack in this branch of our great

war.

Why then, I ask this House, should we enter upon this enlarged expenditure for the purpose of creating additional monsters of the sea, for fear of some possible future foreign war? Is it wise? Have we not enough to do now to furnish means to carry on this war? It is with the greatest reluctance that we now tax our constituents enough to pay one third the current expenditures of the Government. Shall we rush into the unknown sea of new expenditures, which can be demonstrated to be wholly unnecessary, in order to compass the present great purpose of the country? I hope not.

The surest guarantee against future war is to succeed in this. The suppression of the rebellion is worth more to us, both for defense and offense, than a thousand ships. When that is done no nation will care to attack us, and we need not fear the combined attack of all Europe.

With all due deference to the superior wisdom of the gentleman in charge of the Navy Deportment, I do not hesitate to express the opinion that our expenditures in that branch of our war -so necessary and so well made-have reached

their highest point, and should, hereafter, be retrenched. It will be a glorious day for the country when the same thing can, with truth, be said of the War Department.

For the purpose, then, of adjourning this subject until some time in the future, a time of which I cannot but be hopeful, when the national obligations may run up to at least fifty per cent. of their face in the most favorable markets, I shall move to lay the subject on the table. In the mean time the investigation can go on, and we can ascertain in the large and broad expanse of this country where is the best site where in some future time we will establish a grand navy-yard where we can produce those perfect maritime creations which, at the same time that they are invulnerable at sea, shall possess that admirable power of propulsion which will make them the most rapid of vessels, and the most destructive to the enemies of our country.

I move to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. THAYER demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Having been summarily cut off from the remarks I intended to make upon this subject, I ask leave to print them.

No objection was made.

[The remarks will be published in the Appendix.]

The question was taken on Mr. PIKE's motion, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 80, nays 53, not voting 49; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ashley, Augustus C. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Cox, Cravens, Thomas T. Davis, Driggs, Eckley, Eden, Eldridge, Eliot, Farnsworth, Finek, Ganson, Gooch, Grider, Grinnell, Harding, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Hulburd, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Le Blond. Littlejohn, Long, Longyear, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, Odell, John O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Edward H. Rolins. Ross, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, John B. Steele, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Tracy, Van Valkenburgh, Wadsworth, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilson, and Benjamin Wood-80.

NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Arnold, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Blaine, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, Henry Winter Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Deming, Denison, Edgerton, English, Frank, Hooper, John H. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Law, Loan, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, William H. Miller, Moorhead, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O'Neill, Pendleton, Samuel J. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, William G. Steele, Stevens, Stiles, Thayer, Upson, Webster, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Windomi, and Yeaman-53.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Willain J. Allen, Anderson, Bliss, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Cofiroth, Creswell, Dixon, Donnelly, Dumont, Fenton, Garfield, Griswold, Hale, Hall, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Hotchkiss, Hutchins, Jenckes, Philip Johnson, William Jolinson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, King, Lazear, McKinney, Middleton, Nelson, Perry, Pruyn, Radford, William H. Randall, John H. Rice, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Strouse, Thomas, Voorhees, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-49.

So the whole subject was laid on the table.

Mr. PIKE moved to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was adopted; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was adopted.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H. R. No. 464) for the relief of Deborah Jones; when the Speaker signed the same.

RECIPROCITY TREATY.

The SPEAKER stated that the business next in order was the consideration of joint resolution (H. R. No. 56) authorizing the President to give the requisite notice for terminating the treaty made by Great Britain on behalf of the British provinces in North America, and to appoint cominissioners to negotiate a new treaty with the British Government based upon the true principles of reciprocity, said resolution having been postponed on the 1st of April last until this day.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is the precise position of the joint resolution? The SPEAKER. The question is, Shallit pass? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is it open to amendment?

The SPEAKER. It is not.

[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER. It is if the gentleman voted for the third reading.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think I did, and I make the motion to reconsider.

Mr. WARD. The preamble was adopted, and before the previous question was moved on the passage of the joint resolution the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] moved to postpone it. The question now is on its passage, and on that I demand the previous question.

Mr. MORRILL. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw the previous question for a moment. I merely want to make an explanation.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The previous question can be voted down.

The SPEAKER. The demand for the previous question would not cut off the privileged motion to reconsider the third reading, although the second of the previous question would.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think the House is now prepared to adopt the resolution for notice pure and simple. It came within a vote or two of it last session, and from what has transpired since, I think we must all agree that the notice ought to be given. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to offer that proposition again.

It was

Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I shall object to having that proposition again submitted. voted down at the last session of Congress.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. By a very close vote.

Mr. WARD. I shall therefore object to it. I propose to have a direct vote upon this joint resolution.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope the gentleman will not object

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What would be the condition of the bill in case the previous question be not seconded?

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution would be open to discussion and amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I hope the previous question will be voted down.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARD] whether he will agree to allow a motion to strike out of the joint resolution all after and including the word "unless," so as to make it simply direct notice to be given of the termination of the treaty. I will be then willing to vote for the proposition. The idea of authorizing a commission is against the genius of all our legislation. Such a matter is solely within the province of the Government.

Mr. WARD. I insist upon the previous question on the passage of the joint resolution. Mr. STEVENS. Then I move to lay the joint resolution on the table.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania will withdraw that motion.

Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw it for the present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is informed by the Journal clerk that the yeas and nays were not taken on ordering the joint resolution to be read a third time. The yeas and nays were taken on the amendments. Any gentleman, therefore, can move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time.

The motion was agreed to.

The question recurred on ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. MORRILL. I offer the following as a substitute for the joint resolution, and I move the previous question on the whole subject.

Mr. WARD. Is not that substitute the same as was voted down at the last session? The SPEAKER. There is an important change from the one voted down at last session.

Mr. WARD. Is it a different proposition? The SPEAKER. It is a different proposition. The substitute was read, as follows: Whereas by the reciprocity treaty, concluded the 5th day of June, and ratified on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1854, between the United States of America and the Queen of Great Britain, for the period of ten years from the date at which it should come into operation; and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties should give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the high contracting parties, according to the provisions of article fifth of said treaty, being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of said term of ten years, or at any time afterwards, and thereby aunul and abrogate said treaty; and whereas it has become desirable to terminate said treaty in the manner therein provided for, as its terms no longer appear reciprocally beneficial or satisfactory: With a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the termination of the said treaty of the 5th of June, A. D. 1854, in the mode prescribed in its fifth article, at the earliest practicable period therein provided for, and that the attention of the Governments of both countries may be directed to the adoption of all proper measures for an amicable adjustment of any matters of dif ference or dispute which may remain or arise in cousequence of the termination of said treaty,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and requested to give to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the notice required by the fifth article of the said reciprocity treaty of the 5th of June, A. D. 1851, for the termination of the

same.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Vermont will explain the difference between his substitute and the proposition voted down at last session. I cannot perceive the differ

ence.

The SPEAKER. The difference is that the words "at his discretion" are struck out, and the words "and requested" inserted; also that the words "Government of Great Britain" are changed into the words "Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Mr. WARD. There is another point of order. The preamble has been already adopted, and there has been no motion to reconsider it.

The SPEAKER. The whole joint resolution is thrown open by the reconsideration of the vote ordering it to be engrossed and read a third time.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, which was on agreeing to Mr. MORRILL's substitute.

The question was then taken upon the substitute offered by Mr. MORRILL to the original resolution; and it was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I now move to reconsider the vote by which the preamble was adopted. Mr. WARD. I submit that it is not proper, after this lapse of time, to move a reconsideration.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the point of order of the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARD] is well taken. After one day the motion to reconsider cannot be submitted except on Monday on a motion to suspend the rules. No objection having been made to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was ordered to a third reading, the Chair considered the motion to reconsider as having been entertained by unani

mous consent.

Mr. FARNSWORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the House adopted the substitute of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] and also moved to lay that motion on the table; which was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope this joint resolution will not be sent to the Senate until we can have an opportunity to move a reconsideration of the preamble on Monday next.

The SPEAKER. As the majority of the House evidently seems desirous to get at this resolution in some shape, the Chair will suggest that a motion to recommit is in order after the third reading has been ordered.

Mr. WARD. I will then move to recommit this joint resolution to the Committee on Com

inerce.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend that motion by substituting the Committee of Wuys and Means for the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. WARD. Would it be in order at this time to move to lay the whole subject on the table?

The SPEAKER. It would.

Mr. WARD. I then move that the whole subject be laid on the table, and upon that motion I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in

the negative-yeas 45, nays 84, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Arnold, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, Chauter. Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cox, Cravens. Thomas TDavis, Donnelly, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Frank, Grider, Harrington, Herrick, Knapp, Law, Littlejohn, Long, Mallory, Marey, McDowell, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendicton, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Windom, and Benjamin Wood-45.

NAY Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Ashley, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Cole, Henry Winter Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Denison, Dixon, Eckley, English, Farnsworth, Ganson, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John U. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Kernan, Knox, Marvin, McAllister, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B. Steele, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, Williain B. Wasuburn, Williams, Wilder, and Wilson-84.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Anderson, Blair, Bliss, William G. Brown, Clay, Coffroth, Creswell, Deming. Driggs, Dumont, Eliot, Fenton, Garfield, Griswold, Hale, Hall, Harding, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Hutchins, Jenckes, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, Orlando Kellogg, King, Lazear, Le Blond, Loan, Longyear, McBride, Middleton, Nelson, Perry, Pruyn, William H. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Strouse, Voorhees, Webster, Whaley, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, and Yeaman-53.

to.

So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed

Mr. MORRILL. I call for the previous question upon the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. WARD. I made a motion to recommit to the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] moved to amend by referring the subject to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MORRILL. I withdraw any motion or suggestion of that kind which I made. I prefer to have it passed now.

The demand for the previous question was then seconded, and the main question was ordered.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. WARD to recommit to the Committee on Commerce, and it was not agreed to.

The question recurred upon ordering the joint resolution to be read a third time, and being taken it was agreed to.

The joint resolution was read the third time. The question was upon the passage of the joint resolution.

Upon this question Mr. MORRILL called for the previous question.

Mr. WARD. I understand we are now to take a vote simply upon the resolution, and not upon the preamble.

The SPEAKER. The preamble was read the third time on the 1st of April last. A motion to reconsider the preamble was made by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. WARD] raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider could not be entertained at this time, which point the Chair sustained. The question is now upon the passage of the joint resolution and the preamble together, upon which the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] demands the previous question.

The demand for the previous question was then seconded, and the main question ordered. Mr. WARD. I call for the yeas and nays upon the passage of this joint resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 85, nays 57, not voting 40; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Ashley Bally, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegce, Brooks, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cole, Henry Winter Davis, Dawes, Dixou, Eckley, English, Farnsworth, Ganson, Gooch, Grinnell, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Huiburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Knox, Loan, Marvin, McClurg, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Onth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John II. Rice, Robinson, Edward II. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, and Yeaman-83.

THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS, PUBLISHED BY F. & J. RIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ancona, Arnold. James S. Brown, Chanler, Cobb, Cox, Thomas T. Davis, Denison, Dounelly, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Eliot, Finek, Frank, Garfield, Harding, Harrington, Herrick, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Littlejohn, Long, Mallory, Marey, McDowell, McIndoe, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, James S. Rollins, Ross, Johu B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Windom, and Benjamin Wood-57.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Anderson, Blair, Bliss, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Coffroth, Cravens, Creswell, Dawson, Deming, Driggs, Dumont, Fenton, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Hall. Benjamin G. Barris, Charles M. Harris, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, King, LeBlond, Longyear, McAllister, McBride, Middleton, Nelson, Perry, Pruyn, William H. Randall, Rogers, Strouse, Voorhees, Webster. Chilton A. White, Josephi W. White, Winfield, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-40.

So the preamble and joint resolution were passed.

Mr. MORRILL moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and also to lay the motion to reconsider on the table; which was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the title so as to read as follows:

A joint resolution authorizing the President of the United States to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice required for the termination of the treaty of reciprocity of the 5th day of June, A. D. 1854.

The motion was agreed to.

MAJOR N. S. BRINTON.

By unanimous consent, the House took from the Speaker's table and proceeded to consider a joint resolution (H. R. No. 104) reported from the Committee on Military Affairs for the relief of Major N. S. Brinton.

Mr. GARFIELD. As a bill has already been passed for the relief of Major Brinton, I move to lay this joint resolution on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

PRINTING TREASURY REPORT.

Mr. A. W. CLARK reported back from the Committee on Printing the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That fifteen hundred copies of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, with the accompanying documents, and one hundred and fifty copies of the estimates of appropriation, be printed for the use of the Treasury Department.

Mr. A. W. CLARK moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF LOUISIANA.

Mr. DAWES. I move that the remonstrance, referred some days ago to the Committee of Elections, against the claim of certain gentlemen to represent the State of Louisiana, be printed. The motion was agreed to.

And then, on motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the House (at twenty minutes after three o'clock, p. m.) adjourned.

IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, December 14, 1864. Prayer by Rev. W. H. CHANNING, D. D., Chaplain to the House of Representatives.

Hon. WILLARD SAULSBURY, of Delaware, appeared in his seat to-day.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. NESMITH presented a memorial of the Legislature of Oregon in favor of the location of a national foundery, arsenal, and manufactory of arms at the falls of the Willamette, near Oregon City, in that State; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. WILSON presented a memorial of medical storekeepers praying to be allowed the pay and emoluments of surgeons in the Army; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1864.

the joint resolution (S. No. 82) to encourage enlistments and promote the efficiency of the military forces of the United States, reported it without amendment.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution relative to the pardon indorsed by the President of the United States on the petition of Lucien Anderson and others in behalf of William Yocum, now confined in the penitentiary at Albany, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of the members of the grand and petit juries in attendance at the circuit and district courts of the United States in the district of Michigan praying for an increase of their compensation, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a petition of members of the bar of the District of Columbia praying that the supreme court of the District be authorized to appoint a stenographic reporter, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

THANKS TO CAPTAIN WINSLOW.

Mr. GRIMES. I am instructed by the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States, of the 5th instant, recommending the passage of a vote of thanks to Captain John A. Winslow, of the United States Navy, to report a joint resolution to that effect. The facts in regard to this matter are known to all the members of the Senate, and I presume that I shall be only carrying out the views of this body in asking that the resolution may now be considered.

By unanimous consent the joint resolution (S. No. 83) tendering the thanks of Congress to Captain John A. Winslow, United States Navy,

and to the officers and men under his command on board the United States steamer Kearsarge, in the conflict with the piratical craft, the Alabama, in compliance with the President's recommendation to Congress of the 5th of December, 1864, was read three times and passed.

THANKS TO LIEUTENANT CUSHING.

Mr. GRIMES. I am also instructed by the same committee, to whom was referred a similar message of the President recommending a vote of thanks to Lieutenant William B. Cushing, of the United States Navy, to report a joint resolution; and if there be no objection I will make the same motion in regard to it, that the Senate now proceed to its consideration.

There being no objection, the joint resolution (S. No. 84) tendering the thanks of Congress to Lieutenant William B. Cushing, United States Navy, and to the officers and men who assisted him in his gallant and perilous achievement in destroying the rebel steamer Albemarle, in compliance with the President's recommendation to Congress of the 5th of December, 1864, was read three times and passed.

DISTRICT COURT OF INDIANA.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 352) authorizing the holding of a special session of the United States district court for the district of Indiana, and for other purposes, have directed me to report it back with amendments. The only object of the bill is to hold a special term of the district court in the State of Indiana, which has been rendered necessary in consequence of the decease of the judge, and as the term is fixed for an early day, at the request of the Senators from that State, I ask the Senate to consider the bill at this time.

Mr. BROWN. Is the bill going to give rise to discussion?

Mr. TRUMBULL. None at all. It merely proposes to authorize the holding of a special term of the court.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Com-Y mittee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the

NEW SERIES.....No. 3.

bill. It provides that a special session of the United States district court for the State of Indiana shall be holden at the usual place of holding the court on the third Tuesday of December, 1864.

The second section provides that all suits and proceedings of a civil or criminal nature now pending in, or returnable to, the court, shall be proceeded in, heard, tried, and determined by the court at the special session in the same manner as at a regular term, and the judge is empowered to order the impanneling of a petit and grand jury for the session.

The third section provides that the judge of a district court may, at any time, order a special session upon due notice, given in such manner as he may by order direct, for the transaction of any business embraced in the order directing the spe

cial session.

The first amendment of the Committee on the Judiciary was to strike out, at the end of the first section, the following words, "the third Tuesday

in December, in the year of our Lord 1864," and to insert in lieu thereof, "the first Tuesday of January, 1865."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment of the committee was to strike out the third section of the bill.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

[ocr errors]

On motion of Mr. TRUMBULL, the title of the bill was amended by striking out the words "and for other purposes,' so as to read: A bill authorizing the holding of a special session of the United States district court for the district of Indiana.

RAIDS FROM THE BRITISH PROVINCES. Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, I see in this morning's paper the following announcement: "TORONTO, December 13.-The St. Albans raiders have been discharged for want of jurisdiction. There is much excitement."

I desire to offer a couple of resolutions this morning bearing upon this subject, one of them particularly; but I do not expect to make the Senate understand the state of feeling that exists on the Canadian border. I have a great number of letters in my possession from gentlemen living upon that border. In my own city, which is within musket range of the Canadian shore, thousands of the citizens have been under arms for a long time, and we have been under a continuous state of alarm for fear of incendiaries, murderers, burglars, and robbers from the Canadian frontier. From the announcement that I have read it would seem to appear that the Canadian authorities have made up their minds to protect these raiders. As I understand it, a man goes from the South to Canada with a commission purporting to be issued by Mr. Davis, enlists his raiding party, crosses the frontier, murders, robs, burns, destroys, returns again to Canada, and is there protected by the authorities. The letters which I have in my possession are all bearing upon that point. The one I now hold in my hand is from one of our most respectable citizens in the city of Detroit, a gentleman of great wealth, of high political and social position, and who earnestly desires to avoid a difficulty with Great Britain at this time. He

says:

"The anxiety growing out of the mist and doubt encircling every rumor that reaches us is not to be endured, and upon some slight provocation, one of these days, regardless of neutral lines, our people will be found in Canada engaged in some act that the Canadian Government will say is wrong, and, sooner or later, war will be the result; this we do not want."

Again he says:

"Will you give it your attention, for I think it involves, sooner or later, if not properly heeded, war with England."

As I said when I commenced, I have no expectation of making the Senate comprehend this state of excitement, this intense state of feeling which exists on that border. Vermont may, for

« PoprzedniaDalej »