Obrazy na stronie

the matter continued from 1809 till 1833, no canal being completed by either of these organizations.

The corporation sought to be created by this in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company
act has no authority to take one cent's worth to this portion of the old canal it will not be
of property which belongs to the city of Wash-deprived of them. It simply authorizes the
ington or to any individual except by paying construction of a canal and the condemnation
the full value of the property, to be ascertained of property with payment therefor. If this old
in the usual mode when private property is canal is in such a condition that it cannot be
taken for public uses.
used, and if the right of the city in it is one of
those rights that cannot be invaded by a cor-
poration of this kind, all they have got to do
is to apply to a court for injunction and stop
this work at once. And precisely the same

The committee have proposed by this bill to
authorize the construction of this canal by this
corporation and to give it whatever rights or
interest the United States Government has in
this old canal. If the Government of the Uni-thing may be done by the Chesapeake and Ohio
ted States has any interest in it the committee
have failed to see that it is of any advantage
or of any value to the United States. If the
corporate authorities of the city of Washing-
ton own the canal and it is of any value to them
the bill provides that this corporation shall pay
every dollar that it is worth before they appro-

In 1833, this city corporation made some kind of purchase-for what consideration I know not; neither does the committee, nor do the corporators of the old canal. Those corporators had a capital stock of $150,000, but what price they sold out for to the corporation of the city of Washington I do not know. But in 1832 or 1833 the city of Washington presented a bill to Congress declaring that they had made a bargain and purchase from this canal corporation, and asking Congress to vest in them whatever rights the United States had in this canal, because they believed, by reason of the neglect of that corporation to perform the duties imposed upon them by the charter, they had forfeited all rights to the canal to the Government of the United States in the canal.priate it. So an act was passed in 1833 giving to the city of Washington whatever rights the United States had in the canal, and the canal became the proporty of the city of Washington; but on the condition, mark you, that it should go on and complete the canal within one year from and after the passage of the act. Years rolled around and the city of Washington did next to nothing. They never made it a commer cial canal. They never did anything, except to get money from the United States. They received $20,000 on two different occasions to clean out the canal or to make some repairs. On another occasion, the city of Washington obtained $150,000 out of the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of liquidating the debt they had contracted on the purchase of the canal from the original corporators. The Government of the United States has never received any consideration from the city in return for this expenditure, but the city has from that time up to the present collected wharfage and rent to the amount of several thousand dollars per year. The canal has been used for no other purpose than to spend money on or to get money out of the Treasury.

These men who seek to be incorporated claim that the city of Washington has never paid a dollar for the canal; if there was any money paid to the original corporators it was paid by the Government under act of Congress. The city of Washington has never paid a dollar. Instead of performing the conditions of the charter or the agreement with the Government it has violated them. Yet, sir, notwithstanding the fact, the city has had undisputed control of this "old ditch" or canal for nearly thirty-five years. They have done nothing with it except on three different times to receive from the Treasury of the United States $190,000 in the aggregate. They may have spent some of it in cleaning the canal, but little for the purpose of constructing a canal which would be of any benefit to com


The committee believe to leave this canal as it is it will never benefit any one-it will never benefit the city of Washington. The committee believe the city of Washington has forfeited whatever rights it had in it. It never had any real right. It made a contract with the original corporators, but subsequently Congress appropriated $150,000 to pay that claim of the original corporators on the sale of the canal to the city. I suppose it paid the money to the original corporators, or put it into their own pockets or into the city treasury, There has been no money paid by the citizens of Washington or the city of Washington in its corporate capacity for this purchase of the canal. So the city of Washington loses nothing by the bill, but gains immeasurably if these parties construct a commercial canal in accordance with the provisions of the bill. It will be a source of revenue, and of great benefit to the city. It will cheapen the price of coal and building material of all kinds.

And so that we shall not trespass upon the rights of any person or body-politic, it is provided that whatever rights, public, private, or corporate, in or to this canal shall be protected.

It is objected, as I have heard, that this bill authorizes this corporation to take all the land that may be made or reclaimed out of the waste land lying along the line of the canal for its own use. There is not one word of truth in it. The bill simply provides that this corporation shall have eighty feet in width for the canal and six feet additional on each side for a tow path, and nothing more. Any land beyond that that now belongs to the city of Washington or to the Government of the United States is reserved to the city of Washington or to the Government, so that this corporation does not get one single rod of ground additional.

It is objected, as I understand, by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] that this bill proposes to seize several hundred thousand dollars' worth of the property of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. Now, I cannot for my life see wherein or by what provision of this bill such a statement is warranted. It does provide that this corporation shall have power to construct a canal from Seventeenth street west to Rock creek. I will admit that some forty years ago or more, when the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company was chartered, the charter authorized that company to build their canal to Seventeenth street west, and that it did extend it to that point and used it for a time. But there is a provision in that charter, also, that if the company shall fail to use any portion of the canal or keep it in repair for commercial purposes it shall forfeit its charter to that extent, at least that is my view of the law. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company has the terminus of their canal at Rock creek, in Georgetown, one mile and a quarter west of Seventeenth street.

Twenty years have elapsed since the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company have used this part of their canal. It is now filled with sand, mud, and rubbish of one kind and another to such an extent that there has not a canal-boat passed through it for that length of time, as I am informed. There is at Seventeenth street an old lock with a gate, but it is filled up with earth to such an extent that it has not been opened for nine years. But yet the gate-keeper stays there, and he told me the other day that the gate had not been opened for nine years. And yet the company keep him there and pay him a salary. No wonder they pay no dividends if they conduct business in that manner.

If, however, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company have any vested right in this old canal, which they have not used for twenty years, whatever right it has is still reserved. The bill does not propose to take anybody's property in any other manner than is usually done when you incorporate a company and give it authority to take and pay for such property as it may require to carry out the purposes of the incorporation. This company must have some right to take property, but it must be so guarded as to protect the rights of individuals and be compelled to pay for all the property taken before it is applied to the use of the corporation.

Such are the provisions of the bill under consideration. If there are any vested rights ll

Canal Company. This bill confers no extra privilege and no extra rights upon this corporation. None whatever. It simply authorizes the construction of a canal just as if no "ditch" had ever been built through the city, and provides for the payment of all property, whether of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the city of Washington, or of private persons. They are all protected.

The object of the bill is to give this city a commercial canal that will connect the coal regions of Maryland with this city. It is proposed, as a part of the contemplated improvement, to construct a canal from the Anacostia or Eastern branch to Annapolis, and from there there is a water communication by the Chesapeake bay from Annapolis to Baltimore, and so on to Philadelphia, and by canal already open to New York, which will shorten the distance to New York by water two hundred and fifty miles. It saves a sea voyage of five hundred and seventy miles from Georgetown to New York if these twenty miles of canal between the Anacostia and Annapolis shall be completed.

These are some of the objects sought to be attained by this bill, and in my opinion the work will be done. So far as the committee can judge, the men who propose to do the work are men of energy and ability. The committee have no idea that the city of Washington or the Government of the United States will ever build the work. This company propose to build it without a dollar's tax on the city of Washington or taxing the United States Treasury one farthing.

Mr. Speaker, as I wish to pass this bill this morning, I will yield in two minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS.]

Mr. F. THOMAS. Oh, no, sir; I could not accept the time. The gentleman intends it as a very polite proposition, and I have no doubt it is made in a very kind spirit.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I said that in two minutes from this time I would yield to the gentle


Mr. F. THOMAS. Oh! I beg your pardon. Mr. INGERSOLL. I only want two minutes more myself. I would consider it highly improper to offer the gentleman but two min


Mr. Speaker, this franchise is now said to be of considerable value to the city of Washington, and that there would be some great wrong done in allowing this company to build the work.

When the Committee for the District of Columbia was organized at the commencement of this session we were importuned by the authorities of the city of Washington to take this canal off the hands of the city; they besought the committee to take the old canal, which had been a disgrace and a nuisance, and fill it up, or dig it out, or do something with it in order to relieve the city from it. A proposition was made to build a sewer within the canal and then cover it all over with earth, and destroy it forever for any commercial purposes. All sorts of propositions were made to the committee; and when this bill was introduced into the Senate two months ago we heard no objection to it. It was carefully examined and considered, and it passed the Senate by an almost unanimous vote. After it had been considered by the committee of this House the city of Washington said, all at once, that some right of immense value was being disposed of to their injury.

Now, so far as Congress is concerned, I do not suppose it cares who makes the canal

whether it is done by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, by the corporation of the city of Washington, or by any other corporation. If a private corporation will construct this canal free of expense to this city and to the Government, then I am in favor of that corporation; and I believe that is what this bill will accomplish.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I find in the fourteenth section of this bill the following provision:

That the said company shall, within thirty days after the passage of this act, cause a constant stream of fresh water to bo turned into and upon the said old canal, and to flow through the same from the western corporate limits of the city of Washington to the Anacostia river, and to continue so to flow until the 20th day of October next, in default whereof the said corporators of said company shall forfeit and be jointly and severally liable to pay to the United States the sum of $2,000 recoverable on motion made by the mayor of the city of Washington or any other person, after ten days' notice thereof, duly served, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or any other court having competent jurisdiction.

I would ask my colleague [Mr. INGERSOLL] if this corporation will be liable to this forfeiture before they shall signify their acceptance of the terms of this act. I do not find any provision in this bill prescribing that this corporation shall signify their acceptance of this grant. Does my colleague suppose that this company can be made liable before they have done anything to signify that they are a party to this act?

Mr. INGERSOLL. No, sir; I do not think they could.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Should there not be a provision in this bill providing that this company shall signify their acceptance of this grant within a certain time after the passage - of this act?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I am willing to agree to any amendment of that kind the gentleman may offer. I will now yield the remainder of the morning hour, but one minute, to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS.]

Mr. F. THOMAS. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] proposes that I shall in the short space of ten minutes answer the argument which he has submitted to the House on a measure of vital importance to my constituency, and at the same time weave into the discussion all those elements which it has suited the peculiar views of the gentleman to leave out of his remarks. Now, it is for the House to determine whether such a proposition is reasonable in itself.

Now, when the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] shall have concluded his remarks I will ask the indulgence of the House to endeavor to explain fully and clearly the whole bearing of this proposition, which, as I have already stated, is of vast importance to the interests I represent; for this is by no means a local measure. I know I have the opportunity of consuming the next seven or eight minutes, and then this bill will go over, as a matter of course. But I will deal more courteously with the House, and ask them to postpone the further consideration of this bill until next Friday morning.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I am willing, if the House will consent, that this bill shall be discussed for two days, and then the gentleman can have all the time he desires, if the House will consent to give it to him. And I will join with the gentleman from Maryland in asking the House to give him all the time he wishes, or for two or three hours in addition to what he would have now, if we can have it, say tomorrow, instead of using up next Friday morning, which is private-bill day. I know there are several other committees that desire to introduce private bills, and the longer this bill is considered on private-bill days the longer the other committees will be crowded out. Now, if the House will give us to-morrow, or another hour to-day, or a night session, I will be willing that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS shall take all the time he wants.

The SPEAKER. If this bill is debated until the close of the morning hour it will go over until next Friday morning; or if the

House shall meet to-morrow this bill would come up to-morrow morning. Saturday being private-bill day as well as Friday.

Mr. F. THOMAS. Before I utter another word I will ask the gentleman from Illinois if I am to understand that I have the floor as of right or as a concession from him. If I have it as a right I know how to act; if I hold it as a concession from him I also know how to act. Mr. INGERSOLL. I want the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] to understand that it would be as gratifying to me as it would be to himself to have him occupy the floor as a right. But if the House will not allow us any more time than the morning hour of to day and the morning hour of next Friday, I must ask a vote in the morning hour.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] that this bill must be disposed of before any other committee can be called for private bills. Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman from Maryland state how much time he wants? Mr. F. THOMAS. I cannot tell that. Mr. INGERSOLL. I will ask the Speaker how long before the morning hour will expire. The SPEAKER. It will expire in four minutes.

Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman from Illinois yield to me to submit a motion to determine the question whether we are to have a session of the House to-morrow or not? I desire to move that when the House adjourns to-day it be to meet on Monday next.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield for that purpose now. Now, I want to deal in all fairness with the gentleman from Maryland and to accord to him not only his rights but even more. I want to be as courteous and indulgent as it is possible for me to be. But I am aware that if he now takes the floor without restriction, then within one or two minutes the morning hour will expire, and he will have all the next morning hour, and then the bill will go over another week. And in that way this bill may be postponed four or five weeks. Now, if we are to derive any sanitary advantages from this bill, the sooner it is passed, if it is to be passed, the better. If the gentleman will say that he will yield after having occupied thirty minutes, I will yield to him with pleasure.

Mr. F. THOMAS. hope the gentleman will excuse me if I say that to me one of the most unpleasant scenes that ever occurs on the floor of the House is the position that some gentlemen claim, to have the right to occupy the floor and say to other members who shall speak, how long they shall speak, and when.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I have this much to say in reply to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS,] that it does seem to me that he is determined that I shall not be even courteous, though I am willing to yield to him all the time of the next morning hour that I can. But I cannot consent to give him more than thirty minutes. I want to know if the House desires to discuss this bill for three or four weeks, thereby preventing the reporting of any other private measure for that time. I will call the previons question unless the gentleman will consent to occupy but half an hour during the next morning hour.

Mr. F. THOMAS. I cannot promise anything like that.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I then call the previous question.

The question was taken; and upon a division there were-ayes 25, noes 75.

So the previous question was not seconded. The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and this bill goes over until the morning hour of the next private-bill day.


A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, notifying the House that that body had passed Senate joint resolution No. 87, to provide for the payment of bounty to certain Indian regiments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.


Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled joint resolutions of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 74) providing for the acceptance of a collection of plants tendered to the United States by Frederick Pech; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 116) respecting quarantine and health laws.


Mr. HOLMES asked and obtained leave to withdraw from the files the petition and papers of Hubert H. Booley.


Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I ask consent to report from the Committee on Banking and Currency a bill to secure and regulate the safe-keeping of public money intrusted to disbursing officers of the United States, that the same may be printed and recommitted, with leave to the committee to report at any time.

Mr. LE BLOND. I will have no objection to this bill being reported, ordered to be printed, and recommitted. But I must object to its be ing reported back at any time.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LE BLOND] will look at the bill, and see what it is, I think he will see that it is important that it should be passed at once. It is for the better security of public moneys intrusted to the disbursing officers of the Government.

Mr. LE BLOND. So far as that is concerned the Government has already the power to secure that. They should never have per. mitted these public funds to be intrusted to certain banks.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I would ask that this bill be considered now. It is a most important bill; and I call for its reading so that the House may see how important it is. The bill was read through.

Mr. LE BLOND. I withdraw my objection, if the gentleman from Massachusetts wants to put the bill upon its passage.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I hope the House will pass the bill; but I do not feel at liberty to take up the time of the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SCHENCK. I yield for that purpose. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I'demand the previous question on the passage of the bill. Mr. McRUER. I object.

Mr. HOOPER,. of Massachusetts. I move, then, that the bill be ordered to be printed and recommitted; and that the committee have leave to report at any time.

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.


Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I am instructed by the Committee on Military Affairs to report back House bill No. 602, to equalize the bounties of soldiers, sailors, and marines, who served in the late war for the Union. The bill, as it now stands, is a substitute for the original bill reported by the committee. It has been printed, and in possession of the House since yesterday. I report back the substitute with a single amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. I am anxious to get through with the internal revenue bill this week, and we will be able to do so if we can have to-day and to-morrow. I ask the gentleman from Ohio whether he expects to take up much time.

Mr. SCHENCK. It is what I was going to explain, but in this House gentlemen antici pate and ask for explanation when it is about to be made. I was going on to say we report back the substitute with a single amendment, and propose to ask the action of the House on the substitute as slightly amended, and finally upon the bill as amended.

This is an act eminently of generous justice to the soldiers. I know there are a great many gentlemen in this House on both sides, but

[ocr errors]

particularly on the other side, to which the soldier has always looked for justice and favor, who desire to be heard at length in favor of the bill; but as I and all the committee reporting the bill are willing to forego any discussion of the subject, and desire to make no speeches whatever, but to put the bill on its passage, I trust there will be general consent on both sides to that treatment. If gentlemen have prepared speeches on this subject, I suggest those speeches be yet made on some Saturday afternoon, as they will, I have no doubt, have influence on the minds of Senators when the bill goes to that body.

The substitute was read, as follows:

That instead of any grant of land or other bounty, there shall be allowed and paid to each and every soldier, sailor, and marine who faithfully served as such in the Army, Navy, or Marine corps of the United States, and who has been, or who may hereafter be, honorably discharged from such service, the sum of eight and one third dollars per month, or at the rate of $100 per year, as hereinafter provided, for all the time during which such soldier, sailor, or marine actually so served, between the 12th day of April, 1861, and the 19th day of April, 1865. And in the case of any such soldier, sailor, or marine, discharged from the service on account of wounds received in battle,

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That in case the payments shall be made in the form of a check, order, or draft upon any paymaster, national bank, or Government depository in or near the district wherein the claimant may reside, it shall be necessary for the claimant to establish by the affidavits of two credible witnesses that he is the identical person named therein; but in no case shall such checks, orders, or drafts be made negotiable until after such identification.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any soldier, sailor, or marine to transfer, assign, barter, or sell his discharge, final statement, descriptive list, or other papers, for the purpose of transferring, assigning, bartering, or selling any interest in any bounty under the provisions of this act; and all such transfers, assignments, barters, or sales heretofore made are hereby declared null and void as to any rights intended so to be conveyed by any such soldier, sailor, or marine.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That no adjustment or payment of any claim of any soldier, sailor, or marine, or of his proper representatives, under the provisions of this act, shall be made unless the application be filed within two years from the passage of the act: and the settlement of accounts of deceased soldiers, sailors, and marines shall be made in the same manner as now provided by law.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move the following amendment: page 3, line six, after the word "request,' ," insert "prior to the 9th day of

or while engaged in the line of his duty, the said April, 1865." If members will look at the

allowance of bounty shall be computed and paid up to the end of the term of service for which his enlistment was made. And in case of the death of any such soldier, sailor, or marine, while in the service, or in case of his death after discharge and before the end of his term of enlistment, ifdischarged on account of being wounded, as before provided, the allowance and payment shall be made to his widow, if she has not been remarried, or if there be no widow, then to the minor child or children of the deceased who may be under sixteen years of age.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That in computing and ascertaining the bounty to be paid to any soldier, sailor, or marine, or his proper representatives, under the provisions of this act, there shall be deducted therefrom any and all bounties already paid, or payable under existing laws, by the United States, or by any State, county, city, town, or other municipal organization, or by any voluntary association, so that in no case shall the aggregate amount of bounty allowed and paid from all sources exceed eight and one third dollars for each month of actual faithful service, or at the rate of $100 per year. And in the case of any sailor or marine to whom prize money has been paid, or is payable, the amount of such prize money shall also be deducted, and only such amount of bounty paid as shall, together with such prize money and any other bounty paid or payable by the United States, or by any State, county, city, town, or other municipal organization, or by any voluntary association, amount in the aggregate to the sum allowed by this act.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That no bounty. under the provisions of this act, shall be paid to or on account of any soldier, sailor, or marine who served as a substitute in either the Army or Navy, or who was a captured prisoner of war at the time of his enlistment, nor to any one who was discharged on his own application or request, unless such discharge was obtained with a view to reënlistment, or to accept promotion in the military or naval service of the United States, or to be transferred from one branch of the military service to another, and who did actually enlist or accept promotion or was so transferred. And no bounty shall be paid to any soldier, sailor, or marine, discharged on the application or at the request of parents, guardians, or other persons, or on the ground of minority.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That every petition or application for bounty made under the provisions of this act shall disclose and state specifically under oath, and under the pains and penalties of perjury. what amount of bounty, either from the United States or from any other source, and what amount of prize money, if any, has been paid or is payable to the soldier, sailor, or marine, by whom or by whose representatives the claim is made.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That whenever application shall be made by any claimant, through any attorney or agent, the post office address of the claimant shall be furnished, giving the name of the county and State in which it is situated, and the amount of commission or fee which the attorney or agent is to receive for his service in the settlement of the claim, which charges in no case shall exceed the sum of five dollars; and every such application shall be accompanied by the written affidavit of the attorney or agent, that he has not charged, nor agreed for, and will not accept, more than such sum of five dollars for his services in the case. The Paymaster General, or proper accounting officer of the Treasury, upon ascertaining the amount due, shall cause to be transmitted to such claimant the full amount thereof, less the fee to be paid to the attorney or agent, which fee shall be paid to the attorney or agent in person, or transmitted to such address as the attorney may direct.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That any attorney or agent who shall receive from any claimant a sum greater than five dollars for the prosecution of any claim under the provisions of this act, upon conviction thereof shall pay a fine not to exceed the sum of $1,000, or imprisonment for a term not less than one year, or both, as the court or jury may adjudge, and shall be forever thereafter excluded from prosecuting claims of any nature whatever against the Government of the United States.

printed substitute they will find we exclude from bounty those who were discharged on their own application or request. The committee, on reconsideration, thought it ought to apply only to those who did not wait until the

war was over.

It will relieve from exclusion

those who did not make the request to be discharged from the Army until after Lee's surrender.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I would like to offer the following amendment: strike out from the sixth line of section two all after the word "States" down to the word "association" in the seventh line. In the ninth line strike out the word "all" and insert "such."

Mr. WARD. I ask the gentleman to let me move an amendment.

Mr. SCHENCK. In the first place amendment is not in order under the rules, as there is an amendment pending to an amendment; and in the second place the Committee on Military Affairs, with great unanimity and cordiality, agreed to report and have it acted on as it now stands. I demand the previous question. The House divided; and there were-ayes 81, noes 24.

So the previous question was seconded. Mr. WARD. Is there to be no means of discussing a bill which involves an expenditure of $200,000,000?

The SPEAKER. Not when the previous question is seconded.

The amendment of the committee to the substitute was agreed to.

Mr. JULIAN. If the substitute be voted down, then the vote will come up on the original bill.

On motion of Mr. STEVENS, the original bill was read in extenso.

The question recurred on agreeing to the substitute for the original bill.

Mr. WARD. I ask the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs to permit me to have an amendment reported which I desire

to offer.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have no power over this subject; it is with the House; but I am perfectly willing the gentleman shall have his amendment read, if that is the point he desires.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, is this offering of amendments going to be allowed generally?

The SPEAKER. It is not. It can only be amended, after the third reading, by a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I would inquire whether the previous question is still operating. The SPEAKER. It is; and no debate is in order except by unanimous consent. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object to debate, unless it can be made general.

Mr. BLAINE. I object also. Mr. JULIAN. I demand the yeas and nays on agreeing to the substitute.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question was put; and there were-ayes 93, noes 36.

Mr. ROGERS. Idemand the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER. They have already been refused:

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Speaker appointed Messrs. WILSON, of Iowa, and SCHENCK. The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 84, noes 33.

So the substitute was agreed to.

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

Mr. SCHENCK. I believe the previous question has exhausted itself on the third reading. I now demand it on the passage of the bill.

Mr. WARD. Is it in order now to move to recommit with instructions?

The SPEAKER. It will be if the previous question is not seconded.

Mr. BANKS. I hope the chairman of the committee will state the operation of this bill as compared with the original bill.

Mr. THAYER. I object to discussion. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio, who reported the bill, has a right to occupy one hour.

Mr. SCHENCK. If the House will second the previous question I will go on and explain it. First, let us have the previous question seconded.

The previous question was seconded-ayes 75, noes 34-and the main question ordered. Mr. ANCONA. I demand the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. I propose very briefly, as many gentlemen request it, to state the differences between the substitute and the original bill. First, as to the original bill I shall say nothing, because it has been printed and on the tables of gentlemen for some time past.

The first change made in the bill is in the first section, at the close, where in limiting the direction to be given to this bounty to minor children, there is added the further clause that it shall be given only to those who are under sixteen years of age. The idea of the committee was that in this country when childreu arrive at the age of sixteen they are able to obtain some kind of employment sufficient at least to sustain themselves. It is in conform

ity with the pension law, limiting the extension of the bounty to those minors only who are under sixteen years of age. It saves many millions of dollars, though that was not the exclusive object.

In the second section the committee concluded, in their revision, to insert a provision that there should be taken into the computation, in order to determine whether a man had a sufficient bounty, whatever he had received from local authorities or from local voluntary associations got up by subscription for the purpose of relieving from the draft by putting men in the Army. This some gentlemen have seriously objected to. The reasons which prevailed with the committee were these: in the first place, there is a fairness about it. A man comes forward and asks to be put, as far as possible, upon the same footing as others-that is, to get under the provisions of this bill $300 at least for his services in the Army, in addition to his pay and other allowances. The Government which he approaches in this way says to him, through its officials, "How much have you received from various sources?" If he has already received over $300, which is what we propose to give, it is not a case of peculiar hardship. In dispensing this bounty we should not add anything to the sum already paid where a man has received $300. All we promise is to make up the bounty to $300.

Now, that will fall not hardly on those who entered the Army late in the war and got all the local bounties, for it so happens that those who got the local bounties got also the bounty from the Government and are outside of the provisions of this bill. The truth is that the bill only applies to and affords help to those

who enlisted in 1861 or in the early part of 1862 throughout the whole Union. Those who went into the Army in 1861 or early in 1862 got little or no bounty of any kind, and got from the General Government only either $100 or nothing at all. Now, to those who received nothing this bill gives $300, and to those who received $100 enough to make up the amount to $300. Later on in the war large local bounties were paid, while at the same time the Government of the United States was paying bounties. Such men are cut off from the operation of this bill.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; I cannot. With all due deference to the gentleman from New York, I detest these interruptions. At the end of my remarks I will answer any questions that gentlemen desire.

There is another effect of this amendment. If, by the legislation of Congress, you equalize bounties to the extent of taking care that every man shall at least have $300 out of the United States Treasury, if he has not obtained it from any other source, and then turn these soldiers over to their States you will find them in every State going to their Legislatures and saying, "See here what the Congress of the United States has done; now we want you to equalize the bounties at home; and as some men have been paid $1,000 and $1,500 and others only $300 or $400, we want you to follow the example of the Government of the United States and equalize the bounties in the State as Congress has done throughout the United States;" and it will be very hard to resist that appeal when made under such a precedent; so that by taking the whole thing into account, we relieve the States from calls that may be made hereafter to equalize bounties in the States as Congress has equalized them throughout the United States.

Leaving the reference to that change, I come to the next alteration made. We cut off from the benefits of the bill substitutes. We have taken the ground that where a man was hired at some enormous cost to go into the Army for another, he went into the Army taking all the chances and has no proper claim on the Government for equalization of bounty with other soldiers who were either compelled to go or went voluntarily.

which the law allows. This is to prevent collusion between the attorney and the claimant, when the claimant finds the attorney unwilling to act under the law without such secret understanding.

I believe that I have stated now all the material differences between the substitute and the original bill; and I am now ready to answer the question of my friend from New York, [Mr. HOTCHKISS.]

Mr. HOTCHKISS. The inquiry which I desire to make is this: in many cases in my own district, in 1861, the State paid to the soldier seventy-five dollars bounty, and the local authorities $225 bounty. In such cases, what is the soldier going to get under this bill? If the soldier in such a case gets nothing, are we to be subjected to taxation to pay bounties to soldiers raised in communities that gave no bounty?

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I think I have anticipated an answer to that inquiry. have said that the bill declares plainly.


Mr. HOTCHKISS. Let me ask furtherMr. SCHENCK. I trust the gentleman will wait a moment till I have answered the question he has already put.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I am charged and primed, and I cannot stop till I have discharged the whole load. [Laughter.] I want to know whether, where we in our State have paid more than three hundred dollars bounty, the soldiers of the State of New York will be obliged to pay back anything.

Mr. SCHENCK. I suppose the gentleman is now through, unless he is a revolver. [Laughter.]

Now, as to the first branch of the inquirythe first barrel of the gentleman's gun-the bill itself answers it. The bill is framed entirely with this view: that every man who presents himself asking for this bounty of $300 shall be interrogated as to how much he has received from various sources as bounty for serving his country in addition to his regular pay. If he has received $300 or more, he is not to receive anything under this bill. While we do not propose to give any one more than $300, nor to pay any one less than that amount, our object is that every man who has not received $300 shall be raised up to that standard.

These remarks will serve to answer to a great extent the second branch of the inquiry; and my echo to the report of that second barrel of the gun, showing that it is only a blank car

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Perhaps I owed the gentleman an apology; but there is nothing in his Army bill against the use of revolvers. [Laughter.]

There have been such cases as this before the Committee on Military Affairs: a man being drafted, a relative, without hope of reward,tridge, will be thisvolunteered to go in his place; in another instance, a returned volunteer, seeing the tears of the family of a poor man who was drafted and was unable to pay for a substitute, volunteered his services and took that man's place. But these are exceptional cases. We can only legislate for classes, and leave such men to the reward of an approving conscience and the kindness of their neighbors, who, instead of petitioning Congress, had better subscribe the $300 for these men.

We have made another alteration. It was provided in the original bill that if a man had been discharged on his own application or request he should be cut out from the advantages of the bounty. In the revision we have inserted the words, "prior to the 9th day of April, 1865," which was the date of Lee's surrender, so as not to cut off from the bounty those men who thought the fighting was all over, and finding it very easy on application to the War Department at that time to get out of the Army, naturally did so. We save the bounty to every man who was discharged even at his own request and upon his own application, provided he did not make that application before the fighting was done.

We have inserted another provision, to which I suppose no gentleman will object, requiring that the attorney or agent, where one is engaged in the case, shall, in filing the papers of the applicant, file along with them his own statement verified by oath, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that he has not charged and will not accept any more than the fees

Mr. SCHENCK.The gentleman asks whether those who have received more than $300 bounty will be compelled to disgorge. The reply to that is found also in the bill. There is nothing in the bill about paying back. There is nothing in the bill that can be construed to require that those who have received the bounties either of the General Government or of a State government or of any volunteer association or municipal organization of any kind shall pay back any part of that which they have received. I think the gentleman is now fully answered.

Mr. WARD. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs whether this bill does not provide for giving bounty to colored soldiers.

Mr. SCHENCK. Unquestionably it does. We hold that a soldier, a sailor, or a marine is one who belongs to the organized forces of the United States, wearing its uniform. We have therefore said nothing about color, because the bill covers them all.

Mr. WARD. So I understand. Now, I desire to ask the gentleman another question. I ask him whether there is not now in force a law by virtue of which the loyal owner of a colored man who volunteered in the United States service is entitled to recover $300 for such colored man; and such being the law, the master being entitled to $300, and the colored man being entitled, under this bill, to a

bounty, whether the colored soldier and his master together will not receive more than the white soldier. And I ask him whether he will not accept an amendment providing for the repeal of the law which provides for a commission to take proof of the fact of the slaves of loyal masters having entered the service, so that compensation may be made. I appre hend that before we give any additional bounty that law should be repealed.

Mr. SCHENCK. Well, that certainly is a revolver! [Laughter.] I do not know whether I can recollect the whole of the question. But to begin at the close of the gentleman's inquir ies, I will say that I cannot accept any amend ment, because the bill at its present stage can not be amended, as I understand the rules, without a recommitment for that purpose, unless by unanimous consent.

In the next place, I will say that the bill does not provide for paying anything to the former owner of a man who was a slave and was enlisted as a soldier of the United States. The bill is specific in its terms, and provides only for payment to the soldier, sailor, or marine himself.

Mr. WARD. That I understand.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman asks, further, whether if the loyal owner has already received his bounty of $100

Mr. WARD. Of $300.

Mr. SCHENCK. Or of $300, whether he will not get something under this bill. I an swer, no; he cannot possibly do so. There might possibly be a construction put upon the law by which the owner having got $300 the negro could get $300 more, on the ground that the negro, who had rendered the service, had received nothing. That is a question of construction. But being a question of construc tion for the courts, under the law as it now stands no subsequent legislation upon this subjeot can affect the contract, though we might so amend the bill, which I am unwilling to do, as to provide that where the master has received bounty, that bounty shall be deducted and paid to the negro. I do not suppose that the gentleman would desire that.

Mr. WARD. No, sir.

Mr. SCHENCK. But the gentleman says he would like to have passed an act repealing the law with reference to compensation of loyal owners of slaves enlisted, so that there shall be no further action under it.

Mr. WARD. Exactly.

Mr. SCHENCK. So would I; and I am perfectly willing to unite with the gentleman in securing the passage of a bill of that kind as a separate enactment; for I think there would be no difficulty in passing it; or I believe it very probable that members of the other branch of Congress, upon suggestion being made to them, would be willing to procure the insertion of such a provision in this bill. But, at the present time, the amendment of this bill cannot be effected without the delay of recommitment, with the necessity of going over this whole subject again. I prefer, therefore, that this bill shall now be passed, trusting that some repealing act may hereafter be adopted as a separate measure, or that a provision for the purpose may be incorporated in this bill as an amendment when the bill shall be considered by the Senate.

Mr. WARD. Will the gentleman allow me a moment to state the amendments which I intended to offer to this bill?

Mr. SCHENCK. I have no objection to per mitting the gentleman to have his amendments read-or, at least, he might hand them to the reporters, and let them be incorporated in his remarks, so that he may be enabled to show what was the object he had in view, in which, so far as concerns the last point, I entirely

[blocks in formation]

portion of the bill which charges the soldier with the local bounties. In addition to that, I desired to offer the further amendment which I have indicated. That is all that I wished to


Mr. BANKS. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] now yield to me for a moment?

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BANKS. I understand from the statement of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, from which this bill is reported, that as the bill now stands, the House having adopted a substitute, any State that has paid bounties up to the amount of $300 will get nothing, under this bill, while it will be compelled to insist in paying the bounties to the soldiers of those States that have not granted any bounties. I ask the gentleman whether I am correct in my understanding of the effect of this bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. I apprehend that there are very few States in which bounties have not been given at all, either by the State or by the counties or other municipal organizations or by voluntary associations, and where the aggregate local bounty has not exceeded $300. Where that is the case, of course no benefit will be obtained under this bill.

Mr. BANKS. I understand it to be this: that the State which has paid bounties to the amount of $300 gets nothing, and is compelled at the same time to pay, or assist in paying, the bounties of States which have not paid them.

Mr. SCHENCK. Those States have the satisfaction of having treated their soldiers well.

Mr. BANKS. It is a surprise to the House that we should be called upon to vote for or against appropriations of this kind.

Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the vote.

Mr. ANCONA demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. BANKS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered; and on that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The House was divided; and there wereayes 68, noes 42.

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

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative--yeas 77, nays 62, not voting 44; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baxter, Blaine, Boyer, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Darling, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Garfield, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Ingersoll, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Longyear, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Moorhead, Morrill, Myers, Newell, Niblack, O'Neill, Paine, Patterson, Plants, Price, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves,, Sloan, Spalding, Strouse, Thayer, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Welker, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-77.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Bergen, Brandegee, Bromwell, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Dumont, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Goodyear, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Julian, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Marshall, McCullough, Morris, Nicholson Perham, Phelps, Pike, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Stevens, Stilwell, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Whaley, James F. Wilson, and Wright-62.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Broomall, Coffroth, Culver. Dodge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Hulburd, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Latham, McIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Moulton, Noell, Orth, Pomeroy, Raymond, Shanklin, Smith, Starr, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Windom, and Winfield-44.

So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

During the vote,

Mr. CULLOM stated that Mr. ОRTH, was confined to his room by illness.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

The question then recurred on the passage

of the bill.

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

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 139, nays 2, not voting 42; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bergen, Bidwell, Blaine, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asabel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marshall, Marston, Marvin, MeClurg. McCullough, McKee, McRuer, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Myers, Newell, Niblack, O'Neill, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps. Pike, Plants, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Wright-139,

NAYS-Messrs. Nicholson and Trimble-2.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Broomall, Coffroth, Culver, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grinnell, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Hulburd, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones. Kasson, Latham, McIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Moulton, Noell, Orth, Pomeroy, Raymond, Shanklin, Smith, Starr. Taber, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Windom, and Winfield-42.

So the bill was passed.

During the roll-call,

Mr. CULLOM said: The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. ORTH, is ill. If he was here he would vote for the bill.

Mr. RADFORD. My colleague, Mr. WINFIELD, is confined to his room by sickness. If here he would vote in the affirmative.

Mr. STILWELL. My colleague, Mr. HILL, is confined to his house by sickness. If here he would vote for the bill.

Mr. LE BLOND. My colleague, Mr. FINCK, is absent. If here he would vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. My colleague, Mr. COFFROTH, is absent. If here he would vote for the bill.

Mr. RICE, of Maine. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. WINDOM, is absent. If present he would vote "ay.'

Mr. ANCONA. My colleague, Mr. JOHNSON, is still detained by sickness. If here he would vote for the bill.

Mr. COBB. My colleague, Mr. McINDOE, is absent by leave of the House. If here he would vote "ay. 17

Mr. CULLOM. My colleague, Mr. MOULTON, is absent. If he was here he would vote for the bill.

The vote having been announced as above recorded,

Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.


Mr. ANCONA asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. DENISON, for two weeks from to-day.


On motion of Mr. LE BLOND, the report of the Secretary of the Interior, in relation to the appraisement of certain land in Ohio belonging to William Sawyer and others, was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. The SPEAKER announced that Mr. GLOSSBRENNER was excused from service on the con

ference committee on House bill No. 85, in relation to the donation of lands in the southern States for homesteads, and Mr. ANCONA was appointed in his place.


Mr. SPALDING. I move that when the House adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet on Monday.

Mr. MORRILL. I desire the House should be long enough in session to finish the tax bill this week.

The motion was not agreed to.


Mr. MORRILL moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof.

The pending paragraph was as follows: Tin cans used for preserved meats, fish, shell-fish, fruits, vegetables, jams, and jellies.

Mr. KELLEY. I move to strike out all after the word "for" and insert the words "for packing purposes only;" so that it will read, 76 tin cans used for packing purposes only." We have already included "packing-boxes made of wood." Now, packing-boxes are used for a variety of articles, and the amendment simply proposes to embrace all tin vessels made for packing purposes only. It may be said that crackers and other articles are sent out in tin cans. That is very true. There is no reason why they should not be, nor any reason why the box containing them, if made of tin, should be taxed while a wooden box in which they might be sent is exempt from tax.

Mr. MORRILL. These tin cans for preserved meats, fish, fruits, &c., are exempted because we have placed a stamp duty on those articles. The gentleman proposes to exclude from taxation by his amendment a great variety of articles-not only boxes and cans for crackers, but for such articles as blacking, soda powders, ground mustard, sardines, pill-boxes, and other articles too numerous to mention. Mr. KELLEY. I suggest a modification. Mr. MORRILL. My modification is to reject the amendment.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I move to strike out the word "and", and to insert "spices and medicines."

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to add the following as a new paragraph:

Sugar, molasses, or sirup made from beets, sugarmaple, or from sorghum or imphee.

[ocr errors]

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. With the leave of the committee I will here offer such amendments as have been agreed upon by the Committee of Ways and Means, so that members may understand what are to be offered by the committee and what not, and where they are to come in.

Mr. THAYER. I have no objection if it is understood that we have not passed this paragraph.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to insert after line eighty-five "muriatic, nitric, and acetic acid." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. In line eighty-six, after the word "alum," insert "aluminous cake, patent alum, and sulphate of aluminum.” The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. After line ninety-two insert "nitrate of lead."

The amendment was agreed to.

« PoprzedniaDalej »