Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

service of his country the 17th day of May, 1863, upon the pension roll, at the rate of eight dollars per month, from the said 17th day of May, 1863, to continue during her widowhood: Provided, That proof satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions be made of the material facts above related.

And to insert in lieu thereof:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, direeted to place upon the pension roll the name of Einily A. Lyon, widow of Alfred M. Lyon, a late sutler in the twenty-third regiment of Iowa volunteers, but who volunteered as a private in company A of the said regiment, and while serving in that eapacity was mortally wounded at the battle of Black river, Mississippi, on the 17th day of May, 1863, and died on the field; the said pension to be at the rate of eight dollars per month, commencing on the 17th day of May, 1863, and continuing during the widowhood of the pensioner.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in and ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time, and passed.

CHARLES M. POTT.

On motion of Mr. FOSTER, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 478) for the relief of Charles M. Pott, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Charles M. Pott, late of company K, one hundred and seventy-ninth Pennsylvania militia, on the pension roll, at the rate of eight dollars per month, from the date of his discharge, March 7, 1863, for total disability sustained by the loss of an arm by accident while in the hospital detained for his pay after his discharge had been ordered.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

REBECCA S. HARRISON.

On motion of Mr. FOSTER, the bill (S. No. 347) for the relief of Rebecca S. Harrison was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the naval pension roll the name of Rebecca S. Harrison, widow of the late Lieutenant Horace N. Harrison, at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month, to commence from the 1st of April, 1864, and to continue during her widowhood.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills and joint resolution from the House were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

A bill (H. R. No. 597) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the year ending June 30, 1866-to the Committee on Finance.

A bill (H. R. No. 598) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866to the Committee on Finance.

A bill (H. R. No. 601) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States" to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A bill (H. R. No. 603) to extend the time allowed for the withdrawal of certain goods therein named from public stores-to the Committee on Finance.

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 124) explanatory of the 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-to the Committee on Finance.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolutions; which thereupon received the signature of the President pro tempore of the Senate: A bill (S. No. 329) for the relief of William H. Jameson, a paymaster in the United States Army; A bill (S. No. 350) to authorize the purchase or construction of revenue cutters on the lakes; A bill (S. No. 352) authorizing the holding of a special session of the United States district court for the district of Indiana;

A joint resolution (S. R. 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 pirati cal craft the Alabama, in compliance with the President's recommendation to Congress of the 5th of December, 1864; and

A joint resolution (S. R. 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.

FREEDOM OF SOLDIERS' FAMILIES.

Mr. WILSON. I now move to take up Senate joint resolution No. 82.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. No. 82) to encourage enlistments and to promote the efficiency of the military forces of the United States. For the purpose of encouraging enlistments and promoting the efficiency of the military and naval forces of the United States, the resolution provides that the wife and children, if any he have, of any person that has been, or may be, mustered into the military or naval service of the United States, shall, from and after its passage, be forever free, any law, usage, or custom whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding; and in determining who is or was the wife and who are the children of an enlisted person, evidence that he and the woman claimed to be his wife have cohabited together, or associated as husband and wife, and so continued to cohabit or associate at the time of the enlistment, or evidence that a form or ceremony of marriage (whether such marriage was or was not authorized or recognized by law) has been entered into or celebrated by them, and that the parties thereto thereafter lived together, or associated or cohabited as husband and wife, and so continued to live, cohabit, or associate at the time of the enlistment, shall be deemed sufficient proof of marriage, and the children born during the continuance of any such marriage shall be deemed and taken to be the children embraced within the provisions of the act, whether such marriage shall or shall not have been dissolved at the time of such enlistment.

Mr. WILSON. I desire simply to amend the resolution by striking out after the word "born," in the twenty-second line, the words " during the continuance;" so that it will read:

And the children born of any such marriage shall be deemed and taken to be the children embraced within the provisions of this act, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. I move that the resolution be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Did it come from the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir; it came from the Committee on Military Affairs.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then the question will be on referring it to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WILKINSON. I hope it will not be referred. I think this is a measure that ought to have been passed three years ago. I tried one or two years ago to have the principles embodied in this joint resolution incorporated in a bill which was before the Senate at that time in relation to enlistments. I do not want to see any further delay in this matter. I think the resolution ought to be passed immediately.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I rise simply to express the earnest hope that this joint resolution will not be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, or any other committee. The Committee on Military Affairs have three times reported the substance of this resolution in other bills. It simply provides that the wives and children of the soldiers of the Republic shall be made free. The needs of the country, more than justice or humanity, have weaponed the hand of the slave. We have enlisted many thousands of them. They are to-day in the trenches before Richmond and Petersburg, and on the shores of the Carolinas; and they keep watch and ward over the Mississippi from Cairo to the Gulf. They are every

where doing their duty, and their whole duty, bravely and well. Butler and Banks, Meade and Burnside, Warren and Hancock, and Lieutenant General Grant have all borne testimony to their fidelity, their courage, and their services. Officers who have served with the best regiments of the armies of the East and of the West, officers who have fought in many battles, say that these colored troops, for industry, obedience, courage, and conduct, are surpassed by no troops in the service of the country. The Government could not dispense with their services without periling the cause of the country.

It is estimated that from seventy-five to one hundred thousand wives and children of these soldiers are now held in slavery. It is a burning shame to this country; it is an indecency for the American people to hold the wives and the children in slavery of men who are periling their lives before the rebel legions. This measure of patriotism, justice, and humanity ought to have been passed many months ago; it surely ought to have been passed early in the last session. We have made the slave free when he becomes a soldier. Whenever the slave enlists, he is a freeman forever more; and thousands of them have enlisted since we passed that beneficent act. At least twenty thousand slaves have enlisted since that act was passed giving personal freedom to the slave who enrolls his name on the muster-rolls of the country's defenders.

The nation now needs defenders. For the purpose of encouraging enlistments it is proposed that the wife and the child of the slave who will fight the battles of the country, shall, like himself, be free. Heart, reason, and conscience demand it. Self-respect and decency require it. The right to do it is unquestionable. There is no doubt, there can be no doubt, of the right of the Government of the country to give freedom to the man who will fight its battles, or to give freedom to his wife and child to encourage him to fight. There is no doubt, there can be no doubt, that the nation has the right to encourage the slave to enlist, or to inspire him to deeds of heroic daring for his country, by making the wife he loves, and the children who bear his name and inherit his blood, free evermore. That the freedom of wife and child will encourage the husband and father to enlist none can doubt; that it will inspire the soldier to the performance of duty, to deeds of heroism, none can question. Wasting diseases, weary marches and bloody battles are decimating our armies. The country needs soldiers, must have soldiers. Let the Senate then act now. Let us hasten the enactment of this beneficent measure, inspired by patriotism and hallowed by justice and humanity, so that ere merry Christmas shall come the intelligence shall be flashed over the land, to cheer the hearts of the nation's defenders, and arouse the manhood of the bondman, that on the forehead of the soldier's wife and the soldier's child no man can write slave

Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand the question before the Senate to be upon the motion made by the Senator from Kentucky that this joint resolution be referred to the Judiciary Committee. I do not understand that upon that motion the merits of the measure come up, nor am I able to see the force of the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts which he draws from the fact, as he alleges it to be, that the negroes have proved themselves to be good soldiers in the field; nor do I think the question of humanity toward the family arises upon this particular motion.

The question is, ought this resolution to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary? I think it should go there. I am not able to see how, under the Constitution of the United States, Congress can free the servant who is held to servitude by the laws of a State. I do not understand that Congress has ever done that, and in former days it was not claimed by any of the statesmen who peculiarly held the confidence of the country. This particular question, whether we have the constitutional power to pass the resolution ought not to be considered by the Military Committee. The Senator says this measure has been considered by that committee some three times. That committee is not the organ of this body to bring before the body information upon a question of constitutional power. That information we expect to derive through the labors of the Judiciary Committee.

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

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

I believe the bill of the last session providing for the enlistment of negro troops did also provide that they should become free; but that, as I understood it at the time, was placed upon the ground that the Government took from the citizen property to be used in war, and that the Government made compensation to the loyal owner. It is not proposed now to take the persons whom this resolution proposes to make free for the use of the Government. This is the exercise of the power to free the slaves in the States without reference to their use in the Army. This question, I think, ought to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, and for that reason I shall support the motion of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. POWELL. I concur with the Senator from Indiana, that this resolution should go to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senator from Massachusetts says there is no doubt about our power to pass this resolution. With deference to the Senator, I think there are the gravest doubts. I have no doubt myself on the subject. I think it is palpably unconstitutional. The Judiciary Committee is certainly the proper organ of this Senate to give us information on that subject.

The Senator, by this resolution, proposes to free the wives and children of those who have enlisted in the Army heretofore, as well as those who may hereafter enlist in the Army, and he has entitled the resolution " A resolution to encourage enlistments." You certainly would not encourage enlistments so far as those persons are in the Army of the United States, and the larger portion of the negroes in the border States able to bear arms are already in the Army. The passage of this resolution could not encourage those persons to go into the Army. But it proceeds to emancipate and set free the wives and the children of those who are already in the Army. Where is the power, under the Constitution, to do that? You admit that in those States where they are they are property. Has this Congress any power by a legislative enactment to divest a citizen of any State of this Union of his property? Certainly not, except upon one contingency, and that is when it is required for the public use, and making compensation for it. If you take private property for public use, you must make compensation for it first. That is the Constitution of your country. When Congress passed the bill to enlist those persons in the Army, the bill was accompanied with a provision pretending to make some compensation, indicating a commission that should give to their masters, in certain cases, not over $300, and $100 in other cases. Meager and insignificant as was the compensation held out to the country in that bill, no compensation has ever yet been made.

But, sir, this proposition does not provide for any compensation at all. The other, I admit, was a mere bagatelle, providing for the payment of an insignificant amount (which the Government has never paid, within my knowledge,) for the purpose of quieting the consciences of Senators who might vote for it. But I ask Senators if there is any power in this Congress to take private property without making just compensation therefor? There certainly is not, unless your Constitution is a dead letter; and, Senators, if you pass this measure, you will have to do it by walking over the plain provisions of the Constitution of your country.

The Senator from Massachusetts cannot say that so far as these persons are in the service this is a measure encouraging enlistments, because they are already in the service; and in my State the husbands and fathers of four fifths of those whom

it is proposed to emancipate by this resolution are already in the Army. You do not propose to give one shilling of compensation. Senators, if you pass this resolution, in my humble judgment those who vote for it will be faithless to the Constitution of their country. I verily believe that all the woes that are now upon us have arisen because the people and the politicians have been faithless to the fundamental law of the land. I

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1864.

know that in these times those who stand up for the Constitution of the country and the constitutional liberties of the people are rather mocked and derided; but while I am here I shall obey that Constitution.

I hope, sir, that this resolution may be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and that we may have the opinion of that committee as to its constitutionality. I hope the motion of my colleague will prevail.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, inasmuch as this question is likely to lead to a protracted debate, which will not be settled to-day.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, December 19, 1864.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by Rev. Dr. PRESTLEY, of Pennsylvania. The Journal of Thursday last was read and approved.

The SPEAKER proceeded, as the first business in.order, to call the States for bills on leave to be referred to appropriate committees without debate, and not to be brought back by motion to reconsider; under which the following bills were introduced:

PAY OF MIDSHIPΜΕΝ.

Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill to increase the pay of midshipmen, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

GRADE OF VICE ADMIRAL.

Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts, also introduced a bill to create the grade of vice admiral in the Navy; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.

Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts, also introduced a bill making further legislation in regard to the Navy and Marine corps; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

PAUL S. FORBES.

Mr. CHANLER introduced a bill for the relief of Paul S. Forbes, of New York; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

JURORS IN UNITED STATES COURTS.

Mr. SPALDING introduced a bill to prescribe the mode of designating citizens of the United States who shall serve as jurors in the circuit and district courts of the United States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

COMMUTATION VALUE OF RATIONS.

Mr. YEAMAN introduced a bill to define the commutation value of rations, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

NAVY-YARD, ETC., AT CHICAGO.

Mr. ARNOLD introduced a bill to establish a navy-yard and naval depot at Chicago, Illinois; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

JOSEPII WHEATON.

Mr. FARNSWORTH introduced a bill for the relief of the estate of Lieutenant Joseph Wheaton, deceased; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

PUBLIC LANDS TO MICHIGAN.

Mr. UPSON introduced a bill to amend an act entitled "An act making a grant of alternate sec

NEW SERIES..... No. 5.

tions of the public lands to the State of Michigan, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State, and for other purposes," approved June 16, 1856; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

REPRESENTATION IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Mr. WILSON introduced a joint resolution declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the electoral college; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

TAX ON WHISKY.

Mr. GRINNELL introduced a bill to amend the revenue laws by changing the time for levying the tax on whisky to be manufactured; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

MAIL CARRIERS.

Mr. GRINNELL also introduced a bill to repeal the act of the 31 of March, 1825, disqualifying certain persons from carrying the mails; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

LAKE HARBORS.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin, introduced a bill making appropriations for the repair and preservation of Government harbors on Lakes Erie and Michigan; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

MINING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. COLE, of California, introduced a bill to establish a Mining Department; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. COLE, of California, moved that the bill be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

The call of the States for bills on leave having been completed, the Speaker proceeded, as the next business in order, to call the States and Territories for resolutions, resuming the call with the State of Delaware, where it was last suspended.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I offer the resolution which I send to the desk, and ask its adoption. I desire to say that it is the same resolution that was laid on the table on Thursday last, I am inclined to believe partly from misapprehension on the part of the House and partly by my own fault. I ask the previous question on the resolution.

The resolution was read, as follows:

Resolved, That Congress has a constitutional right to an authoritative voice in declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well in the recognition of new Powers as in other matters; and it is the constitutional duty of the President to respect that policy not less in diplomatic negotiations than in the use of the national force when authorized by law; and the propriety of any declaration of foreign policy by Congress is sufficiently proved by the vote which pronounces it; and such proposition while pending and undetermined is not a fit topic of diplomatie explanation with any foreign Power.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask the gentleman to withdraw the call for the previous question until I can make a motion to amend, and then I will renew the call for the previous question.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I will do so.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to strike out the word "President" and to insert "Executive Departments" in lieu thereof, and upon that I call the previous question.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I have no objection to that modification.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to debate the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The previous question is demanded.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. If the previous question be not sustained, will the resolution go over? The SPEAKER. It will if debate arises,

Mr. PRUYN. I do not rise to debate, but to ask the gentleman from Maryland to make one other modification of his resolution by striking

[blocks in formation]

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to lay the resolution on the table, and on that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I have not distinctly understood whether the gentleman from Maryland accepted the amendment I proposed.

The SPEAKER. The Chair so understands. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I did accept it. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken on Mr. FARNSWORTH'S motion, and it was decided in the negative-yeas 49, nays 73, not voting 60; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Arnold, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Frank, Hale, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, Meindoe, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Pike, Pomeroy, Alexander H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Smith, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Wilson, and Windom-49.

NAYS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Augustus C. Baldwin, Baxter, Bliss, Blow, Boyd, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Deming, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Law, LeBlond, Mallory, Marcy, McClurg, McKinney, Moorhead, James R. Morris, Nelson, Noble, John O'Neill, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, John B. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Whaley, Joseph W. White, Williams, and Yeaman-73.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Jaines C. Allen, Ashley, Blaine, Brands gee, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke. Clay, Donnelly, Dumont, Edgerton, English, Fenton, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hall, Benjamin G. Harris, Hooper, Horeakiss, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, King, Lazear, Loan, Long, McAllister, MeDowell, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Wil liam H. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Norton, Odell, Patterson, Perlham, Radford, William H. Randall, Joun II. Rice, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Shannon, Starr, William G. Steele, Stiles, Ward, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-60.

So the House refused to lay the resolution on the table.

During the roll-call,

Mr. SLOAN stated that Mr. WHEELER was detained at home by sickness.

Mr. ANCONA made a similar statement in regard to Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHANNON, who was not within the bar when his name was called, asked leave to vote. Mr. DAWES objected.

The result of the vote having been announced as above recorded, the question recurred upon ordering the main question.

Mr. PRUYN. I wish to ask the consent of the gentleman from Maryland to modify the resolution by inserting the words "policy of" before the words "such proposition," near the close of the resolution. That was what I meant when I rose before, but it appears my meaning was not quite understood by him.

The SPEAKER. It is beyond the power of the gentleman from Maryland to accept any modification of the resolution.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. It is beyond my power, and I would not make that modification if I had the power.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to know if this resolution comes from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The SPEAKER. It is offered by the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think it ought to be referred to the Committee on Foreign

Affairs.

Mr. COX. It was referred to that committee, and reported back.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. It was reported unanimously from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with one exception. To-day I offer it

as the Representative of the third district of Maryland.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is what I supposed, and as the Representative of the third district of Illinois, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was seconded, in order to move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. COX. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Ohio that the yeas and nays could not be taken on a motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was seconded, because the yeas and nays could not be taken on the original question, which was on seconding the previous question. The motion to reconsider is governed by the same rules, and must be decided by tellers or by a division of the House.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw the motion to reconsider, and call for the yeas and nays on ordering the main question.

Mr.SCHENCK. I desire to make an inquiry, in order that I may understand the resolution. 1 understand it to be the same resolution that was reported last week from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with the single exception that this morning, in order to obviate some objection made, when it was under consideration before, as to the use of the word "President," which was thought to point at the Chief Executive, particularly, and perhaps invidiously, the modification proposed was accepted, on the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] which was, to strike out the word "President" and insert the words "Executive Departments." I think it stands in that way now.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is correct.

Mr. SCHENCK. And that it is precisely the resolution that came from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, excepting that modification of the language, to remove the objection then taken.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. And which resolution the House voted to lay on the table when the question was last up.

Mr. SCHENCK. Precisely.

The SPEAKER. If the resolution had not been modified it would not be in order, as the previous resolution had been laid on the table by a vote of the House. The gentleman from Maryland having modified the resolution, brings it within the rules.

Mr. ARNOLD. I desire to know what would be the effect of the House refusing to order the main question to be now put.

The SPEAKER. That would divest the resolution of the force of the previous question.

Mr. ARNOLD. And the resolution would then go over?

The SPEAKER. Yes, if any gentleman rose to debate it.

Mr. ARNOLD. I desire to debate the resolution.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order, at present, to rise to debate it, the previous question having been seconded.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. What is the question now?

The SPEAKER. The question is "Shall the main question be now ordered?" on which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. NICOLAY, his Private Secretary, announced that the President had approved and signed an act (H. R. No. 563) in addition to the "Act respecting quarantine and health laws" approved February 25, 1799, and for the better execution of the third section thereof;

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 106) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to dispose of certain moneys therein mentioned; and

Joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to expend a portion of the contingent fund for enlarging the Navy Department Building.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
The House resumed the consideration of the

resolution offered by Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, the question being, " Shall the main question be now put?" on which the yeas and nays had been ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 71, nays 56, not voting 55; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Baxter, Bliss, Blow, Boyd, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Deming, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marcy, McClurg, McKinney, Moorhead, James R. Morris, Nelson, Noble, John O'Neill, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Schenck, Scott, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Whaley, Joseph W. White, and Williams-71.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Arnold, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Frank, Hale, Hotchkiss, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, MeIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Wilson, and Windom-56.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Anderson, Ashley, Baily, Blaine, Brandegee, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Dixon, Donnelly, Dumont, Edgerton, English, Fenton, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hall, Benjamin G. Harris, Hooper, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, King, Loan, Long, McAllister, McDowell, Middleton, William H. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Norton, Odell, Radford, William H. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Starr, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Ward, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, and Yea

man-55.

So the main question was ordered, which was on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, and Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I call for a division of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will see whether it is susceptible of division.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I withdraw the call for a division.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the last clause of the resolution is not a substantive proposition, but the last two clauses are.

Mr. PRUYN. The last two lines, "and such proposition, while pending and undetermined, is not a fit topic of diplomatic explanation with any foreign Power," contain, I think, a substantive proposition.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will ask the gentleman to state what the effect would be if the first part of the resolution were rejected and the last part adopted. That must be the test.

Mr. PRUYN. I respectfully submit that the Chair has no right to suppose the House would be guilty of such a proceeding.

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot suppose what the House may or may not do, but the division of a resolution must be of such a character as that either part can stand by itself.

Mr. WILSON. I call for a vote on the first proposition, and on the last two.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the resolution in the only manner in which the Chair thinks it can be divided.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Is it not too late to ask for a division?

The SPEAKER. It is not. At any time previous to the vote a division can be demanded. The Clerk read the following portion of the resolution:

Resolved, That Congress has a constitutional right to an authoritative voice in declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well in the recognition of new Powers as in other matters; and it is the constitutional duty of the executive department to respect that policy, not less in diplomatic negotiations than in the use of national force when authorized by law.

The SPEAKER. This first part of the resolution can be voted upon separately. The Clerk will now read the last part, which can also be voted upon separately.

The Clerk read, as follows:

And the propriety of any declaration of foreign policy by Congress is sufficiently proved by the vote which pronounces it; and such proposition, while pending and undetermined, is not a fit topic of diplomatic explanation with any foreign Power.

Mr. WILSON. I ask fora division of the resolution in the manner indicated by the Chair.

Mr. COX. I call for the yeas and nays on both divisions of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the yeas and nays upon the first division of the resolution.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. It is not necessary to take the yeas and nays on that. We will all vote for it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken upon agreeing to the first division of the resolution; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 118, nays 8, not voting 56; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Arnold, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Bliss, Blow, Boyd, Brandegee, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, Chanter, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Deming, Denison, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Finck, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Harding, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kasson, Kelley, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Longyear, Mallory, Marcy, Marvin, McClurg, McDowell, Melndoe, MeKinney, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, James R. Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Noble, Charles O'Neill, John O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perry, Pike, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, William II. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward II. Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, John B. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Thayer, Thomas, Townsend, Tracy, Upson, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, Whaley, Joseph W. White, Williams, Wilson, Windom, and Yeaman-118.

NAYS-Messrs. Blair, Boutwell, Cole, Francis W. Kellogg, Littlejohn, Pomeroy, Smith, and Van Valkenourgh-8.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ashley, Baily, Blaine, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Donnelly, Dumont, Eliot, English, Fenton, Gooch, Grinnell, Hall, Benjamin G. Harris, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Hulburd, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, King, Loan, Long, McAllister, MeBride, Middleton, William II. Miller, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Norton, Odell, Pendleton, Perham. Radford, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Scott, Starr, William G. Steele, Stiles, Ward, William B. Washburn, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-56.

to.

So the first division of the resolution was agreed

The question then recurred on agreeing to the second division of the resolution.

The yeas and nays, having been demanded by Mr. Cox, were ordered.

Mr. BROOMALL. Is it in order to lay this branch of the resolution on the table?

The SPEAKER. It would be in order. A MEMBER. We may just as well vote it down.

Mr. BROOMALL. I move that the second division of the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. COX. Do I understand the Speaker to decide that that motion is in order?

The SPEAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. COX, Will the adoption of that motion

lay the whole resolution on the table?

The SPEAKER. It will not. The first part has been adopted. The latter part is subject to the action of the House in the same manner as an independent proposition.

Mr. COX. I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to lay this part of the resolution on the table.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 61, nays 67, not voting 54; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Arnold, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Frank, Grinnell, Hale, Hotchkiss, John II. Hubbard, Kasson. Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, Meludoe, Samuel F. Miller, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward II. Rollins, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Spalding, Thayer, Thomas. Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilson, Windom, and Yeaman-61.

NAYS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Allison, Ancona, Anderson, Augustus C. Baldwin, Baxter, Bliss, Blow, Boyd, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Harding, Harrington, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marey. McDowell, McKinney, Moorhead, James R. Morris, Nelson, Noble, John O'Neill, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Schenck, Sloan, Smithers, John B. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart,

Sweat, Townsend, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Joseph W. White, and Williams-67.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ashley, Blaine, Brandegee, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Deming, Donnelly, Dumont, Edgerton, English, Fenton, Gooch, Hall, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Hooper, Hulburd, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, King, Loan, Long, McAllister, Middleton, William H. Miller, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Norton, Odell, Radford, William H. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Scott, Starr, William G. Steele, Stiles, Ward, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-54.

So the House refused to lay on the table the second division of the resolution.

When the call of the roll had been concluded, Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois, asked unanimous consent to record his vote.

Mr. DAWES objected.

The question then recurred on agreeing to the last part of the resolution, on which the yeas and nays had been ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 68, nays 58, not voting 56; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Augustus C. Baldwin, Baxter, Bliss, Blow, Boyd, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis. Dawson, Denison, Eden, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kernan, Knapp, Knox, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marey, McDowell, McKinney, Moorhead, Morrill, James R. Morris, Nelson, Noble, John O'Neill, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Schenck, Scott, Sloan, Smithers, John B. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Joseph W. White, and Williams-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Blair, Boutwell, Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Frank, Grinnell, Hate, Hotchkiss, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Amos Myers, Loonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Spalding, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilson, Windom, and Yeaman-58.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Arnold, Ashley, Blaine, Brooks, James S. Brown, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Deming, Donnelly, Dumont, Edgerton, English, Farnsworth, Fenton, Gooch, Hall, Harding, Benjamin G. Harris, Hooper, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Julian, Kalbtleisch, King, Loan, Long, Longyear, McAllister, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, William H. Miller, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Norton, Odell, Radford, William II. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Starr, William G. Steele, Stiles, Ward, Webster, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-56.

So the latter part of the resolution was agreed to. During the vote,

Mr. LONGYEAR, not being within the bar when his name was called, asked leave to vote. Mr. DAWES objected.

The vote was then announced as above recorded. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, moved to reconsider the several votes 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.

ENROLLED BILLS.

[blocks in formation]

Committee of Ways and Means a bill to amend the act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay the interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864.

The bill, which was read, provides that section fifty-five of the act referred to be amended by striking out the word "February," wherever it occurs in said section, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "January;" and further, that in addition to the duty now imposed by law, all spirits of domestic production held for sale on the 1st of January, 1865, shall be subject to a duty of fifty cents per gallon.

Mr. HOLMAN. I object to the bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules in order that I may have leave to report the bill and have it considered.

The House divided, and there were-ayes 79, noes 20.

Mr. HOLMAN demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. ANCONA demanded tellers on the yeas

and nays.

Tellers were not ordered, and the yeas and nays were not ordered.

So the rules were suspended.

The bill was received, and read a first and second time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I desire immediate action on that bill. If it is to be acted on at all before the holidays, it must be acted on now. Therefore I move that we proceed at once to consider it.

I beg to say that the Committee of Ways and Means have reported this bill, one portion according to their idea of what will be for the benefit of the revenue that is the first section and the other portion under the instructions of this House. If there is no disposition to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I ask that we now act on the bill.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the previous question.

Mr. COX. I would like to have the first section explained by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is not fully understood.

Mr. ANCONA. I make the point of order that the bill must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER. That would be a good point of order if the House had not suspended the rules for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the bill in the House at the present time. Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania will let me ask a question.

Mr. STEVENS. I understand the gentleman from Illinois to withdraw the previous question until I can make a statement, and then I will renew it.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw the previous question for that purpose. Mr. STEVENS obtained the floor.

Mr. HOLMAN. The language of the second section imposes the additional tax of fifty cents per gallon on all spirits held for sale on the 1st day of January. It is a well-known fact that throughout the western section of the country, where large amounts of spirits have been accumulated by the distillers themselves, those stocks are in the bonded warehouses with scarcely an exception, and held with the intention of holding them as heretofore for such markets as may turn up. Do I understand that the effect of that section is that on the 1st of January all spirits held by the original manufacturers shall be taxed an additional fifty cents, but that that which is held by speculators shall not be subject to the additional tax?

Mr. STEVENS. I will explain what I understand by the bill, and after having done so, unless some gentleman desires to ask some question, I will call the previous question.

The first section of the bill contains the views of the Committee of Ways and Means, while the second section has been reported, against the judgment of the Committee of Ways and Means, but in obedience to the instructions of the House, under a resolution offered by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.] We could not, under that resolution, report any amended revenue bill without inserting what we have, namely, a tax on whisky on hand. We have thought that perhaps this House, as a final adjustment of this whole question, would be content to anticipate,

1

by one month, the tax of two dollars upon what will be largely distilled between this and the 1st of February, and agree with the committee to strike out the second section- which motion 1 now make-which we have reported in obedience to the instructions of the House. But if they choose to retain both, it is not in the power of the committee to say it shall not be done. The committee, however, ask that the House will pass the first section, laying the tax of two dollars upon all distilled after the 1st of January, because we think the Government will thereby obtain a very large revenue, as the distillation season is just commencing. If we pass it speedily, there will be no delay until after the holidays, and everybody will be prepared to go on and distill under that arrangement.

The second section, of course I need not say to the House who have seen our previous record here, is repugnant to the views of the Committee of Ways and Means. I now ask that they will strike it out.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I did not withdraw the demand for the previous question with the expectation that the gentleman would make any motion, but only that he would submit his remarks. I demanded the previous question for the purpose of preventing any such thing.

Mr. STEVENS. Then I hope the House will refuse to sustain the previous question so that I can move the amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I renew the demand for the previous question.

Mr. COX. The House cannot understand this section from the explanation made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Ohio is not in order.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order after the demand for the previous question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers on seconding the previous question. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. WASHBURNE of Illinois, were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reportedayes 46, noes 62.

So the previous question was not seconded. Mr. MORRILL. I suppose the House will very well understand that if this bill is passed with both sections embraced, it will be impossible for it to be acted upon in this House and the other before the adjournment for the holidays.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We will not adjourn, then.

Mr. MORRILL. It has become important that this question should be settled, and settled now. It is important to the revenue that this whole question should be put at rest. For three or four months past we have obtained no revenue from the manufacture of this article, and as long as the question is agitated we shall obtain none. The bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means merely antedates the amount of duties to be levied on the 1st of February, and proposes that they shall be levied on the 1st of January.

The last section of the bill is in the precise language of the proposition introduced at the last session taxing stocks on hand. It is not drawn with remarkable skill, but we thought that if the House was satisfied with it at the last session they would be as well satisfied with it at this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that many gentlemen in this House who have heretofore voted for this tax upon stocks on hand have essentially changed their minds; certainly more than enough to change the result on the last vote have so expressed themselves to me. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who was for this tax at the last session, is decidedly of the opinion that it would be wise now to abandon it.

I move to strike out the last section of the bill, and upon that question and upon the whole bill l demand the previous question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman to withdraw the demand for the previous question for a few moments, to allow me to say a word or two.

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman was not very accommodating to my colleague on the committee, [Mr. STEVENS,] and I decline to withdraw it. Mr. COX. I move to lay the bill on the table. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I again appeal to the gentleman from Vermont to yield to me for a few moments,

Mr. MORRILL. I will withdraw the demand for the previous question, holding the floor myself..

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Ohio withdraw the motion to lay the bill on the table?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio had the floor and moved to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not understand how the gentleman got the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont demanded the previous question and took his seat, whereupon the gentleman from Ohio moved to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That was pending a negotiation between the gentleman from Vermont and myself. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont had stated that he refused to withdraw the demand for the previous question.

Mr. COX. I withdraw the motion to lay the bill on the table in the hope that the obnoxious section will be stricken out.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I only desire to say one word upon this question, because I have spoken on ittimes enough for the House to understand fully my position, and the country too, although that, perhaps, is of little importance.

This House, on the first day of the session, instructed the Committee of Waysand Means to bring in this very proposition by a majority of two or three votes. The committee have brought it in and coupled it with another proposition by which, it seems to me, they seck to avoid the responsibility of imposing this tax upon stocks on hand.

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman's original resolution instructed us to couple it with other amendments. It instructed us to include it in any amendinents we might propose. We were not at liberty to report it by itself.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The proposition is brought in here by the Committee of Ways and Means in obedience to a vote of instructions by this House. The gentleman from Vermont says there have been a sufficient number of changes, according to his own knowledge, to change that vote of the House which was had on the first day of the session. Who those gentlemen are who have had new light on the subject of course will be seen by the vote.

Now, sir, I stand upon this proposition the same as I have always stood. I have advocated it as a measure of revenue, and in a conversation with the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate but a few days since, he said that he could demonstrate that by the refusal of Congress to impose this tax, the Government had lost $70,000,000.

Mr. COX. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman has no right to quote the action of any member of a committee in the other House to influence us here.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am not quoting the action of any member of a commitI am speaking of the man himself.

tee.

Mr. COX. I submit to the Chair if that is in order.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order to quote the transactions of the Senate.

Mr. MORRILL. I would ask the gentleman from Illinois if the same gentleman did not advise him to give up this contest.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; the same gentleman agrees with me on the subject. The same gentleman desires to see the revenues of the country increased, and he desires that these gamblers and speculators shall pay their portion. They have made millions, and tens of millions, which have come out of the pockets of the people; and we now have this proposition here which is reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, and I appeal to the Representatives of the people to stand up to it, and vote it through. I have understood that it has been asserted that a sort of compromise has been entered into, that if the first section of the bill be adopted the other section will be abandoned.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Not at all, sir. I did not refer to the committee.

Mr. STEVENS. I expected the gentleman from Illinois to say that, while the chairman of the Committee on Finance in the other House thought there had been $70,000,000 lost to the Government by the failure to tax the stock on hand, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in this House thought there had been $30,000,000 lost by the agitation of the subject.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Even according to that there would be a balance of $40,000,000 on my side. I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that I know nothing of any compromises on this question. I make no compromises on it myself, and I do not know that anybody else is disposed to compromise it.

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, I have this to say in reply to the gentleman from Illinois. The question, as now presented, is very different from the question as presented at the last session of Congress. If a tax had been levied on the stock on hand at that time it might have reached a large amount. At present it would not do so. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is of the opinion that the stock on hand has been nearly consumed. Under these circumstances gentlemen may very well be pardoned for changing their minds on this subject. If there were no other reason against taxing the stock on hand, the fact that we can obtain so much more revenue, that the distilleries would go into operation if the question were only at once settled, and settled finally, is a sufficient argument against it.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The best way in the world to settle it is to impose the

tax.

Mr. MORRILL. I think the House understands the question fully. I have no sort of feeling on the subject. I am as much in favor of raising the largest amount of revenue as any man in this House can be. I would be willing, for one, that we should raise the entire amount of the annual expenditure for the war by taxation. I only want that the wisest modes shall be selected. I do not believe that this is one of them. I now renew my previous motion to strike out the second section of the bill; and on that, and the whole bill, I move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; which was first on the motion to strike out the second section of the bill. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 65, nays 60, not voting 57; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Ancona, Ashley, Bailey, Bliss Blow, Boyd, Brooks, Broomall, Freeman Clarke, Cox, Cras vens, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Harding, Harrington, Holman, Hooper, Kasson, Kelley, Lazear, Le Blond, Long. Longyear, Mallory, Marcy, McBride Meludoe, Morrill, James R. Morris, Leonard Myers, Noble, Charles O'Neill, John O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Pomeroy, Prnyn, Samuel J. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Scott, Shannon, Smith, Smithers, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Thayer, Townsend, Van Valkenburgh, Voorhees, Ward, and Yeaman-65.

NAYS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Alley, Allison, Anderson, Arnold, Augustus C. Baldwin, Jolin D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blair, Boutwell, Brandeger, James S. Brown, Chanler, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Creswell, Dawes, Dawson, Deming, Dixon, Eckley, y, Eden, Eliot, Frank, Ganson, Grinnell, Hotchkiss, John 11. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenekes, Francis W. Kellogg, Orland Kellogg, Knox, Littlejohn, McClurg, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Amos Myers, Perham, Price, William H. Randall, John H. Rice, Edward 11. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scofield, Sloan, Spalding, John B. Steele, Wadsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Williams, Wilson, and Windom-60.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, Blaine, William G. Brown, Clay, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Edgerton, English, Farnsworth, Fenton, Gooeli, Hall, Herrick, Higby, Asahel W. Hubbard, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, King, Kuapp, Loan, Marvin, McAllister, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, William II. Miller, Dantel Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Radford, Robinson, Rogers, Schenek, Starr, William G. Steele, Stiles, Sweat, Thomas, Tracy, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, and Woodbridge-57.

So the second section of the bill was struck out. Messrs. SCHENCK and FARNSWORTH, not being within the bar when their names were

Mr. STEVENS. Does the gentleman from Illi-called, asked leave to vote.
nois charge that against the Committee of Ways
and Means?

Mr. DAWES objected.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote

« AnteriorContinuar »