« AnteriorContinuar »
concede that his colleague has studied sufficient for both.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Ah! the better man of the two, then.
Mr. CONNESS. Now, Mr. President, there is another fact that appears, so far as the Niobrara route is concerned, in the discussions that were had before the committee, namely, that if it were adopted by the order of Congress for the construction of a Pacific railroad branch, it would make a very long and a very expensive route to the Treasury of the United States before it could connect westwardly with the Union Pacific railroad, and that is an additional reason why it should not be adopted. The time will doubtless come, when more population gets into that country, that branch roads will connect with the main trunk or Union Pacific railroad; but that time, in iny judgment, is not yet.
Now, sir, the question directly before us, and the cause of the introduction of this measure, is the line located from Sioux City, east of the Missouri river, and crossing the Missouri river a considerable distance south of Sioux City and thence running to Frémont, where it connects, I believe, with the Omaha branch of the Pacific railroad. It appears that this Iowa company have deposited the map now before me, as the plat of their route, in the office of the Secretary of the Interior; and the lands, I suppose, have been withdrawn from the market in accordance with law. I believe that the construction of a road over this route would be unwise, inasmuch as it runs eastward and not westward, and that this route, as contemplated by the language of the substitute of the Senator from Iowa, would be set aside. Certainly the United States are not willing to build a branch of the Pacific railroad from Sioux City, which shall run eastward, and in the length of one hundred miles only make five miles of westward distance. The route which the company has adopted, as shown by the map which has been deposited, is one that ought to be set aside. I think, as I suppose all right-minded persons think, that the route should be left to engineering. I have no objec tion, and never saw any during the discussion, to this Iowa company, composed of owners of contiguous railroads interested in seeking this his western connection, being the company to build the branch. Indeed, my opinion is that they are the best able to build it; that committed to their hands it will be built soonest and best, for we have, in addition to the motive of personal interest that they will have in assuming the franchise, the amount of interest they have in seeking the_connection by their other and existing roads. But whether the President had a legal right to designate them is a question for the Senate to decide. Whether it is well for Congress now to confirm that designation is a question also for the Senate to decide, and I have no advice to give upon these propositions.
in this section the Senator claims, and perhaps correctly, should be construed in connection with the first part of the section. That proviso reads thus:
"And provided further, That if a railroad shall not be completed to Sioux City across Iowa or Minnesota within eighteen months from the date of this act"
The eighteen months have passed and it has not been done- .
"then said company designated by the President, as aforesaid, may commence, continue, and complete the construction of said branch as contemplated by the provisions of this act."
That proviso seems to be inconsistent with the first part of the provision which I read, and to provide that if within eighteen months no road should reach Sioux City from the east the company designated by him should go on and construct this branch. There really appears to be a conflict between the two provis
There are two questions to be considered in connection with this bill now before us; and they are separate questions. One is, whether the President made a legal designation when he designated this company for the construction of this branch, and whether if he did not make a legal designation it is good policy for Congress now to make that designation or confirm the one that he made, and give the building of this branch to this company, which I will call the Iowa company for the purpose of being understood. The other question relates entirely to routes; and they are totally distinct.
In regard to the investigations had before the Pacific Railroad Committee, I desire to state to the Senate that the bulk of what was said by the advocates of both parties in interest related directly to routes, and not to this designation, for so far as the designation is concerned, the Senate have it all here in the two provisions I have read, and are entirely competent to decide without any discussion; and so were the committee who had the matter in charge. But upon routes there was a great deal said. Gentlemen connected with Dakota Territory came before the committee and advocated the setting aside the order of the President, as proposed by the bill of the honorable chairman of the committee, so that they could' come forward and organize a company, alleg ing that they had the most direct westwardly route up what is called the Niobrara river, a branch of the Missouri. Much was said in regard to the practicability of constructing a line upon that branch; and I must say here that so far as I am a judge of a mountain country-and I live in one, and have for yearsand could construe what was said by the advocates of the Niobrara route, my conclusion was, and I could not escape from it, that there was no practicable or fair route up the Niobrara.
It was described by themselves as a river with a very narrow valley-in our country we would call it a cañon-a deep cut in a very hilly country, with precipitous bluffs very generally; and a country over which now mule trains travel with considerable difficulty; and where wagons travel they are compelled in all cases, as was stated, I believe, before the committee, to take the tops of the ridges, and cannot go up the valley of that river; in other words the river has no valley connected with it.
Then, so far as the Niobrara route is concerned, and so far as it affects the question now before the Senate, my judgment was and is that it cuts no figure in the case, that it is an impracticable sand-hill region, not profitable to construct a branch of the Pacific railroad through.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. Will the Senator from California permit me to ask him a question? Mr. CONNESS. Certainly.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Has my colleague, the Senator from California, ever studied anything of engineering or mountain countries? I ask an answer.
Mr. CONNESS. I do not think that has any relevancy to this subject. If the Senator's colleague has not, he is certainly willing to
When the bill before us was in committee it seemed to me not an extravagant thing to recommend that the bill should pass as agreed on by the committee; in other words, I thought this company would eventually build the road in any case, that they were the company best able, organized for the purpose, determined to take the franchise, able to go on with the surveys and demonstrate the best route. I thought they would eventually get it in any case. As to these other companies spoken of by the Senator from Michigan, I think none of them are yet organized.
Mr. HOWARD. They are.
Mr. HOWARD. Very responsible companies.
that they had considered the question of whether the President should have designated this company or not; that they had considered the ability of this company to construct the road; that they had considered the cheapest line of construction for the Government, and that they had also considered the best route for its construction over. I have no feeling in the premises, but, as I authorized the report to be made, I shall vote, of course, to sustain that report. If the Senate should not adopt it, then I should be willing to accept the other proposition, that coming from the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CONNESS. The Senator from Michigan says they are organized, and are very responsible companies; that had passed my attention. I do not know but that I have said all on this subject that I need at this time say. My only purpose in rising was to show that the committee had fairly and fully considered the case;
Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, this is an opportune occasion for me to make a remark due to myself and my relations to my State. It happened to be the fact that I introduced the first bill for a Pacific railroad in the House of Representatives long years ago. I was chairman then of that committee. I introduced the first carefully prepared bill in this body, and was chairman of the committee. I, the voice of the majority governing, after hav ing reported and helped to pass the first bill that ever did pass in Congress, was superseded by the sober Senator from California. I inhabited the city of San Francisco, the metropolitan city of the Pacific. His antecedent in the House resisted the Pacific_railroad going to San Francisco; and my colleague resisted the Pacific railroad going to the great metropolitan city, a place of which Humboldt spoke when he traveled along California's mountains and valleys long years ago. This from personal local considerations he did; and I know those considerations, and I affirm them now, and I do it for my own dignity and for the respect I have for the high senatorial office. The opportunity has not come before for me to say this; but what I say is the perfect truth. He did this for personal reasons, not for public. I do not think he understands the dignity of office. A man may play fantastic tricks so far as he himself is concerned; but when he accepts office and represents others he must be careful that he does the full measure of his duty; and it is my impression that he never learned to do that.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The remarks of the Senator of a personal character ar are decided to be out of order.
Mr. CONNESS. Only because what the Senator has said will be printed in the Globe, as I hope it will be every word
Mr. McDOUGALL. Every word.
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator will now be silent. Only because it will be printed in the Globe do I rise to make any response; otherwise I never would respond to what my colleague says in the Senate of the United States, but what he says goes out in print as the words of a Senator, and if no notice be taken of it here the public at large cannot but understand that the object of his animadver| sions deserved those animadversions. The Senate will bear me witness to-day, as they will since I have been in this body, that I came here for business, that I have made honest endeavors to represent the interests, the best interests, of the people who honored me by selecting me as a Senator. The testimony of the Senate on both sides I have no fear but that I can receive on that point. That this morning should be selected by him who unfortunately represents my State in this august body, to make a personal attack upon my. self
Mr. McDOUGALL. Will the Senator from California allow me to ask him a question? Mr. CONNESS. No, sir.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator give way?
Mr. CONNESS. No, sir.
Mr MCDOUGALL. Not for a question? Mr. CONNESS. No, sir.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's colleague does not give way.
Mr. CONNESS. That this assault should come this morning while we are engaged in the duties of our high office in considering a subject relating to the public weal lying outside of
Mr. McDOUGALL. I am only stating it. I am trying to get at it carefully so that I may be exact. If I am wrong I have no doubt the President will rule right. If the Senator, my colleague, had risen in his place and objected to some things I said, I think he might have made a point of order on me.
Mr. SUMNER. I rise again to a question of order.
the State of California, can only be accounted fer by the Senator who has made it being in that unfortunate condition which has led to so much disgrace to our State.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, I have a right to call the Senator to order and to pronounce that a falsehood. I have that right. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state his point of order, but he must state it in parliamentary language; otherwise the Chair cannot entertain any motion from the Senator. Does he make a point of order on what the Senator [Mr. CONNESS] says? If so, he will state his point of order.
Mr. McDOUGALL. I will state the point of order, then. A man who makes an insulting remark on the floor of the Senate, if it is a false remark, may be corrected by the statement of the term "falsehood," which is parliamentary; it is so in Great Britain and so in the United States. I desire to pronounce that a falsehood, and I am within the rule as it is laid down.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. ator from California [Mr. CONNESS] will pro
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I hope I shall be protected from these interruptions in what I shall have to say in future.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will endeavor to enforce the rules of the body.
Mr. CONNESS. I ask the indulgence of the reporter, else the remarks that I have made and what I wish to make will necessarily lack coherency. I was saying, sir, that the assault both in time and in character made by the Senator would not have been made on this occasion were he not in the condition which has led to so much disgrace to our State and has so often led to public shame in this august body.
Mr. McDOUGALL. AgainThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator must observe order.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Again I call the Senator to order, and again I say
Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Chair will keep
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's undertaking to pronounce what his colleague states to be untrue is not a point of order; and the Senator must not interrupt. He will have his opportunity to reply if any misstatement is made.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Will the President allow me to state what I think to be the true rule?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator makes a point of order, the Chair will entertain the point of order. The Senator from California on the left of the Chair [Mr. CONNESS] has the floor and must not be interrupted unless he is called to order. Mr. McDOUGALL. The point of order I
will state. It is notMr. SUMNER. I rise to a question of order. I submit that the Senator must not be allowed to proceed. He must make his point of order and then take his seat. Mr. McDOUGALL. I have the floor, having risen to state a point of order. Not having stated the point of order, I still have the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California rose to a point of order and has not stated it. The Chair entertains his motion only on the ground that he is stating his point of order. Mr. MCDOUGALL. I wish to state what I think to be the rule, which is, as far as I have been instructed about parliamentary law, that a person speaking personally, as the Senator, my colleague
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I believe I am entitled to the floor. I object to this. If the Senator has a point of order to make, I hope he will be made to state it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the object of the Chair. The Senator [Mr. MCDOUGALL] is stating his point of order as the Chair understands. If he is not stating a point of order he is clearly out of order.
MMCDOUGALL. I am on the floor on a point of order. Mr. SUMNER. The Senator is arguing a Mr. McDOUGALL. I am not. I am approaching the statement. Permit me, Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to make my statement. If a person says a thing on the floor of the Senate that undignifies a Senator he has the right to rebuke it by proper terms. That is the point of order, and so it has been ruled in Parliament, and so it has been ruled in this Senate for fifty years. That is the point of order. That is all I want to state, so that the President will understand that I have the privilege to rebuke a false assertion, it being personal to myself.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not understand that what the Senator now states is a point of order.
Mr. McDOUGALL. It is a point of order. It is my right to have such an assertion corrected whenever I ask a correction.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understood the Senator from California on the right [Mr. McDOUGALL] to deny the truth of some assertions made by the Senator from California on the left, [Mr. CONNESS.] The Chair does not think that a point of order.
Mr. McDOUGALL. I think the Chair does not understand me. I think the Chair did not understand the remarks of the Senator from California, [Mr. CONNESS.] There is the point. The Senator from California, my colleague, made a remark that was personal to myself, not an opinion or a matter of discussion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS] will proceed. The Chair perceives no point of order in the matter stated.
Mr. CONNESS. If my purpose had ever been at any time, or if I ever could entertain the purpose, which I never have, to reflect upon my colleague, the Senator in this body, it were entirely unnecessary; the conduct of the Senator here furnishes the most severe reflection that could possibly be uttered by human tongue. The Senator, as I have once taken occasion to state in defense of my State, does not represent the State of California in any sense, either political or moral. The Senator was enfranchised with the senatorial office by that great State five years ago, since which time the Senator has never returned to see his constituents or that they might see him; and yet I have been put to the constant test in this body of bearing and submitting-feeling proud of the people I represent here-to the assumptions of representation of them made by that Senator. I have borne it, sir; I have sat in my place when that Senator, so far from representing that high-toned, moral, and courageous constituency and great sovereignty, was sitting in his chair, or rather lying in his chair, the object of pity, before an audience assembled here from nearly every State in the Union. I have covered my eyes more than once in shame before these exhibits. My associates in this body must not understand that I am dead to considerations of this character, but, sir, silently and quietly, kindly even to him, I was biding the time when the Senator, by the termination of his official career, should cease thus to misrepresent, thus to humiliate, and thus to shed all the disgrace that was possible in him to do upon not only the State that honored him and enfranchised him, but upon the American character and upon the American Senate. But, sir, I cannot bear it this morning, in view of the wanton, unprovoked assault made upon myself.
The Senator rises here and bandies the
word falsehood, Mr. President, against me. The Senator dare not do that out of this great body.
Mr. President, I dare not reply, for my sen atorial character is in issue here, to conduct so despicable as that is. I dare not respond to it. Of my character for truth and veracity, for honor in the representative character, I have no comparison to make with him. I shrink from the contrast as I would from all the pollution that hell could vomit forth in it most disgusting convulsions. I have no contrast to make.
Mr. President, with gentleness, with kindness, with what was due to the senatorial relation, notwithstanding the provocations in every point of view-I would at any time since I have sat here have sacrificed them all before the high and imperious duty of vindicating this great American forum and have cast a vote upon any day for the expulsion of the Senator because of his offenses committed here again and again against the dignity of this body; but, sir, I could not lead in such a work-the Senate has spared him; but forgetful of this consideration in his behalf, he has repeated again and again these outrages and violations of order and decorum and dignity until forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. The Senate have constantly done themselves and the country a wrong. It was not enough that this great body of which he became a member had by unanimity concluded that he should not be permitted longer to sit in its committees to consider legislative questions. That silent but most positive condemnation, so far from bringing reformation and change, has but sunk and degraded the object still more, until having no character to lose, nothing in controversy, he rises and commits the last offense this morning.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member from California
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from California yield the floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member from California will permit me to interrupt him for a moment?
Mr. CONNESS. Certainly.
Mr. JOHNSON. As far as any necessary vindication of his character is concerned, I submit to the honorable Senator whether he has not gone far enough.
Mr. CONNESS. I was about to close.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Permit me a remark. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland has the floor by consent of the Senator from California.
Mr. McDOUGALL. I ask him to permit me a remark
Mr. JOHNSON. I will not.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland does not give way and must not be interrupted.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure that it would be agreeable to the Senate, and to all who hold in respect the character of the body, that a discussion like this should terminate.
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I beg to say to the Senator from Maryland, to the honorable President, and to the Senate, that I feel as deeply as any human being can feel the pain of this whole proceeding; but I began by remarking that what is said in this Chamber goes out as the record of this great body, and, so far as the public at large and outside readers are concerned, we are all equal here; and therefore, provoked again and again, I cannot, either for myself or for the State that I in part endeavor to represent here, be silent longer. If I have, Mr. President, by manner, by word, or by inopportune occasion offended the Senate, or any Senator, certainly there is no person to whom it would communicate more pain than myself, and there is none who would withdraw any offense committed either to an individual or to the body where I was than myself. I am done, Mr. President.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Ishall be more respectful; I will not speak of "the sobe Senator
from California;" I will speak of the superb Senator with the superior voice. There is a little story told of one of the best men in America-Mr. Pettigru, of Charleston, South Carolina. Having advocated a cause in which he had occasion to denounce the client of the opposite counsel and his family for having been guilty of perjury, the fighting man of the family came from the mountains, which are a branch of the Alleghanies in that region, and came up to Mr. Pettigru, who was walking along in the old-fashioned style, with his green bag under his arm. This big, tall fellow came up and said to him, "You are a God damned liar." Mr. Pettigru did not notice it. Then said he, "You are a damned scoundrel." Mr. Pettigru did not pretend to see him at all, but walked along toward home, like a gentleman. "Mr. Pettigru," said he, then, "you are a God damned son of a bitch."
to the floor, but I desire to call the attention of the Senator to a fact, if he has no objection. That fact is that the question under consideration is in regard to this Pacific railroad bill. Mr. McDOUGALL. But this is a personal controversy, and I wish to state the controversy as it is. Permit me to proceed. I shall not take three minutes. I want to state the cause why.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks the repetition of such stories is disorderly, and ought not to be indulged in in the Senate.
Mr. McDOUGALL. Very well, then, I will give the climax of the thing, which I think will not be rude, because it was done by a gentleman. When he said this, Mr. Pettigru knocked him down, and said to him, You may lie as much as you please, but this is the way I notice such remarks as you made last." Now, I say simply, as these are lies, they do not undignify me, for I am conscious of my own rectitude.
Now, let me pursue this matter one step further. I am not going to be disorderly. I will give what is due to myself and to the other Senator from California. In the year 1852 I determined to be a candidate for the Federal Congress a few days before the convention of my party met, when my colleague, the other Senator from California, professed to be of the same party with myself. After notifying my friends at home in San Francisco, I took vessel and went to Sacramento, the seat of government. I arrived there after midnight, and early in the morning I arose to see my friends there and notify them of the fact that I would be a candidate for their suffrages. What happened then is the basis of all this. I walked down stairs, and at the door of the hotel I found a Senator of my State whom I knew well and who had invited me to be a candidate. I said to him, "Captain Walton, I have changed my mind since I saw you.' The Senator had invited me with great earnestness, had spent some days in inducing me to become a candidate for the Federal House of Representatives. Said I, "I have changed my mind; I have determined to become a candidate. He said to me, calling me "General," which was my soubriquet, I regret it; you know how earnestly I urged you to become a candidate, and after leaving you I immediately went to the city of Stockton and offered my support to Major Hammond," who had then been Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State. Said I, Certainly, I remember your kindness, and under the circumstances I cannot ask your support." A man was introduced to me at that time by Captain Walton whom I addressed with the cordiality that belongs to western habits. He said, "Captain Walton does not own all the county of El Dorado; I have as much to say about that as he has, and I am going there this morning by stage. In the county of El Dorado you are more highly regarded, and with proper opportunities you can obtain our suffrages, and I will see that you are properly represented." The man being a stranger to me, that being the first opportunity of his coming within my vision, I did not rely on that, and sent to El Dorado, one of the principal counties of my State. After having advised my friends that I was a candidate, I returned to the city of Benicia, where the convention was held.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. PresidentMr. McDOUGALL. I would desire to conclude my sentence; I have not completed it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Senator is entitled
The convention met four days thereafter. I was well advised that the person who had volunteered El Dorado to me had become my adversary. He came to the convention with his followers. He did not call upon me, but cast his vote against me. I was not troubled, because I was advised; I was forewarned and forearmed. After I was nominated on the first ballot, by a handsome majority, he came to me and said, "I congratulate you, sir, as a Rep. resentative from the State of California." Said I, "Sir, I do not know how well you can congratulate me, or how well you can afford to offer me your hand. You had given me the assurances of support, and you made a speech against the person who seconded my nomination, and cast your vote against me. You have a right to change your opinions, and I not being informed of the reason why you cast your vote against me, must say that to me, without information, it looks much like treachery. Permit me to inquire, if you had a cause, why you did not give me the explanation, and inform me, first, that you had changed your opinion, and secondly, the reason why." "Oh," said he, "I found out that you are too much of a southern man for me;" and he cast his vote for a man who had sent a circular around for establishing slavery in California.
Sir, those men who have wronged you once, and know they have wronged you, will always be your adversaries. I do not speak otherwise than as can be interpreted by the Senator across the way. HENDRICKS. If it is not the desire
of Senators to have a vote on the bill which is immediately before the Senate, I will move its postponement with a view to take up the bill that was under consideration the other day for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels-of-war and steam machinery, and upon which I was submitting some remarks to the Senate at the time an adjournment took place. If Senators think we can reach a vote on this bill to-day-I desire a vote upon it-I shall not interpose the motion.
Mr. HOWARD. I think we can soon come
to a vote.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suggest, inasmuch as an important amendment has been offered by the Senator from Iowa, that the bill had bettergo over and let that amendment be printed.
Mr. HOWARD. I will not object to that. But I beg leave to make one single remark before the subject passes over this morning. It was observed by the Senator from California, [Mr. CONNESS,] that he supposed the lands on the route marked upon the map which I have furnished had been withheld from the market for the benefit of the company. In that respect I think the honorable Senator has been misinformed.
Mr. CONNESS. I rather asked it as a question. Mr. HOWARD. Such is not the fact. The lands upon the route marked upon the map have not been reserved at the Department of the Interior, as I have been informed, and I think that the company have made no progress whatever in regard to this road. Whether they have made an actual survey of the route marked down on the map is more than I am able to say. I apprehend, however, that they have not. Possibly they may have surveyed a portion of the route, but I apprehend they have not surveyed it all.
In this connection I beg leave to be indulged in one further remark: the statute of Iowa authorizing the establishment of corporations of this description, which are called in the statute "associations," requires that the articles of association which stand as the charter of the
company, taken in connection with the general act, should set forth the conditions and times on which the stock of the company is to be paid in-a very important provision as I regard it— the object of the statute being to require the actual payment in, at certain times to be fixed by the articles of association, of the capital of the company. The Sioux City company, in their articles of association, seem to have overlooked that very important clause in the general stat ute of Iowa, and in their articles they say:
"The capital stock of said company shall be $6,000,000, which shall be divided into shares of $100 each, and may be taken by individuals and corporations, to be paid in such installments as said company may require, and under such rules, regulations, and restrictions as may be provided by the board of directors."
Leaving the whole matter of the payment of stock by the stockholders discretionary with the board of directors, who may call it in or omit to call it in, as they choose. They may call it in at one time or another time, as they may choose. There being no time fixed in the articles of association for calling in the capital stock, it would seem that if the board of directors were so disposed, they might omit entirely to require the payment of any cash capital by any stockholder of the company, which certainly, as I think, would be a violation of the general act of Iowa to which I have referred. Whether they could construct this road out of the subsidy and the lands, I do not know; but I must confess, looking at the articles of association, it appears to me very much as if that were their purpose, not intending on their part to make any very liberal contributions in cash.
Mr. GRIMES. I hardly suppose that the Senate is prepared to sit as a court of appeals to decide whether or not corporations created by the State of Iowa under their laws are valid or not. All that I have to say in reply to the Senator from Michigan is, that I know several of the are connected with this company. I know that they are very pure men, very able men, and are capable of building the road; and I think that they probably are as well qualified to discharge this duty as the gentlemen who compose the adverse company, with the members of which I suppose the Senator is familiar, for I believe they are generally from the town in which he has his residence. I have no doubt the persons who are seeking to get the control of this road in opposition to the company to which the grant was made by the President are all very respectable people; but the charter, as I suppose, and have believed, and am informed, is in strict accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa.
Mr. HOWARD. It was not my intention to sit as a judge upon the question whether this Sioux City company is legally incorporated or not. That was the furthest possible thing from my mind. I felt it a duty, however, to call the attention of the Senate to this impor tant fact, and it will have such weight as Senators choose to give it.
As to the other company to which the Senator alluded, I have only knowledge of but one or two members of it. Very few, however, of the members of the company to which the Senator refers, reside at Detroit; and as to those, I can assure the Senator that they are gentlemen of the highest responsibility and untarnished honesty and honor as business menmen who would delight in exercising the priv ilege of carrying through this important work as expeditiously as possible; men who would be sure to accomplish their object. As to the character of the stockholders of the Sioux City company, I know much less of them than the honorable Senator from Iowa does. I presume, however, they are all excellent business men-men of responsibility. I have been so told; but I cannot, just at this point, suppress the fact appearing before us in public documents now on our tables, that three of the stockholders, three of the members of the board of directors of that company, are members of the present Congress-members of the House of Representatives. I think it proper
Senate, if he would let that bill come up instead of the one to which he alludes.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate but briefly.
to state that fact for the information of the Senate.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire to say in response to that that the Senator is mistaken. I believe that one of the members of the House of Representatives of my State assisted in forming the company, but when the company was formed he ceased to have any connection with the road. I think that one member of Congress is one of the members of this company. I do not know that there is any particular impropriety in that. I do not know that it is any more improper than it is for the Senator's constituent, who holds an office in the Territory of Dakota, to be a lobby member about this body, as he has been ever since this session of Congress commenced, for the purpose of securing this grant to the adverse company, of which he is a member. I simply desire to repel the inference that might be drawn from the remarks of the Senator from Michigan that there was anything improper on the part of these gentlemen who were members.of the House of Representatives. One of them I think is a very worthy member from the State of Massachusetts, as good a man, as pure a man, and as competent a man, according to my knowledge of him-and I think that is the opinion held of him by his own constituents and by the people of that Commonwealth-as ever had a seat in the Halls of Congress; and I can make the same remark, with perfect propriety and truth, in regard to my colleague of the House of Representatives. I do not know with what purpose it was that the Senator from Michigan saw fit to drag in the names of these gentlemen and put them upon the record here. I can only say, whatever that motive may have been, that, in the estimation of their friends, nothing that he can say can injure them.
Mr. HOWARD. Certainly it was not my purpose to introduce the names, and I have not introduced the names, of any members of Congress from the State of Iowa as members of this company. That is not necessary. I referred to that fact, however, to account, if possible, for this strenuous opposition which has been made, and probably will hereafter be made, to the passage of the bill now before the Senate. I, like the Senator from Iowa, see no impropriety in a member of Congress being connected with a railroad company, being a stockholder or director; there is certainly nothing disreputable in that; but that would naturally be a circumstance, so far as a member of Congress is concerned, inducing one to be tolerably vigilant in regard to his rights and in regard to the rights of his company. That is
all that I intended.
As to the other gentleman to whom the Senator has seen fit to allude-a private gentleman of spotless reputation
Mr. GRIMES. He holds an office in Dakota Territory.
Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir; I believe he is surveyor of the Territory of Dakota, and has been absent, on leave, for a number of months, from his post of duty, and has spent much of his time at Washington. What may have been his business entirely, I am unable to say. It is true, however, that he is friendly to the passage of this bill, as he has a right to be, as every man in Dakota and elsewhere has a right to be. I do not know of any reason in morality or politics or law that would exclude a gentleman holding a public office from taking an interest in any public measure pending before Congress. I do not know why he should be Ostracized simply because he is a public officer. Mr. HENDRICKS. I move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed with a view of taking up the bill for the relief of the contractors for building the iron-clads. Mr. CLARK. If the Senator from Indiana desires to address the Senate upon the bill to which he alludes, I. of course, will make no objection to that bill coming up, but I desire, if possible, to call up House bill No. 238, with regard to the habeas corpus, which was under consideration some days ago, and which is a bill of public importance; and I should be glad, if the Senator does not wish to address the
Mr. CLARK. Of course, if the Senator desires to occupy it at all, I will not interpose another motion.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand that the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, will perhaps offer some amendments which may remove all objection to the bill I have named, and it need not occupy very much time if he takes that course.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the further consideration of the bill now before the Senate be postponed, and that the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa be printed, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill made by the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. HOWARD. If the bill now before the Senate is to be postponed, I beg to suggest that it be postponed until to-morrow at one o'clock. Mr. CLARK. Oh, no; do not assign a day for it.
Mr. WADE. I hope there will be no assignments that will prevent me from calling up a bill which, if it is to be passed upon at all, ought to be acted upon very soon.
Mr. SUMNER. What is that?
Mr. WADE. The bill to incorporate the District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company. If it is to be passed at all, it should be passed at once. I intended to call it up this inorning, but this bill got ahead of me. I think this bill ought to be considered and passed at the earliest moment, and I should be glad if the Senate would agree to take it up now.
Mr. SUMNER. Why not go on with the business before us and finish it this afternoon? Mr. HOWARD. I inferred from what the Senator from Indiana said that he desired to
speak on this bill, and wished it postponed for
Mr. HENDRICKS. Not at all.
Mr. HOWARD. If that be not the case, I think we had better come to a vote on this bill without a postponement.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If we could reach a vote I should not interpose another motion; but I suppose this bill in regard to the Pacific railroad will occupy some further time, and I desire to conclude what I was saying at the time of the adjournment the other day, and I suppose that we can then dispose of the bill that I propose to call up in a very short time.
Mr. ANTHONY. If the Senator from Indiana was cut off the other day in the middle of his speech I do not know why that would not come up as the unfinished business. I think he ought to have the privilege of concluding his remarks.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I supposed it would; but I did not want to interrupt other business.
Mr. GRIMES. It was understood a few minutes ago that this railroad bill would go over until to-morrow, and I know that two or three Senators left the Chamber under that impression. I think, therefore, it would be well for us to adopt the suggestion of the Senator from Indiana, and let this bill be postponed until to-morrow.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Indiana.
The motion was agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had insisted on its amendments to the concurrent resolution of the Senate to prohibit the sale of spirituous and other intoxicating liquors about the Capitol building and grounds, disagreed to by the Senate, and asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. JOHN WENTWORTH of Illinois, Mr. HIRAM PRICE of Iowa, and Mr. SAMUEL J. RANDALL of Pennsylvania, managers at the same on its part.
LIQUOR IN THE CAPITOL.
The Senate proceeded to consider the message from the House of Representatives asking for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House of Representatives to the resolution prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors in the Capitol building or grounds, disagreed to by the Senate and insisted on by the House.
Mr. SHERMAN. In the absence of the gentleman [Mr. WILSON] who introduced the resolution, and for him, although without authority, I will move that the Senate insist upon its disagreement to the amendments and agree to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the President pro tempore appoint the managers at the conference on the part of the SenI hope that this will be considered as the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts who introduced the resolution.
The motion was agreed to.
CONTRACTORS FOR VESSELS AND MACHINERY.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 220) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels-of-war and steam machinery.
Mr. HENDRICKS. It is not my intention to occupy the attention of the Senate more than a few moments in the further discussion of this bill. At the time of the adjournment on Wednesday last I was showing the effect of the action of the Department upon these contractors, and was illustrating it by the cases of three other vessels that were constructed by Messrs. Secor & Co., the Tecumseh, Mahopac, and Manhattan, three of the river and harbor monitors. As I said, the contract by Messrs. Secor & Co. for the construction of those vessels was made on the 1st of September, 1862, and they were to be completed in six months, but in fact they were not completed for about eighteen months. Now, I wish to show to the Senate how it came that they were not com pleted within the time or within a short time after the time limited, and what was the effect of that delay in the completion of the vessels upon the contractors themselves.
The contract price for these vessels was considerably above a million dollars, and the work was commenced, I believe, almost immediately
after the contract was made; but very shortly afterward the superintendent commenced mak ing changes in the plans of the vessels and in the mode of doing the work. I will show the extent to which the changes were ordered. I will refer very briefly to some of the evidence that was before the board.
These contracts, as I have said, were made on the 1st of September. In the latter part of September the first instructions were given, the drawings of the particular plans, Nos. 2, 6, 5, 8, and 7, signed by Stimers, the general inspector.
"On the 9th of October, a second specification was received from the general inspector which demanded the following changes from the specifications upon which we built."
The changes are given; the different items; the cost of these changes amounting to a good many thousands of dollars. The Senate will observe that that was a little more than a month after the contracts were made. Then again on the 14th of October, a month and a half after the contracts were made, other changes were ordered; again on the 14th of November; again on the 19th of November, and the last modifications were very extensive, involving a great change in the plan of the work and a great increase of the cost of the vessels. On the 15th of January other instructions were received, and from time to time thereafter almost during the entire time of the construction of the vessels. Messrs. Secor & Co., I believe, built five vessels in all, two of this particular class, and (upon which they sustained such serious loss) they built three vessels, the Tecumseh, the Mahopac, and Manhattan, river and harbor monitors, a very important class of vessels. The Senate will observe on page 9 of the report a copy of one of the letters written by Stimers, as general inspector, to the contractors. That letter is dated December 22, 1862. It commences thus:
modifications of the plan of these vessels caused extra work to be required, amounting to above half a million of dollars. That extra work was paid for by the Department. There is no claim by these contractors for that. The point is just this: that by requiring so much additional work and such a departure from the original plan from time to time, the work could not be completed within any reasonable period, and instead of the vessels being built from the 1st of September, 1862, to the 1st of March, 1863, the work ran through the whole of the year 1863 and up to March, April, and May, 1864. If Senators will turn to the 8th page of the report they can see the effect of this necessary delay, occasioned by the action of the Government or by the instructions of the general inspector, upon the contractors. As a part of this report, there is a statement of the advance in the price of labor and material, which is certified to be correct by Admiral Gregory who had charge of this work. Let us take a few of the items.
"GENERAL INSPECTOR'S OFFICE, IRON-CLAD STEAMERS, 413 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, December 22, 1862. GENTLEMEN: You are probably aware that the iron-clad steamers Mahopac, Tecumseh, and Manhattan, now in process of construction by you, are, in their general plan, simply a modification of the Passaic class. That the original design emanated from Captain Ericsson, the inventor of this system, and that this office was established by the Government for the purpose of making and issuing to the various builders of the vessels the detailed working drawings. The design of Captain Ericsson contemplated the deck covered with one inch thickness of iron. The deck planking and much of the side armor of pine wood, and all armor plates to be of fifteen sixteenths inch thick each.
After this plan left the hand of the designer, there was added another inch to the thickness of the deck plating; the pine wood in the deck planks and side armor was changed to oak; the full thickness of one inch each was demanded for all armor plates; the weight of the boilers was increased fifteen per cent., and in some minor respects weight was added to what was originally intended, until, after having in vain protested against these additions, Captain Ericsson gave notice that he would no longer be responsible for the flotative power of these vessels. I have, therefore, caused the displacement and the weights to be carefully calculated, and, to avoid the necessity of carrying any ballast to balance the vessels, the calculations extended to balancing the weights equally with the displacement. As the result of these investigations, it has been determined to make the following alterations."
I will not undertake to describe to the Senate what these alterations amounted to, for I cannot very well understand them myself, not being a mechanic or engineer; but they were very important alterations. This was one of a series of communications from the general inspector to these contractors. This was about midway in the period fixed for the completion of the vessels, and from time to time onward alterations were made; so that, as a matter of course, the vessels had not approached completion when the time limited for their completion had expired. Again, on the 18th of June, 1863, very elaborate instructions were given by General Inspector Stimers to the contractors. Senators will find that letter on the 10th, 11th, and 12th pages of the report, and can see by referring to it the extent of the alterations and modifications of the work.
Now, sir, what was the effect of it? As I said the other day, the entire alterations and
This contract was made in September, 1862. It should have been completed in March, 1863, but was not, and I presume it would not have been completed at that time, even, if no alterations had been required; but the modifications rendered it impossible to complete this work until eighteen or twenty months after the time of the contract. Supposing the vessels had been completed by the 1st of March, 1863, the following advances in prices would not have occurred to the contractors. In September, 1862, flange iron was six cents per pound; in March, 1863, it was eight and one fourth cents. In September, 1862, common iron was sixtyfive dollars per ton; in March following it was $87 50 per ton-a very considerable advance. Now as to labor: finishers in September, 1862, were receiving eighteen cents per hour; in March, 1863, they were receiving twenty-one cents per hour-an advance of three cents per hour.
Because of the modifications required by the general inspector these vessels were not_completed until the spring of 1864. Now, I ask Senators to observe the increased cost of material and labor running up to that period, and I will take the same items. Flange iron in September, 1862, was six cents per pound; in May, 1864, it was ten cents. Common iron in September, 1862, was sixty-five dollars per ton; in May, 1864, it was $145, being an advance of more than one hundred per cent. American iron in September, 1862, was twenty-six dollars per ton; in May, 1864, it was sixty dollars per ton, being an advance of more than one hundred per cent. With regard to labor, finishers in September, 1862, received eighteen cents per hour; in May, 1864, twenty-eight cents per hour. Laborers in September, 1862, received eleven cents per hour, and in May, 1864, twentyone cents per hour, an advance of ten cents per hour, almost one hundred per cent. Smiths, in September, 1862, received nineteen cents per hour, and in May; 1864, thirty cents per hour. Carpenters in September, 1862, received eighteen cents, and in May, 1864, twenty-seven cents per hour.
Mr. CLARK. The difficulty is, this bill takes the whole of them together, and we go rather by illustration of the whole case than by an examination of the individual cases.
Mr. President, I have referred to the cases of these three vessels for the purpose of illustration before the Senate. It is impossible for me to refer to each particular case that is provided for in this bill; but I give these three vessels for the reason that the allowance made by the board to Messrs. Secor & Co. upon these three vessels seemed to me to be as large as any in the list of the awards.
Mr. CLARK. With reference to that point I desire to say to the Senator that that is one of the great objections that I have to the bill, that the Senator and the Senate cannot consider each case separately by itself. I can conceive that there might be very good reason why we should make an allowance to A or to B on account of the action of the Government in delaying the work, when there would be no reason for making an allowance to C or to D. Mr. HENDRICKS. I will speak of that directly.
Mr. HENDRICKS. That is not exactly the case, for the reason that the committee, in the report made by the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. NYE,] have examined each claim and each
Mr. CLARK. That may be. The committee may have satisfied themselves, but the Senate may not be satisfied.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I cannot say that the Senate will be satisfied, but the committee have not asked the Senate to take one or two cases as a matter of illustration. The committee, in their report, have given the particular facts of each claim. The report does not present these cases as a matter of illustration, but gives the facts in each case.
Mr. WILLEY. I merely rise to remind the Senator from Indiana that the bill also names each case separate and distinct, just as much so as if there were distinct and separate bills in each case. The committee not only report separately on each vessel, but the bill, although it provides for all of these claims in the same bill, does so by clauses, separating the claim of each.
Mr. CLARK. I understand that perfectly, because I have examined the bill somewhat; but here are forty-two cases, as the Senator will see, put in one bill, on which the Senate is to pass. We think it enough to pass upon one claim; but here we have got forty-two all in one bill.
Mr. WILLEY. Where is the difference whether we are to have forty-two bills, or have but one bill, when we can take up each case, or each vessel at a time, as we can do in considering this bill, framed as it is?
Mr. CLARK. That is not what we are doing. Senators are trying to carry the whole bill by an illustration of a portion of these cases.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The committee do not propose to carry the whole bill by illustration, although in my argument I do not undertake to examine the particular merits of each particular case. The report of the committee, made by the Senator from Nevada, discusses each case separately, and presents the facts of each case as fully as the committee were able to do. But for myself, I content myself with giving a few illustrations, as the Senator from Iowa, the other day, selected one or two cases as an illustration, for the purpose of showing that some parties claimed largely, while other parties did not claim nearly so much.
Now, Mr. President, upon these three vessels, as I said, I thought the award of the board was as high perhaps as in any case, and I have selected them as being as hard a case to satisfy the judgment of the Senate upon as any. I have selected those three vessels, the Tecumseh, the Mahopac, and the Manhattan. The award upon each vessel is $119,000, making above $300,000 upon the three vessels. If it shall appear upon a careful examination of the allowance made upon those three vessels that it is right and proper, the Senate will not be so uncertain upon claims where the allowance is not so large.
Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will permit me for a moment, I have not examined the report very carefully, but I find one case where the contractors claimed about seventy-seven thousand dollars, I think, and without showing upon what principle they had gone precisely, or without showing that he was not entitled to that sum, this board cut him down by a sort of arbitrary rule to the largest allowance they had made anybody else, to wit, about eighteen thou sand dollars. They took another man's case as a guide for his, which showed to my mind that this board did not examine into the subject very carefully.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will speak of that directly. On these three vessels that I am speaking of $119,000 was allowed upon each. That seemed to be a large allowance, more than three hundred thousand dollars upon the three,