Mr. BRENTON. My opinion is, that the proposition is susceptible of division, so that it shall be taken first upon the instructions.

The SPEAKER. That is the opinion of the Chair.

The House was divided on the call for the yeas and nays, and only 20 gentlemen rose.

Mr. CARTTER called for tellers upon the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and Messrs. WILLIAMS and CHANDLER were appointed.

The House was divided, and the tellers reported-ayes 46, noes not counted.

So the yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. COBB. Is it competent to ask the gentleman from Maryland to modify his instructions? The SPEAKER. It is not in his power to modify.

Mr. COBB. I desire that the instructions shall be so modified that all the money made by gentlemen when they are absent from the service of the House, shall be put into the common stock, and divided, with the mileage, equally among the members of the House. [Laughter.] If they were so modified, I should be disposed to vote for them.

Mr. EVANS. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to enable me to so modify the instructions as to provide for first allowing to each member his traveling expenses in reaching the seat of Government, out of the whole amount of mileage, before equalizing the compensation of members, as proposed.

Mr. ROBINSON and others objected.

Mr. CARTTER. Is it competent to move to suspend the rules to allow the gentleman from Maryland to modify his instructions?

The SPEAKER. It is not competent to move to suspend the rules, except on Monday.

A VOICE. Withdraw your instructions. Mr. EVANS. I will, then, withdraw the instructions.

Mr. STUART. I object.

Mr. EVANS. I understand that I have the right to withdraw.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is in doubt whether, after the previous question has been sustained, the gentleman can withdraw his proposition.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Certainly, he has clearly the right to withdraw. I will call the attention of the Chair to the 45th rule.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has read the rule, and has no doubt that the gentleman has the right to withdraw.

Mr. EVANS. Do I understand the Chair to decide that I have the right either to withdraw or amend?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman certainly has the right to withdraw under the rule.

Mr. EVANS. I will withdraw my instructions. Mr. ROBINSON. Has the previous question been exhausted?

The SPEAKER. It has not been exhausted, and discussion is not in order.

Mr. STUART. The gentleman from Maryland has moved to recommit the bill with instructions. Now, if he withdraws the instructions, does not the other part of the motion fall?

The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the motion to recommit was not affected by the withdrawal of the second branch of the proposition, and it is still pending.

Mr. ROBINSON. I rise to a question of order. I wish to know whether, after the gentleman has withdrawn his instructions, it is competent to recommit the bill without instructions?

The SPEAKER. It is competent, in the opinion of the Chair.

The question was then taken on the motion to recommit, and the result was-yeas 84, nays 86,

as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Charles Allen, William Appleton, Averett, Thomas H. Bayly, Barrere, Bennett, Bibighaus, John H.Boyd, Bragg, Brooks, G. H. Brown, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Cartter, Chandler, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Colcock, Curtis, Daniel, Dockery, Duncan, Edmundson, Evans, Floyd, Fowler, Giddings, Goodenow, Grow, Hammond, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Haws, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Houston, John W. Howe, Hunter, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, G. G. King, Preston King, Kurtz, Meacham, Miller, Millson, Miner, Henry D. Moore, Morehead, Murray, Outlaw, Peaslee, Perkins, Robie, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Skelton, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Thaddeus Stevens, Sutherland, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Toombs, Walbridge, Wallace, Watkins, Welch, Wildrick, Woodward,

and Yates-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, John Appleton, Ashe, David J. Bafley, Beale, Bissell, Bowie, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Busby, Caskie, Clark, Cobb, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Disney, Doty, Dunham, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Ewing, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Freeman, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Gilmore, Grey, Hall, Isham G. Harris, Hascall, Hendricks, Henn, Holladay, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, McDonald, McLanahan, Molony, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr, Samuel W. Parker, Penniman, Phelps, Polk, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Robinson, Savage, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, F. P. Stanton, Richard H. Stauton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Strother, Stuart, Walsh, Ward, Wilcox, and Williams-86.

So the House refused to recommit the bill to the Committee on Mileage.

Mr. STUART. I move to reconsider the vote

by which the House refused to recommit the bill, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. CARTTER. Upon that motion I ask the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the question being put, it was decided in the negativeyeas 85,nays 90; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Willis Allen, John Appleton, Ashe, David J. Bailey, Beale, Bell, Bissell, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Albert G. Brown, Busby, Caskie, Chandler, Clark, Cobb, Colcock, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dawson, Disney, Doty, Duncan, Dunham, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Florence, Freeman, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Gilmore, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Hendricks. Henn, Holladay, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Jackson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Letcher, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Mason, McDonald, McLanahan, McQueen, Molony, Nabers, Olds, Orr, Samuel W. Parker, Penn, Phelps, Polk, Porter, Price, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robinson, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abrahain P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Strother, Stuart, Venable, Ward, Williams, Woodward, and Yates-85.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Charles Allen, William

Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Barlett, Bennett, Bibighaus, Bowie, John H. Boyd, Brooks, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Curtis, Dean, Dockery, Evans, Ewing, Fitch, Floyd, Fowler, Giddings, Goodenow, Grow, Hammond, Harper, Sanipson W. Harris, Haws, Has

call, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Houston, John W. Howe,

Hunter, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Kurtz, Meacham, Miller, Millson, Miner, Henry D. Moore, Morehead, Morrison, Murray, Newton, Outlaw, Peaslee, Penniman, Perkins, Robie, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scuddder, Skelton, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Sweetser, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Toombs, Walbridge, Wallace, Walsh, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Alexander White, and Wildrick-90.

So the House refused to order the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. FITCH. I move to reconsider the vote just taken. I believe the previous question is exhausted.

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. FITCH. If so, then the bill and report are up again for discussion. I shall not make many remarks upon them, and regret that in remarks which I shall make I may be compelled to make allusions to the former opinions and course of certain members upon this floor, in order to throw some light upon the probable motive of their opposition to the bill. I look upon the bill as one calculated merely to render an act of strict justice to a Delegate occupying a seat here. I do not defend the law of 1818, as is well known by the older members of this House, because, as chairman of the Committee on Mileage during the last Congress, I asked repeatedly a modification of that law. I moved amendments to different apmileage law different from the one now placed propriation bills, asking a construction of that upon it, or at least asking that the mileage might be computed in altogether a different manner from what it now is. It will be recollected by the older members of the House, that I asked that the mileage might be computed by the nearest mail route, as reported by the Post Office Department. The whole matter, in fact, was before the committee of the last Congress, and was brought, by that committee, before this House. Amendments, in one or two cases-two cases, if I mistake not were adopted by this House, but a concurrence in them was refused upon the part of the other and coördinate branch of the legislative department occupying the other wing of this Capitol. It was manifest, long before the expiration of that Con

gress, that no material modification could be obtained, and I fear even now-though I understand it is the intention of the Committee on Mileage to report a bill making a modification of that law-[ say, I fear now it will meet with the same opposition from the same quarter. I was struck somewhat with the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. TooMBS,] whose argument seems to be based upon the supposition that this bill, which we are informed is to be introduced by the Committee on Mileage, changing the mileage law, will operate upon the present Congress. If so, I grant there would be an impropriety in the passage of this bill, because another bill from the same committee, proposing a law to operate upon all alike, would operate, of course, upon the Delegate from Oregon. But the gentleman destroyed the effect of his own argument by admitting to my colleague [Mr. ROBINSON] that a bill of that kind would not operate upon this Congress. The refore the question before the House is simply this -as no bill which we can pass will operate upon the present Congress-Shall we, during this Congress, put the Delegate from Oregon upon an equal footing with us, or shall we permit this exception to stand against him? Because, of course, when that bill comes from the Committee on Mileage, it will operate upon all prospectively alike-upon him as well as the rest of us-and we only ask that he may, until such a bill can be operative, be placed upon an equality with the rest of the House, those included who come from the same coast with himself-from the Pacific. The Delegate from Oregon comes from a country where-if I may be permitted by the gentleman from California [Mr. MARSHALL] to refer to his argumentelectioneering may cost quite as much as in that State, and be attended with personal risk and exposure equally as great, while the distance from thence to this city and the expense of the journey, are still greater.

Mr. Speaker, I regretted exceedingly to see the activity exhibited on the part of some members, in opposition to this bill. It calls up reminiscences which are by no means pleasant. I recognize amongst one or two of the most active-not to say been extremely active heretofore in debate-in annoisy-opponents of the bill, gentlemen who have other Congress-in procuring or attempting to procure, a change in the mileage law; gentlemen who were candidates during the first session of that Congress for reëlection, and were reëlected during the recess, and who during the second session of that Congress waited upon members of the Committee on Mileage, and insisted-after they had previously demanded that a report should be made in their favor for a limited number of miles-upon being placed upon an equality with other members. I will name no gentleman, because the reports of that committee, which are in the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House, will show who they are. By comparing these reports, a wide distinction will be found to exist be tween the amount of mileage received at the first and the second session of the last Congress, by certain members who were reelected during the recess between those two sessions. I say that these members, after asking as a favor that the Committee on Mileage should report them entitled only to mileage for a limited number of miles, and after this committee had consented to make an exception to the general rule in their behalf, because they asked not for an increase, but diminution of the mileage to which, by law, they would be entitled, came subsequently to that same committee and demanded to be put upon an equality with other members, and that their mileage should be com usual road," although in one or two instances this puted, in the language of the law, "by the most computation would make it double the mileage of the previous session. That course shows the sincerity of their present professions in favor of the reduction of mileage, when that deduction shall operate to the prejudice of one man, and one man only. I should not have made this allusionand I regret that it became my duty to do it-had it not been for the fate of this bill-a fate produced in a great degree by their active exertions in opposition to it. Now, sir, if the reason which they urged, and urged properly before the Committee. on Mileage, was correct in their case, why is it not correct in the case of the Delegate from Oregon? They asked no more than was right under the law. They asked that their mileage

that his mileage was not to exceed $2,500, as provided in the organization of the Territory of Oregon. It was not my purpose to have discussed the vote I intend to give. My design was to bring the debate to a close upon this mileage question, which is continually rising up as a source of annoyance. I will close my remarks, therefore, by calling for the previous question. Several MEMBERS. That is not fair.

Mr. PARKER. I hope the gentleman will yield to me a moment.

Mr. McMULLIN. I will withdraw my call for the previous question, as gentlemen seem to suppose that it was not fair. Or I will retain the floor, yielding to the gentleman, and intending after he has concluded to move to lay the subject upon the table.

-remedied in detail, but must be remedied by a general bill. Where is the man upon this floor, I care not from what part of the country he comes, that would submit to be laid upon the Procrustean bed of this special legislation, and have himseif measured off, and cut off, if perchance he were fancied to be a little too long, and drawn out a little, if too short. The legislation is certainly wrong. It looks to me, with due respect for honorable gentlemen and deference to the House, that it is ignominious-for we are all equals-we should so treat each other, and be treated. It is said, however, in reference to my friend from Oregon, that he accepted his seat under this law as it is, and therefore he has no right to complain. Has he complained? Has he opened his mouth in reference to this case? No, sir; no, sir; nor would he if he remained here until the resurrection gun is fired. I have known that gentleman in other days. I have known him in civil as well as in military

Mr. PARKER, of Indiana. On yesterday, when this question was first presented, I did not expect to make a remark. But I do not feel that it is my duty now to sit still under the circumstances of the case, and allow the vote to be taken without giving expression to a few thoughts. I am satisfied that this legislation for supposed emergencies in a matter of this kind is wrong. This is the evil that will always attend us in such cases until remedied; and it can be remedied only by general enactment, applicable alike to us as well as the Delegate from Oregon.

When the organic law of that far-off Territory, as it was then regarded, was made, we little dreamed that we should now be legislating as we are side by side with the men of California, of Utah, and New Mexico. But so it is; here we all And Oregon is with us; but she has not come, she cannot come, like us, unless you pass this bill.

are.

We have already spent in value time enough of this House this bill, and the existing law in upon discussing this question, to much more than cover the increased compensation that will ever accrue from the passage of this bill. And it will be always so, so long as we adopt this kind of local and special and invidious legislation. This is all wrong, it seems to me, for us sitting here as we do in the attitude of national legislators. There is the wrong; and it goes back to that organic law which established this difficulty. And it has, I understand, been haunting us ever since. We might have expected then what has been the history of this case since, that whenever your appropriation bills come up, the question would come up about putting the Delegate from Oregon upon the same footing with other members upon this floor-treating him as the rest of us are treated; because every heart responds at once and says it is right. The true question is not whether the Delegate deserves less or as much as this bill gives him, but it is, Should the rule that governs the rest of us govern him? It will be always so, whether we pass this bill or not, that every honest mind will say there is no reason for making the mileage of the Oregon Delegate less than his from Utah and New Mexico and the members from California, when he makes a much longer and more perilous journey than they. If we pass this bill, however, we have settled the question; we are not disturbed with it any longer as an isolated question; and the sooner it comes up in common with the case of each one of us upon this floor, the better it will be for the country; for this question is one about which the public mind is particularly restive. It will be restive until we provide for it, and we should do it. But it is never to be done in this sideling sort of way. I am for passing this bill for the purpose, if no other, of getting rid of this question at this time; for in the first place, we can only get rid of it by passing this bill; and I tell gentlemen here, whether they are political friends of mine or opponents-and the gentleman for whose benefit this bill is introduced is no political friend of mine, and never has been-I tell gentlemen of all parties, if our object be economy, we will have to pass this bill, for either this bill, or some other application in a different form, will come up that will cause us more ten times more, peradventure-than is involved here. For this character of legislation is wrong. The mileage law which exists now should not be cannot be

ever hear complaining in a case of this kind. It is his friends here, who know his high deserving, and see this invidious legislation standing against him, that come forward and complain of the manner in which he is treated. Inasmuch, however, gentlemen still tell us, as he accepted this position under the law as it is, we should hold him to it. Now, I appeal to my political friends here if they are disposed to mete out that kind of dealing to the gentleman under these circumstances? Could we look with any degree of complacency upon such treatment as that towards a gentleman of our school-one by us deemed worthy of our kindest regards, and that gentleman now standing

in the attitude this one does? I have seen too much of human nature-I cannot think so; no, sir. Did he belong to the same political church, make his devotions in the same temple of worship with us, where would we be then? I know full well where we would be. If one of ours had come from that far-off region with his life in his hand-with signal military honors crowned-as well as with civic wreaths upon his brow, as this Delegate has come, I cannot mistake where our hearts and our heads would be. There is hardly one of us upon this floor, I doubt whether there is any, who would say of that brother of ours anything else than that he ought to be put in the same predicament with all other members. This is the view I have of the matter. I have felt so in other days-so have my opponents; I feel so now, and so do they. Look you, again, at this thing. Because he accepted it under these circumstances, therefore he is to be held to it-he is so bound! There is no reason, no justice, no logic in a Shylock-argument of that character, in my humble judgment. I know my friend full well. What I say for him, I believe I may say for nine tenths of the population of the little Territory on the Pacific slopelittle in numbers yet, but magnificent in prospectif there were no mileage here at all, suffering as they have and do, there is that number to be found there who would come here for higher and purer motives than money, had they the ability, and act for that Territory. This gain to him in money was not thought of when he came here, or thought of by him when he was elected. He has given evidence enough to the country, that he has a heart, and kind of gallantry about him-a love of country, that would have induced him to have acted gratuitously in the whole matter, had it been required at his hands, and he able to do so. seems to me that this ought to be satisfactory to

us.

It

This is the first time in the whole history of the country, that we have had a law of the kind, which by this bill we seek to abrogate. It is well it has been so, for had it been otherwise, I cannot be mistaken in supposing that we would have had all these difficulties every session of Congress since its enactment that we have now, and will have, until this wrong is remedied.

I know very well, as I have already indicated, there are great outrages connected with these mileage transactions, and, as I stated, the country is all alive in reference to the matter, and it ought to be remedied. The country calls for it, and we should respond without delay. It can never be remedied, however, in the form of the old lawthe legislation we now seek to remedy, but aggravates the difficulty, and we only make ourselves ridiculous, it seems to me, with due defference, when we attempt it. Let us wipe that out, and go zealously to work and remedy the whole evil

enveloping each one of us, and then, and then only, will the country be quiet. It seems to me, then, that the upshot of the whole matter is, if we get rid of the present difficulty, we must pass this bill. And as the whole question now stands, it is right and proper that it should be done..

ner.

Mr. WASHBURN, I am one of the members who voted against the passage of this bill. I believe this whole subject of mileage demands revision, and I am of the opinion that the amount of mileage which has been fixed for the Delegate from Oregon is sufficient in any case; and that our business and object now should be rather to equalize the mileage of other members than to raise it in that case. I am not convinced by the arguments which have been introduced by the gentlemen upon the other side, and certainly not by any which have been presented by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. PARKER.] I do not believe that the members upon this side of the House would be influenced to vote differently were the gentleman whose mileage is in question here, a member of their party. I will not be judged in that manIt has been said that whoever declares all men to be scoundrels, at least proves that there is one. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PARKER] may measure others by his own feelings of what he would be constrained to do; but I appre hend that would not be the way in which gentlemen ought to be judged. I believe there are gentlemen upon the other side who have viewed this matter as we do. This has been no party view. It has been no party question; and it should not be so. The question is, whether we shall repeal this law, and thereby raise the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon; and whether it is sufficient as it is now. It seems to me that $2,500 is enough to pay, and amply pay any man who lives in any part of this Union for his traveling expenses, and for his coming to the capital. I have no question that many members are over paid-extravagantly paid-and I would desire this House to take the matter in hand, to equalize the mileage, and to make it what it should be. I am altogether op posed to any measure or any vote which shall have a tendency to increase the mileage of a single member of this House.

Mr. HEBARD. I am one of the members of this House who voted against the bill under consideration. I hold the privilege, with other members of the House, of voting according to the dic tates of my conscience; nor do I hold myself amenable to any other gentleman upon the floor, to call in question the right or propriety of the vote. I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PARKER] was entirely beyond his own jurisdiction, or any right he has as a member upon this floor, in undertaking to take members to task as to the propriety of their votes, and applying to the ac tion of this House, or the action of a past Congress, the term ignominious. He must be left to the exercise of his own taste in relation to the terms he uses. I do not know but what it is in accordance with the taste of that gentleman. In my estimation, however, he is branding opprobrious epithets upon the laws of this country-upon the action of this body, which he is not entitled to use. He is exercising an immunity beyond his right. I do not know what right that gentleman has to sav that the members of this House, in giving their votes, place themselves in a ridiculous attitude. I do not know what there is peculiar about this bill more than others, which should call for the exercise of any such language, or justify any such liberties, by any member of this House. The vote may be right, or it may be wrong. I take it, where the question is so nearly balanced as it is here, that there is some excuse for any gentleman who shall give his vote, even if he does differ from some other gentleman. It has been said here in relation to this law, that it is placing this mileage principle in an unjust position. I do not know what injustice there is about it. I have not heard one gentleman, who has undertaken to show that the pay given to this Delegate from Oregon was not an equivalent for the services he renders here. But they say he does not get as much as some other persons. Does that make it unjust? The organic law of that Territory, which gave him a right to represent tha: people here, fixes his compensation. He was elected under that law, and came here under that law. Is there anything unjust about that? I have not heard gentlemen explain what they mean by the injustice of the law. Everything was regular

in reference to it. It was a mere act of Congress by which he came here at all. There has been no deception, no imposition practiced at all. But the gentleman says, the Delegate is not complaining. I do not know why gentlemen are so forward in their complaints, when they say the Delegate himself, who is the person to be affected by their action, is not himself complaining. If he is satisfied, I do not know why gentlemen should get up and undertake to read us a lecture upon dereliction of duty, when the person who is to receive the benefit of our act is himself satisfied with the law us it is. Gentlemen say, that it is a discrimination between this case and others. The case itself makes the discrimination, and it is not the law which makes it. The law has only applied itself to the case as it is. All of us admit here, that there is a great inequality-an unreasonable inequality in the compensation of members, growing out of the mileage; and the further the individual is removed from the seat of Government, the greater is the inequality. That is the reason why the law has provided for this case of the Delegate of Oregon. The distance being so great, it would be monstrous that he should come under the same rules fixing his mileage, as a member living within one or two hundred miles of the capital. I hold that there is no injustice, nothing wrong in it; and while gentlemen say the whole system is wrong, I say where is the propriety, when we have made one single advance, however small it may be, towards correcting an evil, in going back again to the point whence we started, for the purpose of making the evil still worse than it now is?

This House, I believe, did pass a bill at the last Congress, but it did not become a law-a bill dietated by the sense and judgment of the House, and rendered necessary by the circumstances of the case-by which all the members of this House, whether Representatives of States or Delegates from Territories, living at the other side of the Rocky Mountains, were to receive no more than a certain compensation, and that was $2,500. It was said, by the last Congress, that $2,500 was sufficient compensation for any gentleman living the other side of the Rocky Mountains. It was considered by the last Congress that $2,500 was sufficient compensation to the Delegate from Oregon, whoever he might be. I do not think, under the circumstances-knowing the circumstances under which Congress then acted that that law is to be characterized by gentlemen here as being ignominous.

If there is any further legislation necessary to place the Delegate from Oregon upon a footing with others, let us not go back and disturb this law, which has made a commencement in the direction, which all say is the right one, but let us follow it up in other cases.

Gentlemen seem to suppose, that upon the passage of this bill quiet will be restored upon this subject of mileage. Why, it seems to me only a renewal of the agitation on the subject. The mileage of members of Congress has been the subject of complaint and of severe remark, and always will be while the inequality is kept up. I believe it will not be any more easy matter to reconcile this whole subject after having placed this back again, than if we were to start from this point, if anything has been gained, and all seem to admit that something has been.

Gentlemen talk about the great expense of getting elected to Congress, and think that they ought, therefore, to have very large compensation. I do not know that we ought to listen to such arguments as that. It does not always follow-although it may be the case at present-that the member or delegate who lives furthest from the seat of Government should, therefore, receive the largest compensation, as the one whose election will cost him the most. It may be so now, but it certainly is not so always, and therefore that consideration cannot be taken into account for the purpose of judging of the reasonableness of the law, or the amount of the compensation. I do not believe it is very good policy either, to foster the idea that we are, by means of compensation, to hold out inducements to persons who may become candidates for election here to make use of very extraordinary means to obtain that election.

I am satisfied that the deliberate sense of this House has been expressed in the vote taken this morning, and which it is now proposed to reconsider. I believe that a majority of the House have

by that vote given a candid and praiseworthy expression of their judgment upon this question, without being at all affected by any political or party considerations. As has been very well and properly remarked, it has not been a party vote, and a question of this sort never should be. It is a question that never can at different times affect parties in the same way. It may affect one political organization favorably to-day and another

to-morrow.

Sir, I trust that after the discussion and deliberation that has been had upon this subject on yesterday and to-day, and the opportunity that has been afforded gentlemen to make up their minds thoroughly, we shall not now wheel about and change the result, merely because there may be, perhaps, with some individuals a disposition to find fault and cavil and complain of the result because they think it is going to affect one of their friends unfavorably. I trust the vote thus deliberately taken and recorded will be permitted to stand.

Mr. HALL. I think this question has been sufficiently discussed, and I therefore move the previous question.

[Loud cries of "Oh, no!"]

Mr. TOOMBS. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion.

Mr. HALL. If the gentleman from Georgia desires to make any remarks I will withdraw it. The demand for the previous question was then withdrawn.

Mr. TOOMBS. I wish to offer a few observations in reply to the gentleman from Indiana first up, [Mr. FITCH,] and also to the gentleman from Indiana last up, [Mr. PARKER.] The friends of this bill demand its passage upon the allegation that the existing law is unjust. That is the only argument or the only statement which I have heard made by them. I lay out of the account the argument of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. PARKER,] that the bill ought to be passed in order to save the time of the House. A little more experience in this House will show that gentleman that he is mistaken, and that the absence of discussion here does not facilitate adjournments. The most harmless time which is spent by the House of Representatives, he will find, is that spent in discussion. I lay out of the account, also, the argument made by the gentleman upon the personal merits of the sitting member from Oregon. I doubt not that they are as great as he represents them to be, but that is not a legitimate consideration in this question. I lay out of the account the charges made by the other gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. FITCH,] against certain members of this House respecting their course upon this subject before and after their elections. It may be true or not true as regards those gentlemen, but it cannot affect this question at all. Whether certain gentlemen took one course with reference to mileage before their elections and another after, does not show this law to be unjust, and it is for those who stand in that category to defend themselves. These are mere outside influences that are brought up to affect this question.

When the bill organizing the Territory of Oregon passed this House, the mileage of no member of the House went as high as $2,500. That sum was beyond the mileage paid to any member of this House, and Congress limited the mileage of the Delegate from Oregon to $2,500. It was not unjust then, unless it was inadequate; and its injustice therefore must be based entirely and exclusively upon its inadequacy. I will demonstrate, that if there was injustice, the injustice was upon more than half the members of this House. Subsequently California was admitted into the Union, and the mileage of its Representatives was also limited by this House, but the limitation was re|jected by the other House; and the same was the case with respect to the Territory of Utah.

Well, the House fixed that limitation because it believed that after the payment of traveling expenses, it left sufficient salary. It left more salary than was given to two thirds of all the members of this House, and I say that it does to-day; after deducting traveling expenses, it leaves more salary now, out of this mileage, than is paid to two thirds of the members of this House. Where, then, is the injustice? Why, it seems to be based upon the falacious idea that it is unjust because three or four gentlemen in this House get more by a different rule-that is, by the law of 1818. Now, all seem to admit that the law of 1818 works

unequally and unjustly. These very gentlemen themselves say so, and yet we are asked to go back to a rule acknowledged to be wrong, as a measure of justice. Both the gentlenen from Indiana say that the rule adopted by the act of 1818 is wrong. The gentleman from Indiana over the way [Mr. FITCH] told the House that he was chairman of the Committee on Mileage of the last Congress, and endeavored to correct that wrong, but failed; and now he asks that you shall go back to a rule which he has himself declared to be wrong.

But the injustice seems to be based on the idea that there are three or four members on this floor who receive more mileage than the Delegate from Oregon. If his compensation is sufficient and just of itself, is it unjust because you do not give him what other members get, and what this House has repeatedly declared to be unjust? That is a most singular system of reasoning.

Mr. STUART, (interposing.) Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to say, that I find upon inquiry that one of the members from Texas receives between twenty-four and twenty-five hundred dollars, and the other three thousand dollars.

Mr. TOOMBS. That very bill of limitation, limited all on this side of the Rocky Mountains to $1,500. If one of the members from Texas gets $3,000, you only state another case of grosser injustice. That is all. Well, I do not see how you can remove injustice by multiplying unjust cases; yet that is what you propose to do.

Mr. STUART, (interrupting.) My idea is, that the man who travels five hundred miles--the facilities being nearly alike-makes as much proportionate profit on his mileage, as the man who travels five thousand miles. Every member's mileage is calculated on the principle of so many cents per mile. Now I ask the gentleman from Georgia, to show the House how this rule is right up to four hundred or a thousand miles, and becomes so radically wrong when you get up to three or five thousand miles.

Mr. TOOMBS. I say that the principle is wrong; that it is not a correct principle. It is much more difficult to come to this House from the western part of Texas, both in expense and physical suffering and risk-if they are to enter into the consideration-than it is to come from San Francisco. Every gentleman knows that. It does not depend entirely upon distance, but then, on account of the distances, and the expansion of the limits of the Republic, and the facilities for traveling in this country, the compensation having been always more than sufficient to pay traveling expenses, it has become an important and material item of salary. The House, therefore, said that when a man could come from San Francisco for $300, and return for $300, he should only have $1,900 as salary. A great many members get no salary at all. In some cases, on account of the difficulty of traveling, it is only half of the mileage; in others it is not five per cent. It is a mistaken idea, that we can correct injustice by making the act of 1818 the rule, which is itself an unjust rule. There is the difficulty.

Now if $2,500 is just compensation for a Delegate from the western coast of America, it is not unjust because there are two other gentlemen here from that portion of the Republic who receive $5,000, because that has been repeatedly declared by the House to be unjust and improper compensation. Why is it unjust not to make another such case? That is what you ask us to do.

Mr. PARKER, of Indiana, (interrupting.) The gentleman has misstated my position-of course, unintentionally. The rule is unjust. It is just that the gentleman from Georgia should receive the milcage that he does now, because the rest of us receive the mileage that we do. But if we received the mileage that we ought to receive, his mileage would be unjust. The rule is wrong; and my objection to the special law in relation to the Delegate from Oregon is this, that you have taken him from under the operation of the unjust rule and made special legislation in regard to him. We ought to legislate in regard to the whole, and not in regard to individual cases.

Mr. TOOMBS. I agree with the gentleman. But the very fact that this case is the only one that has been taken out from under the unjust rule, makes it a just case, and the gentleman therefore wishes to overturn the only just case. According to his argument, we must go backwards. That is