1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4729 revenue-cutter service is 909,530.49 as the Senate passed the bill and the reduction of $25,639.40, while it may affect the service, will not affect it before next winter. The whole bill is framed upon the idea of deficiencies next winter and they can be supplied without any great detriment to the service.

Mr. CONKLING. How much money has been appropriated already for this purpose, I will inquire T

Mr. WINDOM. I cannot answer the question. Mr. LOGAN. I believe the next session of Congress that will meet

in December will be composed of the same members of both Houses as are sitting here now. I should like the Senator to tell me why it is that he has so much confidence that the House of Representatives next winter will appropriate money for the rebel archives or the otlier propositions mentioned when they refuse to do it now on the ground that it is unnecessary to do it.

Mr. WINDOM. We shall meet next winter under very different circumstances. We shall have passed November, and will be entirely differently situated from what we are now.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ·ask for the yeas and nays on the question of concurring in this report.

The yeaa and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 39, nays 12 ; aa follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Barnum, Bayard Bogy, Booth. Boutwell, Cameron of Wisconsin, Caperton1 Cbristiancy, Cockrell, Cooper, Cragin, Dawes, Eaton, Ferry, Frelinghnysen, Hamilton, Kelly, Kernan, Key, McMillan, Maxey, Merrimon, Nor­wood, Paddock Patterson, Ransom, Robertson, Sargent, Sarilsbury, Sherman, Stevenson, Wadieigh, Wallace, West, Whyte, Windom, Withers, andWright--39.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Brnoe, Conover, Edmunds, Hamlin, Harvey, Hitch-cook, Ingalls, Logan, Mitcnell, Morrill, and Spencer-12. .

ABSENT-Messrs. Alcorn, Burnside Cameron of Pennsylvania, Clayton, Conk­ling, Davis, Dennis, Dorser., Goldthwa.ik, Gordon, Howe, Johnston, Jones of Flori­da, Jones of Nevada, McCreery, McDonald, Morton, Oglesby, Randolph, Sharon, and Thurman-21.

So the report was concurred in. IMPEACHMENT 011' w .• W. BELKNAP.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume ita session for the trial of the impeachment of William W. Belknap.

The Senate then resumed the trial of the impeachment of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.

The Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of William W. Belknap having adjourned then resumed ita.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION; The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate resumes its legislative

session. FUNERAL EXPENSES OF JOHN T. KING.

Mr. HOWE. I offer the following resolution, which I ask may be considered at the present time :

ResoZved, That th.e Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized to pay out of the contingent fund of the Senate the medical and fun6ral expenses of .John T. King, deceased, who died from injuries received by- the recent e~losion of gas in the Capitol : Provided, That the bills rendered shall be approved by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Fund of the Senate before they are paid.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I inquire, Mr. President, whether the rules do not require that resolutions of that character shall be referred to the Com­mittee on Contingent Expenses t

The PRESIDENT pro temp&re. The rules so require. Mr. EDMUNDS. It is a very proper resolution, but I . think we

ought to follow the law of the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore_ The Chair understood the Senator

from Vermont to object to unanimous consent for the passage of the resolution now.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir; the only trouble is that if it passes the Senate by unanimous consent, violating the law of the Senate, the accounting officers of the Treasury may not pay the money.

Mr. HOWE. If we have unanimous consent to consider the reso-lution, the rule will not trouble it afterward.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands-­MI. HOWE. Is there any objection t Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it had better be referred. The PRESIDENT pro tentpore. The Senator from Vermont objects. Mr. HOWE. Then I ask to have it referred. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be referred to

the committee. J4r. CONKLING. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and (at five o'clock and twenty-five

minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, July 19, 1876.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev-1. L. TOWNSEND.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of their clerks, in­formed the House that the Senate was ready to pro~ upon the

impeachment of William W. Belknap and to receive the managers on the p2,rt of the House, and that the Senate Chamber was prepared with accommodations for the reception of the House of Representa­tives.

The message also announced that the Senate further insisted on its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 1594) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the Government for the year end­ing June 30, 1877, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, agreed to the further conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. EDMUNDS, and Mr. WITHERS, as conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message further announced that the Senate had adopted a con­current resolution for the printing for the use of the Senate 4,000 copies of the report of the special l}ommittee to investigate the late election in Mississippi, with the views of the minority; in which the concurrence of the House waa requested.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the CO]Illllitt.ee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 1771) to declare forfeited to the United States certain lands granted to the State of Kansas in aid of the construction of railroads by act of Congress approved March 3, 1863.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the House of the following titles:

The bill (H. R. No. 1427) for the relief of H. P. Jones & Co.; and The bill (H. R. No. 3855) for the relief of George T. Olmstead, jr.

PACIFIC RAILROADS. Mr. JENKS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following reso­

lution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Whereas it is alleged that the measurement of the diStances on the Union Pa.

oific and Central Pacific Railroads, upon which bonds were issued by the Govern­ment to the companies owning said riillroads, was hastily and inaccurately made: Therefore,

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Secretary of War be requested to detail a sufficient force from the Engineer Corps of the Army to make a careful and exact survey of the distances of said roads between Omaha and Sacramento, distinguishing between the sections for which bonds were issued to the companies at dlfferen t rates, exhibiting the nnm ber of miles at each rate, designating the point between which the different rates were charged, and report the result of the sur­vey to this House at the commencement of the next session of Congress.

Mr. JENKS moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

- The latter motion was agreed to. PRINTING OF TESTIMONY.

Mr. JENKS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following reso­lution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the testimony taken before the Committee on Invalid Pensions under the order of the Honse be printed and referred back to said committee.

Mr. JENKS moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of their clerks, an­nounced that the Senate had agreed to the repor~ of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 3717) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, and for other purposes.

REDEMPTION OF LANDS.

Mr. YOUNG. I desire to ask unanimous consent to make a state­ment which shall not exceed five minutes, and then I desire to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. GUNTER] to present a bill which I wish to put upon its paasage to have passed at this time.

No objection was made. Mr. YOUNG. I now yield the floor to the gentleman from Arkan­

sas, [Mr. GUNTER.] Mr. GUNTER. I report back from the Committee on Private Land

Claims the bill (H. R.No. 3144) to provide for and regulate the man­ner of redeeming lands sold for non-payment of direct taxes. I a.sk that the bill be read and put upon its passage. The report of the committee is unanimous in favor of the bill.

The bill was Tead, as follows : Be it enacted~ &c., That all lands, houses, and tenements sold for non-payment of

the direct tax ane the Government of the United States under and by vlrtue of an act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, and the various acts subsequent to and amendatory thereof, and which were bought for and in the name of the United States, and the title to which acquired bv snob purchase still remains vested there­in, may be redeemed within two years from and after the passage of this aet, by the _person or persons, his or her 'heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, in whom the legal title to such lands, houses, and tenements was vested :tt the time the same was sold, upon the payment into the Treasury of the United States of the amount of direct ta.x assessed thereon and all costs incurred by the Government of the United States in assessing said tax and advertising and selling said pwpertlt, to­gether with 6 per cent. interest thereon from the date of sale: Prolfided., hcniJeve.. ·, That when any of the persons above named, other than the person or pe. sons in whom the legal title of said propertv was vested at the time of sale, shan re<!eem the same as hereinbefore provided for, the benefit of such redemption shall aocrne to those who would have been legany entitled to the estate had no such sale ever been bad; and the person so redeeming shall acquire no title thereby except such as he may have had or was entitled to have previOus to such sale.

47:~0 UONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JuLY 19,

SEC. 2. That where any lands, houses, and tenements h(l.ve been sold for direct taxes, and the title thereto still remains vested in the Unit.ed States by reason of having purchased the same at such sale, and the legal owners thereof, his heirs, assigns, or l~gal representatives, Ahall desire to redeem said property, a.s herein be· fore provided for, he or they aha.llrr.a.ke written ·application to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, accompanied by a description of the particular property in question, and a certified copy from the records of the county or parish in which tne same is situated of the title by which it wa.s held at the time of the sale, or if the application to redeem is made by other than the legal owner, then he shall furnish, in addition to the certified copy of the deed a.s aforesaid, properly authen­ticated record evidence of his right to redeem under the provisions of this act a.s heirs, assignee, or legal representative; but if there be no record evidence of such right, then the same may be proven by the affidavits of two witnesses taken before any judicial officer competent to adiD.iniater oaths under the laws of the United Stat-es, or the State or Territory within which the properly is situated; and when such application and accompanying papers are received by the C"mmissioner of Internal Revenue, be shall at once furnish to the person making snob application a statement of the amount dne the United States for the taxes and coats aforesaid upon the land, houses, and tenements proposed to be redeemed.

SEc. 3. That when the legal owner of any land1 houses, and tenements, bought and held by the United States as aforesaid, or his heirs, assigns, or legal repre­sentatives, shall pay into the Treasury of the United States the amount of taxes and costs due upon the same, as ascertained in accordance with the pret·.eding sec­tion, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause the Commissioner of InternafRev­enue to give to such owner, heirs, assignee, or legal representative a certificate that said lands, houses, and tenements have been redeemed; arid such certificate of redemption shall operate as a release and quitclaim of all right, title, and inter­est which the Government of the United States may have acquired by virtue of any proceedings had under the aforesaid act of Congress, approved Ango.at 5, 1861, or any act subsequent to or amendatory thereof.

SEc. 4. That in all cases where any lands, houses, and tenements have been re­deemed as hereinbefore provided for, and for the recovery of which suit has beeD brought by the United States in any of the district courts thereof against the own& or occupant thereof, such suit shall be dismissed, upon the pa:yment, by the owner, his heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, to the officers heremafter enumerated, the following cost of suit, namely: To the clerk of said court, for issuing the writ, $1 ; for docketing the cause, twenty-five cents; for filing declaration and plea, ten cent8 each; to the marshal, for aeging the writ, fl; to the disttict attorney, for preparing and filing declaration, 2.50 ; and no other or further costs and fees sball be charged.

SEc. 5. That in all cases where the legal owner of any lands, houses, and tene­ments, bought and held b_y the United States as aforesaid, or his heirs, assigns, or legal representative, shall prove, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treas· ury, by the testimon;v: of two or more credible witnesaesa, and a. plat and drawing of the property and Its boundaries, that the same was inclosed within the lines of any military fortification, held and occupied by the military forces of the United States at tbe time the direct tax assessed thereon became due and payable, then the said Secretary of the Treas~ shall cause the Commissioner of Internal Reve­nue to give to such owner, his berra, assigns, or legal representative, a certificate of redemption, without the payment of any part of the tax and costs hereinbefore mentioned, and said certificate shall have the same force and effect a.s provided for in the third section of this act; and in all cases where suits are pending a.s afore­said for the recovery of such property by the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the same to be dismissed without cost to the defendant.

SEC. 6. That all of the lands, houses, and tenements above described, which are not redeemed as aforesaid within two years from and after the passage of this act, shall be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury for ca.sh, at public auction to the highest bidder, after having advertised the time and place of such sale for a period of thirty days iu one or more public newspapers published in the county or parish in which the property is situated.

SEc. 7. That the fore~oing provisions of this act shall not apply to any lands now being used as natiOnal cemeteries, or upon which publio buildings or works have been erected by the Government of the United States; and that lilllaws and parts of laws heretofore enacted that are in conflict with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

. Dmwf~~~e reading of the bill, Mr. said: I may as well save time by objecting at this point.

This is is a very important bill. Has it been before any committee of the House f

Mr. GUNTER. I will say to the gentleman that it has been before the Committee on :Private Land Claims, and ha.s been considered by that committee and unanimously agreed upon.

Mr. HALE. It revolutionizes the whole system established by the act of 1861.

Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will allow me a moment I think I can convince him that this bill in no wise conflicts with the act of 1861 or any subsequent act upon the subject, but is a substantial rep­etition of former acts of Congress providing for the redemption of lands sold for direct taxes; and the only titles which it affects are those which are still vested in the Government by virtue of purchase made under act of 1861 and the act subsequent to and amendatory to the same. It is not intended to interfere with any lands the title to which is held by private individuals.

Mr. HALE. I have no objection to hearing the gentleman, but I reserve the right to raise an objection of order.

Mr. YOUNG. The bill only provides, if the gentleman will allow me to explain--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Discussionis not in order. The Clerk has not yet finished reading the bill.

The Clerk resumed, reading the entire bill. Mr. YOUNG. Now, if the House will bearwiph mewhileie.x:plain

the bill very briefly, my remarks shall be confined within the limits of five minutes, and I think I can convince gentlemen who are ob­jectin~ th8.t it is a measure which ought to pass and that there. are no objectiOnable features in it.

Mr. HALE. I do not object to the gentleman continui.Bg his re­marks, but I desire to reserve the right to object to the consideration of the bill at this time. It is evident that the bill is too long, too complicated, and too much in detail. .

Mr. YOUNG. But if gentlemen will hear my reasons for making it so, I do not think they will urge this objection. For instance, that clause of the bill which refers to lands within the lines of military fortifications was prepared with a view to relieve a large number of

people who have been grosely imposed upon. In the city of Mem­phis, where I reside, several :wres of land were inclosed · within in­trenchments for military fortifications, constructed, I believe, under the direction of the ~entleman from illinois [Mr. HURLBUT] during the late. war, and w bile he was military commandant of that district. The original owners of some of this land had not redeemed it after it was sold for direct taxes, and subsequently sold out to innocent pur­chasers who had no knowledge that there was any cloud upon the title. This resulted from the fact that no record of these direct-tax sales waa kept at Memphis, but were forwarded to Washington City, and the books of the recorder's office did not show that there had been any such sales. A great many small lots of this land were bought by colored people and· the poorer class of whites, who erected small buildings upon them in which they have resided ever since; and they did not even know that the Government set up any claim to it until they were evicted by the United States marshal, by order of the Treasury Department, tmder the law of 1872.

Another reaaon why this feature was incorporated in the bill is the fact that in the United States circuit court of North Carolina, and per­haps in other States, it was decided that the Government had no right to impose these direct taxes upon property which was held and occupied for military or other purposes; and that was the view taken by Mr. LAPIIAM, a re.vu blican member of the Committee upon Private Land Claims and one of the ablest lawyers in this House. It may be objected that these lands should have been redeemed under former acts of Congress providing for the same; but in answer to that objec­tion I have to say that an examination of those laws will disclose the fact that they are so ambiguous in their terms that it will require a cultivated legal mind to comprehend and understand them. Hence it was that I prepared the present bill in terms ~;o plain and ex­plicit that the most ignorant man might readily comprehend them and avail himself of their benefit. That provision of the bill which refers to the costs of court where such costs have been necessitated, was suggested and made neceasary by the fact that the regular fees allowed by law, added to the taxes, penalty, and interest would in many cases amount to more than the land was actually worth; and I think surely that .the officers of the different courts, and certainly those of my own city, would urge no objection to this clause. I have prepared the bill with great care, and may safely state that no injury can result to the Government or any private individual by its pas­sage, but a very great benefit and advantage would accrue to a large class of poor people that ought to be protected ..

Mr. FORT. Does the bill cover any other lands than those now owned by the Government f

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir; it does not. It simply provides that the original owners of all lands sold for direct taxes, and the title to which is still vested in the Government, may redeem the same within two years from the passage of this act, and in no way interferes with any title acquired by private individuals, though it might with great pro­priety and justice have ~one to that extent.

Mr. FORT. Suppose It should be claimed that the whole city of Memphis was included within the lines of military fortifications f

Mr. YOUNG. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the whole United States waa included within breastworks. So far as this objection applies to the city of Memphis I can state that only three or four acres were included within the breastworks or fort erected in the lower part of the city. ·

[Here the hammer fell.] • The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ten­

nessee has expired. Mr. YOUNG. This is a very important matter, not only to my con­

stituency but to many other sections of the Southern States, and I shall be extremely obliged if the House will give unanimous consent forme to continue my remarks for a little while longer . .

:Mr. HALE. I move that the time of the gentleman from Tennes­see be extended.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no objection, the gentle­man from Tennesse will proceed.

Mr. HALE. I wish it understood that while I am entirely willing for the gentleman to be heard fully I reserve my objection of order, with the understanding that I shall have an opportunity for a brief reply.

Mr. YOUNG. I cannot speak from personal knowledge of any sec­tion of the country except my own, but I am sure the House will be­lieve me when I give the assurance that I have presented facts as they exist in the district which I represent, and I have the assurance that a similar state of facts e:rists in almost every Southern State. I would not insist so earnestly upon the passage of the bill at this time were it not for the reason that by so doing the infliction of further injury may be prevented. If it is not passed now, in consequence of the probabilityof an earlyadjournment it is not probable that I shall be able to secure a vote upon it at all.

Mr. CONGER. Although the bill does not exclude lots of land used as cemeteries, does it not exclude property which has been taken and on which these cemeteries have been placed f

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir; the bill expressly excludes such lots of land aa are now held and used by the Government for any public purpose.

Mr. CONGER. Those for forts t Mr. YOUNG. Not only forts, but that uaedforcemeteries, .chnrches,

school-houses, and every other public purpose. The bill is so explicit in this particular that no difficulty could possibly arise upon it.

t876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4731 Mr. CONGER. Why does not the gentleman bring in a bill to meet

t'he particular case that he is familiar with t Upon his statement, I have no doubt the House will act upon it favorably.

Mr. YOUNG. The bill does cover my particular c:J.Se and all other cases of a similar kind.

Mr. CONGER. I mean a bill tocoverthefactsas they exist in that locality and none other.

Mr. YOUNG. The bill makes provision, and properly so, I think, for all cases of a like kind in the United States. If they are not of this character they are of course not included, and every other local­ity is entitled to the same benefits which I ask for the city of Mem­phis.

Mr. CONGER. It is because of its generality that I must object to the bill. The gentleman might have a bill passed for his own case.

Mr. YOUNG. I would not like to ask this House to pass a bill for my particular section alone when other localities are·equally inter­ested and have as strong demands upon Congress for legislation to relieve them of the same burden of which I complain. It has already been intimated that I have obtained too much legislation for my own State, and that Congress has alre1Ldy dealt more liberally with me than with some others.

Mr. HURLBUT. I do not think yon can carry this bill. Mr. YOUNG. Possibly not, under the circumstances which surround

me, when the objection of one member can defeat the bill; but in my judgment the bill should pass without the opposition of any member. Under the provisions of this bill no possible injury could result to the Government from its passage. It provides that all which the Gov­ernment claims as due shall be paid before any certificate of redemp­tion shall issue.

Mr. CONGER. But there may be some instances where innocent purchasers under the Government may have erected houses upon the lo!a1 under the impression that they were obtaining good titles.

Mr. YOUNG. It is in some measure the object of this bill to pro­tect innocent purchasers, and as I have before stated, there is no purchaser that can possibly be affected by it except the Government, as it is not sought, as before remarked to interfere with any titles other than those held by the Government. The innocent purchasers whom I desire to protect are those who through their ignorance, and by supprABsion of the fact.s were induced to buy the land which had already been sold for direct taxes and bou~ht by the Government. Those poor people have erected small buildings upon the difl'erent lots purchased which are valuable to them but worthless to the Gov­ernment. By the provisions of this bill the Government would re­ceive more money than by a rigorous enforcement of the law as it now stands. This bill has been shown to the former Secretary of the Tresaury, Mr. Bristow, and to the late Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mr. Pratt, neither one of whom, as far as I am advised, urged any objection to its passage, and to me they expressed their en­tire arproval of it. I have a letter from one of these gentlemen upon the subject, but have not got it at hand now. At my written request, however, further proceedings in the courts have been suspended until Congress has taken action upon this measure, and should it fail to do it at the present session these proceedings will be continued, and numbers of poor people will be turned out of their homes.

I am almost daily in receipt of letters from persons at my home urg­ing me to press the passage of this measure at as early a day a-s possi­ble. It will be observed that the bill was reported nearly three months ago, and I have been constantly endeavoring nearly every day since that time to bring it to the attention of the House, but various cir­cumstances have prevented me from doing so. The bill was given in charge by the committee to the late Mr. Parsons, but in consequence of his illness and subsequent death it was not presented to the House by him;- and since that time the chairman of the committee, the gen­tleman from Arkansas, [Mr. GUNTER,] has taken it in charge him­self, and both he and I have used our utmost exertions to obtain an opportunity to present it, but have not been able to do so till this morning. Every member of the House must see that from the press of business which will occupy the time from now until the adjourn­ment it will be almost hopeless to get it before the House again and have it properly considered.

Mr. FORT. Will the gentl'eman allow me to ask him a question t Mr. YOUNG. Certainly. I shall be glad to furnish all the infor­

mation upon the subject I can, and to explain the bill as fully as possible in the little time I have the floor.

Mr. FORT. Is it not a fact that the bill ;J?rovides that whenever the property is within the lines of the military fortifications-not within the fortifications, but within the lines of the fortifications­and occupied by military forces it is included within the provisions of the billt

Mr. YOUNG. The terms "military fortifications" and "military occupancy" used in the bill refers to the period of the war. If they referred to the present time that section of the bill which applies to property held and used for Government or public purposes would of com:se protect all prop~rtr used for any public purpose, such as cem­etenes, forts, school building, &c. But rather than have the bill de­feated I am willing that this provision should be stricken out, though I think it should pass with it in it.

Mr. FORT. That would render the bill less objectionable, and with that alteration I do not think I should oppose it.

Mr. HALE. This is too important a bill to be hastily passed, and I

do not think the gentleman from Tennessee ought to insist upon if now when there is so little time to discuss it.

Mr. YOUNG. I have alrea-dy given the reasons for the delay, which I think should satisfy the gentleman that it has been no fault o1 mine. But I have also stated the reasons why I insist so earnestly upon its passage now.

[Here the hammer fell.] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The extension of time allowed the

gentleman from Tennessee has expired, and there being objection, the bill is not before the House.

Mr. YOUNG. Then I ask to withdraw it from further considera­tion for the present.

Mr. HALE. It seems to me that some temporary remedy might be adopted until the matter can be more fully considered.

Mr. YOUNG. That may be possible, and if I find that I cannot secure the passage of the bill during the present session I may resort to it.

Mr. FORT. With that section stricken from the bill I would have no objection to it.

Mr. HALE. I reserved my objection to this bill until it could be ex­plained. I :tm now obliged to say that I must insist upon that ob­jection for these reasons : If I thought the bill in its scope would apply only to the local case of Memphis, which has been referred to by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. YoUNG,] who has stated the facta of that local case, I might withdraw my objection. But the bill is one of far more serious importance. It revolutionizes the Gov­ernment titles gained under the direct-tax act, ordinarily so called, of 1861. The bill ought to be objected to for the very reason which is urged by the gentleman from Tennessee, that this is so late a day in the session. It is a serious question whether in regard to an act em­bodied in the pages of the United States Statutes of thatyear, an act that courts have passed upon time and time again since, we should now, in the hurry of unanimous consent and with :five or ten minutes debate on each side, pass a bill which will revolutionize all the titles gained under that act. For these reasons I must insist upon my objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection being made, the bill is not before the House.

UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC LANDS IN OIDO.

Mr. WALLING. I ask unanimous consent to report back, with amendments, from the Committee on Public Lands for consideration at this time the bill (H. R. No. 3158) to grant to the State of Ohio the unsold and unappropriated public lands remaining in that State, and to provide for the safe-keeping of the records relating to lands here­tofore disposed of within said State.

The bill was read. Mr. HURLBUT. I object to the ·consideration of the bill at this

time, because it should have its first consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. WALLING. Is it subject to that point of order! The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is unquestionably. Mr. WALLING. ThE\n I withdraw the bill.

FORFEITURE OF RAILROAD LANDS IN KANSAS.

Mr. GOODIN. I rise to submit a privileged report from a confer­ence committee.

The Clerk read as follows : The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate t.o the bill (H.~- No. 1771) to declare forfeited to the Uu.ited States certain lands granted to the State of Kansas in aid of the construc­tion of railroads by act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their re­spective Ho118es as follows :

That the Senate do recede from their third amendment to said bill. JOHN R. GOODIN, .TAMES W. McDILL, BENONI S. FULLER,

Managers on the part of the HotUe. JOHN .r. INGALLS, P. W. IDTCHCOCK, WM. W. EA1'0N,

Managers on the part oj the Senare. Mr. GOODIN. Mr. Speaker, a gentleman on my left desires an ex­

planation of this report. The object of the bill, which waa first passed by the House, was to declare forfeited certain lands granted by acts of Congress to the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company, in Kansas; and it provided that upon the restoration of those lands to market, the railroad company having failed to comply with the requirements of the law making the grant, the lands should be opened to entry under the provisions of the homestead and pre-emp­tion laws. The bill went to the Senate, where it was changed so as to permit the entry of these lands under the existing laws of the United States, which would authorize private entry of the lands as well as enp under the provisions of the homestead and pre-emption laws. Upon my motion the House non-concurred in that amendment of the Senate. The Senate insisted upon the amendment. In the commit­tee of conference which met yesterday, the Senate agreed to recede from that amendment, leaving the bill as originally introduced by me and passed by the House.

The report was adopted. Mr. GOODIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the report was

adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

4732 CONG:RESSIONAL RECORD-ltOtJSE. JuLY 19,

LANDS LOCATED WITH MILITARY WARRANTS.

Mr. GOODIN, by unanimous consent, submitted a. report of the Committee on Public Lands on the bill (H. R. No. 600) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to ascertain and certify the amount of land located with military warrants in the States described therein, and for other purposes; which was ordered to be printed and recom­mitted, not to be brought back on a motion to reconsider.

EXPENDITURES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT.

Mr. CLYMER. I ask unanimous consent to submit for adoption at this time the following resolution :

Resolved, That the testimony and the evidence taken before the Committee on Expenditures in the War Department be printed for the use of the House.

Mr. PAGE. I object. I do not object to the reference of the reso­lution to the Committee on Printing, but to its adoption now.

Mr. CLYMER. Will the gentleman allow me a word of explana­tion f In May last an order was made to print this same evidence for the use of the committee. It has been printed and is in type. Un­less this order be made to-day it will be distributed, and thus the Government will be subjected to a large additiona.l cost.

Mr. MAcDOUGALL. If it has been printed once, why does the gentleman want it printed again 7

Mr. CLYMER. I beg the gentleman from California not to press his objection.

Mr. PAGE. I think the resolution ought to go to the Committee on Printing, that they may decide whether additional copies are ne­cessary. I do not think the type will be distributed for a day or two.

Mr. CLYMER. That is my fear. Mr. PAGE. I object. Mr. CLYMER. I ask, then, that the resolution be referred to the

Committee on Printing. There being no objection, the resolution was so referred.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. BLAND. There are some committees that have not been called for three months. I demand the regular order.

T.he SPEAKER pro ternpore. The morning hour begins a.t two min­utes before one o'clock, and the call rests with the Committee on Naval Affairs.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

Mr. MORRISON. I rise to make a. privileged report. I am di­rected by the Committee of W a.ys and Means to report a bill (H. R. No, 3926) to amend the laws relating to internal revenue.

The bill was read a first and second time. Mr. MORRISON. I ask that this bill be printed and made a special

order for next Saturday immediately after the reading of the Jour­nal, and that it be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule.

There being 'no objection, it was ordered accordingly. Mr. CONGER. I reserve all points of order on that bill. Mr. MORRISON. There are no points of order about it.

SIOUX CITY, BLACK HILLB AND PACIFIC RAILROAD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the expiration of the morning hour yesterday the bill (H. R. No. 3000) incorporating the Sioux City, Black Hills and Pacific Railroad Company was reported from the Commit­tee .on Railways and Canals by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. JoNEs,] and' its reading wa-s unfinished. The Clerk will proceed with the reading of the bill.

Mr. SAVAGE. This bill is subject to the point of order I reserved yesterday.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill. Mr. SAVAGE. I make the point of order that this bill must have

its consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as it makes a grant of the public lands to this company.

The SPEAKER pro ternpore. If that statement is correct the bill must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. SAVAGE. I will refer to the language of the bill to which the point of order lies. It enacts that the provisions of an act entitled ''An act granting to railroads the right of way through the public lands," approved March 3, 1875, are hereby extended and made appli­cable to this company. That entitles railroads passing through the Territories to a grant of two hundred feet of public land.

Mr. DAVY. This bill is of too great importance to be rushed through the House without being properly considered, and therefore I move it be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I do not propose to discuss this bill at any length, and am not particularly interested in it. I presume the Representatives upon this floor from Oregon and intermediate Terri­tories are.

Mr. SAVAGE. Was not my point of order sustained by the Chair! The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is hearing the chairman of

the Committee on Railways and Canals on the point of order. Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. What is the point of order7 The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is that the bill appropriates the

public land of the United States, inasmuch as it gives the right of way through a portion of it under a provision of a certain act which has been read. That is undoubtedly the case in the last section of

the bill as read by the gentleman from Ohio, and it must necessarily go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to re­ceive its first consideration. And it is so referred.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I cannot hear distinctly what the Chair states, and do not know what is his decision.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is unquestionably liable to the point of order made by the gentleman from Ohio, and it must be considered in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. SPRINGER. The point of order is this: it appropriates public land by giving the right of way over a certain portion of the public land. That is appropriation of the public land to that extent ; and to appropriate one acre or one foot to this railroad company makes the bill liable to the point o.f order. The point being made it must necessarily go the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. That is the point of order the Speaker has decided.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

LAKE MICIDGAN AND SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC RAILROAD.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Railways and Canals, reported ba-ck a bill (H. R. No. 3758) chartering a passenger and freight rail way from Lake Michigan to the Southeast Atlantic seaboard, with the recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. EDEN. I reserve all points of order upon that bill. The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. That unquestionably is the gentle­

man's right. The bill was read in extensq. · Mr. EDEN. I make the point of order that it should be first con­

sidered in Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. On what ground f Mr. EDEN. Upon the ground that the general railroad law which

provides the right of way through the public lands of the United States shall be granted to any railroad company duly organized un­der the laws of any State or Territory, except the District of Colum­bia, or by the Congress of the United States. which shall have filed with the Secretary of the Interior--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is utterly impossible for the gen­tleman to be heard, and the Chair would therefore request that the law be sent up to the Clerk's desk to be read.

The Clerk read as follows : Be it enacted,, c:lc., That the right of way through the pnblio lands of tbe United

States is hereby ~ranted to any :failroad company: duly organized under the laws of any StAte or Temtory, except the District of Columbia, or by the Congress of the United States, which shall have filed with the Sooretary of the Interior a. copy of its articles of incorporation and due proofs of it-s organization nnder the same, to the extent of one hnndred feet on each side of the central line of said road. Also the right to take from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road all ma­terial, earth, stone, and timber necessary for the construction of said road. Also gronnd adjacent to such right of way for station-buildings, depots, machine.shops, side-tracks, turn-outs, and water stations, not to exceed m the main twenty acres for each station, to the extent of one station for each t-en miles of its road ..

Mr. EDEN. That act was approved March 3, 1875. In connection with that I wish to call the attention of the Chair to a clll.use in the first section of the bill :

And said company is hereby vested under the laws of the United States with all the privileges, powers, duties, obligations, and rights necessary and usual for the purpose.

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish to call the attention of the Chair to the seventeenth .section of the bill as also presenting the question whether the surrender by the Government of the right of property is o. grant of franchise. It is a. question also whether the present rule of the House in regard to bills granting property, a-s well as making appro­priations of money, would extend to franchise alone, as the right to cross a stream subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The question has never been before the House before. I have never known it to be raised under the present role. But here is a franchise grant­ed; and that franchise is certainly to be regarded as property and seems to me within the meaning of the rule.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Before the decision of the Chair is given on those points of order, I desire to say that I do not think the bill is subject to any such points of order as h~ve been made. The road, if ever built, will not run through any of the public lands of the United States. But I am willing that the bill should go to the Committee of the Whole for the reason which I shall state, and I hope I may be allowed to say a word or two in explanation.

The committee was not entirely agreed upon reporting this bill. There was a majority, however, in. its favor. I consider this a very im­portant enterprise. And, as I have said before on this :floor, I will briefly repeat that I do not doubt the power of the General Govern­ment to grant corporations and especially railroad corporations. In that opinion I am supported by the greatest lawyers and judges this country has ever produced and by the action of every Congress of the United States almost from the very first down to the present.

I am in favor of all these railroad enterprises in the interest of com­merce and in the interst of cheap transportation. Why, sir, our Rail­road Committee is burdened with petitions from States and cities, coming especially from the large commercial centers asking our com­mittee to report some bill, or that the Congress of the United States shall enact some law for the furtherance of cheap transportation, so that the people, the producers and the consumers, shall be protected against the immense combinations and frauds of railroad companies.

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4733 I regard this bill in the interest of commerce and in the interest of cheap transportation.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I rise to a question of order. I ask the Chair, is debate in order!

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I am proceeding by common consent. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is en­

titled to the floor. Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Although it is proposed that this com­

pany shall be chartered by the Congress of the United States- . Mr. SPRINGER. I rise to a question of order. The ~entleman IS

not discussing the point of order but the merits of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempo're. The gentleman from Kentucky him­

self desires that the bill shall tako a reference to the Committee of the Whole. .

Mr. SPRINGER. I thought a point of order was pending. The SPEAKER P'to tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is en­

titled to the floor on the question of referring the bill to the Com­mittee of the Whole.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I will not occupy more than three min­nt.es. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that although this company is proposed to be chartered by the Congress of the United States, ye~ it is subject to the consent and the laws of every State through wh10h the road may pass. As a State-rights man I would not report a bill except under such provisions and conditions. But, sir, as I per­ceive that it is not the disposition of the House, especially on this side of it, to consider these railroad measures at this session, and as there is some difference of opinion, whether as to principle or policy I can hardly say, and as I desire the bill to be fully discussed, I am per­fectly willing that it shall go to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. EDEN. I desire to ask the gentleman from Kentucky a ques­tion.

Mr. JONES, of KeQtuoky. I will hear the gentleman. Mr. EDEN. I wish to ask him whether as a State-rights man he

considers the Congress of the United States has power to authorize municipal corporations in the States to subscribe to the capital stock of this company t

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I think the Con~ess of the United States has a perfect right to grant any corporatiOn within the po~­ers of the Constitution, espeCially for the public benefit. And Ch1ef Justice Marshall thought the same thing. And I advise the gentle­man if he wants to see good constitutional and State-rights doctrine to read Chief Justice Marshall's decision in the case of McCulloch against The State of Maryland.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. SPRINGER. Is the point of order withdrawn t The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the gentleman from Kentucky him­

self moves to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Uniont it is not necessary for the Chair to give a decision on the point of ora.er.

Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to move that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire and report whether Coff;'s has the power to create such corporations.

The SPE R pro tempore. The question must first be put on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SAVAGE. I desire to say one word. The SPEAKER pro temp<rre. Does the gentleman from Kentucky

yield to the gentleman from Ohio! Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Yes sir. The SPEAKER pro tem,po1·e. The remarks of the gentleman can

only be on the question of reference. The merits of the bill are not before the House.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I do not desire that the merits of the bill shall be discussed now.

Mr. SAVAGE. I have only a word to say in reply to what the gen­tleman from Kentucky has said. He has intimated that the opposi­'tion to some of these bills, or all of them, is made to them as a question of policy, and that at the next session those who are opposing the~e bills will perhaps favor them. All I have to say in reply to that IS that the gentlemen who are opposing this bill, that I at least have any knowledge of, and so far as I am concerned myself, and the other members of the minority of the committee, ground the opposition to the bill on the belief that it is improper, unconstitutional, and in every sense of the word a violation of democratic doctrine.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I concede that the gentleman opposes the bill, as he thinks, on principle. · The SPEAKER pro tem,po1'e. This discussion is not in order. The

question is on the motion to refer the bill to thA Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. SAVAGE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was

referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

FRUIT BRANDY.

Mr. HANCOCK. I desire to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill (H. R. No. 39-25) relating to the production of fruit brandy, and to punish frauds connected with the same, was referred . to the Committee of Ways and Means.

· GOLD AND SILVER MINES.

Mr. BLAND. I report from the Committee on Mines and Mining the bill (H. R. No. 3635) to utilize the product of gold and silver mines, and for other purposes, with amendments.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it'enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Confess assembled, That coin-notes of the denomination of $50, and multiples thereo up to ~10,000, may, in the mode hereinafter provided, be paid by the several mints and assay offices at San Francisco, Carson City, Philadelphia, and New York, for the net value of gold and silver bullion deposited thereat; and of the bullion thus received not less than 75 per cent. in coin or fine bars shall at all times be kept on hand for redemption of the coin.notes, gold for gold, and sil· ver for silver. The gold deposit.ed shall be computed at its coming value, and silver at the rate of 412.8 grains standard silver to the dollar, less the lawful mint charges, and such charge for tranRportation from the several assay offices to the minta for coinage, and from the latter to the assistant treasuries respectively at which the coin-notes shall be paxable.

SEc. 2. That for bullion deposited at the mints of San Francisco and Carson the coin.notes issued shall be redeemable on demand at the assisnmt treasury at San Francisco; and for bullion deposited at the Philadelphia. Mint and aasay office at New York the notes shall be redeemed at the assistant treasury at New York.

SEc. 3. That the Secretary: of the Treasury shall from time to time cause coin and fine mint-bars (stamped) to ~e transferred from the mint to the assistant treasuries at San Francisco and New York in such amonnts as may be necessary for there­demption of the coin. notes.

SEc. 4. That the coin.notes issued under the provisions of thls act shall be re­ceivable without limit for all dues to the United States· and the coin mentioned in this act shall be a. legal tender for all debts of the United States, public and private, not specified to be paid in gold coin.

SEc. 5. That the gold-coin notes issued under this act shall be redeemed on pre­sentation in gold com or fine bars, and silver in silver dollars or fine bars.

SEc. 6. Thli.t the coin notes authorized by this act t{) be issued shall be prepared under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and shall be transferred to the mints and a.asay offices named in this act as a part of the bullion fund, and from whlch fund deposits shall be paid for in coin or coin notes at the option of the depositor. ,

SEc. 7. That the fine gold and silver bars by this act authorized to be issued shall bear the mint stamp of fineness, weight, and value, and the value of the sold bars shall be computed aooording to their coining rate and the silver bars at therr coining value in dollars.

SEc. 8. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe the necessary regula-tions for carrying into effect the provisions of this act.

The amendments were read, as follows: At the end of line 17, section 1, add the followin~: And there shall be coined at the mints of the Umted States the silver dollar here­

inbefore mentioned. In line 4, section 4, strike out the words "of the United States."

Mr. RANDALL. I would like to have the fourth section of that bill read again.

.The Clerk again read the fourth section, as proposed to be amended. Mr. BLAND. This is a bill which was referred to the Committee

on Mines and Mining. Mr. OLIVER. I desire to raise the point of order upon this bill

that it must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. It creates an obligation on the part of the Government of the United States to pay some money. .

Mr. BANKS. There is no appropriation provided for in the bill and it does not follow that any expense would be incurred.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. It is very evident from the terms of the bill that it will occasion additional expenses to the Gov­ernment in regard to the making of coin notes.

Mr. BANKS. Whenever an appropriation is presented the gentle­man is secure when the time comes.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. It shonld go to the Commit­tee of the Whole on the state of the Union under the rule.

Mr. BANKS. 0, there is no such rule as that. Mr. SPRINGER. I will read to the gentleman the rule upon thiE

subject. · Mr. BLAND. I desire to be heard on the point of order. Mr. OLIVER. I desire to submit some remarks on the point of

order. Mr. BLA~D. I will hear the gen,tleman first and then I will close

myself. Mr. OLIVER. This bill proposes to create an obligation on the

part of the Government of the United States by the issue of coin notes, an obligation which we mnst meet.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I would inquire of the Chair if the morning hour has not expired t

The SPEAKER pro tmnpore. The morning hour has expired. Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman allow me to read the rule

before he insists upon the close of the morning hour! Mr. BLACKBURN. I mnst insist on the regular order. Mr. BLAND. I desire to say that to-morrow morning after the

reading of the Journal I shall call for the regul~ o~der, .so that the morning hoUl' shall commence, and I shall press this bill to 1ts passage.

ALABAMA CLAIMS.

Mr. LORD. I ask unanimous consent that the bill (S. No. 983) to extend the duration of the court of commissioners of Alabama claims be taken from the Speaker's table and passed.

The bill was read, as follows : Be it enacted by the &nate and Houae of Representatives of the Un•.ted States of

America in Oonf!Te&B assembled, That the existence of the court of commissioners of Alabama claliDs created by the act entitled " An act for the creation of a court for the adjudicatio~ and disposition of certain moneys received into the Treasury under ana ward made bv the tilbunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded at Washington the 8th of May, A. D. 1871 , between the United States of America and the Queen of Great Britain," be, and the same

4734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 19,

is hereby, continued and extended to the tat day of November next, with the same effect and no other as if snid last-named d~~oy had been named in said act for the ter· mination of the powers of said court; and said act is hereby continued in force dur­ing said period.

SEc. 2: That the powers of the clerk of said court are hereby extended for an additional period not to exceed two months from and after the termination of the existence of the court, for the purpose of closing his accounts, depositing the records, documents, and all other papers in the possession of the court or ita officers in the office of the Secretary of Sta,:te1.as provided in said act; and all disbursements made by him during this period snau be under the direction of the Secre~ of State.

No objection being made, the bill wa.s read a first and second time, ordered to a third reading, and was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. LORD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE-c. W. BUTI'Z VS. E. W. M. MACKEY.

Mr. THOMPSON. On behalf of the Committee of Elections I call up the report of that committee· in the contested-election case of C. W. Bnttz vs. E. W. M. Mackey from the second congressional district of South Carolina, and I call for the reading of the resolution reported by the committee. .

The Clerk read the resolution as follows : .ResoZved, That neither C. W. Buttz nor E. W. M. Maokey was lawfully elected

to the Forty.fourth Congress from the second congressional district of South Caro­lina., nor is either of them entitled to a seat in said Congress.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield to the contestee, [Mr. MAcKEY.] Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware

how useless it is in this Honse to argue against the report of a com­mittee, and more particularly against the report of the Committee of Elections in a contested-election case. The jndgmento()f the commit-

• tee in contested-election cases is invariably and naturally accepted by a large majority of members as conclusive, without any attempt upon their part to investigate the matter for themselves. Notwith­standing these facts I cannot allow the report in this case to go upon record uncontradicted. I therefore ask the patient attention of the House to what I am about to say, in which I shall endeavor to be as brief as possible.

The adoption of the report of the committee scarcely affects me personally. Nowhere in that report am I charged with participation or even with knowledge of the frauds which, in the opinion of the committee, vitiate the election in Charleston, and if a new election is ordered the same constituency will, I believe, return me here, if I so desire, in vindication of the fairness and honesty of their original choice. To that judgment I am willing to be referred. Time will show whether my confidence is misplaced or presumptuous.

COMlll'ITEE'S REPORT.

But the report of the committee is so extraordinary, so extravagant a libel upon the people of Charleston, that I feel bound to protest against the truth of its conclusions in defense of the character of a community in which I was born and have always lived, and by whose vot.es, irrespective of party, I was elected to this Congress.

From the report of the committee and the evidence in the case it appears that Mr. Buttz charged bribery, repetition, and violence on the part of my supporters in certain counties. Of these charges made in his protest some were abandoned, others sustained by evidence which the committee themselves have not deemed worthy of notice or which they have stricken out as illegal. The committee in their report confine their attention and rest their conclusions entirely upon the character of the vote of the city of Charleston ; and it appears that the evidence upon which the committee rely is entirely ex parte, and that their conclusions result from the fact that the uncontradicted ex parte testimony showed not my participation in the illegalities al­leged; but, in the language of the report-

The evidence clearly shows that most gross frauds were perpetrated at the voting-precinct.s in the city of Charleston, through repeating, bribery, intimida­tion, and violence, and that the same were canied on under snch circumstances as to satisfy the committee that they must have been done with the knowledge and assent of the officers of the election.

In support of this charge the committee cite in full the testimony of Rafferty, Foster, Rivers, Gurney, Bonum, and Thompson, and say:

The whole 6vidence, of which the above is a fair specimen, clearly shows the cha.rncter of rhe election in the city of Charleston, and must, we think, satisfy the House that .,uch an election ought not to be sanctioned or tolerated. To allow the returns from such voting-precincts to be canva88ed is to encourage fraud and cor­ruption, and your committee have unanimously come to the conclusion that the whole vote of the city of Charleston must be rejected, as fraud was committed b:y1 or assented to by, the managers of the election as well as by other parties, and lli is impossible to ascertain how many legal votes were cast.

ELECTION OFFICERS.

This charge is explicit. They declare that the frauds were com­mitted "with the knowledge and assent" of the managers and offi­cers of election.

Now, it is not only a matter of general notoriety, but it appears on the record and is confirmed by the governor's proclamation, that at this election each party had its representation at the manag9lllent of the pollB. One ml\nager represented the independent republican party, another the democrats, and a third the regular republican party. The ticket on which Mr. Buttz was a candidate was known as the regular republican ticket. The ticket on which I ran was known as the independent republican ticket. The democrats sup-

ported tlie independent republican ticket. As it is impossible to sup­pose that the contestant attempted to prove or that the committee mean to assert that the managers in Mr. Buttz's interest conspired to defeat him, this charge is simply a charge against the integrity of .the other managers, namely, the democratic and independent repub­can. The conclusion thus reached by the committee is that at the first and only opportunity offered to the democrats of Charleston to take their places on the board of managers and contribute to secure a ju8t and honest election they deliberately took advantage of it to perpetrate a fraud so unblushing and shameless that a democratic ·committee of this House are forced to denounce their conduct and proclaim their infamy. While as a republican I might, as a matter of partisan interest, accept such a verdict from such authority,'yet, as a Representative of the city of Charleston, elected by both demo­cratic and 1·epublican votes, I pronounce such a charge a foul stigma upon the well-established character of some of the very best citizens of that community, who much against their wishes and with genuine reluctance accepted the position on that occasion of managers of elec­tion, and who discharged a delicate and difficult duty with eminent tact and fairness. · •

Considerable stress is laid upon the fact by some witnesses that a majority of the managers at each poll were my supporters, and this seems to have had some weight with the committee. The answer to this is that, with three managers at each poll and with only two can­didates for Congress, the majority of managers if they supported any one at all had to support either Mr. Bnttz or me. It was natural for the managers at each poll on the part of the regular republicans to support Mr. Buttz, their candidate. It was equally as natural for t.he managers on the part of the independent republicans to support me. If the remaining managers representing the democrats supported me it is certainly not my fault, for I did not claim to be a democrat. It therefore hardly becomes a de:tno~ratic committee, in the entire ab­sence of all testimony to that effect, to assume that these democratic managers connived at or assented to fraud in order to elect me. And yet this is just what the committee have done.

But the charge of the committee goes even further. For not only were there democratic managers, but the United States district court appointed to each of these polls two supervisors, one selected by the regular republicans, the other by the democrats, and these representatives of Federal power and purity must have combined with the managers f~r the perpetration of this iniquitous fraud.

If this conclusion of the committee be true, the contestant had the completest opportunity to prove it specifically by calling the seven­teen managers and seventeen supervisors appointed in his interest. But an examination of the record will show that of these thirty-four competent witnesses the contestant called but five, and these, with the exception of one, to whose testimony reference will be hereafter made, failed utterly to sustain the charge. On the contrary, the returns of the election at every poll ·were not only signed as correct by the managers appointed in the interest of Mr. Buttz, but their correctness was further indorsed by the supervisors appointed in his behalf.

EX..UDNATION OF THE TESTDIONY.

Surely under these circumstan,ces I may properly ask the attention of the House while I briefly sift the testimony upon which the com­mittee have based their extraordinary conclusion. This testimony is contained in the evidence of thirty witnesses. Other witnesses were examined, but the committee have rejected their testimony as ille­gally taken. Now, out of these thirty witnesses, four-Washington, Montgomery, Drayton, and Driscoll-testify simply to certain matters that transpired at first precinct, ward 1; four others-McPherson, Relyea, Fosberry, and Wig&-:-bear evidence against the second pre­cinct of the same ward, maKing no reference whatever to any other poll. Five more-Ahrens, Simmons, Gurney, Saunders, and Bonum­testifv to th~ conduct of the election at fi1·st precinct, w.ard 4. With the exception of ~onum, who makes a slight reference to another precinct, the testimony of these five witnesses relates exclusively to that one poll. Three more witnesses-Louis Dunneman, August Dnnneman, and Pompey Vir~-testify exclusively to intimidation at ward 8, and of this intimidation I shall have something more to say hereafter. So that the testimony of these sixteen witnesses -more than half of the whole number examined-relates exclu­sively to the four precincts named. Now, admitting their evidence proves conclusively everythin~ the witnesses assert-and this I ·by no means do admit-yet I mamtain it can be used only as evidence to establish a certain state of facts against these fonr polls, and when the committee accept it aa evidence against the remaining thir­teen polls, they violate all tbe laws of evidence. If these witnesses have proved ''repeating, bribery, intimidation, and violence" at these four polls to such an extent that it is impossible to pur~e them, then let these four pollB be excluded from the count, and 1t would still leaYe me a large majority. But since these sixteen witnesses testify only to what came under their observation,-the committee cannot assume the sam,e state of facts at any other poll, for not one of these fifteen witnesses pretends to know anything but what oo­cnrred at their own polls, nearly all of them stating in their evi­dence that they were stationed at their respective polls all day, which fact alone would preclude· them from knowing anything of what transpired at the other thirteen polls. I scarcely suppose the posi-

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4735 tion assumed by me in regard to these witneBSes is open to any dis­pute. If it is, I would like to have it contradicted now by either of the gentlemen who sign this report.

Now, this disposes of these sixteen witnesses for the present. We have left the testimony of fourteen more witnesses upon whose evi­dence the committee have thrown out the remaining thirteen polls. Just think of it; thirteen polls, containing the votes of over sev­enty-five hundred citizens, or more than two-thirds of the voters of the city of Charleston, rejected from the count, and the voters dis­franchised upon the testimony of fourteen witnesses; about one for each poll. Again, of these fourteen witnesses the testimony of one, A. T. Stevens, relates only to ward 7; and the testimony of another, J. J. Lesesne, relates only to second precinct, ward 4. Neither of these two witnesses testifies to any transactions at any other. polls. Both occupied positions at their re!:!pective polls which kept them there all day, and consequently their testimony can only be used as evidence against those two polls. While their testimony is utterly insufficient to reject those two polls, throw them out with the other four, and you still fail to overcome my majority. .

Now, then, there remain twelve more witnesses whose testimony is of a more general character, some testifying as to two polls, some a.s to three, some as to four, and so on. But it is upon the testimony of these twelve witnesses that the committee have decided to reject the remaining eleven polls ; for, bear it in mind that not one word in the testimony of the other eighteen witnesses relates in any way or man­ner to these eleven poll8. Now, in rejecting the' votes of eleven polls upon the evidence of only twelve witnesses, it is reasonable to suppose that the committee would have required not only testimony of the strongest character-not vague and general, hut clear and spe­cific-but that they would have further required witnesses of reason­able good character, men of veracity and respectability, men of whom if nothing good could be said at any rate nothing bad was known. Now let us see if they have done so. On the contrary, I assert with­out fear of contradiction that the committee have rejected these eleven polls upon the testimony of twelve of the vilest wretches that ever lived, and I will prove it without going outside of the evidence in this case.

GREEN, WHITING, AND BARING.

To begin with, take the three witnesses Green, Whiting, and Bar­ing. Compare their testimony, and you ;m ascertain that these three witnesses, giving testimony at different times, used the same lan­guage, word for word, letter for letter. Testimony of ..4.. W. G-reen. Testimony of 0. H. Whit- Testimony of Joseph Bar-

ing. ing. Question. Did you ob­

serve any illegal voting or repeatinl'( of votes on that day W and, if so, state what you saw.

Answer. Yes; I saw George Grobson and seven others vote at the city­hall, first precinct, ward 1; and then the same eight went over to the court­house, first precinct, ward 2, and voted again. l then followed them, and they went to the second pre­cinct, ward 1, and they voted again. They then went to the Pa.lmetto en­gine-house, second pre­cinct, ward 3, and there voted. I continued to fol­low them, and they went to the second precinct, ward 5, and there voted; and then they went to Eagle engine-house, first precinct, ward 5, and there they voted; ~~y then went to market-hall, first pre­c~ct~ ward 3, and there voreu; and they then went to theW a.ahington engine­house, first precinct, ward 6, snd they there voted.

Q. Are you sure that eac'h of the eight men vot­ed at each of the precincta named by you 9

A. Yes; lam. Q. What ticket did they

vote1 A. They voted what was

known as the Green or independent-republican ticket.

Q. Whose name was on that ticket for Congress I

A. E. W. M. Mackey; and each one of the eight men had the independent­republican ticket with his name on it pinned upon the lapel of his coat all the time theywentaround, and the same tickets in their banda.

Question. Did you ob- Question. Did you ob-serve any illegal voting or serve any illegal voting or repeating of votes on tbat repeating of votes on that day Y and if so, state what day 1 and, if so, state what you saw. what you saw.

Answer. Yes ; I S9.W .Answer. Yes; I saw GeorgeGrobson and seven • George Grobson and seven others vote at the city- othersvoteatthecity-hall, hall, first precinct, ward first precinct, ward 1 ; and 1 ; and then the same then the same eight went eight persons went over over to the court-houset to the court-house, first first precinct, ward 2, ann precinct, ward 2, and voted again. I then fol­voted a.,aain. I then fol- lowed them, and they went lowed them, and they went to the second precinct, to the second precinct, ward 1, and they there ward 1, and they there voted again. They then voted. Theytbenwentto went to the Pa.lmetto en­the Palmetto engine- gine-house, second pre­house, second precmct, cinct, ward 3, and there ward 3, and there vot-ed. I voted ; I continued to fol­continued to follow them, low them, and they went and they went to the sec- to the second precinct, ond precinct, ward 5, and ward 5, and there voted; there voted; and then and then they went to the they went to Eagle en- Eagle engine-house, first gina-house, first precinct, precinct, ward 5, and there ward 5, and there voted; theyvoted; theythenwent th~ythen went to market- to market-hall, first pre­hall, first precinct, ward cint, ward 3, and there 31 and there voted; they voted; they then went to tnen went to the Wash- the Washfugton engine­ington engine-house, first house, first precinct, ward precinct, ward 6, and there 6, and there they voted. voted. Q. Are you sure that

Q. Are you sure that eacn of the eight men vot­eacn of the eight men edat each of tne precincts voted at each of the pre- named by you 1 cincta named by you ~ A. Yes, I am.

A. Yes ; I am. Q. What ticket did they Q. What ticket did they vote 9

vote 1 A. They voted what was A. They voted what known as the Green or

was known as the Green independent republican or independent repub- ticket. lican ticket. Q. Whose name was on

Q. Whose name was on that ticket for Congress 9 that ticket for Congress 9 A. E. W. M. Mackey;

A. E. W. M. Mackey; and each one of the eight and each one of the eight men had the independent men had the independent republican ticket, with his republican ticket with his name on it, pinned upon name on it pinned upon the lapel of hiS coat all the the la~l of his coat all time they went around, the time they went and the same tickets in around, and the same their hands. tickets tn their hands.

Q. Doyon knowwheth­er these eight men were v.aid for their votes; and, 1f so, by whom 9

A. Yes; theywereeach of thempaid by a man named George, who re­ceived the money in my presence from Major E. Willis.

Q. What position did Willis occupy that day 7

A. He was a member of the rallying committee, and had charge of a large amount of the money raised to boy up !.he votes.

Q. Did you see him pay men for voting¥

A. Yes· he had his pocketa £nil of money, and paid off the crowd as they cam~ up to vote.

Q. Do you know any of the persons by name whom he paid through the said George to vote 7 and, if so, name them.

A. Yes; Clarence Rose, William Levy, Tobey Ha­zell, Henry Hipp, E. S. Ferrett, and many others whose names I do not rec­ollect.

Q.Areyou ooqurunted with Charles H. Whiting ; and, if so, was he with you on election day, and did he have the same opportunity of seeing the same as you testify to in this exam.ma­tion9

A. Yes; I am well ac­qurunted with him and was with him on that day, and he saw all I have testified to in this examination.

Q. Do you know wheth­er these eight men were P,aid for their vo~ ; and if so, by whom 1

A. Yes ; (hey were each of them pa:d by a man named George, who re­ceived the money in my presence from Major E. Willis.

Q. What posi~ion did Willis occupy that day ~

A. He was a member of the rallying committee, and bad charge of a ~arge amount of the money raised to buy up votes.

Q. Did you see him pay men for voting 9

A. Yes; he had his pockets full of money, and paid off the crowd as they came up to vote.

Q. Do you know any of the persons by name whom he paid throu~ the said George to vote l and, if so, name them. ·

A. Yes; Clarence Ro.se, William Levy, Toby Ha­zell, Henry Hipp, E. S. Ferrett, and many others whose names I do not rec-ollect. _

Q. Are you ooquainted withA. W.Green; and, if so, was he with you on election day, and did he have the same opportu­nity of seeing the same as you testify to in this ex­amination 7

A. Yes; I am well ac­quainted with A. W. Green, and he was with me on that day, and saw all I have testified to in this examination. _

Q. Doyouknowwhether those eight men were paid for their votes ; and, i~ so, by whom ¥

A. Yes; they were each of them paid by a man named George, who re­ceived the money in my pres.ence from Major E. Willis.

Q. What position did Willis ooonpy that day ¥

A. He was a member of the rallying committee, and had charge of a large amount of the money raised to buy up the voteS.

Q. Did yon see him pay men for voting~

A. Yes; heliadhispock­ets full of money, and paid off the crowd as they came up to vote.

Q. Do you know any of the persons by name whom he paid through the said George to vote ' and, if so, name them.

A. Yes; Clarence Rose, William Levy, Toby Ha­zell, Henry Hipp, E. J. F errett. and many others whose names I do not rec­ollect.

Q. Are :vou acquainted with Charles H. Whiting and A. W . Green; and, if so, were they w1th you on election day, and did they have the same opportunity of .seeing the same as you testify to in this examina­tion 1

A. Yes; I am weR ac­qua-inted with them both, and was w1th them on that day, and they must have seen all I have testified to in this examination.

Is it possible for any reaaon::tble man, accustomed to examine wit­nesses and to analyze testimony, to believe that this coincidence of language is natural f Green and Whiting were examined on the 15th of February, Baring on the 27th, twelve days later, and yet their tes­timony does not vary one word, except that Baring was not asked the last two questions propounded the other witnesses. One of two things is certain : either these three witnesses were thoroughly drilled before they were put on the stand, or their evidence was manufact­ued by the contestant with the connivance of the notary public. The latter theory I believe to be the correct one, for it will be noticed no cross-examination is attached to the testimony of these three wit­·nesses, for no one was present to represent me during their examina­tion, if such examination was ever held. That the evidence of these three witnesses waa manufactured ~ay be doubted by some upon the ground that the contestant would hardly be guilty of such an act. Wait a minute and see.

C. W. BUTrZ.

The contestant in this case is the same Mr. C. W. Buttz who was coun­sel for Hon. R. C. De Large in the contested-election case of Bowen vs. De Large in the Forty-second Congress. The Committee of Elec­tions in tha.t case used the following language in their report, which was ~igned by GEORGE W. MCCRARY, GEORGE F. H<?AR, William M. Mernck, G. W. Hazelton, W. E. Arthur, and E . Y. RICe:

This case came on to be heard before the committee at the December session of 1871-'72. Mr. DeLarge then applied for a. postponement and for leave to take fur­ther testimony, on the ground that the counsel employed by him to prepare his cause and take testimony in his behalf had possession of the evidence and refused to surrender the same to be used before the committee, and further that said coun­sel had been tampered with and bribed by said Bowen to act for him. The com­mittee found both these allegations to be proved.

If further evidence is needed to prove that much of the testimony of the contestant waa manufactured in the same way let them again compare the testimony of two other witnesses, Washington and Drayton, who in answer to the same queries used the same language word for word, except in answer to one query where Washington appears to have forgotten half of the answer.

The testimony of Green, Whiting, and Baring, with ita wonderful similarity, if produced by a highly honorable man would hardly be accepted as evidence, but how much less worthy of belief is it when procured in his own interest by a man whom a few years ago this House convicted of the disgraceful charge that while acting aa the attorney of a contestee he bad been bribed and tampered with by the contestant of that contestee f The testimony of Green, Whiting, and Baring, instead of being the evidence of three distinct individuals, is clearly the evidence of one individual with three different signa­tures. All three swear to one and the same thing, namely, there­peating of e~ht men at eight different polls. The facts sworn to by them standS upon their testimony alone. No one else sawwhatthey claim to have seen. And yet, unsupported by a single witness, this manufactured evidence is deemed sufficient to warrant the committee in throwing out ele~en . polls.

4736 CONGRESSIONAl: RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 19,

Had Mr. Buttz been content toremain asthecontestant in this case I should have had nothing whatever to say about him, but since he has made himBelf a witness in his own case, he must share the fate of the other witnesses. I have undertaken to prove that the twelve witnesses upon whose evidence the committee have decided to throw out eleven polls are all unworthy of belief. Mr. Buttz is one of t.hose twelve, and as such I am speaking of him. His evidence, however, amounts to very little; really it ought to have been cla.ssed with the evidence of those five men which rela,tes ~xclusively to ward 4, pre­cinct 1. To the throwing out of this poll I have already stated I have no objections, though I do not think the evidence warrants it. The rest of his evidence, therefore, which is used to assist in throwing out eleven precincts, consists in one case of repeating at the first precinct, ward 3. The following extract from his evidence, which constitutes all that is left of it, is nothing more than his opinion-the opinion of a defeated candidate:

I conscientiously believe that not more than 6,500 voters deposited the 10,500 votes as returned by the board of commissioners of elections as having been cast in this city, the difference being made up of illegal and repeated votes.

What Mr. Bnttz "conscientiously believes" is no evidence. He must prove it. If this is evidence, then it was unnecessary for him to take any testimony at all, fo:i his notice of protest furnishes stronger evidence than this, and no doubt he "believes" all that is contained in his protest.

L. J, TAYLOR.

If Mr. Buttz's opinion as to how many votes were actually cast is to affect the issue, then we must contradict him with his own witness, Taylor, who swears that the 10,500 votes were cast by 7,000 voters, thus contradicting Mr. Buttz, who swears they were cast by only 6,500 voters. Is not such testimony simply ridiculous f And yet it is upon such evidence the committee have decided to throw out these eleven precincts. If not thrown out upon this testimony then there is no evidence at all against these precincts. All Taylor knows about the e1ection.is contained in the following query and answer :

Q. Did lou notice anything particularly regarding the election on that day Y .A. I di ; I went to the different pollliig precincts throughout the city on that

day, and closely observed what transpired in regard to the purchasing ana repeat­ing of votes by the Green-Ma.okey party. I am satisfied that there was more illegal voting at that election on that day, and more bribery and corruption used on that day, than at any previous general election within my knowled~e. I saw William Johnson pay H. H. Rodgers $2.50 to vote the Green-Mackey, or mdependentrepub­lioan party's ticket, at second precinct, ward 6. I tried to have both Johnson and Rodgers arrested, but neither Brown nor Dickerson could do so for fear of personal injury, from the violent threats made against them and me by the independent re­publican party. I saw and know that it was impossible to have any of the repeat­mg voters or purchasers of votes arrested, because the city government and the police force were working openly in their favor and in the interest of the independ­ent republican ticket, and would not interfere or make any arrest of any of those parties. I do not conscientiously believe that there were more than 7,000 voters.or persons that voted the 10,500 votes returned 38 h:l.ving been the number of votes cast on that day in the city. I know positively of many voters who did not go ont of their houses or vote at all, and of some who returned to their homes without voting at all for fear of bodily harm and on account of the threats made against any one who would vote the union republican ticket or interfere with the Green­Ma{lkey party's repeaters and purchasers of votes for the independent republican ticket.

W, H. THOHPSOlf.

Another one of these twelve witnesses is W. H. Thompson, and his testimony is cited in full in the report of the committee in support of their action. Hence I shall examine itverythoroughly. Thompson in his testimony attempts to prove the following facts :

First. That there were intimidation ·and bribery at the first pre­cinct, ward 1. He swears to no specific instance, gives the name of no one that was intimidated or bribed, but simply states in :t general manner that there was much bribery and intimidation.

Second. That the manager at second precinct, ward 1, was drunk, in consequence of which no objection was made to anybody voting who wanted to.

Third. That there was repeating at first precinct, ward 3. Fourth. That there was violence at first precinct, ward 4. Fifth. That Major Willis was bribing voters at second precinct,

ward4. Sixth. That there was intimidation at ward 8. Seventh. That there was bribery at certain other precincts. Now it will be noticed that with the exception of the third and

seventh points all of his testimony refers to the six polls already cov­ered by the testimony of the first eighteen witnesses. With regard to the six polls I have already said throw them out and my majority is still unaffected. Therefore this portion of his testimony cannot possibly be used as evidence against the other eleven polls. The bal­ance of his testimony alleges repeating at first precinct, ward 3 and bribery at all the precincts in wards 5, 6, 7, and 8. His testimony on the latter point is so remarkable that I will quote it in full: .

I went to the different precincts in warda 5, 6, 7, and 8, and at -each of them I saw money freely paid by the partisans of the Green-Mackey ticket.

Now, then, is this sweeping statement, contained in one brief sen­tence, really to be regarded as evidence against the votes of those four wards, constituting one-half of the city ! If so, elections are utterly useless, for such testimony can be procured to set aside elections as fast as they are held. This evidence is nothing more than the decla­ration of a disappointed candidate, for it must be borne in mind that the witness, W. H. Thompson, was the candidate for State senator on the d~:fjlated ticket, and we know how usual it is for all disappointed

aspirants, when defeated by the people, to attribute their defeat to fraud and bribery on the part of their opponent. Certainly the two distinguished lawyers who sign the report will hardly contend that such a general statement of a defeated candidate, even when made under oath, is to be considered as sufficient evidence for the rejection of the entire vote of four wn.rds, comprising seven polls. If Thomp­son's testimony be true then the inquiry naturally follows how is it that Mr. Thompson, with a full knowledge of all these facts, failed to contest the election of his opponent, but to this•da.y has allowed that opponent to retain his seat in the South Carolina senate without any attempt on his part to unseat him 1 In view of Mr. Thompson's testimony this fact is still more surprising when it is remembered that the majority of the South Carolina senate are men elected on the same ticket with Mr. Thompson. The only inference is that Mr. Thompson knew he could not sustain this declaration before any tribunal at home, and that he han a greater respect for the intelli­gence of the election committee of the South Carolina senate than he had for the Committee of Elections of the United States House of Representatives. Testimony which the 1atter

1 committee have re­

ceived he did not attempt to impose upon the former. In connection with Mr. Thompson's failure to contest the election

of his own opponent, the same fact is true of all the other defeated candidates on Buttz's ticket. In Charleston County, on the same ticket with Mr. Buttz were placed the names of eighteen candidates for representative in the Legislature of South Carolina, all of whom were defeated, some, however, by a smaller majority than Mr. Buttz. The eighteen representatives who were elected ran on the same ticket with me, received the same votes, and were elected by the same ma­jority. They still hold their seats in the Legislature, although upon the meeting of that body in November, 1874, notice was given on be­half of the defeated candidates on Buttz's ticket that a protest would be filed against the election of th~ eighteen members for Charleston County, and though such protest was filed, yet no attempt was made to sustain it. The contestants virtually abandoned it for the want of evidence, and finally, on the 23d January, 1875, the committee on privileges and elections submitted the following report, the resolu­tion appended thereto being adopted without any opposition:

In the oase of the contest of the seats of the members from Charleston County, the committee on privileges and elections beg leave to respectfully report the fol­lowing resolution:

"Whereas the contestants, being duly notified, failed to appear, by counsel or oth­erwise, before the committee to substantiate the allegations set forth in their pro­test: Therefore

"Be it re.wlved~ That the contest be dismissed, an~d that the present sitting mem­bers be declared legally entitled to their seats."-Journal house of representatives of the State oj South Oarolina, regular session, 1874-'75, page 306.

Now, it must be remembered that the legislative candidates who were defeated with Mr. Buttz would have had their case tried before a house of representatives containing an overwhelming majority of their political friends not only willing but glad to seat them; hence their absolute failure ~prove or even attempt to prove their protest can only be explained upon the theory that the only witnesses to be found in support of their protest were the witnesses who have testi­fied for Mr. Buttz, and that, the character of these witnesses being so well known at home, the legislative contestants were unwilling to insult the intelligence of any tribunal there by presenting to it the evidence of such witnesses.

Now I appeal to the common sense, to the practical political sagac­ity of every member of this House, that if this election was the mass of fraud and corruption that has shocked the virtuous sensitiveness of the Election Committee, is it reasonable to suppose that the mem­bers of the Legislature elected , on the ticket with me would have been allowed to retain their seats in that body f And yet at home, where the facts of this election were every-day history, known to every man in the State, the results remain undisturbed. It has been reserved for the committee of this House to discover that the elec­tion in Charleston was so tainted with fraud and corruption that it "ought not to be sanctioned or tolerated."

CORNELIUS M'HENRY,

Cornelius McHenry, a constable of the court of which Mr. Buttz is the solicitor, is another of the twelve witnesses whose testimony I am now sifting. To him I barely refer, however, as his testimony is of little or no consequence. With the exception ofthe first precinct, third ward, it relates exclusively to two of the first four polls to which I have already alluded. The balance of his testimony relates to repeating at one poll only of the eleven I am now discussing.

BURKE AND FOSTER.

This disposes of seven of the twelve witnesses. The evidence of five more remains to be examined. Before taking them up in detail, I may as well state that all of them are repeaters, and .according to their own evidence they have all committed gross outrages upon the law, for which two of them, Burke and Foster, were convicted, and the evidence of their conviction is found in the printed record. The three, however, who have never been tried or convicted deserved to be convicted much more than the two who really were. The evi­dence of the two who were convicted is of so little importance in connection with the throwing out of the votes of eleven polls that I will first consider their testimony. Burke simply swears to onefaot, namely, that he voted twice, not being a citizen, and that he was paid $1 each time for his vote. One of these votes was cast at sec-

1876. CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4737 ond precinct, ward 1, which is included in the four polls first disposed of. His other vote was cast at first precinct, ward 3. Foster, the other convict, test.ifies to his having voted at three polls with three other men and at one poll with four men. For this lHtle service they received $1 apiece each time they voted. Two of the polls at which they voted are included in the four to which I have so frequently al­luded as being the polls to which almost the entire mass of this evi­dence refers, and as being the only polls affected by this testimony. ~he other polls at which Foster n.nd his little gang voted are first precinct, second ward, and first precinct, third ward, two of .:the eleven now under discussion.

The testimony of Burke and Foster may be true, ·and if so it only proves a few case8 of repeating, a thing which it iB almost impossi­ble to prevent entirely at elections in large cities. In considering the evidence of these men I am reminded that, notwithstanding the number of illegal votes alleged by the contestant, these two men are the only persons he has caused to be arrested for all this alleged repeating, bribery, intimidation, and violence. Is not this fact alone sufficient to discredit all these charges, especially when we remem­ber that not only waa the United States court opened to him, but that as solicitor of the first circuit, embra-cing the city of Charles­ton, he had at his complete command all the machinery of the law to punish the men who had, as he alleged, by fraud, bribery, intimi­dation, and violence cheated him of his election f .

In reviewing the testimony of McHenry, Thompson, Buttz, and Burke, it will be seen at a glance that the evidence of t.hese four witnesses, except where it refers to the six polls already disposed of, has refer­ence to one poll only, first precinct, ward 3. All the facts alleged by these four witnesses occurred at that one poll. Adding this one poll to the six already disposed of and we ascertain that the remaining ten polls are to be rejected upon the evidence of eight witnesses, the other twenty witnesses not testifying to a single fact in regard to these remaining ten polls. Ten polls are to be rejected upon the tes­timony of eight witJ;tesseS. Of thflse eight witnesses we have already proved that the testimony of three, Green, Whiting, and Baring, is so clearly manufa,ctured that it should be stricken from the record en­tirely, so that really the evidence against these ten polls depends upon the testimony of five witnesses only, Foster, Taylor, Rafferty, KoSHell, and Rivers. The testimony of the first two I have already examined. It relates to two polls only and cannot possibly affect the ot.hers.

In en.mining the evidence of these three creatures, upon whose . te"'timony the voters of eight precincts are to be disfranchised, I shall

apply to it a certain principle of law applicable to such cases. This principle was laid down by the committee a few months ago in the c:1seof Bromberg vs. Haralson. In their report of that ca.sethe com­mittee say:

The testimony of a. conspirator swearing to his own infamy and implicating others in tho same crime i8 always jealon.sly scrutinized, and unlus corroborated in 'nattrial points by evidenc1 coming from uncontaminated sources cannot generally be r6Ceived a.a sufficient to establish a. litigated fact.

With the application of such a rnle to the testimony of Rafferty, Kossell, and Ri vel'8 it must all be rejected. Apply the same rule to the testimony of the trio, Green, Whiting, and Baring,· to which I have already caJled attention, and it ceases to be evidence in this case.

H. T. KOSSELL.

I shall now examine the testimony of these three men with refer­ence to t.he principle just cited, beginning with Kossell, who testifies that he had in charge six men who voted sixty times, ea~h time at a different precinct, except once, when he voteu them twice at the same precinct. Kossell's ·testimony stands by itself, being uncorroborated by any kind of evidence whatever. Of him not one of the other wit­nesses make the slightest mention. Kossell seems to have been un­known, and I cannot even imagine where Buttz got him.

ISAAC B. RIVERS.

!saM B. Rivers testified that during the canvass preceding the elec­tion he supported Buttz, but that on the day of election he voted for me. After the election, howevor, he renewed his allegiance toward Buttz by swearing for him that he ha.d done considerable repeating on election-day for me. Rivers, I understand, bas again changed, and is now willing no doubt to testify for me that he did considera­ble false swearing for Buttz. Under these circumstances it is exceed­ingly doubtful in what capacity Rivers excels, whether in repeating or in perjury. Until that doubt is removed no faith should be placed in his teRtimony. Rivers, like Kossell, is uncorroborated in a single instance of repeating. How both might have been and yet were not corroborated I shall show in the analysis of Rafferty's testimony. A slight attempt at corroborating Rivers .is made by two witnesses. Thompson says: ~ met Is~ B. Riv:ers at different times dnrlng the day, going from poll to poll

w1th a ca.rnage fnll of men. Lesesne, in reply to the question-Did you see any earri..&ges and wagons eon trolled by M~or Willis carrying vowrs

i.o and from that prooinct th.at day! Answers-Yes ; I saw them till day, and Isaac B. Rivers h.'ld charge of one of them.

day than to see carriages full of men f Are such things evidences of fraud' Such vague restimony will hardly be considered evidence in corroboration of Rivers.

HOGAN RAFFERTY.

I have reserved th0 examination of Rafferty's testimony for the last, because be did more false swe~tring during his ex'tmination than all the other witnesses together. I cannot refrain from remarking here that bad the committee compared the testimony of Rafferty and Rivers with that of other witnesses they never would have quoted them in full in their report as evidence to illustrate the character of the elec­tion in Charleston. Such witnesses c:tnnot· justify the actiGn of the committee in throwing out the entire vote of the city of Charleston.

A.ud who is Hogan Rafferty f All we know of him is contained in his own testimony. He is the witness to his own imamy. He swears to having cast 606 illegal votes himself, by taking a gang of twenty- · five men and voting them twice at nearly every precinct. For which dirty work he says he was paid 10. If for $10 he would vote 606 illegal votes, how much do you think it cost to purchase his services as a witness in this ca-se, especially when made safe agaim:it prosecu­tion for perjury by the contestant, who wa-s able to give him such guarantee by virtue of his position as solicitor of the first circuit. Are the rights and franchises of any community to be at the mercy of the oaths of such men' And yet the testimony of such a creature is cited as evidence by the committee in supi_>ort of their report. In attach­ing any importance t.o the testimony' of this witBess the committee seem to have entirely forgotten that most excellent rule laid down by themselves, which I have already cited.

Apply that rule to the testimony of Raffe.rty,and what is such tes­timony worth f Let us see if be is "corroborated in material points byevidencecomingfrom uncontaminated sources." If not, as I shall clearly demonstrate, then his evidence should have had no weight with the committee. Reject the testimony of Rafferty and the con­t~stnnt has no cas& wl.Jatever, for it must be remembered Raff8rty alone proves more tb:m one-half of the illegal votes charged by the contestant as having been cast for me. Now the best evidence from uncontaminated sources to corrobomte Rafferty, aa well as Kossell and Rivers, would have been the managers and supervisors at each poll appointed in the interest of Mr. Buttz, for all through the printed evi. dence it appears that the party of which :Mr. Buttz wa-s the candi~ date bad at every one of the seventeen precincts in the city of Charles­ton one manager selected from themselves and one United States super­visor, making thirty-four respectable and competent witnesses-at least presumably so. Yet out of t.bese thirty-four managers and super­visors, the best witnesses be could have bad, the contestant bas taken the evidence of only two supervisors and three managers, none of whom corroborate Rossell or Rivers in any pa~ticnlar whatever; and by one only of these five witnesses is Rafferty corroborated. I give their names, so that their testimony can be referred to: J. J. Driscoll, A. W. Gurney, supervisori; W. H. Ahrens, A. T. Stevens, W. E. Burke, man~tgers. The testimony of the latter, however, has been. excluded by the committee as illegally taken; still I have no objections to ita being considered in connection with the testimony of the other four witnessee just named. Now these five managers and supervisors, with the exception of Ahrens, not only fail to corroborate Rafferty, but they fail to prove a solitary illegal vote. By examining their evidence in connection with that of Rafferty's, it will be seen how completely they fail to corroborate him. If Rafferty's testimony be true, the facts sworn to by him could hardly have escaped the attention of these managers and supervisors, who bad been appointed to look after the interest of the contestant and his party at their respective polls.

J. J. DRISCOLL.

J. J. Driscoll, who swears he voted for the contestant, wa-s United States supervisor at precinct 1, ward 1, (city hall,) at which poll Rafferty swears Murphy voted "twenty-five men, mostly sailors, each of whom had a green badge tied in the button-hole of the left lappel of their coats with a black ribbon." Rafferty further test.ifies that he voted these same men again in the afternoon at this poll. And yet when Driscoll was examined not one question was asked him in ref­erence to these votes, which he could not have helped noticing had any such occurrence taken place at this polL On the contrary, when asked " do you know of any illegal voting at the election on that day," he says nothing whatever about Rafferty and his repe!Ltars, but gives a full statement of such cases of illegal voting as did occur at his precinct. It is proper to state here that of the four cases men­tioned by Driscoll as illeg<tl voting not one was really such a case, and this will appea,r upon a.n examination of his testimony. So tlll'.r; the United States supervisor at tllis poll fails to prove a single in­stance of illegal voting, intimidation, and bribery, and seems to know nothing whatever of Rafferty and his mythical repeaters. Nosbitt, the manager in the interest of Duttz at this poll, although summoned as a witness by the contestant, was never ex:;tmined, and we must conclude that the failure of the contestant to examine him wa-s owing entirely to the fact that Nesbitt knew of no frauds, intimidation, or bribery at this poll. Kossell also voted his six men at this precinct, but as in the case of Rafferty this fact wa.s unknown to Driscoll. Ri v­ers did not honor this poll with his presence.

Neither of these two witnesses saw Rivers vote a sinO'le man; they WARD 7. simply saw him with" a carriage full of men;" but ;hether or not Another poll at which Rafferty swears to havin~ voted his twenty-he v-oted them they do not say. Whart is more common on election- . £!.~~ ~~~lors twice w~sward 7. The manager of elect10n n.t that precinct

IV-297

4738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.

appointed to represent the contestant was A. T. Stevens, one of the witnesses produced by the contestant. Judging from his test.imony he was evidently an aruent friend of Btlttz and very tenacious of his Iights, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was impossible for twer: ty sailors in black dress coats with green badges tied to the left lapel to have voted in l'\1 gang at this poll twice and escaped the attention of this vigilant manager. And yet when called as a. wit­ness not one question is asked him on the subject, and Rafferty is again left without the corroboration he so much needs. Not a. single witness corroborates Rafferty as to his repeating at this poll. So, too, with Kossell who also visited thls poll with his repeaters. His visit there was unknown to Stevens or any other witness. What be­comes of the rule of the committee in the case of Bromberg VB. Har­alson f Why did they not apply it in this instance f

W. R. BURKE.

Another election officer appointed in the interest of Mr. But.tz was W. E. Burke, a manager at ward 8. His testimony having been re­jected by the committee as illegally taken, I only refer to it to say that even had it been received as good testimony it would only fur­nish additional proof to show how completely Rafferty, Kossell, and Rivers are uncorroborated by the election officers.

A. W. GURNEY.

Another witness whose evidence is contained in fnll in the report of the committee is A. W. Gurney, also an election officer-not one of those charged with a guilty knowledge of these alleged frauds, bnt one of those who was acting in the int-erest of the contestant to p1·event fraud. Eager as he was during his examination to disclos~ all the frauds alleged at llis poll, he omitted to make any mention whatever of Rafferty and his sailors. Was it possible for twenty-five repeaters coming up in a gang, with Rafferty at their head, to have escaped his vigilant eyet No; had Rafferty really been there with his sa-ilors Gurney would have seen them. His failure to see them certainly ought to weaken Rafferty's evidence as far as this precinct is concerned. Nor did Gurney see either Kossell or Rivers, both of whom claim to have visited this poll with their repeaters. If GnrDey ditl not see them, he did see some other things, but. giving all credit to his test imony it awounts only to this: that there were some irreg­ularities at the poll of which he was supervisor, and his statement of frauds is simply a va-gue declaration that there wa.s bribery, with­out even an attempt on his part, except in one instance, to specify the offense or the offender. But if this is true, how can M:r. Gurney account for the fact that, as United States supervisor, appointed in the interest of Mr. Buttz, he signed the returns of this very precinct aH correct. and at the time made no statement whatever to the officers to whom he was bound to report of any fraud or violence f The per­son whom he charges with influencing the election by bribery and intimidation was a well-known and highly respectable merchant of Charleston, a clemocrat, who would have been ready and prompt in meeting any such accusation if made where Mr. Gurney was bound by his oath of office to make it, before a jury in the district court of the United States. Bot Mr. Gurney's evidence, like much other evi­dence which seems to have deluded the committee, can be explained by the fact., outside of the record I a-dmit, that it was well under­stood in the community of Charleston that upon the contestant's suc­cess he was to have been one of the earliest recipients of official pat­ronage. Mr. Buttz's failure has driven this veracious witness from the community which he could neither benefit by his patriotism nor

under protest. Ahrens of course, like aJl the other witnesees in this case, makes vague and general statements as to bribery, intimiclation, and repeating, but in view of the fact I have just stated litt lo cre­dence should be given to his testimony procured under such circum­stances. Notwithstanding Ahrens's anxiety to accommodate Buttz in the matter of furnishing testimony, he makes no reference what­ever to either Kossell or Rivers, who both swear to having repeated their gang at this poll.

With the exception of Ahrens, therefore, not one of these five man­agers and supervisors corroborate Ra.fter.ty. But on the contrary, when examined as witnesses for the contestant to prove the repeat­ing, bribery, and intimidation alleg'=ld by him, they make no reference whatever to Rafferty and his sail orR, who seem to have been a perfect myth to them, nor do any of them make any mention whatever of eithe1· Rivers or Koasell.

POLLS REJECTED UPON RAFFERTY'S TESTIMONY ALONE,

I have endeavored to .show how utterly unreliable is the whole tes­timony of Rafferty; how, if his story was true, it could have been corroborated by certain witnesses, and how, when these witnesses were examined, they failed in any respect whatever to furniRh the corroboration so much needed in order to give Rafferty's testimony any value as legal evidence. I have examined it thorougllly because if rejected, as it should be, the rest of the evidence produced by the contestant would, even if true, affect only one or two polls in the city which if thrown out would still leave me a majority. Notwith­standing the barehced perjury of this witness the committ-ee, in utter violation of the rule laid down by themselves in a previous case and already cited by me, have rejected whole polls upon his testimony alone, no evidence whatever, either good or bad, being offered to cor­roborate him. In the second precinct, ward 2, and the third precinct, ward 4, no evidence whatever, except Rafferty's statement that he voted twenty-five men at each of those precincts twice, is offered either as to repeating, bribery, or intimidation. But upon the evidence of this one man, unsustained by a single other witness, the entire vote of these two precincts, amounting in the aggregate to 942, is thrown out and these voters are disfranchised because one s.coundrel can be found to sweor that he repeated some votes there.

POLLS REJECTED IN THE ABSENCE OF .ALL TESTIMONY.

But if the action of the committee is extraordinary in throwin~'~' out the votes of these two precincts upon this one mauis testimony ~how much more extra~rdinary must be considered their action in throwing out the votes of polls upon t.he evidence of no one at all. Against the third precinct, ward 3, and the third precinct, ward 6, nothing whatever is alleged either in the wa-y of repeating, or of bribery, or of intimidation. Rafferty does not even swear against th~se two po11s; the contestant. does not even allege any irregularities at them ; and yet the committee have cast them out for no other reason, I can imagine, than that they are situated in the city of Charleston. Do the Committee of Elections by their action in throwing out the votes of these two polls mean to say that whenever in any city irregulari­ties, fraud, intimidation, or bribery are proved at one or more polls, or even at a majority of polls, then the entire vote of the city be­comes so tainted .that it must be excluded from the countf Is this a new principle in the 1aw of elections established by the thirteen eminent lawyers composing the committee f

injure by his perjury.

The unaccountable action of the committee in throwing out the e four polls induces me to call attention to a few other polls rejected by the committee, and against the purity of which the evidence is

w. H. AHRENS. really worthless. The only one of the five election officers produced as witnesses who WARD 2, FIRST PRECINCT.

corroborates Rafferty in any particular is W. H. Ahrens, a manager Take the first precinct, ward 2, where the total vote was 484. at first precinct, ward 4, appointed in the interest of the contestant. Against this poll the only irregularity charged is the repeating of the In his evidence he testifies to having seen Rafferty march up a gang twenty-five sailors by the never-failing Rafferty, uncorroborated, of twenty-five men in the forenoon and vote them, and again in however, a8 far as this poll is concerned, by a single witness. But if tbe afternoon. Stmngo to say, this open violation of the law was Rafferty's testimony be true, will the committee assert that the poll only seen by Ahrens, who called no one's attention to the fact at cannot be purged by the deduction of these 50 votes, which, if proven the time. Remember that at this same·poll there were Gurney, the at all, are proven specially enough to warrant their being deducted United States supervisor just referred to, and John Bonum, another from the count f In addition to Rafferty'R testimony against this poll witness in this case, who occupied the double position of deputy is the evidence of Green, Whiting, and Baring as to 8 other illegal sheriff an<l deputy United States marshal. Yet neither of these wit- votes. From the wonderful similarity of the testimony of these three ncsses saw what Ahrens saw. Perhaps the following fact will ex- witnesses, bearing upon its face the evidence of manufactured testi­plaiu why Ahrens alone at this poll saw Rafferty and his sailors. As mony, I am certainly not unreasonable when I ask that such evidence soon as the contestant ascertained that he was defeated, like most should receive no consideration whatever, especially since it is on cor­defeated candidates he entered his protest against my election, serv- roborated. One other witness, Foster, whose certificate of conviction ing llis first notice upon -the county board of canvassers, afterward is produced by the contestant himself, swears to 5 more illegal votes. taking the case up to the State board of canvassers, a.nd finally bring- Now thon, at this poll each instance of illegal voting is sworn to ing it here before Congress. As soon as he began his contest he of with sufficient clearness to have made it the duty of the committee course undertook to find the necessary witnesses. At that time there to purge the poll. Admitting as true every word of the testimony was pending in the court of general' ·Sessions for Charleston County relatin(J' to this poll, only 63 illegal votes were proven and the poll two indictments agn.inst this William H. Ahrens, both for assault should have been purged by their deduct.ion, since no witness what­with intent to kill, the punishment for which is fine and imprison- ever testifies to any bribery or intimidation, nor is any evidence men~ in the penitentiary. Allrens saw his chance; he offered bis serv- whateYer produced against the conduct of the officers of elections in iceEJ as a witness, !1> nolle prosequi was entered as to both indictments charge of the poll. py the solicitor pf the court, Mr. C. W. Buttz, the contestant in this WARD 3 SECOND PRECINCT.

case, anu Ahrens, released from all fear of the penitentiary, became · Take second precinct, wanl 3, the total vote of which was 566. a witness for the contestant. The records of the court of general ses- .At this poll there is no evidence whatever of either bribery or intimi­sions of Charleston Count.v will provo the t.rnth of my assertion. Ah- dation. The ubiquitous Rafferty does not even claitll to have visited . rens, however, had signed as corre<)t the re~urn~ o{the election before it with his sailors. He seems to have ignored it entirely. The on1y be ha-d ascerta-ined he would be needed a~ a witn~s&, :ind ~onsequently irregularity charged by tho contestant is the polling of 17 illegal in his evidence he attempts to explain that fact by saying he (lid it Yotes there, 8 of which are proven by the trio, Green, Whiting, a.nd

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4739 Baring. The other 9 are proven by Rivers, to whose testimony I have already referred. Admitting this exceedingly doubtful evi­dence, do the committee pretend to sa.y that a poll of 566 is incapa­ble of being purged of 17 illegal votes clearly and distinctly proved if the testimony be accepted as worth anything f And yet this poll the committee in their spirit of cas·ting out have rejected entirely.

WARD 5.

Take again precinct 2, ward 5, the total vote of which was 251. Again at this poll no evide-nce wbatever is offered as to any bribery or intimidation. The only charge against it is 15 illegal votes, 6 of which aro proven by Rafferty, 8 by the trio, Green, Whiting, and Bar­ing-, and 1 by Buttz himself. Admitting them all, notwithst~nding the utter worthlessness of the proof, I again a k are 15 illegal votes, when there are no other irregularities charged, sufficient to warrant the rejection of a poll of 261 f If not, why then was the poll re­jected by the committee instead of purged f

Take still another poll: first precinct, ward 5. The total vote there was 831. Again no charge as to bribery or intimi<lation at this poll. The only testimony impeaching its purity is that of the trio, Green, Whiting, and Baring, as to the 8 illegal votes of Grobson, and that of Kossel as to 6 illegJ.l votes cast un<ler his direction, making in all 14 illegal votes. Yet upon this testimony alone, and because of 14 illegal votes only, the committee have decided to reject this whole poll of 831 votes.

The two last polls comprise th~ whole vote of ward 5, there being only two precincts in the ward. I have stated that there was no evidence against either of these polls as to a.ny bribery or intimida­tion, unless we consi<ler as evidence the vague and general statement of the witness Thompson, that he "went to the difterent precincts in war<ls 5, 6, 7, and 8, and at each of them I saw money freely pai.d by the partisans of the Green-Mackey ticket."

It will ha::dly be contended that such a general statement of a de­feated candidate, even when made under oath, is to be considered as sufficient evidence for the rejection of the entire vote of a whole war<l, espec· ally when such statement is llllsustained by the oath of a sin­gle other witness as to a solitary instance of bribery or intimidation at either of these polls.

I have cited these eight polls to show upon what utterly worthless testimony the committee have decided to reject the entire vote ofthe city of Charleston. In two of these instances, as I have already showu, there is not a word of testimony of any kind, and at the other six polls the testimony in regard to repeating is excee<lingly meager, Jess perhaps than usually occurs at any election, while thero is notes­timony whatever as to intimidation or bribery, a.nd absolutely none in regard to the conduct of the managers. And yet, without a single witness impugning their conduct, these managers are branded as guilty of fraud or of permitting fmud at their polls.

BRIBERY, INIDODATIO~, .A...l'ID VIOLENCE.

Before closing this examination of the testimony I desire to notice briefly the evidence upon which are based tbe charges of bribery, in­timidation, and violence, with the view of proving that the committee are mistaken in concluding that "the evidence clearly shows" bribery, intimidation, and violence. The evi<lence relating to these charges is of so general and vague a character, consisting so entirely of opin­ions rather than facts, that they should be stricken out for uncertainty and irrelevancy.

BRIDERY.

First as to the charge of bribery. What is the testimony! It con­sists of such statements as the following:

Open bribery was practiced and constant complaint was made to me as a United States supervisor tha.t votes were being bought by the MMkey party.-Tutimony of A . W. Gnrney.

I am satisfied that there was more illegal voting at that election on that day and more bribery an<l corruption used on that day than at any previous general election within my knowledge.-Testimony of S. J. Tcylor.

I am fifty-five years in this city and have never seen such bribery, open purchas­ing of votes at any general or municipal election in my life.-Testimony of John Bo­num.

I saw a large number of persons paid from one to three doll:rrs each for voting the independent-republican ticket. Captain Sales was the principal puro~er, and paid the most of them.-Testimony of August Dunneman.

All this is not testimony to the purchase of a single vote which could or would be received by a judicial body. They are simply the violent expression of extravagant opinions wbich are heard everywhere the day after a hotly contested election from the partisans of t.he defeated candidate. But when you come to analyze the proof, which one would suppose in such a case of open, universal, unblushing bribery would be ample, I assert that in this record, in this mass of uncontra<licted ex pa1·te testimony, if you except the twenty-five sailors with green badges who are marched up and down through its pages just as the scant supernumeraries in a third-class theater are marched from wing to wing of the scenes to represent an army until the twenty-five are swelled to six hundred and six, you will not find fifty cases of bribery specifically sworn to.

As a fair specimen of the whole of the evidence upon this subject I ask attention to the testimony of J. J. Lesesne upon this subject. In his evidence he says:

I saw a large number of persons, more than one-hundred, that E. Willis paid that day to vote the independent-republican ticket.

There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence in this statement as to who these persons are, whether they voted, where they vote<l, for whom they voted, or why they should not have voted.

When cross-examined and asked: "Diq you see Willis give tickets to any one you speak oH" What is his answer! . "No; but they went around the corner and reLurned together." When asked, "W ..ts there repeating of any votes at that precinct that day Y" his answer is: "Yes, there was; but I did not know who they were or their names."

It is simply -a bald assertion of the witness that he knew more than one hundred persons who were paid on that day to vote. I cannot, with decent respect for the intelligence of this House do more than direct their attention to this so-called testimony, and yet it is about as good as the rest of the testimony upon this subject.

One of the witnesses examined by the contestant to prove th~ charge of bribery was John Simmons. His character is explained in the following certificate :

THE STATE } vs. Grand larceny.

JOHN SIMMONS.

STATE OF SouTH CAROLINA., (]hq,rlestnn Oounty: Let the defendant, John Himmons, be imprisoned in the penitentiary at hard I&.

bor for the period of one year from date. R. F. GRAHAM.

CHARLESTO~, December 12, 1871. A true copy;

(SEAL.]

JULY 12, 1876.

JACOB WILLIMAN, 0. G. S. cf 0. P.

Simmons during his examination admitted his conviction for grand larc~ny an<l his sentence to the penitentiary.

INTIMIDATION .AND VIOLENCE.

Out of the thirty witnesses examined by the contestant eleven only testify a.s to the alleged intimidation and violence. The testimony of these eleven witnesses, with one exception, relates exclusively to four polls, namely : first precinct, ward 1 ; first and second precincts, ward 4; and first precinct, ward l:l. One witness only, Thompson, tes­tiiies as to intimidation or violence at first precinct, ward 1. His tes­timony is l;i veri in these words :

At first precinct, ward 1, I saw that the crowd of Green-Mackey bullies governed that precinct and used every means of intimidation to prevent any one from voting the regular republican ticket.

That is the only testimony in the whole record as to intimidation at that poll.

The same is the case as to the intimidation and violence at second precinct, wa,rd 4, where the charges are sustained by one witness only, Lesesne. His testimony is that-

The crowd had partaken so frequently of free whisky that they were ready for a riot upon any pretext whatever, and I was closely pre::~se<l anu threatened on sev­eral occasions.

The evidence is not that a riot actually occurred, but that the crowd ''were ready" for one. By neither witness is there any mention wha.t­ever of a single person who was prevented from Yoting by either in­timi<lation or violence. Such is the testimony that has led the com­mittee to believe that intimidation and violence prevailed at these two polls.

The testimony of six witnesses, including Thompson, relates ex­clusively to the first precinct, ward 4. These six witnesses are Mc­Henry, Gurney, Bonum, Bnttz, Ahrens, and Thompson. Their testi­mony we have already examined in <letail, and as it relates only to this one poll, we can scarcely think i.t necessary to comment upon it, especially as we have already expressed the opinion that, admitting all that is charged against this poll t.o be true, it was the duty of the committee to reject that poll, and not assnme 1hnt because violence and intimidation were proven against this poll that the same state of affairs existed at all the other polls.

The testimony of three other witnesses, Louis and August Dun­neman and Pompey Virgin, relates to ward tl. A portion of the tes­timony of Thompson also refers to this ward. The latter says that at this poll "The Union republicans were RO intimidated that some were driven from the polls w'ithout voting." The Dunnemans and Virgin testify to about the same thing though more in detail. But notwithstanding all this intimidation and violence, Mr. Buttz received at this poll a larger vote than at any other poll in the city. Out of 1,103 votes cast, Mr. Buttz received 413, givi~g me only a majority of 177. If Mr. Buttz's supporters were driYen from this poll with­out voting, I woulfl like to ascertain how it was possible for him to receive nearly half of the whole vote cast there. The very fact that the contestant received such a large vote at this poll is the best evidence neede(l to refute the charge of intimidation ap.d vio­lence as far as this poll is concerned. Certainly this fact should raise a doubt as to the charge unless sustained by the evidence of reliable witnesses. Both Louis Dunne man and Thompson were defeate<l can­didates. Pompey Virgin's character is unfolded in the following cer­tificate:

THE STATE l vs. Burglary and larceny.

POM.PEY VmGL~. STATE OF SouTH CAROLINA., Oharleston County:

Let the defendant be imprisoned in the penitentiary at hard labor for ten years. [S.EALl R. F. G-Iti.liA~ "· JUNE 16, 1871. . .. . . .•

A true copy. JACOB WJLLIMAN. .. . . ' . 0. WS~ u.nd'O. P-:

4740 OONG RESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 19,

Certainly 1,103 voters are not to be disfranchised upon the testi­mony of four witnesses only, two of whom are defeated candidates, another a brother of one of these candidates, and the other a peniten­tiary convict. Against this poll there is no other testimony except that of Rafferty and Rossell.

The last of the eleven witnesses testifying as to violence and in­timidation is Taylor. His testimony relates to no particular poll. It is too vague and uncertain to prove anything. It can hardly be con­sidered as evidence. It is in these words :

I knowfositively of many voters who did not go out of their houses or vote nt all~~nd o some who returned t.o their homes without voting a.t all, for fe.~r of boaily harm, and on account of the threats mode against nny one who would v.ote the Union republican ticket.

Admitting every word of the testimony of these eleven witnesses to be true, four polls only are a,ffected, no attempt whatever being made to prove intimidation or violence at the other thirteen polls ; yet the committee have concluded that intimidation and violence prevailed at all the voting-precincts in the city. How did they reach this conclusion! Certainly not by an examination of the evidence; for if :rnything is clearly shown it is the fact that the report of the committee prov~s beyond a doubt their failure to examine the testi­mony. Bnt the testimony of tbeso eleven witnesses does not even sustain the ch~t.rge as to the four polls. If their evidence ue true, that such general violence and intimidation prevailed at these four poUs, certainly some one ought to have been found who would have sworn that he went to the polls, that he attempted to vote for :Mr. Bnttz, and that he was prevented from so doing by the threats of my friends. But throughout the whole city it appears the contestant could not find a single voter who would swea.r that he was prevented from voting by violence or intimidation.

REASONS FOR NOT TAKING TESTIMO?."'Y.

Ravin~ thus examined the character and value of the testimony upon whwh the committee have relied, I am natumlly brought to the consideration of the question which seems so thoroughly to have perplexed them, and that is why I have not ta,ken or proauced any testimony in reply.

That such a question should have been raised forces me to the con­clusion that the committee could scarcely have examined the evidence with any reference to the usual principles of legal and judicial ex­amination. I can only understand their conclusion upon the sup­position that they were bound to believe everything that a witness Bays unless another witness contradicts him, and that the more gen­eral and vague a charge so much the more credible is it. I am not afraid to say that before any judge in this land three-fourths of the tes­timony upon this record would have been absolutelyexcluded,and that with such a ca.se no lawyer of reputation would have risked his pro­fessional character by putting up witnesses to meet a case which had not been made. I had a good right to presume that vague n.nd gen­eral charges of repeating, bribery, intimida,tion, and violence would scarcely command tho respectful attention of the committee, coming from a source the purity of which had once before been tested by Congress. Had I willfully neglected to reply to testimony bearing directly upon the issue made and possessing in itself that sort of character which entitled it to consideration, it might be different; but I submit to the candid judgment of this House whether a candidate elected by an overwhelming majority might not well hold himself above the necessity of meeting such evidence :ts this record contains. As in a court of law a defendant may rest hi.s defense upon the char­acter of the prosecutor and his witnesses as established by previous convictions, so in this case I relied upon such convictions a.s sufficient to cast a doubt on the good faith of the prosecutor and the evidence of his witnesses, unless :fully "corroborat£d in material points by evidence coming from uucontaminated sources;" for it must be re­membered that of the witnesses examined by the contestant, and upon whose testimony the conclusions of the committee rest, two were convicted by the United States courts, one convicted :lJld sen­tenced to the penitentiary for burgl::try and larceny, another convicted and sentenced also to the penitentiary for grand larceny, another in­dicted for assault with intent to kill, and the contestant himself, a witness also, not only con victt-.d by Congress of having sold his client's evidence in an election case, but also tried, convicted, and sentenced in this very capital for an offense so infamous that it will not bear repetition.

At the general election of 1874 I was elected member of Congress for the second congressional district of South Carolina (including the city of Charleston) by a majority of 2,542 votes over Mr. C. W. Buttz. Mr. Buttz served me with notice of protest, concluding his protest with this allegation:

That I (C. W. Buttz) received a majority of all the le~ral votes cq,gt for member of the Forty-fourth Congress in the second congressionar district of South Carolina and am therefore entitled to the position.

This it becam-e Mr. Buttz's duty to prove. I was bound to prove nothing. It was obligatory upon Mr. Buttz to sot aside that 2,542 JD.ajority. He undertook to do so. His examination of the greater port~on of his witnesses was irregular and iilegal. I protested form­p,lly ~g~st th~ continuation of such examinat.ions, refused to attend tb~m, and never saw a large portion of his testimony until it was p'fiuted by the committee. Feeling sure that he could not reduce my vote below a large majority,· knowing the worthless and disreputable cha1 acter of his witnesses; I took no con~te~-te~t!mon!. 1 was willing,

as I am now, to let the caae stand as he made it, dne attention being given to the testimony and the witnesses as they app ar upon his record. .

The extent t,o which his proof went, without contradicting a single witness or challenging a single statement, was 897 votes, which, de­ducted from my majority of 2,542, still left me a majority of 1,645. But the committee in their report have decided to strike out all of his testimony taken after a certain time, which reduces the number of illegal votes proven by him to 789, leaving me a majority of 1,753. Upon this I submit to the Honse I had a right to stand. Mr. Buttz had undertaken to provo that this majority of 2,542 votes certified to by the proper official authority as given to me consisted of bad, ille­gal, fraudulent votes, which upon sufficient proof the committee wore bound to strike from my count. No general sta.tements, no vague allusions, no opinions however "conscientiously" held by Mr. Buttz or any other witness could be considered. Mf. Buttz had to prove that at lea~t 2,542 votes were illegally cMt and were cast for me. This he failed to do, and the committee recognize his failnre.when they refuse to seat him. The logical consequence of their refusal to seat Buttz ought to seat me. But just here the committee its~lf in­terposes t{) raise an issue not raised by Buttz, and which, therefore, I was not bound to meet. '!'he committee say to me: "It is true that Mr. Buttz claims to be legally elected, that he has undertaken to prove your 2,542 majority illegal, that he has failed to do so, bnt in proving 789 bad votes he has led us to think that there must have ueen some great frauds at this election and that all the managers must have conspired to commit them. Why did not you prove that this was not so; why did not you examine witnesses f" My reply was: "I do not think you have the right to shift the burden of proof from Mr. Buttz's shoulders to mine. Mr. Buttz undertook to make his case and has failed. I had and I have the right to stand simply on the defensive. But if you insist upon changing the issue; if you ask for proof that this election was fair and right, give me ten days, and I wfll take the testimony of every manager and United States super­visor at the Charleston polls." This clear right was refused me a month ago; and now the committee, after making the issue them­selves and refusing to allow evidence to be taken on the issue they make: pass a sweeping condemnation upon a whole community with­out giving them a chance to be heard. I submit that in common justice, when they m:tde this issue, they were bound to afford a fair trial before they decided it. For I beg the House to bear in mind that the committee, as I have said, do not charge me personally with purchasing a single vote or corrupting a single voter. At that elec­tion the general ticket upon which I was a candidate for Congress contained no less than thirty-two candidates for other offices-gov-

. ern or, lieutenant-governor, State senator, connty commissioners, mem­bers of the Legislature, &c. There is no charge against one or against all of these. The committee simply concludes that there was such general fraud as proved conspiracy or connivance on the part of the managers. The testimony made no attempt and the committee have made no attempt to bring this fraud and corruption home to me.

It is proved beyond question that I and the ticket on which I was a candidate were enthusiastically supported both by the independ­ent republicans and the democrats. In endeavoring to explain my majority the witnesses of the contestant established this. One of them says, on page Z7 :

The wealth of the city and the city go7ernment, includinJt the police force, were :ill supporting the independent republican ticket.

Again: E. W. M. Mackey, the c<wdida.te for Congress on the independent republican

ticket, is one of the cit.v aldermen, 'lnd controls the committee on the police depart. ment; and then G. I. Cunningham, the mayor, and Captain Hendricks, the chief of the police, belong to Mackey's cUque and do his bidding.

What does this mean f Who represent the wealth of the city if not its merchants, its bankers, its tax-payers f What do the city gov­ernment and the police force represent if not the order and decency of the city; and when all these elements, comprising every democrat and every independent republican in the city, by the testimony of the contestant himself, combined to support me, I appeal to the com­mon sense of everyman who hears me if my majority is not naturally and honorably explained; if there could exist in such a contest any necessity on my part for resort to the dark, dirt.y, and dangerous ways of bribery and corruption f I leave it to any representative of any city of any size in this House if with such a comuinat.ion in my favor it was possible for me to be defeated. The democratic majori t.y who make this report will scarcely take issue with me when I say that by far the larger portion of the wealth and the influence of the city of Charleston is democratic, and when they make this report they must mean to declare that from their practical experience democratic wealth and influence never interfere in an election except to influence it corruptly.

In reference to this whole allegation of enormous illegal voting in the city of Charleston, there is one sufficient and single reply. It is clear that if votes had been repeated to such an extent as the com­mittee allege, then the vote of Charleston as returned must have been much greater than its legal vote.

Now, the voting population of the city of Charleston, according to the United Stat.es census_ of 1870, was 11,550. The vote cast at thi§ election was 10,404. Where is the increase that such universal illegal voting ought to show f

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4741 Moreover, compare the vote cast at this election with the vote cast

at previous elections: ·

l~~: ~~~~~f!t~~lrg:_~~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::: :~~: k~ 1811 moni~al election ..•••••..•••..•. -~ •••••.•.•.•.••••.•.......•..•...... 10, 966

~~~~: ~:roip:l~~~~~~.-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1~: tl,~ The smallness of the vote at the general election of 1872 is owing to

the fact that the democrats took no part whatever in that election. At this point, then, of my argument I claim: 1. That I had and have a perfect right not to take counter testi­

mony but to stand upon the defensive, and that if Mr. Buttz fails to prove his case I am entitled to my seat.

2. That if the committee makes a new issu~, that of the general fairness of the election, while I do not deny their right to investigate that issue, they cannot decide it wit.hout investigation, and not only I but the people of Charleston have a right to submit testimony in proof of their innocence.

Mr. Speaker, I have said what injustice to my constituents I was bound to say. My interests or those of the contestant are not worth the consideration of this House. But surely it is a very grave exer­cise of the power of this body to record a public censure upon a W~?le constituency, to declare that one of the oldest and most honored Cities of this Commonwealth is unworthy of its right of suffrage, and that fiftv of its best-known citizens, selected for the responsible position of managers of election, placed under the sanction of their solemn oaths, corruptly conspired to defraud the people whom they represented and to perpetrate a shameful imposition upon theLegislatureof the nation. Granting that I have been altogether wrong in my management of this case as far as I was personally concerned; granting that my con­fidence in my knowledge of the truth was rash and presumptuous; gmn1!ng that. as the case was ?Dade there was _reasonable_ doubt.ex­cited m the mmds of the committee as to the frurness of this electiOn, sorely the committee had it in their power to investigate this matter, to require me to produce, what the law did not require me to offer, proof of a negative. Time sufficient bas elapsed since I formally prayed for permission to furnish this testimony for it all to have been tak(m and considered at an expense of a little time and a little labor, and sorely the question of tho disfranchisement of a whole community was grave enough to justify that expenditure of time and labor. The seat, as far as I was concerned, might be forfeited, but the censure and condemnation of the entire constituency, without opportunity of vindication, does seem not only an act of supererogation but of injus­tice. This condemnation, however, is nnsm~tained even by this ex parte, uncontradicted testimony, to the details of which I have called attent,ion, and I contend now that on its face it is unworthy of ere­deuce, that there is not a grand jury in the county where they live which would bring in a true bill upon any evidence they could give. And it does seem to me ihe strangest conception of duty that the committee was bound to accept this testimony unless it was expressly contradicted by other evidence. Is the character of the testimony itself not .. ...o be considered f Is there, can there be a more conclusive reply than the inconsist.encies of the testimony itself f And do not the acknowledged associations of the witnesses stamp ineffaceably the character of the accusation which they are called to prove f

CONCLUSION.

Before concluding I desire to explain what position I occupied in the last general electioB in South Carolina, as such explanation is necessary for a thorough understanding of this case.

At the general election of 1872 F. J. Moses, jr., was elected gov­ernor. Notwithstanding he was elected on a reform platform, his administration of affairs during the two years of his term of office was so venal and corrupt that it brought the republican party of South Carolina into disrepute all over the country. With hardly an excep­tion every republican paper in the country condemned the go~rn­ment of the republican party in South Carolina during that period as a disgrace to civilization, and they all without an exception de­clared that a continuation of such misgovernment would be a serious injury to the future prospects of the national republican party. In fact, I think it will be admitted that the mismanagement of the re­publican party in South Carolina aided the democrats considerably in obtaining their present majority in the national House of Repre­sentatives. Moses becn.me known all over the country as the robber governor of South Ca.rolina, and while still governor wa.s actually indicted by a grand jury for the crime of grand larceny and breach of trust. He escaped trial and probably conviction only by refusing to submit to arrest.

Under these oiroomstances, when the republican State convention met in 1874, many republicans entered it with t4e determination to submit only to the nomination of a man without any stain whatever upon his character. After a bitter contest Hon. D. H. Chamberlain was nominated for governor. In the opinion of many republicans he was at that time considered as very little better than Moaes. In jus­tice, however, to Governor Chamberlain I am glad to say that subse­quent events have proved that those who opposetl him knew as little about him as those who supported him. Whatever errors he may have committed, he has during his administration displayed the quali­ties of an earnel)t reformer. Nevertheless, his nomination at the time was considered as an attempt to continue the misrule of the former two years. Hardly a republican paper North approved of it; in fact,

I know of none that did except the National Republican of ~his city, (Washingt,on.) Hence many of tho best republicans in South Caro­lina refused to abide by t,he nomination, impressed with the belief that in so doing they were really acting for the best interests of the national republican :12.arty, which could no longer a:fford to be bu~·­dened by the misdoin~s of the party in onr State. Another republi­can convention was called, tow hich some of the ablest and most pop­ular repub1icans in the State were elected. They nominated a new ticket, with Judge Green, a staunch republican, as their candidate f?r governor. T~ t_ick~t was designated the inde~endel'!t republican ticket, in contradistrnctiOn to the regular republican ticket. It re­ceived the support of many thousa.nds of republicans aU over the State, and the democrats, believing that the independent republicans were in earnest in their efforts to purify the State government, re­frained from making any nominations for State officers, but voted for the independent republican nominees.

In the second congressional district the republicans who bad nom­inated Judge Green also nominated me for Congress. Previous, how­ever, ·to my nomination by the independent republicans, I had .re­ceived the regular nomination of the repnblica.n party. The regu­larity of that nomination, it is true, was disputed, owing to a divis­ion among the delegates. Eighteen of the delegates elected to the regular convention nominated me, while the remaining nine who had attempted, in violation of the party rules, to decide who the other eighteen delegates should be, united with a conteb'ting delegation from Charleston which a few days before the State convention had declared irregularly elected, and by which decision under the rules of the party in our State the congressional convention was bound. The latter convention, thus ilTe!,rularly organized, nominated the con­testant in this case, C. W. Buttz.

My nomination by the independent republican party was not sought, but was made at a time when I was confined to my room by a severe attack of illness. In the heated political campaign which follo·wed these nominations I declared in favor of Judge Green. By so doing my opponent gradually became recognized as the candidate for Con­gress of the regular republi~an :party, though in ~uth he h~ never obtained such regular nommat10n. In the electiOn l received the vote of nearly every democrat in my district, which of course elected me, since the republican vote was divided bet.ween me and the con­testant. In voting for me the democrats were fully aware that I was a republican, for I had never assumed to be anything else but a repub­lican.

Mr. THOMPSON. I move the previous question on the resolution reported by the committee.

The previous question was seconded and the main question or­dered.

l!r. THO)fl>SON. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to go into any lenO"thy discussion of this case, but merely to state to the House very bri~:fly the reasons which have ind·uced the committee to make the re­port that they have mane. '!'he contestee presents his views of the case, and presents them with considerable force, but there is this difficulty with regard to it: he has produced no particle of testimony by which to sustain the view he presents.

'l'he testimony is all upon one side. If the testimony for the con­testee had been as good as his argument it would have been of very material help to him.

The committee were compelled to make one of three reports : either to decide in favor of the sitting member or in favor of the contest­ant, or to declare the seat vacant. I am frank to say that if the con­testant were here and should present his case with the ability that the sitting member has shown, he would make out a very much bet­ter case than the sitting member bas. I will say that in my judg­ment the case of the sitting member is at least third best. [Laugh­ter.]

When the sitting member admits that in the city of Charleston we show that about 1,100 illegal votes were cast, which is saying a great deal in favor of the position of the committee-a little leaven we are told will leaven the whole lump; I think it is equally true that a great deal of corruption will corrupt the whole lump-when you start with the admitted fact that 1,100 illegal votes were given in one city, it is certainly a matter which calls for very serious consideration.

Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield to me for a word to correct '

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly, if you only desire to correct what I am saying--

Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. I wiBh to ask you a. question. Mr. THOMPSON. Very well. Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. Where is the proof that there

were 1,100 illegal votes t Mr. THOMPSON. In the printed testimony. You willseeitthere.

Where else can you expect to find itf Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. I have looked, and I count up

but 789. Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman says he counted up 789. He

certainly did very well for a man who counts so reluctantly as h&. must have counted. [Laughter.] But if he had made a fair count he would have come somewhere between 1,100 and 1,200. I will not. correct him in this matter, but I will simply say that I hope he will. make a recount.

There is certainly no member of the Committee of Elections who~

,

4742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 19,

has any but the kindest feelings toward the sitting member. We would have decided in his favor if we could have done so, and we certainly would have done so with the g:reatest pleasure. We have not found anything in the testimony which has reflected upon him per onally. But in this case we have been compelled to adopt the very impartial course of deciding for the seat itself; it is for the pro­tection of the seat rather than of the sitting member that we report.

But take the number the gentleman says, between 700 and 800 illegal votes; that is a pretty round number. The testimony is that there were between 1,100 and 1,200 illegal votes that are known to have been cast, and they saw a large number more illegal votes mov­ing in the same direction. That procession of illegal votes certainly were never half counted. They made some mistake, or they would have counted far more than the sitting member ha.s counted, more than the committee bas counted. If that procession had been fairly counted, I have no doubt that instead of 1,100 or 1,200 illegal votes there would have been found to be 3,000 illegal votes.

The city of Charleston, with a population of from forty-eight to fifty thousand, cast about 10,500 votes, I think a little more. I do not know how they obtain voters down there, but they vote very differ­ently there from what they do with us in Massachusetts.

Mr. MACKEY, of South Carolina. There were more than 11,000 legal voters in Charleston.

Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman says that that vote is among the possibilities. The United States census shows thn.t perhaps by some possibility, with the lame and the halt and the dying and those who were away, they might obtain 11,000 votes there. •

But they never voted up so close a.s that to. the number of legal voters. They must have voted there for the dead as well as the liv­ing. The number of persons who were to vote must before election duy have been diminishing from va-rious causes. I say again that there is no city in the United States with a population of the city of Charleston. that casts any such vote. They did not ca.st any such legal vote in Charleston. I submit that they could not have come within two or three thousand legal vows of that n urn ber; 8,000 votes would have been a very large vote tl:ere. I believe the second con­gressional distTict of South CaroHna would beat every other district in the United States in the number of votes cast. It is the banner district in this particular.

The testimony here shows, and I have no doubt such is the case, that . that gt·eat number of votes was obtained by Toting the same person two or three times. The testimony is not contradicted that twen·y-five men alone cast more than 600 votes. Now, if twenty­five men can cast 600 votes--

Mr. MACKEY, .of South Carolina. That statement is unsupported. Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman says that is unsupported. I do

not know what he means by that. The witnesses swear to that state­ment ; it is here in print, and it is uncontradicted. What kind of support does he expect ns to have f Does he expect us to ha,ve a cast­iron support to prop it up f This statement is supported bv the oaths of witnesses, and is not contradicted. It is very strongly supported, too, by the number of votes cast in that district, which I verily be­lieve are two or three thousand more than the number of legal voters in the district.

It was shown here conclusively that a very large number of illegal votes were cast in that district, and were cast in such a manner as to clearly implicate those who presided at the election in the fraud. It cannot be that twenty-five men can be marched up in a body in the morning and again in the afternoon and voted all at once without the officers of the election knowing something about it. Your com­mittee believe, as we here report, that it was done at least with the connivance of the officers of the election. I believe it is the safe rule that where you find the officers of election acting fraudulently, con­niving with fraud, you should place very little reliance upon their action; that such a fact should go very far toward vitiating the elec­tion.

The contestee assumes the ground that the Committee of Elections ought to be held to the specific illegal votes; that is, if the testimony does not show 2,500 illegal votes specifically by name, then he ought to retain his seat. Now we took the opposite view, and said that if there was testimony sufficient to show that the election wa.s fraudu­lent, to show that it was impossible to tell bow many legal or how many illegal votes were thrown, if the election was comlucted in such a manner as to show there wa.s no security at all for the legal voters, then it ought to be set aside and a new election ordered.

Let us see how this would stand, if we consider for a moment the 'case of Mr. Buttz. Mr. Buttz would take the ground that if we throw out these voting-precincts-those that we have thrown out-then be would have a clear and decided majority . . That certainly would be the case ; but the throwing out of more than 10,000 votes will neces­sarily disfranchise so many persons that your committee thought the election ought not to stand. They believed it fairer to all p:trties to remit the case to the people and let them determine by a fair election who their Representative shall be. That is all that this report rec­'ommends to the H(luse.

I do not think it necessary for me to go into a detailed examination ·of the matter. I think that what the Hoose baa learned from the sitting member, the evidence, and the report of the committee suffi­ces to fully justify the position of the committee upon this question, which is that the election in the city of Charleston was conducted

in such a manner and there were so many illegal votes cast that it is impossible to determine what the real vote was; that it would be unfair in a district like that to throw out one-third of the entire votes and then seat the contestant, because it is impossible to tell who the choice of the people of that rlistrict really is. Therefore we felt compelled to report that the case be remitted again to the people. The conunittee were unanimous in this decision ; and the gentleman from New York, [Mr. TowNSEND,] a member of the subcommittee of which I was the other member, came to this conclusion before we h11d any conference. The committee, looking over the whole matter, determined unanimously that neither the contestant nor the contestee was entitled to the seat. And in behalf of the committee I ask that the resolution reported by the committee may be adopted by the House.

The question waa then taken on adopting the following resolution, reported by the Committee of Elections:

11csolved, That neither C. W. Buttz nor E. W. M. Mackey wa-s lawfully elected to the F'orty-fourth Congress from the second conl?l'es. ional district of SOuth Car­olina., nor is either of them entitled to a. seat in saia CongresS.

The resolution was adopted. Mr. THO~~_PSON moved to reconsider the vot.e by which the reso­

lution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. SITIL~G COM.l\U'ITEE ON PUBLIC LANDS DURING RECESS.

Mr. WALLING. I a.sk unanimous consent for the con ideration at this time of a resolution agreed to by the Committee on Public Lands.

The Clerk read aa follows : Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be, and the 'Same is hereby, au­

thorized oo prosecute the investigation of all matters e.~pecially referred to it for in­vestigation, as also all other matters df'.mauding investiga1ion within the scope of the duties of the committee, and especiatly the inYesti~ation info the De Moines River land grant and the t:ran ·actions of tho Northern Piroitic Railroad Company and the Lake Superior and Poget Sound Land Company in relation to the dispost­tion of the public lands unoer the grant of said Pacific Railroad Company, during the recess of Congress by subcommittees to be appointed by said committeo; such subcommittees to ba.vo power to subpoona witnesses. send for persons a.nd papers, employ a stenopapber, administer oaths, and do all thing necessary for the proper performance or their duties; the expense of such investigation to be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of any funds appropriated for such purpose or funds not otherwise appropriated, upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the Com­mittee on Public Lands.

Mr. HALE. I object. This resolution, if I heard. it correctly, pro­vides for the sitting of investigating committees during the rece.ss. That I object to now and hereafter in all cases.

Mr. WALLING. I believe the gentlemstn from Maine [Mr. HALE] voted the other day for the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. OLIVER] to investigate the Des Moines River land grant. It is utterly impossible to carry out that investigation during this session; it can only be done during the recess. . ·

Mr. LUTTRELL. We agreed the other day to a resolutiOn for a committee to investigate the Chinese question during the recess.

Mr. WALLING. We have on several occasions raised committees to sit during the recess. These are questions which cannot be in­vestigated during the present session.

Mr. KASSON. Is this n. joint resolution or merely a House resoln­tionf

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a House resolution. Mr. KASSON. We cannot appropriate money by a resolution of

this House. !tlr. WALLING. Thq,t p!trt may be struck out. Mr. HALE. I object to the resolution.

MILITARY EXPEDITION AGAINST THE NORTHWEST INDIANS.

Mr. BANNING. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs to ask that an order be made for the printing of the answer of the Sec etary of War to the resolution of this House inquiring as to the object of the military expedition under Generals Crook and Terry against the Northwest Indians.

Ur. KASSON. Is this an executive communication which baR been made to the House f

Ur. BANNING. It has been made to the House and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. KASSON. Usually such communications are ordered to be printed at the time they are referred. If that was not done in this case, of course there should be no objection to doing it now.

The SPEAKER pro ternpore. The Chair will state that these exec­utive co1nmunications are usually not ordered to be printed until the committee so reports, unless a special request be made. That request is made in this instance. Is there objection f

There being no objection, it was ordered accordingly.

CONTRACTS TO FUR..~SH SOLDIERS' HEAD-STONES.

Mr. BANNING, by unanimous consent, submitted thefollowing res­olution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

.Resolved That the Committee on Military Affairs be permitted to print the tes­timony taken by that committee in reference to the contracts to furnish soldiers' hea.d.stones.

Mr. BANNING moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolu­tion wah adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The lattt\t• motion was ngreed to.

1876. OONGR.ESSIONAL REOOR.D-HOUSE. 4743 AR:M:Y APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. ATKINS. I submit the following conference report. The Clerk read as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Honse on the

amendments of th" Senate t{) the bill (H. R. No. 3717) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscnl year ending June 30. 1877, and for other plllJloses, bavmg met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do rec­omruend to their respective Houses, as follows:

That the Senate l'ecede from its amendments numbered 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 28, 33, and :15.

That the Honae recede from its disagreement to the amendments numbered 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 24, 29, 31, 36, and 37, and agree to the Rame.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment n'Jmbered 3, and agree to the 1:111.me with an amendment striking out "five" and inserting "three;" and the Senate agree to t.he same.

That the House recede from its ,disagreement to the amendment numbered 4, and agree to the same with an amendment striking out "one hundred and five" and insertin.,. "ninety;" and the Senate agreo to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 5, and agree to the s.1mo with an amendment, as follows: .

Stlike out all of said amendment after the worcl " and," in line 6, and insert in lien of the words stricken out the following: "As provided by law, with a force of enlisted men not exceeding four hundred, after present terms of enlistment ho.ve expired;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the Honl!e recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 7, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: Stiil> e out the words ·'sixty­eight" and insert in lieu thereof the word "eighteen; " and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House reoede from its disagreement to the amenrlment numbered 11, and agree to tho same with an amendment striking out "two hundred and fifteen thousand five hundred and seventy-three" and inserting ·• one hundred and sixty­one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven;" allll tho senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its di agreement to the amendment nnmbered 21, and a;?:rco to tho same with an amendment striking out "$4,000,000" and inserting "~:.l,'i50,000."

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 22, and agree to the same with au amendment striking out "one million and seventy" antl inserting "oigbt hundred and fifty;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That tbeHon~>e recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 23, and agree to tho same with an amendment., as follows: At the end of said amendment add tho following: "Provided, Tba euch assignment of recruits shall not increase the tot1.l aggrega~e of tho Army Lt~yond the number of 25,000 enlisted men, as proYided for in uris act ; " and the Senate agree to the same.

That tho Hoose recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 25, and agree to t.he same with an amendment. as follows: Strikeout from said amendment tho word "nine" antl insert in lieu thereof the word" five;" and the Senate agree t.o the same.

That tho House recede from its disag1eementto the amendment numbered 26, and agree to the same with au amendment, as follows: Strike out from said ame.ndment "1ivo hundred" and insert in lien thereof "one hundred and fifty," and st1ike out all of tho pro>iso; and the Senate agree to the same.

That thl'- House recede from its clisagreemant to the amendment numbered :.lO, and a~ree to the same with an amenrlment, as follows: Strike out from said amendment tho W<'rd "five" and insert in lieu thereof the word "four;" and the Senate agree to the same.

'!'hat the Hoose recede from its disa.greement to the amendment numbered 32, and agree to tho same with an amendment, as follows: Retain the proviso pro­pose(l to be stricken out; and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its ilisagreement to the amenclment numbered 34 and a,...rrree to the same with an amendment, as follows: Strike out" two hundred •1 ancl insert" one hundred and seventy-five," and insert at the end of the bill the following:

SEc. 3. Thateverymilitmy postmayhaveone trader, to be appointed bytheSec­reta.ry of War on tho recommendatiOn of the council of admimstration approved by tbe commanding officer, who shall be subject in all respects to the rules and rerru lations for tho government of the Army.

SEC. 4. That the whole subject.matterof reform and re-organization of the Army of the United States shall be referred to the commission hereinafter provided for, who shall carefully and thorongl.Jly examine into the matter with reference to the demands of the public service, as to the number and pay of men and officers and tho proportion of the several a.:ms, 1\Jld also as to the rank, pay, and duties of the several staff corps. and whether any and what reductions can be made either in the line or staft~ in numbers or in pay, by consolidation or otherwise, consistently with the public service, having in view a just and reasonable economy in tho expendi­ture of public money, the actual necessities of the military seTvioo, and the capacity for rapid and effective increase in time of adual war.

The commission hereby created shall consist of two members of the Senate and two members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the presiding officers of each House respectively, of the Secretary of War and two officers of the Army. one from the line and one from the staff corps, to be selected by the Presi­dent with special reference to their knowledgt} of the organization and experience in service.

Such commission shall assemble as soon as practicable and proceed to the consid­eration of the matters with which they are charged, and make report to Congress by the first day of the next session through the President of the United States with all the evidence, record or otherwise, which they shall have received and considered.

And the sum of $1,000 is hereby appropriated from the contingent fund of the War Department to defray the expenses of such commission, to be expended under the direction of the president of said commission.

J'. D. C. ATKINS, H. B. BANNING, S. A. HURLBUT,

Managers on the part of the House. W. B . .ALLISON, J'NO . .A. LOGAN, J. B. GORDON,

Managers on the part of the Se1&af.e.

Mr. ATKINS. I demand the previoua question on the adoption of that report.

The previoua question was seconded and the main question ordered. Mr. ATKINS. I desire to submit a. remark or two in explanation

of the report. It will be observed that the House bill, which pro­vided for the re-organization of the Army, was not acceptable to the Senate. The Senate declined to agree to the re-organization. They dec1ined also to agree to the decrease of the Army from 25,000 to 22,000 enlisted men. They also objected to the decreru:;e of the salaries of

officera. The committee upon the part of the Honse concurred finally with the Senate committee in recommending to the Honse and to the Senate that a commission should he appointed, composed of two mem­bers of the House and two of the Senate, appointed by their respect­ive presiuing officers, also of the Secretary of War, and an officer of the line and an officer of the staff, appointed by the President of the Unit.ed States, who should sit during the recess, and submit a report to Congress at its next session, embracing the whole subject of the re-organization of the Army, the reduc:ion of salaries, the reduction in the numbers, the reduction in the number of officers, &.c. The con­ferees upon the part of the House thought it was wise to agree to that propo~:~ition. We believe, sir, that there can be and will be a perma­nent reform effected by the commission; and therefore, without giv­ing the reasons for that opinion, we concur in the recommendation of the Senate conferees.

This bill does not uiminish the actual force of the enlisted men in the Army. The force is kept at 25,000 men, aa now provided by law. It does not touch the salaries of any of the officers; not in a. single instance. It diminishes the force in the Signal Corps from four hundred and fifty to four hundred men. The House reduced it to three hundred and fifty, and the conference report puts the number at four hundred men. The Senate had fixed it at four hundred and fifty. The House bill had fixed the number of Indian econts at one hundred and fifty; the Senat,e insisted upon three hundred. And as one hundred and twenty of those Indian scouts fell with the la­mented Custer the other day, the conferees on the part of the Honse thought the demand was reasonable; and we agreed. ta the amend­ment of the Senate fixing the number of Indian scouts at three hun­dred men. The companies of cavalry, under this conference report, are increased to one hundred men. I believe that those ~tre the dis­tinctive features of the bill as agreed to in the committee of con­ference.

Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to ask the gentleman to make a statement of the difference in figures between the bill as now pre­sented and the bill as it passed the Honse and as it passed the Senate.

Mr. EDEN. Before the gentleman from 'fennessee passes to that I would. like to know if I understood the gentleman correctly. Is there an actun,l increase in the number of the Army under this bill f

Mr. ATKINS. No, sir. I said there was not an actual increase. Mr. EDEN. I misunderstood the gentleman. Mr. ATKINS. The Army remains at twenty-five thousand enlisted

men as now provided by law. Mr. HOLMAN. There is an increase in tho number of scouts. Mr. ATKINS. It is not an increase in the number of scouts as pro­

vided by law, but an increase over the number provided in the Honse bill. .

In reply to the question of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] I will say that the original estimates aa submitted by Ex­Secretary of War Belknap for the support of the Army for the pres­ent year enuing June 30, 1877, were 33,348,708.50. Secret.ary Taft revised those estimates, and reduced them five millions; leaving them at $~,793,708.50. The bill for the support of the Army for the last fiscal year endin~ J tme 30, 1876, appropriated $27,933,830. The Honse Appropriations uommittee reported to the House a bill appropriat­ing .23,155,077.12 for the support of the Army for this year. As it passed the House it appropriated $24,183,259.06, including the unex­pended balances. The bill as it passed the Senate appropriated $27,561,361.40. The net increase of the Senate bill over the Honse bHl was 3,378,102.~4. The bill as it passed. the conference committee a.nd which is now presented to the House appropriates $26,069,167.80. The reduction made in conference as conceded by the Senate was $1,492,193.60. The House concession was $1,885,908.74. The amount appropriated for this fiscal year below that appropriated for the last fiscal year for the support of the Army is $1,864,662.20.

In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the House bill was upon the basis of 22,000 enlisted men, I consider that the reductions as made in this conference report are very reasonable.

Mr. BANNING. And we have given one hundred and fifty addi­tional scouts.

Mr. ATKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. STONE. Will the gentleman from Tennessee yield to me for a

question f Mr. ATKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. STONE. Has that report been printed. Mr. ATKINS. I am not a very good parliamentarian, but I think

the gentleman's question comes too late if he intends to make the point of ordet that the bill is not printed, the main question having been ordered.

Mr. STONE.. I merely asked the question for information. I think the House should understand what it is voting on. I venture to say that there a.re not more than three men in the Houae who understand. it.

Mr. ATKINS. The gentleman should speak for himself and not for tho House.

The report of the committee of conference was agreed to. :Mr. ATKINS moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of

the committee of conference was agreed to; and also moved that tb.e motion to reconsider be laid on the table. ·

The latter motion was agreed to.

4744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUS;E. JULY 19,

PRmiNG OF TESTIMONY.

Mr. SINGLETON, from t he Committee on Printing, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Jlesolved, That the testimony and evidence taken before the Committee on Ex­penditures in the War Department be printed for the use of the House.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to reconsider the vote by which the l'eso­lntion was adopted; and also roofed that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. PLAISTED, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the follow­ing titles; when the Speaker pto tempore signed the same:

An act (H. R. No. 1427) for the relief of H. P. Jones & Co.; and An act (H. R. No. 3855) for the relief of George T. Olmsted, jr. Mr. BAKER, from the same committee, reported that they bad ex­

ft,mined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title; when the Speaker pro tempore signed the same:

An act (H. R. No. 1771) to declare forfeited to the United States certain lands granted to the State of Kansas in aid of the construc­tion of railroads by act of Congress approved March 3, 1863.

RESIGNATION OF A MEMBER.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair lays before the House a communication which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk rea'(} as follows: W A8HINGTON, J'IJ),y 19, 1876.

To the honorable the Speaker of the House of RepresentativtUt of the United States: · I herebv respectfully resign my seat as a. membl\r in the House of Represent:l­tives of the United States of the Forty-fourth Congress.

Very respectfully, your obedient stJrvant, WINTHROP W. KETCHAM.

PROTECTION OF TEXAS FRONTIER.

Mr. SCHLEICHER. I now move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Uniou for the purpose of considering the joint resolution (H. R. No. 96) to provide for the pro­tection of the Texa-s frontier on the Lower Rio Grande.

Pending that motion I move that all debate upon the pending sec­tion and amendments thereto be closed in fifteen minutes.

The motion to close deba.te was ltO'reed to. The question was t.'tken on Mr. ScHLEICHER's motion to go into

Committee of the Whole on the state ofthe Union, and it was agreed to.

The Honse accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, (.Mr. MoNROE in the chair,) and resumed t.he consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 96) to provide for the protection of the Texas :f!:ontier on the Lower Rio Grande.

The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House the five-minute debate upon the whole bill is limited to fifteen minutes.

A1r. SCHLEICHER. Mr. Chairman, there are two substitutes of­fered in place of the second section of the joint resolution, and before the Honse decides which of the two to vote for I will say a few words upon t.be necessity of having this secoml section or one of the substi­tutes adopted.

It ha.s frequently before been mentioned that all the milit.ary men who appeared before the committee and who were familiar with the condition of affairs upon the Lower Rio Grande with one voice insisted that there was a necessity of having this power to cross the river in order to have efficient protection. The reason for it is this: Upon our side of the river there is a dense thicket extending in a width of :fifteen or twenty miles along the banks of the river, and experience has shown that in nine cases out of ten the raiders, if seen or encoun­tered at all, were met by the troops just as they emerged from that thicket and were on the point of crossing the river with their booty. No matter how many troops are stationed there for defensive pur­poses this thing will continue, for if experience has ta.ugbt anything it bas taught this: That the troops will find, in nine cases out of ten, the raiders emerging from the thicket and in the act of oro sing the river, and iu many cases they have a p:1rt of the herd of stolen cattle grazing on the other side of the river and parade them before the eyes of our soldiers; and in such ca-ses our troops have nothing to do but to stand idle and look at these raiders, who from the opposite banks cast all sorts of epithet~ against. our men. Sir, I have been assured that old soldiers have stood upon our banks of the river act­ually crying for mortification and. sha~ that these men, who had been for years preying upon our people, right in view of them car­ried off t.beir booty and laughed at them.

Does this House wish such a state of things as that to continue f It is a perfect farce to say that, if our troops are sent there for the purpose of preventing these raids and they are in sight of the robbers and the stolen cattle, they must not follow or the Mexican government will make it a cause of war. It is perfectly ridiculous according to my views. No sensible government could make a case of war out of such an occurrence.

But gentlemen are exceedingly tender not to interfere with the boundary of Mexico or the rights of the .Mexican government. I wish, sir, that some of that tenderness could be transferred to our own peo­ple. Is not our boundary as sacred in our (_\yes as that of the Mexi­cans f And yet in the last ten years again and again have '' armed

bands invading our country from Mexico," as the President says in his message, oro ed our borders and right under our eyes have drained our country of its wealth and resources and murdered our people. Sir, they have established communities of robbers upon our borders and all milita.t·y men say that it is impossible by defensive acts upon this side of the border alone to break up this system.

The committee were at first not in favor of recommending a meas­ure of this kind, but they were forced to the conclusion by the evi­dence adduced before them that the defense of the border would be very imperfect without this power and that it is a necessary incident of our self-defense.

I say that for ten years these Mexicans in armed bands have crossed over the border and disregarded our boundary. They have heaped insults upon us for ten years in succession, continually, and without ' cessation.

Now, as regards the feelings of the Mexicans; gentlemen have dwelt upon the fact tbat the Mexicans would be offended if we did this thing. I suppose that, in the :first place, they really would be oftended at having their cheap market for beef broken up. Then, again, it is said that the patriotic feelings of the Mexicans would be aroused by our crossing mto their territory. I ask gentlemen if the feelings of our own people do not deserve .some consideration also. The feelings of our people have been outraged for ten years past, not only by these armed bands of Mexicans passing over into our country, but by their robbing and murdering our people; a thing which it is not expected that our soldiers would ever do. I claim that a share at least of this sympathy which is so very freely bestowed upon the Mexican people sboulrl be bestowed upon our people also.

[Here the hammer fell.] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. BANKS. I desire to modify the amendment which I submitted

yesterday in regard to the notice to be given to the government of .Mexico. Instead of saying " after due notice," I will modify it so as to require "the President of the United States to give to the gov­ernment of Mexico full and sufficient notice of the intention of this Government/' &c.

Now a word or two in regard to my pprpose in offering this amend­ment. It was one that I suggested to the committee as embodying my views of the question at the time the subject was originally brought up for consideration. It is indispensable that there should be some power to follow those invaders of OUl' country when we are in close pursuit of them in possession of their booty in order that we may re­cover from them the property they have stolen. As the chairman of the committee [b1r. SCHLEICHER] has said and as every witness has testified, these raitlers simply cross back to the other side of the Rio Grande, and there they stop and defy our troops who are in pursuit of them.

Tha House very generally and I think very properly hesit:l.tes to authorize any act which may result in war and which may be con­sidered by the government of Mexico a~:~ an act of war. Many persons think that for Congress to grant authorit:v to our troops to cross the border between the two countries would be an act of war. There is a precedent which we can follow and which will relieve us of all difficulty in this matter.

In 1868, I think it was, there wns a statute passed in relation to the arrest of naturalized citizens of this country while in foreign coun­tries. They arrested our naturalized citizens and refused to release them or to consider their case at all as naturalized citizens of this country. For fifty years we b~d demanded a hearing and discussion of that question, and it had been refused. The Honse of Repre ent­atives by a very decided vote pa-ssed a bill authorizing the President of the Umted States on the arrest of a naturalized citizen in a for­eign country and a refusal to relea-se him on 'demand of this Govern­m«mt, to make n. reprisal by arresting any subject of that government who should be found within the juriscliction of the United States.

Upon a. discussion of the question, the Senate thought that thit~ re­prisal would amount to an act of war. But that is not so. A reprisal is not an act of war of itself. It may be atteEded by circumstances which would make it an act of war; but in itself an act of reprisal is not an act of war. But to avoid this difficulty, the Senate adopted this phraseology : If the release so demanded ia unreasonably delayed or ref need, it shall be tho duty

of the Pr68ident to use such means, not amountiag to acta of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obt:.~.in or effectuate suc\ release.

The House accepted that phraseology. Upon the passage of that act followed the naturalization treaties which have secured in nearly all foreign countries the recognition of the rights of naturali~ed citi­zens upon exactly the same basis as those of native-born citizens.

I have adopted that phraseology in the amendment I have pro­posed. The advantage of that is that whatever is done cannot of itself be an act of war, because the President hal! no authority to do anything which shall amount to an act of war. If, for example, a person be killed or if an innocent person be injured in his property or his rights, it will admit of an explanation on the part of this coun­try to the Mexican government and of compensation to the person injured. Therefore, there can be no possibility of this act being of itself ::m act of war, because the President has no authority to mako any act of war, and it admits of a proper consideration for any injus­tice done to a Mexican subject or of explanation to the Mexican gov· ernment and a proper apology being made for it.

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECOR.D-HOUSE. 4745 In addition to this, it gives us the right to follow up on the in­

stant these men who come over our borders and rob onr people and return to the Mexican territory with our property. These men are not .Mexican subjects; they are not citizens of the United States. They are outlaws; they are robbers; and the Mt>.x.ican government does uot pretend to bold itself responRible for them. Therefore if we follow the wake of such men when they are fleeing from our country with the property of our people in theu possession, and arrest them and recapture that property, it cannot be re~arded by the Mexican ~overnment as an act of war or as an act of inJustice, especia11y when 1t is predicated upon the ot.her fact that this proceeding is not to be undertaken until a. full a.nd sufficient notice shall have been given of our purpose to the Mexican government and the President shall have been satisfied that the Mexican government ia unable to protect our rights in this regard.

[Here the hammer fell.] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. TUCKER. :Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the question

stands before the committee just now. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state the position of the ques­

tion if it is desired. When the committee rose yesterday there wera two substitutes pending. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKs,] who ha.'i just resumed his seat, offered a substitute for sec­tion 2. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. TUCKER,] who has just claimed the floor, offered a substitute for the substitute of the gentle­man from .Massachusetts. As the matter now stands the vote will be first taken on the substitute of the gentleman from Virginia, and then on that of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairruan, the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts has the same purpose as my own. The only difference between the two propositions is that mine is more specific. It fixes the terms of the notice that shall be given to the Mexican government before there shall be any action taken by the President of the United States; and it directs the President to present to the government of Mexico a formal statement of the injuries and damages 8uffered by citizens of the United States from these inroads and inva­sions, and formally to demand the prevention and restraint by that government of such inroads and invasions in the fulinre. It then provides that, "if the Mexican government shall not within four months after such formal statement and demand take effective meas­ures to prevent such inroads and invasions, the President of the United States" shall be" authorized to use the Army" "to drive out any bands of invaders and to pursue them into the territory of Mexico for the sole purpose of recovering the property taken from citizens or others under the protection of the United States," guarding a.gainst unnec­eRSary injury to the persons or property of peaceable inhabitants of Mexico.

It further provides that the President shall notify this joint resolu­tion to the Mexican government with a remonstrance against these wrongs and that, " while forbearing to take any measures but such as are recognized as just and proper between nations at peace, the Gov­ernment of the United States will be constrained, saving the peace­ful relations between the two countries, to take such action as is in­dicated by this joint resolution, nnleBB the Mexican government shall effectually prevent the evils complained of in the future.''

Now, the substitute of the distinguished gentleman from Massa­chusetts provides only til at-

Whenever it shall appear to the President that the govemment of Mexico is un­able to prevent the existing lawless inva!!ion-

Now, my amendment proposes that when this shall appear to the President, if four months elapse without the Mexican government making reparation or taking any steps in the matter, the President may use the Army to drive out bands of invaders.

The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts continues­he shall be, and hereby is, authorized, if in his judgment it becomes necessary, after full and sufficient notice to the government of Mexico-

This does not fix the term of the notice-to order the troops charged with the defense of the territory of the United StAtes, when in close pursuit of invaders, to cross the Rio Grande, &c.

I think, therefore, with very great deference t0 the views of my distinguished friend, that perhaps the substitute which I offer is more specific and definite, particularly in the matter of notice; and I should prefer, on that account, to see it adopted, although of coul'Se if the gentlemen in charge of this bill prefer that of the gentleman from .Massachusetts, I have no special objection.

Mr. SCHLEICHER. I believe I can say on behalf of the commit­tee that they are entirely satisfied to accept the substitute of the gen­tleman from Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to remind the committee that the time limited for debate by order of the House has closed.

Mr. BAN~S. I desire to say that I modify my amendment in ac­cordance w1th the suggestion of the gentleman from Vir~nia by striking out the words ~'full and sufficient notice" and insertmg "no­tice of four months."

The CHAIRMAN. The first question is on agreeing to the substi­tute of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TucKER] for the substitute of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS.]

l\1r. STEVENSON. I ask that both the substitutes may be read. Mr. PAG~. I understand that the committeo have accepted the

substitute of the gentleman from Massachusetts in place of the sec­tion as it stands.

Mr. THORNBURGH. The committee has no power to do that; there must be a vote upon it.

Mr. PAGE. I ask that the second section as well as the proposed substitutes be reacl.

The Clerk read the second section, as follows: SEC. 2. That, in view of the inability of the national government of Mexico to

prevent the inroads of lawless parties from Mexican soilmto Texas, the President 111 hereby authorized, whenever, in his judgment, it shall be necessary for the pro· tootion of the rights of American citizens on the Texas frontier above described, to order the tToops., when in bot pureuit of the robbers with their booty, to cross the Rio Grande and nse such mean11 as they may find nece88ary for recovering the stolen property and checking the raid~ guardlng, however, m all cases, against any unnecesaary injury to peaceable inhabitants of Mexico.

The Clerk also read the following proposed substitute of Mr. BANKs, as modified :

That, whenever it shall appear t{) the President that the government of Mexico is unable to prevent the existin~ lawless invasion of the territory of the United States from :Mexico for purposes of plunder or robbery, he shall be, and hereby is, authorized, if in his judgment it becomes necessary, after notice of four months to the g-overnment of Mexico, tc() order the troops charged with the defense of the ter· rit{)ry of the United States, when in close pursuit of such invaders, to cross the Rio Gr:mde and to use snch means, not amounting to acts of war, as may be req ui­aite for the recovery of stolen property and to protect the citizens and territ<>ry of the United States against the acts of outlaws and robbers.

The Clerk also read the proposed substitute of Mr. TUCKER, as fol. ~m: :

SEc. 2. That the President of the United States be authorized and is hereby re­quested to pr68ent to the Jrovernment of Mexico a. formal statement of the injuries and damages done to the citizens of the United States by the inroads and invasions of the Unit~d States by lawless bands from the Mexican states; and, further­more, to demand. that the government of Mexico shall prevent and restrain allsuoh inroarls and in:vl\Sions in future.

If tho Me3"ic.;..n government shall not within four months after such formal state­ment 11-nrl dema.nrl take effective mea-sures to prevent such inroads and invasions, the Presio.c-nt of th~ United States is hereby authorized to use the Army of the United States, or so much thereof as he may doom necessary, to drive out any bands of in­vaders and t.o pursue them in to t be territory of Mexico for the sole puri>ose of recov­ering the property taken from citizens or other1:1 under the protection of the United States, guarding m all cases against any unnecessary injury to the persons or prop. erty of veaceable inhabitants of Mexico.

The President is furl.ber requested at once to notify ~his joint resolution to the Mexican government. With an earnest remonstrance agamst the wrongs done to the people of the Umted Stat.es, and that, while forbearing to take any measures buli such as are recogniwd as .i ust and proper between nations at peace, the Governmen~ of the United States will be constrained, savin~ the peaceful relations between the two conutries, to take such action as is indicated by this ,joint resolution, unless the Mexican government shall effectually prevent the evils complained of in the future.

The question being taken on agreeing to the substitute of Mr. TucKER, it was not agreed t.o.

The question w::tB then taken on agreeing to the substitute of Mr. BANKS ; and there were-ayes 88, noes 5; no quorum voting.

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the substitute will be regarded as agreed to.

.Mr. SCHLEICHER. I move th!l.t the committee rise and report the joint resolution to t.he House.

.Mr. CONGER. There was no quorum, and I think on a declaration of war we should have a quorum. .

The CHAIRMAN. The vote is still to be taken on the second sec­tion as amended by the substitute, which question the Chairman will put to the committee. The question is on agreeing to the second section of the joint resolution as amended by the substitute of tho gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKs.]

M·r. CONGER demanded a division. The committee divided; and there were-ayes85, noes 38; no quorum

voting. The CHAIRMAN. Is a further count insisted upon f Mr. CONGER. I shall ask for the yeas and nays on that amend­

ment in the House. Mr. BURCHARD, of illinois. When the substitute was adopted

what neceBSit.y was there for putting the question again T The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps the gentleman from Illinois is \echni-

c~lly right. : Mr. CONGER. If gentlemen agree there shall be a vote by yeas

and nays in the House, I will not object to the adoption of the sec­ond section as amended.

Mr. SCHLEICHER. I agree you shall have the yeas and nays on that question in the House.

Mr. CONGER. Very well; I do not ask for a fnrt1ler count . The second section, as amended, was then adopted. Mr. SCHLEICHER. I move the committee rise and report the bill

to the House. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker pro tempare hav­

ing taken the cho.ir, Mr. MoNROE reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the joint resolution (H. R. No. 96) to provide for the protection of the Texas frontier on the Lower Rio Grande, and had directed him to report the same back to the Honse with sundry amendments.

Mr. SCHLEICHER. I call for the previous question on the joint resolution and amendments.

:Mr. CONGER. I hope the gentleman will not attempt that. I wish to make a remark or two on the joint resolution.

4746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 19,

Mr. SCHLEICHER. Let the House decide whether it will sustain the demand for the previous question or not.

The previous question was seconded n.nd the main question ordered. SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATION BU.L.

A message was received from the Senn.te, by Mr. SYMPSON, o~e of their clerks, announcing the adoption of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R.No. 37 49) making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1877, and for other pur­poses.

PROTECTION OF TEXAS FRONTIER. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendments reported from the

Committ.~e of the Whole on the state of the Union will now be read in their order.

The Clerk read a.s follows: In lines 9 and 10, strike out "the northern boundary of the State of T:un1.ulipas,

above Laredo," and in lieu thereof insert" Fort Duncan, and above if necessary." The amendment was concurred in. The Clerk read as follows: Adtlt.o line 15, after the word "service," the followin~: "And the me:umres herein

directed shall be carried out without delay, any restrictions or limitations in the laws in regard to the Army notwithstanding."

Mr. CONGER. There was a proviso to that amendment. The SPEAKER pto tempore. The Chair is auvised that they were

separate amendments. · . i\1r. CONGER. Let the proviso be read. The Clerk read as follows: ProJJided, That no part of the troops provided for by this resolution r3h:ill be

taken from any State or service where troops may now or hereatter be stationed, if in the jud:pnent of the President the public service requires a continuance of troops in suon localities.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is this all one amendment! The SPEAKERp1'o tempore. The Chair is now informed it is one

amendment. 1\fr. HOLMAN. One provision changes the laws in regard to the

Arms--The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not open to debate. Mr. CONGER. Then the vote is to be taken upon it as one propo-

~tiouf · The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 56, noes 101. Mr. HALE. I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. RANDALL. Let the amendment be again read. The amendment was again read. Mr. RANDALL. That increases the Army. Mr. KASSON. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. The first por­

tion on the recommendation of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. SCHLEICHER] was adopted, and after that, a-s a separate proposition, the proviso was adopted as an independent amendment. If that be so, we can call for a division of the vote on the separate amendments.

The SPEAKER pro tem,pore. '.fhe Chair is informed these amend.­ments were offered by different members of the committee and sepa­rately voted on. That being the case, they must necessarily be voted on separately.

Mr. HOLMAN. They cn.me to the House as one amendment, the proviso being offered as an amendment to the amendment, both con­stituting one amendment.

Mr. GARFIELD. It is plainly divisible. It is the Hancock amend-ment on which we ask th~ yeas and mtys. .

Mr. BANKS. The latter is a separate proposition unquestionably. Mr. KASSON. Put on in Committee of the Whole by a separate

vote. Mr. GARFIELD. We ask for the yev.s and nays on the Hancock

amendment, and not on the first branch of it. We do not propose to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANDALL. One is to be put down; is that the idea f Mr. GARFIELD. No; we ask for the yeas and nays on the Han-

cock amendment. . · Mr. SCHLEICHER. The first has lost its importance since the con­ference report on the Army bill has been adopted which leaves the Army at twenty-five thousand.

Mr. HALE. If the Chair will pardon a sug~estion--The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chn.ir is willing to accept sugges·

tions, but he is more anxious to learn the facts from the Clerk. Mr. HALE. I called the yeas and nays, intending to call them

upon the Hancock amendment, bearing in mind, a-s I did, yesteruay, in Committee of the Whole, the two propositions were not one_ amend­ment. I do not think any member here will concede one proposition is in any way dependent upon the other. They were separate and distinct propositions. Upon one there was quite a contest, tellers being called, and a close vote of the committee being had. That was the Hancock :1mendment, and it was upon that I intended to call the yeas and nays. I do not desire to have the yeas and nays on the other proposition.

Mr. HOLMAN. As the measure comes to the House, whn.t is called a separate amendment is a proviso to a proposition aJ.opted by the Committee of the Whole, and however separately acted on in com­mittee, both come into the House as one proposition.

1\!r. KASSON. I suggest the gentleman from Indiana is in error. The SPEAKER p1·o tmnpm·e. It is not. necc1:1sary for this matter to

be discUl:ised further. The Chair is ready to decide the point. Mr. \V ARREN. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry different

from anything which bas hitherto been suggested. The question I desire to 3Sk of the Chair is whether a motion to commit this bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire andre­port if it interferes with the constitutional power of the President over the Army, would be in order t

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a motion would not be in order, as the previous question is operating. The Chair is informed by the Clerk that the amendment, and whn.tisapparentlya proviso to it, were entertained in the Committee of the Whole as entirely different prop­ositions ; that one came in a considerable time after the other had been adopted. The proviso was adopted as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. SMALLs,) whereas the other was offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. ScHLEICHER] on behalf of the committee, and was separately voted on. More than that, the Chair must say that the amendment and proviso involve distinct propositions, at lenst to such an extent that a division upon them could be had at n.ny rate. The question is upon the amendment first reported by the Clerk. It will be again reported.

The Clerk read as follows : Add to the :first section these words: And tho me<~sm·es herein directed shall be carried ont without delay, any r&·

striations or linaita.t·ions in the laws in regard to the Army notwithstanding . Mr. RAI-l"'DALL. That increases the Army. • Mr. SCHLEICHER. I desire to say that I consider that a.mend­

ment entirely immaterial, since both Houses have UJ?yeed to the re­port of the committee of conference on the Army bill, under which the Army is not to be reduced.

Mr. HALE. I do not call for the yeas and nays on that amendment. The question being taken on the a.menfunent, it wa not agreed to. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the next amend-

tnent. · The Clerk read as follows: Add at the end of tho first section tb~ following : Provided, That no part of the troops provitled for by this resolution shall be takt:·n

from any St.ate or service where troops may now or hereafter b stationed. if. in the judgment of the President, the public service requires the continuation of troops in such localities.

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. On this amendment the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. HOLUAN. I rise to a question of order. The amendment to which this proviso was at.tached having been voted down, I submit that the proviso falls with it.

Mr. GARFIELD. The proviso atta{)bes to the section, and not to · the amendment which has been voted down.

The SPEAKER pro tmnporc. Tbe Chair overrules the point. of order. The question was taken; and there were-yea-s 80, nays 98, not vot­

ing 106; as follows: YEAS-Me srs. Ainsworth, Anderson, John H. Baker, William .!I. Baker, Bal­

lou, Banks, Bell, Blair, Bradley, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Burleigh, Cannon, Conger. Dan·all, Dav:v, Dobbins, Dunnell, Durand, Eames, Evans, Foster, Garfield, Hale, Hancock, llardenbergh, Hendee. Ho_ge, Holman, Hoskins. Hunter, Kasson, Kelley, rum ball, Lawrence, Leavenworth, LeMoyne, Magoon, MacDougall, Mc.Dill, Miller, Monroe, Mor~an. Nash, Nor ton, t iliver, O'Neill. Packer, Page, Pasne, William A. Phillips, Plaisteu, Platt, Potter, Pratt, Rainey, John Reilly, James B. Reilly. Rusk, Sampson, &wage, Sinnickson, Smalls, A. Herr Smith, Stevenson, Tarbox, Thornburgh, Martin I . Townsend, Washington Townsend. Tuft-s, Van Vorhes, Wait, Charles C. B. Walker, Alexander S. Wallace, Willard, Alpheus •. Williams, Charles G. Williams, Jarues D. Williams,Willia.m B. Williams, and Wil· lis-80.

NAYS-Messrs. Ashe, Atkins, Bagby, John H. Bagley,jr., Bannin.,., Blackburn, Bland, Boone, Bradford, Bright, John Young Brown, Buckner, SamuelD. Burchard, Cabell, John H. Caldwell, William P. Caldwell, Candler, Cate, Caulfield, John B. Clarke of Kentucky, Clymer, Cochrane, Collins, Cook, Uox, Culberson, Cutler, Davis, De Bolt, Dibrell, Dougla-s, Eden, Felton, Finley, Forney, Fort, Gib ou, Glover, Goode, Gunter, Andrew H. Hamilton, John T. Harris, Hartrid:;e, Hartzell, Hatcher, Henkle, Hereford, Abram S. Hewitt, Hill, House, Thomas L. Jones, Kebr, Lamar, Franklin Landers, Lane, Lovy, Lewis, Luttrell, Mackey, Maish, McFarland, Metcalfe, Milliken, Mills, Mutchler. New, Phelps, Piper, Randall Rea. gan Rice. Ridille, William M. Robbins, Miles Ross, So..'\les, Schleicher, Singleton, William E. Smith, Southa.rd, :Spencer, Springer, Stone, TetTy, Thompson, Thomas, Throc.kmorton, Tucke", Turney, John L. Vance, Robert B. Vance, Waddell, War­ren, Erastus Wells, Whitehouse, Wigginton, James Williams, Jeremiah N. Will­iams, and Young-98.

NOT VOTL.~G-Messrs. Ad~tms, George A. Bagley, Bass, Beebe, Bliss. Blount, Campbell, Cason, Caswell, Uha.pin, Chittenden, John B. Clark, jr., of Missouri, Cowan, Crapo, Urounse, Danford, Denison, Durham, Egbert, . ~llis, Ely, Faulkner, Franklin, Freeman Frye. Fuller, Gause, Goodin, Robert Hamilton, Haralson, Ben­jamin W. Harris, Henry R. Harrisl Harrison, Hathorn, Haymond, Hays, IIenderson, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hoar, HooKer, Hopkins, Hubbell, Hunton, ti:urd, Hurlbut, Hyman, Jenks, Frank Jones, Joyce, King, Knott, George M. Landers, Lapham, Lord, Lynch, Lynde, McCrary, McMahon, Meade, Money, Morrison, Neal, O'Brien, Odell, John F. Philips, Pierce, Poppleton, Powell, Purman, Rea, John Robbins, Roberts, Robinson. Sobieski Ross, Sayler, Sobu 'llaker, Seel;v.e, Sheakley, Slemons, Sparks, Strait, Stenger, Stowell, Swann, Teese, Waldron, Gilbert C. Walker, John W. Wallace, Wallirig, Walsh. Ward, G. Wiley Wells, Wheeler, White, Whiting, Whittborne, Wike, Andrew Williams, Wilshire, Benjamin Wilson, James Wilson, Alan Wood,jr., Fernando \Vood, Woodburn, Woodworth, and Yea.tes-106.

So the amendment was not agreed to. During the roll-call tho following announcements were made: Mr. VANCE, of Ohio. .My colleague, Mr. POPPLETON, is absent by

leave of the Hou e. Mr. SA. VAGE. 1\Iy colleague from Ohio, 1\!r. McMAHoN, is enga.ged

on the impeachment trial.

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A.TE. 4747 Mr. CA.BELL. My colleague from Virginia, Mr. HuNToN, is de­

tained from the Rouse by sickn·ess. Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. I desire to announce that Mr.

WELLS, of Mississippi, is absent on account of illness. · Mr. CASON. I am paired with my colleague from Indiana, Mr.

FULLER. I do not know bow he would vote on this amendment; but I presume if he were here be would vote "no," :md I would vote" ay."

l\Ir. COCHRANE. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. STENGER, is sick and is absent by leave of the House.

1\ir. DUNNELL. I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. STRAIT, was yesterday called away by important business.

Mr. BRADLEY. My colleague, Mr. WALDRON, is absent by leave of the House.

Mr. EGBERT. I am paired with my colleague, Mr. WALLACE. If he were here be would vote "ay" and I should vote "no."

cA"r. MAcDOUGALL. _My colleague, Mr. ADAMs, is absent on ac­co"tl:nt of illness. If present he would vote "ay."

The result of the vote was then announced. The next amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole

on the state of the Union was the following, as a substitute for the . second section of the joint resolution:

That, whenever it shall appear to the President that the government of Mexico is unable to prevent the existing lawless invasion of the territory of the United States from M.exico for purposes of plunder or robbery, he shall be, and hereby is, authorized, if in his judgment it becomes necessary, after notice of forty days to the government of Mexico, to order the troops charged with the defense of the terri­tory of the United States, when in close pursuit of such invaders, to cross the. ~o Grande and to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as may be reqrus1te for the recovery of stolen property and to protect the citizens and territory of the United States against the acts of outlaws and robbers.

Mr. CONGER. The last vote taken in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union was upon the ·adoption of the second section as amended, and that is the proper question to be put to the House.

Mr. SCHLEICHER. Is this the substitute offered by the gentle-man from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS t]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair so understands. Mr. SCHLEICHER. "\Ve have accepted that in the committee. Mr. RANDALL. If I understand it, a negative vote upon this ques-

tion votes out the second section. Mr. HOLMAN. 0, no; the question is upon the amendment. This

was offered in committee as a substitute for the second section, and it now comes into the House, and I suppose must be voted on in the same form.

Mr. BURCHARD, of Illinois. It was understood in committee that a vote was to be taken in the House upon this question as if upon a motion to strike out the section.

Mr. HOLMAN. It comes into the House as a substitute for the second section. ,

Mr. RANDALL. It does not come as a substitute; it cornea as an amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tentpore. The question is on agreeing to the sec­ond section, as amended.

1\Ir. GARFIELD. Then a negative vote votes out the second sec-tion.

The question was taken ; and there were-ayes 98, noes 55. Mr. CONGER. I call for tellers. Tellers were not ordered, only fifteen members voting therefor. Mr. CONGER. I call for the yeas and nays. The question was put on ordering the yeas and nays; and on a

division there were-ayes 31, noes 86. So (one-fifth voting in favor thereof) the yeas and nays were or­

dered. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. WALLING for ten days on im­portant business.

Leave of absence heretofore granted to Mr. DURHAM was extended for five days.

Mr. O'NEILL. I move that the House do now a{]journ. The motion was agreed to-ayes117, noes 44; and accordingly (at

five o'clock and seven minutes p.m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC. The following memorials, petitions, and other papers were pre­

sented at the Clerk's desk under the rule, and referred as Mtated: By Mr. BANKS: The petition of JohnS. Gallaher, jr., of Washing­

ton, District of Columbia, for the difference of pay between $3 per day for sixteen months and the pay of a third-class clerk for the same length of time, on account of services rendered in the Navy Depart­ment, to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. CAULFIELD: The pet-ition of R. G. Dyrenforth, that he be re-imbursed the amount expended by him in defending himself against certain charges preferred against him, while examiner in the United States Patenli-Office, by George Olney, of Brooklyn1 New York, and from which he was exonerated, to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. DANFORD: Tpe petition of Lieutenant William S. Spriggs, late of the One hundred and sixteenth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, to be relieved from the unjust sentence of a court-martial, to the Com­mittee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. MA.CKEY, of South Carolina: The petition of Noneto Plan­dolet, a suhject of Alfonso, King of Spain, living at Barcelona, in that kingdom, that his claim for the proceeds of cotton seized and soltl by Uuited States Treasury agents at August.a, Georgia, be referred to the Court of Claims to render judgment for such damage as they shall deem him justly entitled to by reason of said seizure and sale, to the Committee on War Claims.

lly llr. MAGOON: Memorial of the Wisconsin Legislature, request­ing an investigation into the right of Bon. GEORGE W. CATE to hold a seat in the present Congress, to the Committee of Elections.

Also, the petition of Charles Cowles, Clayton Morgan, and other cit­izens of Leroy, Wisconsin, for a commission of inquiry concerning.the alcoholic liquor traffic, to the Committee of Ways and Means. .

Also, the petition of Thomas Hunsacker, and 50 other citizens, of Grant Conn ty, Wisconsin, against reducing the present tariff ·on lead, to the same committee.

Also, the petition of W. J. McCoy, and 26 other citizens, of Grant County, 'Visconsin, of similar import, to the same committee.

By Mr. MORRISON: Papers relating to the claim of Charles Valier, , for three months' extra pay as second lieutenant Company M, Seventh Regiment Illinois Cavalry, to the Committee on War Claims .

IN SENATE. THURSDAY, July 20, 1876.

Prayer by-the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. The bill (H. R. No. 1972) to authorize the construction of an inclos­

ure around the United States penitentiary at Boise City, in the Terri­tory of Idaho, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Commit­tee on _Public Buildings and Grounds.

REMOVAL OF THE DISTRICT JAIL.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laiu before the Senate the amendment of tho House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 842) authorizing the commissioners of the District of Columbia to remove the jail on Judiciary Square to grounds near to the Washington Asylum for the use of the District.

The amendment of the House of Representatives was in section 2, lines 5 and 6, to strike out the words "money in the Treasury" and insert in lieu thereof the words "revenues of the District of Colum­bia;" so as t.o read:

Which sum is hereby appropriated for that purpose out of any revenues of the District of Columbia not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. MORRILL. I ask to have the Senate disagree to the amend­ment in order to move for a committee of conference, for this reason: We now own this building, and it would seem perhaps proper that we should meet the expense that may be required to put it up again on Government land. If we allow the bill to pass a.s amended by the House, it seems to me we shalllo e all control over the property. As it is for the convenience of the United States court, as well as for other purposes, it is perhaps most proper that it should remain a Gov­ernment building. I therefore ask to have the amendment of the House non-concurred in, so that a committee of conference may be appointed.

The amendment was non-concurred in. 1\fr. MORRILL. I move that a committee of conference be appointed

on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. The motion was agreed t.o. By unanimous consent, the P1·esident pro tempore was authorized to

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. MORRILL, Mr. PADDOCK, and Mr. COOPER were appointed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Mr. INGALLS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re­

ferred the bill (S. No. 750) granting a pension to T. B. Murdock, re­ported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. INGALLS. I am instructed by the same committee, to whom wa,s referred the bill (H. R. No. 3184) granting a pension to Emerick W. Hansell, to ask to be discharged from its further consideration and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims. Mr. Hansell was the messenger of the Department of State who was in attendance upon Secretary Seward at the time of his attempted assassination on the 14th of April, 1865. One of the other messengers, who received sim­ilar injuries, waa awarded by Congress the sum of $5,000 by a special act for injuries received on that occasion. The committee believe that the claim of Mr. Hansell is meritorious and just, but being un­willing to esl;ablish a precedent of pensioning persons in civil life, they ask that the bill be referred to the Committee on Claims.

The report was agreed to. Mr. WRIGHT. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred

the petition of John D. Thorne, praying compensation for certain cot­ton taken and appropriated by United States troops in Louisiana dur­ing the late war, instruct me to report it back anu recommend that