1878. CONGR.ESSION.AL RECORD-HOUSE. 2737 Mr. SAUNDERS. So that it is put on the Calendar, it is all I want

at present. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, then, will put the ques­

tion on the motion to reconsider. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia, rose. Mr. SAUNDERS. The Senator will understand that I do not ask

any vote on the main question now. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. I understand it perfectly, and I

have something to say about it. Mr. PAD DOCK. There can be no objection to reconsidering the

vote by which it was indefinitely postponed. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. Perhaps the Senator will hear what

I have to say about it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from ·west Virginia has

the floor. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. This resolution, as I understand it,

was reported adversely from the Committee on Appropriations. I see no use in t.his reconsideration unless Senators desire to make a talk on the subject. The joint resolution was reported adversely, when one of the Senators at lea-st of the State of Nebraska was pres­ent; and unless there is some special object I see no use in recalling n. resolution that has been reported on adversely and has by the Sen­ate been postponed indefinitely.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think I have some good reasons and I could give them now, but I thought from the lateness of the hour if it was put on the Calendar I could do so at some future time. -

Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. If the Senator does not desire to give any reason, let the motion be pending, and I object at present to the reconsideration. Let it be pending; I have no objection to that.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I have no objection to that. I can make my remarks on taking it up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider will be considered as entered and pending.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to make a statement. Yesterday, in

submitting my remarks on the Northern Pacific Railroad bill, I read a statement handed me by a gentleman in which was contained an a.lleged statement of Ron. S. S. FENN in regard to the amount of freight paid by him to the Oregon Steam Navigation Company. Judge FENN, by a letter which he bas handed me, inforJP.s me that the statement was incorrect in giving the weight of the freight. In all other respects it was entirely correct. I ask that his letter to me be incorporated in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter wa.s ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

HOUSE O"F REPRF..SK."'TATIVES, Wa-shington, D. 0., April 23, 1878.

DEAR Sm: I observe from the RECORD of yesterday's proceedings tba.t you have fallen into an error in your speech on the Northern Pac1tic Railroad bill. You are quoted in the RECORD as follows:

"Bon. S. S. FENN paid the Oregon Steam Navigation Company for freight Oll a Pitt thrasher, weight not over two and a half tons, from Portland to Lewiston, $372."

I informed Mr. Mont~omery, (who I presume is your informant,} in speaking ef freights on the Columb1a. and Snake Rivem, that "the Pitt thrasher with which my grain waa thrashed last year cost $.'l7~ freight from Portland to Lewiston, and the machinery was hauled from farm to farm with a two-horse team and a four­horse team. The weight I did not know." Please make the corrtlction.

Very respectfully, S. S. FENN.

Ron. J. H. MITCHELL.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, .April 23, 1878.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. P. HARRISON.

The Journal of ye?terday was read.

CORRECTION OF THE JOUIU"iAL AND RECORD. Mr. SOUTHARD. I rise to make a correction of the Journal.

Upon the :final vote I am recorded as not voting; the same mistake appears in the RECORD. I was present and voted in the affirmative.

The SPEAKER. The correction will be made. . Mr. CABELL. When the vote was taken upon the passage of the

river and harbor bill, I announced that I was paired with Mr. PUGH of New Jersey, and stated that if he were present he would vote i~ the affirmative, while I would vote in the negative. The statement in the RECORD is just the contrary.

The SPEAKER. The correction will be made. The Journal, as corrected, was then approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. . A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, mformed the House that the Senate had passed, without amendment bills of the House of the following titles: '

A bill (H. R. No. 2818) to authorize T. and J. W. Gaff & Co. to use a certain building in the city of Aurora, Indiana., for the rectification of distilled spirits ; and

A bill (H. R. No. 4394) to prohibit the coinage of the twenty-cent piece of silver.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed and requested the concurrence of the House in bills of the following titles:

A bill (S. No. 350) to enable citizens of the State of Florida to transfer a portion of their pre-emptions and homesteads to aid in the construction of railroads;

A bill (S. No. 426) for the relief of the Masonic Hall Company of Atlanta, Georgia;

A bill (S. No. 4G5) for the relief of Patrick Sullivan; A bill (S. No. 612) for the relief of John A. Torrence; A bill (S. No. 770) :fixing the compensation of the telegraph oper-

ators of the Senate and House of Representatives; A bill (S. No. 800) for the relief of the heirs of Major D. C. Smith· A bill (S. No.- 902) for the relief of Carl Jussen; and

7

A bill (S. No. 909) to authorize the Secretary of War to accept an -absolute gift o~ land necessary for military purposes.

ORDER OF BUSI!mSS. The SPEAKER. The pending question is the motion of the gen­

tleman from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE] to lay on the table the appeal of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] from the decision of the Chair in relation to the protest against the passage of the river and harbor bill presented by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox.]

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to say a word upon the appeal. Mr. COX, of New York. Is the motion to lay upon the table de­

batable! Mr. REAGAN. I do not give way for a motion to lay on the table. Mr. CARLISLE. But I made the motion yesterday to lay the ap­

peal on the table. Mr. REAGAN. It does not so appear in the RECORD. Mr. CARLISLE. It does appea.r in the RECORD and also in the

DEFICIENCY IN PRINTING APPROPRIATION. • Journal. Still if the gentleman desires to be heard--Mr. WINDOM. I ask leave to make a report from the Committee Mr. REAGAN. The previous question bas not been called, and I

on Appropriations, and I ask consent of the Senate to make a very ask that in justice I may be allowed to be beard. brief statement as to what it is. The bill that I am instructed by the Mr. CARLISLE. We asked yesterday to be beard on the river and Committee on Appropriations to report back with a recommendation harbor bill, but the privilege was not accorded to us. that it pass appropriates ~'200,000 to supply deficiencies in the appro- Mr. REILLY. Is the motion to lay on the table debatable f priations for the public printing and binding for the current fiscal The SPEAKER. It is not. year. I have in my hand a note from the Public Printer, which is Mr. REAGA.J.~. I ask that I be allowed a few minutes, because a very brief and I will read it, addressed to me as chairman of the Com- very serious inj nstice has been done to the Committee on Commerce. mittee on Appropriations: The SPEAKER. That can be by unanimous consent only.

Sm: TheHousepassed a bill yesterday providing for a deficiencyfor pnblio Mr. REILLY. I object. printing andbindin~, -:sr.c. Will you please urge its passage by the Senatea.tonce1 M"r. COX, of New York. I do not propose to debate the bill. If as I cannot even orner paper on which your bills are printed until it is passed. the gent~e~n goes into that, I am willing to meet him. I am per-

I think it is important that this bill (H. R. No. 4222) to provide for fectly Willmg to have the gentleman address himself to the appe:J.l. a deficiency in the appropriation for the public printing and binding Mr. REAGAN. That is all that I ask. for the current fiscal year be passed at once. It has the unanimous Mr. COX, of New York. And I ask an opportunity to reply. recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations. I ask for its :Mr. REAGAN. I have no objection to that. present consideration. Mr. FINLEY. Is debate now in orderf

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object, Mr. President. I do not think we ought The SPEAKER. Only by unanimous consent. to pass a two-hundred-thousand-dollar deficiency bill on the run. It Mr. REAGAN. I understood that objection was waived. will not kill anybody to let it wait until twelve o'clock to-morrow. 1\lr. FINLEY. I do not understand it to be waived at all. I insist

upon the objection. EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. CONKLING. I renew my motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion wa-s agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the con­sideration of executive business. After seventeen minutes spent ill. e:s:ecuti>e session tbe doors were reopened, and (at four o'clock and~ fifty-two minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned.

VII--172

~·REAGAN. Then I ask to be heard on a question of personal privilege. . The SPEAKER. There is one question of privilege already pend­mg.

Mr. COX, of New York. I rose to a question of personal privilege yesterday and the gentleman tried to cut me off. I will not do so with him.

2738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

Mr. THOMPSON. I call for the regular order. Mr. REILLY. I object to any debate and insist upon the regular

order. Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] says he

is willing I shall be heard in opposition to the protest. Mr. ATKINS. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. ATKINS. Would it be in order to move to lay the whole sub-

ject-protest, appeal, and all-upon the tablet . Mr. COX, of New York. There is a motion pending already to lay

the appeal upon the table. Mr. ATKINS. I move to lay the whole subject on the table. Mr. CARLISLE. Is a motion to lay on the table amendable T

. The SPEAKER. It is not. Mr. REAGAN. Is it the object of the gentlemen who signed the

protest t.o deny the privilege of replying to itT Mr. COX, of New York. I do not deny it. The gentleman denied

the privilege to me, and would not even allow the protest to be read. Mr. REILLY. I iQsist on the regular order. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to lay on the table

the appeal of the gentleman from Texas. Mr. ATKINS. Would it be in order to move to postpone the whole

subject until the first day of the next session t Mr. CARLISLE. The motion to lay on the table takes precedence

of the motion t.o postpone. Mr. DUNNELL. If the motion to lay upon the table the appeal

shall prevail does that carry into the REcoRD or into the Journal of the House the protest signed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] and others T

The SPEAKER. It does not carry it into the Journal of the House; but should the motion to lay upon the table the appeal from the de­cision of the Chair prevail, it would cause the paper to be read as a part of the remarks of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox,] and would in consequence go into the RECORD.

Mr. HOOKER. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry--Mr. REAGAN. If the gentleman from Mississippi will allow me,

I wish to say that if I can do so I will withdraw the appeal, so as to allow the ~entleman from New York to present his question of priv­ilege, prov1ded I can have the opportunity to say something in reply.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state distinctly the grounds upon which he based his decision; and he thinks he ought to be allowed to do so. The question before the House seems to the Chair to be a plain one.

Mr. ELAM. If the gentleman from Texa.s sees fit (and I concur in that view) to withdraw the appeal, does not that dispose of the whole question T

The BP EAKER. It does. Mr. CARLISLE. Bnt the gentleman cannot withdraw the appeal

while the motion to lay it on the table is pending. The SPEAKER. Under Rule 40 it can be withdrawn at any time

before it is determined. Mr. CARLISLE. Bnt, l\fr. Speaker, the appeal which the gentle­

man made is not now the immediate question before the House; the pending question is on the motion to lay the appeal upon the table. Now I desire to say to the gentleman from Texas--

The S:PEAKER. Laying the appl'al on the table is only one of the ways to dispose of it. The Chair will cause the rule to be read.

The Clerk read as follows: A motion may bewithclrawn at any time before a decision or amendment; and

all inciden~ q~estions fall with such withllrawal. · The SPEAE:ER. The motion to lay the appeal upon the table is

in the opinion of the Chair an inciuental question, as mentioned in rule. •

Mr. HOOKER. !"wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to move the indefinite postponement of this whole subject t

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks not. Mr. COX, of New York. How could the gentleman from Missis­

sippi get the floor for that purpose t . The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Mississippi only made the

parliamentary inquiry whether he could do so if he should obtain the floor. · Mr; HOOKER. I obtained the floor as much as the gentleman from

Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.] ·· The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texa.s obtained the floor by

appealing from the decision of the Chair; and that has a parliament­ary connection with the subject-matter.

Mr. REILLY. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Did I understand the Chair to state that he desired to communicate to the House his reasons for the ruling he gave yesterday f If so, I think that the House, as an act of courtesy, ought to listen to the Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Pennsyl­vania, and will, before submitting the question, state exactly the position whlch he took in reference to this subject, and which he thinks impregnable. · Mr. KENNA. May I ask in a parliamenta-ry way this question : if

the Chair, representing his view of the question, is allowed to state his reasons for the decision, will it follow that those representing the opposite view will be allowed to stat-e their reasons t

The SPEAKER. When the Chair decides a question of order, if he

is notallowed to state his reasons for it, it would seem to be impossible for him t.o make his decision intelligible to the House.

Mr. KENNA. That is not the question I asked. I am not asking whether the Chair ha.s a right to state the reasons for his rulin~. My question is thi.R: if the Chair does make such statement of h1s reasons, will the other side be allowed to state their views T

The SPEAKER. The Chair in deciding a point of order states the grounds on which he decides it; and that ends the matter--

Mr. KENNA. That, I understand, relates to the time of the rendi­tion of the decision.

The SPEAKER. Just as the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. KE~A] hears opinions delivered in court, winding up with the de­cision of the court upon the question.

Mr. COX, of New York. I understand that, the appeal being with­drawn, the motion to lay the appeal on the table falls with it, and I am on the floor. I therefore ask to have the protest read. I will not occupy the time of the House in further debate unless the gen­tleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] desires to debate the question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will ask consent to place upon the record the reasons for the decision which he h~ given, if by any means he is deprived of the opportunity to do so orally.

Mr. REAGAN. When the paper of the gentleman from New York has been read I do desire an opportunity to respond.

Mr. KENNA. If the Chair understood me as objecting to his stat­ing the reasons for his decision, he misunderstood me.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not so understand the gentleman. This question is a plain one in the mind of the Chair; and he would like to try and make it plain to others.

Mr. THOMPSON. Can the appeal of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGA.i~] be withdrawn without the consent of the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. CARLISLE f]

The SPEAKER. The House will observe one matter: the Chair ha.s deciued only that he was unable to decide, until the paper was read, whether it did embrace a question of privilege. 'fhe point whether it is a question of privilege to have the protest inserted on the Journal has not been touched upon by the Chair.

Mr. REAGAN. I shall make no objection to the reading of the paper and putting it on the record, if it is desired that it should go there; but I simply wish to say that the gentlemttn from New York presented it as a protest and urged it for some time as a protest. The suggestion that it was a question of privilege came from the Chair. Now, if before the question of privile~e can be decided the paper must be read and go into the record, tnat seems to me to admit the whole mischief, while it avoids the direct question before the House.

The SPEAKER. This is a very plain matter. Yesterday it was suggested by the gentleman from Ohio that the Chair ou~ht to look at this paper to see whether it was a question of privilege. But if the Chair should do that, he would arbitrarily assume a right which might perhaps run to the extent of preventing the House from hear-ing a paper upon which it might be called to vote. -

Mr. GARFIELD. If the Chair will allow me, that is a matter which carr always be rectified by an appeal from the decision of the Chair if the House thinks his ruling is wrong.

The SPEAKER. On the contrary, it would be too late. Mr. GARFIELD. The point I wish to make is this : I do not care

at all about this particular question of a protest one way or the other, but the good order of the Honse is involved. Suppose any gentleman rises to what he may choose to call a question of privilege, and has read and printed a speech three-quarters of an hour long upon the merits of a bill already passed, and the Chair decides it must be read through before he can determine whether it is a question of privi­lege or not. This places the business of the Honse at the mercy of every member's caprice, for under the pretense of a question of privi­lege he gets a speech and accomplishes his purpose. The subsequent decision of the Speaker that it is not a question of privilege does not prevent the disorder.

The SPEAKER. That is not the case here at all. Rule 141 pro­vides that "when the reading of a paper is called for, and the same is objected to by any member, it shall be determined by a vote of the House." In the Digest it is expressly stated in the same connection that the " rule above recited is not construed to apply to the single reading of a paper or proposition upon which the Ho.use may be called upon to give a vote or to the several regular readings of the bill, but to cases where a paper has been once read or a bill has received its regular reading and another is called for, and also where a meml)er desires the reading of a paper having relation to the subject before the House."

Further, in relation to questions of privilege, when a proposition is offered which relates to the privileges of the House it is the duty of th~ Speaker to entertain it at least to the extent of submitting the question to the Honse as to whether or not it presents a question of pi-ivilege. Now, how could the Chair submit a question of privi­le~e to the House, or a paper as to whether it involved a question of pnvilege or. not, if the paper was not read so it could be see~ whether it involved a question of privilege or not T Under the rules it is the duty of the Chair to entertain it at least to the extent of submitting the qnest.ion to the House as to whether or not it presents a question 6f privilege . . 'l'he rule also provides that the gentleman has the right to call for the reading of a paper or proposition upon which the House may be called upon to give a vote.

-

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2739 Mr. GARFIELD. If the Chair will allow me I will remind him

that yesterday it was declared by the gentleman from New York himself when he first addressed the Chair that all he wanted was to present a protest against the action of the House on the river and harbor bill.

1.'he SPEAKER. And at the same time alleged that it involved a question of privilege.

Mr. GARFIELD. That was later. At the first he stated to the Honse, and to the Chair, that what be wanted was to .present a pro­test against the passage of the river ancl harbor bill. The Chair there­fore knows from the gentleman himself exactly what it is that is claimed as a question of privilege by the gentleman from Ohio.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not know until this morning when he read it in the daily paper what was contained in the protest, but if he had known under the rules of the Honse it was the duty of the Chair to entertain the question of privilege alleged by the gen­tleman from New York to the extent at least of submitting it t.o the Honse, and as it was a proposition upon which the Honse might be called upon to vote, the reading of the paper was a right which the gentleman from New York could demand. The only question decided by the Chair is that under the rules the reading of the paper is in order.

Mr. COX, of New Yflrk. I believe I have .the :floor, the gentleman from Texas having withdrawn the appeal from the decision of t.he Chair.

Mr. REAGAN. Of course it is understood that I shall -have the right to answer.

Mr. BURCHARD. We have the right to know, Mr. Speaker, upon what ground the decision of the Chair is based.

The SPEAKER. That is a legitimate inquiry. Mr. BURCHARD. I wish to be heard before the Chair rules. The

point of order wa-s made, not on the word of the gentleman from New York as a question of privilege in reference to a matter affecting him­self, to rise and send up a paper and have it read, but whether any member of this Honse at any time has the right to rise and protest against the passage of a bill, announcing he has the right to t-ake the :floor as a question of privilege on that matter. That was the position, as I understand it, and upon that the point of order was raised.

The SPEAKER. No; the gentlemen from New York rose to a ques­tion of privilege and the Chair was bound to recognize him and take his word thatthepaperwhich he presentedh::td at least the semblance of a question of privilege on which the Honse might be called to vote.

Mr. REAGAN. I withdraw the appeal, and I do so on condition I shall be permitted to respond to the remarks of the gentleman from New York.

The SPEAKER. It cannot be withdrawn conditionally. Mr. COX, of New York. I do not make any conditions with the

gentleman from Te:Xaa; Mr. REAGAN. I do not ask it of the gentleman from New York,

but I ask it of the House. I do not withdraw the appeal, if I am not to be heard. I only ask it in common fairness.

The SPEAKER. The gent.leman from Texas cannot qualify the withdrawal of his appeal. He can submit the question whether or not afterward he shall be heard on the point of order.

Mr. REAGAN. Can I have common consent to be heard f The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Texas may

be heard by consent. Mr. SAYLER. I ask unanimous consent for that purpose. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentlema,n from Texas has

the right to be heard on a question of privilege. Mr. GARFIELD. Let me call the attention of the Chair to the

actual proceedings of yesterday as found in the RECORD on page 2717:

:Mr. Cox, of New York. I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of present-ing a protest a~ainst the passage of this bill, signed by members of Congress, and I ask t~ have it read.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will read on, and not pick out a particular paragraph.

Mr. GARFIELD. I have read every word thus far from the begin­ning of the transaction.

The SPEAKER. Read a little further on, and the gentleman from Ohio will find that the gtmtleman from New York did raise a question of privilege.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will read: Yr. HARRIS, of Virginia. I move tbe Honse adjourn. :Mr. CONGER. Has the ~ntleman o.ny such right 7

de~~~r~~~~::~f ~~!fl.:ust~ established in the Thirty-ninth Congress by the

Here the Speaker was interrupted. Mr. KID.'NA. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Cox, of New York. I have the floor on a. question of privilege, and I do not

yield for debate.

It will be seen that the gentleman [Mr. Cox, of New York] there assumes to have the floor--

The SPEAKER. On a question of privilege. Mr. GARFIELD. He assumed to have the floor, assumes the right

to have a protest against that bill read to the Honse; and that is all he asked at first, except that he wanted to make a speech as well. Now having clearly declared to the Honse his purpose and his only purpose, it seems to me the Speaker is bound upon.. that declaration

to rule whether the offer of such a protest is a question of privilege or not--

The SPEAKER. That appears to the Chair to be mere sophistry. The fact stands, nevertheless, that the gentleman from New York came to the Chair and was recognized by the Chair because he was taking the floor upon a question of privilege, otherwise he would not have been recognized. And the Chair stated that the gentleman rose to a question of privilege. Before he could state what that was he was interrupted by members on the :floor.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. I desire to say a word. Mr. W A.DDELL. I demand the regular-order. Mr. GARFIELD. I respectfully appeal from the decision of the

Chair which authorizes this paper to be read under the circum­stances.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio renews the appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. COX, of New York. I was on the floor and did not yield it to the gentlep1an from Ohio.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is bound to recognize the appeal from his decision.

Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman makes his spoech on tho appeal and I have no chance to respond. I am on the :floor all the trme and yet he cuts me off by making a motion.

Mr. FORT. I move to lay the appeal on the table. The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to be heard for a few moments

on the question. · Mr. FORT. I withdraw the motion to lay the appeal on the table

that the Speaker may be heard. The SPEAKER. The question before the Honse is a plain one. The

gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] presented a paper signed by members of the Honse, alleging it involved a question of privilege. Its reading was objected to upon the ground it could only be read by unanimous consent. The Chair decided it must be read so it could be determined whether it did or not involve a question of privilege. From this decision the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGL"i] took au appeal. This morning he withdrew it, and it has been renewed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD.]

Rule 141 provides that when the reading of a paper is called for and the same is objected to by any member it shall be determined by a vote of the Honse. But in the Digest it is expressly stated in the same connection that the rnle above recited '' is not construed to apply to the single reading of a paper or proposition upon which the Honse may be called upon to give a vote, or to the several regular readings of a bill, but to cases where a paper has been once read, or a bill has received its regular reading and another i!!l called for, and also where a member desires the rea<ling of a paper having relation to the subject before the Honse."

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker--The S~E.AKER. The Chair desires not to be interrupted. Fur­

ther in relation to questions of privilege it is laid down in the Digest: When a proposition is submitt-ed which relates to the privileges of the House, it

is his duty to entertain it, at least to the extent of submitting the question to tbe House as to whether or not it presents a question of plivilege.

It will be observed that the Chair is compelled to entertain the gentleman's question of privilege "at least t.o the extent of submit­ting it,!' _and as it is a proposition on which the Honse may be called upon to vote, the reading of the paper is in order.

It has been the practicE.:' where bills involving millions, of appro­priations passed under a. suspension of the rules without debate or amendment, to allow more than ordinary latitude to questions of order and privilege. But in this instance the- Chair h!1S accorde<l to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] only his right to have read the paper in reference to which ho claims his right to be heard on said question of privilege.

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to say that I withdrew the appeal not be­cause I did not believe it was well taken, 1nt as a matter of courtesy in order that all parties might be heard in reference to it.

:Mr. FORT. I now renew the motion to lay the appeal on the table. Mr. GARFIELD anrl Mr. COX of New York rose. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIF..LD] is

recognized. Mr. COX, of Now York. I thought I bad obtained the floor on the

question of appeal. · . The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] who

macle the appeal should bt' heard in advance. Mr. GARFIELD. As to what transpired between the gentleman

from New York and the Speaker before the gentleman from New York appeared in the forum of the House of course I have no right to have any knowledge, and I have none except what the Speaker has stn.ted.

The SPEAKER. The Chair only stat.ed that as the reason of the recognition of the gentleman from New Y.ork, and then stated ho took the floor on a question of privilege. · ·

Mr. GARFIELD. -That is nil right. But what appeared in the House was simply this: th~ gentl~man from New York arose and said he did so for the purpose of presenting a written' protest, signed by members of the Honse, a,gq.inst the bill that had just been p~setl. Having thus declared to the Speaker and to thew hole House the sole ground on which be claimed the floor, I hold that the Speaker ancl the Honse were perfectly able to judge whether that proposition con­stituted a question of privilege, and that it was the duty of the

2740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

Speaker to rule upon the case as put by the gentleman himself. The fact that the gentleman subsequently called it a question of privi­le~e did not make it so.

Now the gentleman from New York claims that he had a further right to have read as a. part of his remarks on the alleged question of privilege a paper; and my point is t.hat for him to make any re­marks, either oral or written, was to assume that he bad the floor on an acknowledged question of privile~e. I deny that it was a ques­tion of privilege; and I base that denial upon the statement with · which he set out declaring his purpose; and I hold tha~ the Speaker should have so ruled; and if the Speaker had so ruled there would have been no ground for the gentleman obtaining the floor to make a speech. The refusal of the Speaker to rule upon the question ~ill result in allowing a speech-perhaps half a dozen speeches-which are not in order, if it shall finally be determined, as I believe it will be, that the offer of this protest is not a question of privilege. Any other view of our rules will result in disorder and serious delay to the business of the House, by allowin~ in this indirect and incidental way a. debate upon a bill after it ha-s passed and is no longer before the House, It is in behalf of good order and the public business that I have taken this appeal.

The SPEAKER. In reply, the Chair desires to say that his ruling ran only to the extent-and the gentleman from Ohio mnst not mis­state that-that being on the floor on a question of privilege the gen­tleman from New York had a right to have that paper read as a part of his remarks, before the Chair could decide whether it embraced the question of privilege, and, as it seems to the Chair, before the House could be called upon to vote whether it was a question of privilege or not.

Mr. REAGAN. In the early part of this proceeding I find that the Speaker said: "Does the Chair understand that it is a protest against the bill f" and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] responded that it was.

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognized it as a question of privilege nevertheless, or the gentleman from New York could not have got the floor.

The question now is upon the motion of the gentlemen from Illinois, [Mr. FoRT,] to lay upon tho table the appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. CARLISLE. Upon that question I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeM 131, nays 101, not

voting 59_; as follows: YEAS-131.

Baker, John H. Davis, Joseph J. Jones, Frank Banning, Dean, Jones, JohnS. Bayne, Dickey, Jones,JamcsT. :Beebe, Durl.la.m, Killinger, :Bell, Errett, Kimmel, Benedict, Evins, John H. Knapp, Blackburn, Finley, Knott, Blair, Forney, !.antlers, Blount, Fort, Lapham, Boone, Franklin, Ligon, Bra.o-g, J< reemau, Lockwood, Bridges, Fuller, Luttrell, Briggs, Gal'llner, :Mackey, Bright, Garth, Maisll, Browne, Gibson, Manning, Rmuly, Glover, Martin Caldwell, John W. Goode, McKen'zie, Caldwell, W. P. Hamilton, McKinley, Candler, Hardenl.Jergh, McMahon, Cannon, Harmer, Mills, Carlisle, Harris, Benj. W. Mitchell, Claflin, Harris, Hcmy R. .Morgan, Clark of Missouri, Hart, MoiTison, ClarkaofKentucky, Hart1idge, Mort~e, Clark, Rush Hartzell, Muller, Clymer, Haskell, ~ eal, Cobb, Hatcher, O'Neill, Collins, Render on, Patterson, G. W. Cook, Herbert, Patt~rson, T. M. Covert, Hewitt, AbramS. Pllillips, . Cox, SamuelS. Hewitt, G. W. ' Reilly, Culberson, Hunton, Rice, Americus V. Davidson, James, P..ice, William W.

Acklen. Aldrich, Bacon, Bagley, Ballou, Bicknell, :Bisbee, Bland, Bliss, Bouck, lloyd, Brewer, Burchard, Cain, Camp, Campbell, _ Caswell, Chalm~rs, Vole, Conger, Cox, Jacob D. Crapo, Cravens,

NAYS-101. qritte~d~n, Cummmgs, Davis, Horace Deering, Denison, Dibrell, Douglas, Dunnell, Dwight, Eames, Elam,· Evans, I. Newton Felton, Frye, Gause, Giddings, Gunter, Hale, Hanna, Harris, John T. Hayes, Hem1ee, Henry,

House, Hubbell, Hunter, Humphrey, Ittner, Joyce, Keightley, Kelley, Kenna., Lathrop, Lindsey, Lodng, McCook, Metcalfe, Monroe, Muldrow, Norcross, Oliver, Overton,

~~~~ie, Pollard, Pound,

Riddle, Robinson, M. S. Ryan, Sayler, Singleton, Smith, William E. Southard, Sparks, Springer, Steele, Stenger, SLephens, 1.'hompson, Townsend, M. I. Turner, Turney, Vance, Walsh, Watner, Wbite, Harry White, Michael D. Whjtthorne, Wig~inton, Willw.ms, A. S. Williams, James Williams, Jere N. Willis, Albert S. Willis, Benj. A. Willits, Wilson, Wood, Wright.

Randolph, Rea, Reagan, Reed. Robbins, ltobinsou, G. D. Ross, Sampson, Sapp, Sexton, Shallenberger, Sinnickson, Slemons, Smalls, Starin, Stow art, Stone, Joseph C. Stone, John W. Strait, Thornburgh, Throckmorton, 1.'ownsend, Amos Van Vorhes,

Wall dell, 'Vall;:er, Ward,

Wat,on, Williams, C. G. Welch, Williams, Richard 'Villiams, Andrew Yeates.

NOT VOTING-59. Aiken, Eden, Keifer, Atl{ins, Eickhoff, Ketcham, Baker, William H. Ellis Lynde, Banks, Ellsworth, Marsh, Brentano, Evans, James L. Mavham, Bro{tden, Ewing, McGowan, BucKner, Foster, Money, Burdick, Garfield, Phelps, Butler, Harrison, Potter, Cnbell, Hazelton, Powers, Calkins, Henkle, Price, Chittenden, Hiscock, Pridemore, Clark, AlvahA. Hooker, Pugh, Cutler, Hungerford, Quiiw, Danford, Jorgensen., Iminey,

Rohert<J, Robertson, Seales, Schleicher, Shelley, Smith, A .. Herr Swann, Tipton, 1.'0W1lshend, R. W. Tucker, Veeder, Wait, Wren, Young.

So the appeal from the decision of the Chair was laid upon tP.e table.

During the roll-call the following announcements were made: Mr. CABELL. I am paired with .Mr. PuGH, of New Jersey. If he

were here, I should vote " ay ." Mr. COVERT. _ My colleague, Mr. MA YHAllf, is paired with Mr.

HAZELTON. I do not k.uo w how they would ¥ote. I desire also to announce that my colleague, Mr. VEEDER, is detained from the Honse by indisposition.

Mr. SHELLEY. I am paired with-Mr. EVANS, of Indiana. Mr. CALKINS. I am paired with Mr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Mr. BAKER, of New York. I desire to state that I am pairad with

my collea~ue, Mr. QUINN. If he were here, I should vote "no." '111r. RICE, of Massachusetts. I desire to announce that my col­

league, Mr. BANKS, is paired with Mr. WILLIAMS, of Michi~n. Mr. ALDRICH. I desire to st.ate that my colleagues, Mr. TIPTON

and Mr. ToWNSHEND, are paired; and also my colleagues Mr. BREN­TANO and Mr. HAHRISO:Y.

Tbe result of the vote was then announced a-s above stated. Mr. COX, of New York. I ask that the paper which I send up to

the Clerk's desk be now reatl. The Clerk proceeded to read the paper, as follows: We, the undersigned, members or the Forty-fifth Congress. protest a!!ainst the

passage of the substitute report of Mr. REAGAN, of Tex:as, to House bill ~i!J6, mak­ing appropriation for tbe construction, repair, preservation, and complotion of cer­tain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, for the foUowing reasons: _

1. The bill contains appropriations to the amount of $7,293,700, and iA of such large amount that the rules of the House should not be suspended t.o facilitate its passage without debate and consideration.

2. All our rules, and especially Rule 121, specially applicable to appropriations for works of internal improvement, are intended to guard against a vote in ~'Toss on such appropriations, and req nire, for wisu ,purposes, sepat"<lte vot~s on each item, nuder certain conditions. We protest against tho infraction of t!O salut:.ary a rule on a bill where the tendency is to combine for general spoliation upon the T1:easury.

Mr. CONGER, (interruptin~. ) I claim th.at that part of the re­marks of the gentleman from New York--for this paper is·submitted as a. part of his remarks-in which be charges the members of this House with the spoliation upon the Treasury shall be taken down iD: writing at the Clerk's desk.

Mr. McCOOK. If it is proper in this connection, I desire to say that I shall rise to a question of privilege under the precedent set, to enter my protest againet the action of the House and ask that it be read.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would have no objection, but there is one question of privilege pending.

Mr. CONGER. I ask that the last sentence, impugning the motives of members of this Hoqse, be taken down, as it forms a portion of the gentleman's speech.

The SPEAKER. That can be done after the paper is read. Mr. CONGER. No, sir; the rule requires it to be done at once. Mr. COX, of New York. I will modify it. Mr. REED. There is no occasion to modify it. The SPEAKER. The words will be taken down . Mr. CONGER. I object to it as an insult to this House, and I call

the gentleman to order for using that language, and I demand that he be not permitted to proceed further until the question of order is settled.

The SPEAKER. Rule 62 provides that-If a member be called to order for words spoken in rleba.te tho person calling

him to order shall re~eat. the words exce.pted to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the Cl~rk stable; and no member sball be b~ld to answer, or suhject to tbe censure of the House, for words spoken in dellate, if any othor memuer has spoken, or other bul'liness llas intervened, after the worJs spoken, and before ex­ception to them shall have been taken.

The Clerk will reatl the words excepted to by tho gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. CONGER.]

The Clerk read as follows: We protest a"'ainst the infraction of so salutary arnle on a bill where the tend­

ency is to combine for general spoliation upon the Treasury.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands t.he gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] to withdraw the words objected to.

Mr. COX, of New York. Certainly. Mr. CONGER. I ask for a ruling upon the point of order which I

raised.

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2741 Mr. CARLISLE. Those words do not charge that the members of

the Hoose--Mr. COX, of New York. I have the :floor now. Mr. CONGER. I object to the gentleman's speaking. nntil the

question is de.cided whether he was out of order or not in using that language.

The I:;PEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] is hav­ing this paper read as a portion of his remarks. If he should make remarks not in order the Chair thinks he can withdraw them and

. proceed in order. Mr. CONGER. I wish the Chair to rule whether his remarks were

in order. The SPEAKER. That the Chair is not called upon to role now.

The Chair would say, however, that this only confirms the position he took this morning as to the propriety of having the paper read.

Mr. CONGER. That is a remark by way of argument or opinion. I raised the point of order that the gentleman was out of order in using that language.

The SPEAKER. And the gentleman :from New York withdraws the words obJected to. ·

Mr. CONGER. I object to his withdrawing them until the Chair has ruled upon it.

Mr. CARLISLE. The language referred to is only to the effect that the tendency of this legislation is sp and so. . The SPEAKER. The Chair would not raise any such line of dis­tinction, because the gentleman from New York withdraws the words.

Mr. CONGBR. I am not done with this point of order yet. The SPEAKER. The Chair has decided it. Mr. CONGER. Then I demand that the gentleman from New York

[Mr. Cox] cannot under the rule proceed with his remarks unless -permitted by the House so to do, and I ask that that question be put to the House. That is a part of the role of the House.

The SPEAKER. Role 62 is not . now applicable to any language osed by the gentleman, for the reason that he bas withdrawn the language objected to. ·

Mr. CONGER. But if he bas used offensive remarks, he must obtain permission from the House to proceed, even if he withdraws those remarks.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that the gentleman's withdrawal of the remarks leaves Rule 62 inoperative as against him.

Mr. CONGER. But it is for the Hom:~etodeterminewhether it will permit him to go on.

The SPEAKER. He does go on naturally, occupying the :floor, in order.

Mr. HALE. · Allow me to make a suggestion on the point of order. The contest tba.t has just been settled was upon the inclination or the ruling of the Chair to hear read the protest, in order to decide the question of privilege. The position of the Chair in that matter has been sustained by the House. The protest has been read.

Mr. COX, of New York. No, it has not. Mr. HALE. The know led~e desired by the Chair bas been brought

to his mind by the reading of that protest. I now make the point of order, although it is always a pleasant thing, personally, to listen to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox,] that the Chair should rule upon the question of privilege. Certainly all the knowledge that the Chair can ever have upon that question j.s ah·eady before him.

The SPEAKER. The paper bas not been read through. Mr. HALE. Comments cannot add to the knowledge. The SPEAKER. Whenever it is proper for the Chair to decide the

point, the Chair will decide or submit the question whether this paper is one of personal privilege or not.

Mr. CONGER. The }loint of order I made has not been decided by the Chair. I ask that Rule 61 be read.

The SPEAKER. Rule 61 ! Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule. The Clerk read as follows: If any member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules of the Honse, the

Speaker shall, or any member may, call to orcler; in wbich case, tho member so called to order shall immediately sit down, unless pennitt.ed to explain; and the Honse shall, if a.ppealed to, decide on the case, but without debate ; if there be no appeal, the decis10n of the Vha.ir shall be submitted to.

Mr. COX1 of New York. I was not called to order by the gentleman. · The Clerk read the remainder of the rule, as. follows :

If the decision be in favor of the member called to order, he shall be at liberty to proceed ; if otherwise, he shall not be permitted to proceed, in ca-se any mom ber object, without leave of the Honse; Mld if the case require it, he shall be liable to the censure of the Honse.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CmmER] called the attention of the Chair to Rule 62.

Mr. CONGER. No, sir; some one else did that. The SPEAKER. The words objected to were read by the Clerk,

and the Chair thinks that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] was permitted to explain, for he withdrew the language to which ol.Jjection was made.

Mr. BUTLER. I desire to made a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BUTLER. This protest is signed by twenty-six men. Can one

of them withdraw a part of it without the consent of his associates 'f Mr. REA. That is the point I was going to make.

The SPEAKER. That point is not well taken because this paper is being read as a part of the gentleman's remarks, and he chooses to modify or omit a part of his language just as a gentleman oftentimes does in reading a law-book, reading parts and omitting parts.

Mr. REA. I desire to call the attention of the Chair to this point: the gentleman in the course of his remarks is having read a paper signed by certain members of this House. He p.roposes now to with­draw from that paper the word "spoliation" and insert "exhaust­ion." I make the point that he has no right to make the signers of any paper say to this House what they have not said themselves .

The SPEAKER. The paper is read as a part of the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman withdraws the language excepted to by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair thinks he has the right to do so. As to the point that the withdrawal relates to language to which other names are signed, that is not a question for the Chair to determine. That is a question between the gentleman from New York himself and those whose names may hereafter be read as the signers of this paper.

Mr. WAD DELL. Can the gentleman withdraw the language with­out unanimous consent!

The SPEAKER. Undoubtedly he can withdraw or modify his lan­guage; it is his right to do so, the words being excepted to.

Mr. COX, of New York. I have the right to have that paper read under the ruling of the Chair; and these gentlemen who have appro­priations in this bill ought to be a little modest when I come here and make a proper representation, withdrawing any word that they may think opprobrious. I stand here as a member of Congress to fight for honest, square practice in this House in the passage of money bills. I cannot be badgered by dther members.

Mr. CONGER. I object to the g·entleman proceeding without leave of the House. · Mr. COX, of New York, and others addressed the Chair.

The SPEAKER. Gentlemen will be seated, and the House will come to order.

[During the effort of the Speaker to obtain order an earneat col­loquy took place between Mr. Cox, of New York, Mr. HousE, and others, which the rapping of the Speaker's gavel rendered inaudible at the reporters' desk.]

The SPEAKER, (to Mr. Cox, of New York, who still endeavored t.o make himself heard.) The gentleman from New York will suspend.

Mr. ATKINS. Haa the gentleman from New York the right to dis­cuss the merits of this bill f

The SPEAKER. The Chair has asked the gentleman to be seated. Mr. ATKINS. If the gentleman bas not the right to do so he ought

to take his seat. · Mr. COX, of New York. I am on the :floor under the decision of

the Speaker; and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ATKINS] has no right to talk to me in that way.

Mr. ATKINS. I have the right to inquire whether the gentleman is in order in discussing the merits of this bill--

The SPEAKER. Gentlemen will be seated. Mr. ATKINS. And if he is not, I have the right to object to his

doing so. Mr. COX, of New York. Mr. Speaker--The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York will suspend. The

gentleman has made certain remarks to which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CONGER] objected. The gentleman from New York thereupon withdrew or modified the language objected to.

Mr. CONGER. Mr. Speaker, I say that he cannot withdraw the language so as to exempt himself from the action of the House; for the House may, if it chooses, censure him. Under Rule 61 the gen­tleman cannot proceed, if any member objects, unless the House gives consent. Whether the gentleman withdraws his remarks or not, he may be censured; whether he withdraws· them or not, any member may object to them; and whether he withdraws them or not, the House may refuse to let him proceed. Under Rule 61, I object to his proceeding further with his remarks.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon. I desire to say a word upon the point of order. The Chair will observe the language of the rule, "he shall immediately sit down unless permitted to explain." Now, the gen­tleman could neither withdraw his remarks nor explain them with­out the consent of the House.

The SPEAKE.R. The Chair thinks he could. :Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon. He bas not had the consent of the

House. Consequently the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan must be decided. Before the gentleman from New York can proceed with his remarks, objection being made, he must have the consent of the House. ·

The SPEAKER. Why, it is the most natural proceeding in the world when a member of a leaislative body makes remarks for which he is called to order that he should immediately withdraw the offen­sive language.

Mr. CONGER. He has not asked leave to withdraw it; he cann'>t get leave without the action of the House.

The SPEAKER. Surely nobody will object to the gentleman :from New York withdrawing langua~e which maybe ~onRidered offensive.

Mr. CONGER. He cannot Withdraw the language until the Hom~e has considered the case.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon. The gentleman from New York has not yet asked permission to withdraw the language.

2742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRlL 23,

The SPEAKER. On the contrary, he did . . Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon. He attempted to withdraw the lan­

guage without asking permission of the House. Mr. COX, of New York. I did withdraw the language. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I wish to make a parliamentary inqniry.

Was the gentleman from New York authorized to withdJ:aw the remarks of other gentleman who had signed this paper 'f

Mr. COX, of New York. So far as the reading has proceeded no names have appeared.

The SPEAKER. The matter is one between the gentleman from New York and the other gentlemen concerned; and as the gentleman from New York suggests, no names have been read.

Mr. SPARKS. I am one of the signers of that paper and so far as I am aware none of the signers object to this withdrawal. Why can the gentleman not withdraw the language if nobody objects T There seems to be a great effort to prevent this simple protest from going into the RECORD. I think that members of this House have a right to make their protest against vicious legislation.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will submit the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] has made use of certain language to which the gentleman from Mich­igan objects. The gentleman from New York then desires to with­draw the language, and the gentleman from Michigan objects to the modification. The Chair now snbtrrlts the question, shall the gentle-man from New York proceed in order t .

Mr. BURCHARD. Before that is decided I wish to inquire whet.her there is now pending a question of privilege-whether the gentleman has presented a question of privilege and whether he is making a speech on that question of privilege f

The SPEAKER. The gentleman claimed the right to have that paper read touching the question of privilege that was raised. The Chair decided he had the right to have it read. Whenever the ques­tion is raised whether that protest, as it has been generally styled, is a question of privilege or not, then the Chair will decide or submit the question to the Hoose.

Mr. HA.LE. That waa the question I raised a few moments ago. The SPEAKER. Whenever the paper is read and is before the

House, the Chair will decide or submit the question to the House. Mr. REAGAN. I trust. the gentleman from New York will be al­

towed to proceed and let us get out of this. Mr. McMAHON. I call t.he attention of the Chair to this fact that

neither the Speaker nor the House has yet determined that these ~or~. were out of order, and therefore I think the rule providing that the question shall be put to the House whether the gentleman shall proceed in order does not apply.

The SP.EAKER. The Chair thinks the words might be construed into a reflection ·upon the House, and therefore the Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan who took exception to the words.

Mr . . CONGER. In order that ther~ may be no question about the point I make-the Chair having decided the gentleman was out of order whether he changes his remarks or not, and that he could not do that witpoot leave of the Hoose under Rule 61, which says, if the decision be in favor of the member called to order be may proceed, bot if otherwise, as the Chair has decided in this case, he shall not be permitted to proceed, in case any member objects, without leave of the Rouse-now, sir, I rise as a member to object to his proceed­ing, and that is the question now for us to determine.

The SPEAKER. It is the constant practice of gentlemen npon the floor to witharaw anything that is offensive. The gentleman from Vermont tb'e 'other day spoke of pettifogging, and the gentleman from Kentucky taking exception to it, the gentleman from Vermont was immediately allowed to withdraw the language. The Chair has never known that privilege denied.

Mr. CONGER. But the words were not taken down. Mr. REED. No point of order was raised on the gentleman from

Vermont; no.ne at all. The SPEAKER. Yes; the words were objected to by the gentle­

man from Kentucky. Mr. REED. ';rhe Speaker will recollect no point of order was raised,

bnt the gentleman from Kentucky objected, to be sore. The SPEAKER. The facts are mainly alike in both cases. Mr. REED. B'ere the point of order has been raised and the words

have been taken down. The SPEAKE;R .. The question is, Shall the gentleman from New

York be allowed. to proceed in order, he having Withdrawn or modified the language objected to!

The House di,v.ided; and there were--ayes 103, noes 72. So the motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York will proceed in

order. . .. Mr. COX, of New "fork. I call for the finishing of the reading of

that paper and then I will submit a few remarks, and I will show by ordinary uniform usage in this House and in other legislative bodies it is in order. . '

Mr. HOOKER. As I understa.nc;l it the Chair has not yet passed upon the question whether this is a question of privilege or not.

The SPEAKER. The Chair hns not. Mr. HOOKER. Then when that question· comes up we shall be

heard on it .. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will proceed with the re'ading.

The Clerk proceeded and read as follows: 3. The ri,:ht of the House of Representatives to consid~r appropriations in

Committee of the Whole Honse, or at least in the House itself, should be sacredly protected. This suspension of the rules deprives this House of our traditional k~:!:!'i:: ~d thus encourages similar attempts upon the Treasury to gratify local

Mr. CONGER. I demand that the words just read be taken down. The SPEAKER. What words t Mr. CONGER. The words "and thus encourage similar attempts

upon the Treasury to gratify local interests." 1\Ir. COX, of New York. I will not take those words back. [Laugh­

ter.] Mr. CONGER. I make the point of order that those words impugn

the character of the members of this House, and I call the gentleman to order for making remarks impugning the motives of members of this House.

Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit those words are not out of order; and to show what a lat.e President of the United States himself has said in regard to a similar bill to this, I ask the Clerk to rend a message which he sent to this Hoose.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is this question debatable t The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read. 1\Ir. CARLISLE. I have marked what I ask to be read. The Clerk read as follows:

To the Ho'U8e of Representatives: In .affixing my signature to the river and harbor bill, No. 382"2, I deem it my duty

to announce to the House of Representatives my objections t~ some features of the bill, and the reason I sign it. If it was obligatory upon the Executin to expend all the money appropriated by Congre.qs, I should return the river and harbor bill with my objections, notwithstanding the great inconvenience to the public inter­ests resulting therefrom, and the loRS of expenditures from previous Congresses upon incompleted works. Without enumerating, many appropria.tions are made for works of purely private or local interest, in no sense nahonal. I cannot give my sanction to these, and will take care that during my term of office no public money shall be expended upon them.

There is very great necessity for economy of expenditures at this time growing out of the lo11s of revenue likely to arise from a deficiency of appropriations t{) in­sure a thorough collection of the same. The reduction of revenue districts, dimi- • nution of special agents, and total abolition of supervisors may result in great fall. ing off of the revenue. It may be a question to consider whflther any expenditure can be authorized under the river and harbor appropriation further than to protect works already done and paid for. Under no circumstances will I allow expendi­tures upon works not clearly national.

U.S. GRANT. EXECUTIVE MANSION, .A.ugtLBt 14, 1876.

Mr. CARLISLE. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Hoose received that mes­sage from the President of the United States and gave it a respectful consideration, and I submit to the House that the language used in that message with reference to a bill very similar in its provisions to this is at least as strong as the language which thirty and odd members of this House proposed to use in reference to this bill.

Mr. O'NEILL. The President is not a member of the Hoose. Mr. CARLISLE. So much the greater reason why the Hoose should

not receive from him a disrespectful paper. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the language objected to does

not reflect upon the Hoose. It rather suggests the idea that thero might be a combination outside seeking to advance local interests.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the paper, and read as follows: The eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, to" regulate commerce

among the several States," is virtually abrogated, and the very authority under whicli our legislation is condul}ted defied by a bill of this nature, which appropri­ates money for improvements of rivers located wholly within one particular State and of no national importance. In a time of general depression and with the Treas· nry threatened with a deficit, it is unwise and unjust to the tax·payere to place such a burden, as this bill proposes, upon them.

S. S. COX. W . .A.. J. SPARKS. J. PROCTOR KNOTT. JACOB TURNEY. J . .A.. McKENZIE. HENRY S. NEAL. J. C. S. BLACKBURN. MILLS GARDNER. WM. M. SPRINGER. THOMAS M. BROWNE. J. K. LUTTRELL. MILTON S. ROBINSON. HIESTER CLYMER. MILTON .A.. CANDLER. .ALBERTS. WILLIS. WILLIAMS. STENGER. E. B. FINLEY. .A.. V. RICE. G. M. BEEBE. HEN~Y L. DICKEY. FRANK JONES. ANDREW H. HAMILTON. J. G. CARLISLE. E . J,)HN ELLIS. WM. P. CALDWELL. JOHN H. BAKER. J. A. McMAHON. LEVI MAISH. ABRAM S. HEWITT. E. G. LAPHAM. G. L. FORT. S. A. BRIDGES.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] raiseS' the point that this is not a question of privilege.

Mr. COX, of New York. On that point I would like to say a few words.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas, [Mr. REAGAN,] the Chair is advised, desires to speak upon that point. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] will :first state his proposition.

Mr. HALE. The Chair ruled that this paper might be rf'ad that the Chair might have knowledge of what was contained in it. Now, the paper having been read, that knowledge bas come to the Chair. I have no objection whatever to t.he gentleman from New York stating the grounds why this is a question of privilege; but he cannot upon that go on and discuss the merits of the bil1.

Mr. COX, of New York. I do not intend to do that. Mr. HALE. To that I would object; because other gentlemen

would wish to reply, and the result would be if a speech was aU owed to be made with a protest as a part of it1 in reference to any bill

•,

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2743 passed of great or small importance, any member could make a. pro­test and there would be no way of ending any subject-matter. There­fore, upon that ground, I call for tbe ruling of the Chair upon the question of privile~e, whether this is one or not.

Mr. REAGAN. Before the Chair rules I nesire to say a few words. In the first place I call attention to the following paragraph in the Digest:

It is not a matter of right and parliamentary privii ege to have received and entered upon the Journal a protest of members against_ the action of the House.

So that the protest is directly in the. face of and forbidden by a rule of the House. I call attention to what is found in the Congres­sional Globe of the proceedings in the Senate on the 14th of .A.ngnst, 1850, being the only case referred to in the Manual, and the only in­stance iu which the question has come np for determination in either branch of Congress except the one referred to by the Speaker yester­day, when there was an unorganized House and when I unuerstand no · question was made as to the right of having the protest received and entered. The case in 1850 was upon the bill to admit California. as a. State of the Union and for other purposes. There is a paper signed by the two Virginia Senators, the two South Varolina Senato~, Mr. Turney of Tennessee, Mr. Soule of Louisiana, Mr. Jefterson Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Atchison of Missouri, and by the two Senators from Florida., protesting against the passage of the bill. Mr. Hunter; who presented this paper, u~d this language-and when I say Mr. Hunter I spea.k of one of Virginia's greatest and wisest sons:

I rise not to present a pt>tition, but to address a motion to the courtesy of the Senate-a motion which I am aware I cannot make as a matter of rijZbt and parlia.. mentary prhilege. It is to ask that a protest, which has beE-n prepared and signed by ten members of this body, a~rainst the passa~e of the bill admit ting California into the Union as a State, which passed yesteruay, may be recei;ed and spread upon the Journals of the Senate. We ask it-, berause we deem it one of the most, if not perhaps the most important measure that has passed during our experience here, and we wish to gi>e whatever emphasis we legitimately can to our oppot~i· tion to it. We wish, so far as we can, to break the force of a precedt>nt which we rt'gard as mischievous and dangerous for the admission of States into this Union. I ask that it may be read and spread upon the Journals of the Senate.

Upon that the Presid~nt of the Senate, who, I believe, was Mr. King, of .A.labama, made this decision, after some debate:

The Chair feels some difficult.y in deciding a case of this kind where there is objection made. In theConstitution there is nothing to authorize the put ting of a protest on the Journal. There never has been a case since the formation of the Go;ernment in which a prote st baa been ente1·ed on the Journal. There was at an early period of the Government an attt>mpt made to authorize the enterin~ of pro­tellts on the J om-nal, and it was refused. A motion was made that on the final question upon a bill the opposers of the measure shall have a right to enter a pro­test and dissent upon the JournalJ with the reasons for such dissE-nt and protest, provided that such protest be maae within two dafS after the final passage of the bill. This was July 17, 1789. It was rejected by the vote of the Senate, and there has been no instance that I can find, or that the Secretary bas been able to find, on the Journals since that date to show that any such action has been bad.

With regard to the protest pre!!ent-ed in the case referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts there is nothing on the Journal which shows that the protest was presented and refused. The only thing t-o be found is the Register of the Debates, in which his colleague at that time is reported to have said-

The Senator's colleague was Mr. Webster-".And now, had the Constitution secured theprivilegeof entering a protest upon

the Journal I should not say one word on this occasion; although, if what is now proposed shall be accomplished, I know not what would have been the value of such a. provision, however formally or carefully it might have been inserted in the body of that instrument. But as there is no such constitutional pnvilege, I can only effect my purpose by thus addressing the Senate."

The rules of the Senate, I may say, did not forbi(l euch debate after the passing of the bill.

".And I rise, therefore, to make that protest in this manner, in the face of the Senate, and in tbe face of the country, which I cannot present in any otb"rform."

On that occasion the Senator proceeded to give his reasons why he was opposed to the mea-sure, which opposition would have h~n in a form of a protest, bad the Constitution authorized 1ts being entered upon the Journal. The Chair stated when be rose that he was in doubt whether a single objection wou)(l be sufficient to cause him to decide against its being put upon the Journal. He thinks the Sen­ate itself should decide the question.

.A.nd then, after a debate which ran through a number of pages, the vote of the Senate was taken upon the proposition to lay the protest on the table, and it was decided in the affirmative by a vote of 2'..>­yeas and 19 nays.

I submit that this is the only case upon record in which such a privi­lege as is now asked has been accorded, and in that case it was decided against the right to file the protest. The House prescribes its rules of debate and action on bills, and when action has been taken upon a bill and the senae of the members has been expressed either by speech or vote upon the pending measure, the matter is determined; :for if one man can be allowed to protest against the Lill, then an­other must be allowed to state his reasons for supporting the Lill, and the debate might go on endlessly after the bill has been passed. I believe that under the statement of the gentleman from New York the measure that came before the House for action is placed in an im­proper light. The gentleman from New York yesterday presented this prot-est and asked that it be read. His att.ention was afterward called to it by the Speaker, who said, "Is the Chair to understand it is a protest against the bill!" .A.nd the gentleman from New York answered, a It is;" and the Speaker afterward said that the gentleman from New York arose to a question of privilege. Nothing had before been said about its being a question of privile~e. Under that idea the gentleman from New York proceeded to as.K that the paper be read, not as a protest nominally, but as a question of privilege; and when he stated that he arobe to a que.stion of privilege it was mani-

...

fest from what had preceded that he really sou~ht to enter a protest unwarranted by the Constitution and against the rules of the House and contrary to the decision of the Senate in its gr:;~.ndest and palm­iest days. I shall now turn my attention to· some of the other points made in this case.

Mr. HOO~R. I rise to a question of order. I ask the Chair if it is proper for a gentleman in this preliminary stage of the proceedings to discuss the merits of the bill f I have no objection to a gentleman speaking upon the point whether this is or ia not a question of privi­lege; but if he intends to discuss the measure, then he anticipates the decision of the Chair as to whether this is a question of privilege or not. ·

Mr. REAGAN. I am not going to discuss the merits of the bill, bnt charges have been made agamst the committee. If it is not our privi­lege that we shall defend our honor as individuals and defend tho honor of the House which passed the bill, then I do not know what a question of privilege can be. Written charges have been made against the action of the committee and against the one hundred and sixty-six members who voted for the pa.ssage of this bill. .A.re we to have our mouths closed and be denied the right to respond to that assault f [Cries of "Good!" '~Good I"] '

Mr. HOOKER. I should like to have a decision of the Chair as to whether this discussion is in order.

The SPEAKER. The discussion is in order as to the question, whether this is a question of privilege.

Mr. HOOKER. Is it in order to discuss the .proposition upon the question whether the protest is privileged f

The SPEAKER. The Chair has not so said. Mr. HOOKER. That is the point I make; until the prot.est is

received by the House, either through the decision of the Chair, or by action of the House, I submit that it is not proper to discuss the contents of the paper. I shall ask to be heard upon the question whether this constitutes a question of privilege.

Mr. REAGAN. Does the gentleman think that when this paper has been read manhood or duty requires the committee to stand still and not reply to its allegations f

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas has a right to discuss the question as to whether this is or is not a question of privilege.

Mr. HOOKER. I do not object to the gentleman speaking, but I do object to his speaking until the paper has been received.' I can­not see how you can discuss a paper which has not yet been received.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decided that it should be read, and the paper is therefore on record in the CoNGRESSIONAL REcoRD

1 and it

seems to the Chair that so far as the allegations therein con tamed are concerned, they are susceptible of debate by the gentleman from Texas. .A.nd, furthermore, the gentleman from New York yielded the floor to him.

Mr. REAGAN. The first ground of objection to this bill...:.....:.. Mr. FORT. I rise to a question of order. Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman from Illinois cannot take me off

the floor when I am speaking. · Mr. FORT. I can when I make a point of order. I understand

that the gentleman is proceeding to discuss th~ hreri~ of the bill, and I inquire of the Chair whether that is in order t

Mr. REAGAN. I am not doing so and I do not propose to do so. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is only answering the

language used in the paper which has been read. Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman from Illinois has attacked the com­

mittee and he ought not to be so unjust a!J to insist on shutting the mouths of the committee in reply.

Mr. FORT. I insist that I have not a,tta-cked the gentleman, nor have I impugned his motives or the motives of others.

Mr. REAGAN. There is a difference of opinion -about that, and that is just what I wish to discuss. .

The first objection in the protest is as follows: The bill contains appropriations to the amount 'of "$7,~3,700 and is of such large

amount that the rules of the House should not be sUspended to facilitate its pas­sage without debate and consideration.

I admit that the bill is a large one and perhaps u I could individ­ually have controlled it it would have be'en ·s·!Q.aller, and I agree that the manner in which the bill came before the House is not a desirable one. I have thought much about the matter to see how we could get action upon the bill without a suspension of the rules. It was stated by the gentleman from New York that if the bill was passed in this way it would create a precedent. The .gentlema.n has been long a member of thi.s Honse and there are few members so familiar with precedents as he is and be must know the fact that bills of this kind have not passed during the last thirty years without a suspension of the rules ; I mean general bills for this purpose. I do not say that they had . ~een regularly pas~ed during the last thirty years in this way, but I do say that from 1866 to the present year they have been so passed at each session without exception, until last year, when no bill was passed. -

So that the precedent is establiihed. As to the amount contained in the bill, I desire to call the attention of the House for a moment, without going further back, to the fact that in 1869-'70, Congress appropriated for this purpose 3,947,900; in 1870-'71 it appropriat.ed $4,407,500; in 1871-'72 it appropriated $5,588,000; in 1~-<72-'73 it appro­priated $6,102,900; in 1873-'74 it appropriated 5,193,0_00; in 1~4-'75 1t appropriated $6,643,517.50, about a llalf milli0n less than in this

2744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

bill ; and in 1875-'76 it apprQpriated $5,015,000, In all of these cases I charging that there waa ~ frandul~nt and corrupt combination to and many preceding the bills were passed through this House nuder plunder the Treasury for local benefit. The members of the com­a suspension of the rules without debate. mittee considered this bill day after day and week after week for two

At the laat session of the last Congress the river and harbor bill did or three months. They heard every member of the House who chose not receive a two-third vote and failed to pass. Consequently the pub- to come before it, some of the Senators, and ma.ny delegations from lie works were greatly the sufferers, as we learn through the proper different parts of the country. They examined the two volumes of official channels and by personal knowledge on account of the failure the reports of engineers and all the information which they could to pass that bill. So much, then, for the precedents. We are simply obtain in relation to these matters while they were engaged in the following established precedents, not of a pleasing kind I admit, but formation of this bill. precedents fully established, and therefore the arguments rest against I state in the presence of all these members that I never yet asked the whole system, and not against this particular bill. a living man to vote for this bill and I never intimated to a living

I would say also in relation to this part of the protest that the bill man that if his State or section received an appropriation be wa.s for rivers and harbors having failed last year the public works seri- expected to vote for the bill. On the contrary, the bill contains appro­ously suffered for want of appropriations. If the amount appro- priations for parts of the country whose Representatives were known priated by this bill had been divided between last year, when none to be opposed to the bill. was made, and this, they would have amounted to about three and Now, I want to call attention to a remarkable fa.ct. One gentle­a half millions annna1ly, which would be much below the average of man came before us asking for about 1,000,000 for improvements in appropriations for this purpose. Some members of the committee and which his State was interested. This request was made a.rter the many members of the House sought to have the amount increased bill bad been matured. We gave him more than $160,000, and be now above the average, because of the failure of the bill last year and signs the protest against this bill because of its extravagance! [Laugh­of the injury done to great pn blic works in consequence of that fail- ter and applause.] ure, so that they might be restored and proceeded with. Mr. PAGE. Can the gentleman name a. similar cruse of any ot.ber

Mr. CRITTENDEN. For what period of time does this bill appro- member T priate f Mr. REAGAN. I do not mean to be personal. Another member

Mr. REAGAN. It appropriates for one year; but there has been a asked for $400,000-a hundred and fifty thousand dollars more than year for which there was no appropriation. the estimate. We gave him $50,000, and now he signs the protest

Mr. CRITTENDEN. In fact it covers two years. against the bill on account of its extravagance! [Laughter and Mr. REAGAN. It covers two years; that is, it is all the appropri- applause and cries of "Name him I"]

ations that are made for two years. In connection with this I desire Another gentleman came to us asking an increase of a certain ap­to say a word, if not objected to. Gentlemen will remember that in propriation, and we increased it ; and now he is so patriotic that be the report that comes from the Bureau of Statistics on the internal votes against the bill because it is a "plundering" bill. commerce of the United States it is stated that the internal commerce These are samples. I might go on with them; but I will only of this country amounts to from twenty-five to thirty billions of say t.ha.t the real explanation of the hostility on the part of some gen­dollars annually; they will see that anything which will reduce the tlemen (I do not say all) to this bill is that we have not "plundered cost of transportation one-fourth of 1 per cent. will give back to the the Treasury" enough. If we had followed the estimates we would people a revenue or a saving infinitely larger than the amount of this have appropriat.ed not less than fifteen or sixteen millions. appropriation. Mr. SPARKS. Will the gentleman allow me a moment T I ask

There may be reasons which perhaps do not occur at present to the him to stat.e to the Honse the names of ~he gentlemen signing the gentlemen from New York [Mr. Cox] why this appropriation should protest to whom he has referred. be made and why those who attempt to comprehend the commercial Mr. REAGAN. I will not because I do not propose to say anything and material interests of the country, who take a broader and more personal. I state what I know and what all the members of the comprehensive view and possibly a wiser view of the subject, should committee know and what gentlemen themselves know. favor the passage of this bill. Mr. FINLEY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question f

Another thing. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] I believe Mr. REAGAN. I decline to be interrupted. I was stating that if is understood to be the special friend of the laboring-man. Of all we had appropriated the amount estimated for by the engineer de­the bills that pass through this Honse this is the only one in these partment the aggregate of the bill would have been sixteen or eight­times of depression and pecuniary distress that goes directly to the een million dollars. Again, if we had consented to appropriate in people, that gives them employment, that pays them for it by im- this bill the amount urged upon us by various members, some of proving the commercial facilities of the country, increasing the prof- whom appealed to us to go beyond the estimates--its of the producers from the soil, and reduces the expenses of those Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to ask the gentleman a question affect-who consume those products. That is all I desire to say on that sub- ing the rights of members of this floor. jcct. Mr. REAGAN. I hope the gentleman will not interrupt me; I will

Mr. COX, of New York. Mr. Speaker-- be through in a. few minutes. Mr. REAGAN. Wait a moment; I am not through yet. Mr. MITCHELL. I wish to inquire whether the remarks which Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman is speaking in mytime. the gentleman made in re~ard to certain members of this House re-Mr. REAGAN. The second proposition of t-he protest which is lated only to those who signed the protest or to those who voted

made here as the ground of opposition to this bill is as follows: against the bill. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas declines to be inter­

rupted and is entitled to proceed without interruption . 2. All our rules, and especially Rule 121, specially applicable to appropriations .for works of internal improvement, are intended to guard against a >ote in gross on such appropriations, and require, for w:ise purposes. sepnrat-e votes on each item under certain conditions. We protest aj!ainst the infraction of so salutary a rule on a bill where the tendency is to combine for general spoliation upon the Treasury.

That language, I be1ieve, bas been modified by the gentleman from New York when the point of order was made against it. I did not wish to see him disciplined for it, for I regarded it as one of his figures of speech. He certainly did not mean to charge a combination for ·spoliation upon the Treasury against members of the committee who reported the bill or the one hundred and sixty-six members of the Honse who voted forit.spassage. Rule l . .n, to which reference is here msde, is a good and salutary rule. I would be glad if it could be enforced on the river and harbor bill as well as on every other. But we are confronted with the practical fact that if the river and harbor bill should be reported to this House and referred to the Committee of the Whole, where it would be open to debate and amendment it could not come out of that committee in such a. shape as would enable any member to vote for it. I believe that fact may be assumed; hence it is that we have to pursue this extraordinary course.

But the vote yesterday was to suspend Rule 121 and all other rules, so as to take the sense of the House by a two-third majority as to whether this bill should be pa-ssed. The bill had been reported, printed, and laid on the table of member for weeks before they were called upon to vote on it. They had -the means of knowing all its provisions, except some few items, embracing about $160,000, which had been added to the bill after it had been reported. Therefore it cannot be said that any member was surprised.

I can have no objection to members exercising their judgment in disapproving a bill or the method by which it was proposed to pass it; that is their individual and representative right; but I do object that they should put in their statements that which is equivalent to

Mr. MITCHELL. Then I will call the gentleman to order through the Speaker.

Mr. FORT. Has the gentleman from Texas a right to discuss the merits of the billY

Mr. REAGAN. I call the gentleman to order. [LauO'bter.] Mr. MITCHELL. I believe I have precedence in calling the gen­

tleman to order. I understood him to say that certain members of this Honse had asked o..f the committee of which he is chairman cer­tain appropriations and that those members had voted against the bill. I wish to know whether that statement related to any member who did not sign the protest.

Mr. REAGAN. I did not bear the gentleman's statement. :Mr. MITCHELL. I aak whether that statement of the gentleman

related to any member who did not sign the protest. Mr. REAGAN. I have stated all I have to say on that subject;

and 1 do not care to continue the discussion. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. Speaker, I insist as a. matter of right

upon having this question settled; for as I understood the remark of the gentleman from Texas, it waa a. reflection upon every member who voted against the bill. I am not personally interested in the bill one wa.y or the other; but I understood the gentleman to make a remark here affecting all members who voted against this bill--

Mr. REAGAN. I call the gentleman to order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mrrcrr­

ELL 1 raises a question of order, and objects to certain language used by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MITCHELL. I understand the gentleman from Texas bas withdrawn his statement so far as it might have been understood to apply to others than those who signed the protest. I understood the gentleman to reflect upon every member of the House who voted against the bill. There are certain members who he states appeared

/

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. '2745 before the committee and asked appropriations. Now, I desire to state that I asked no such ap'J>ropriation, and yet I voted against the bill. If I understood correctly the gentleman's original remark, it would reflect npon me and my honor in that respect.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not think the gentleman from Tt3xas made any remarks reflecting on the Honse or on the gentleman.

Mr. REAGAN. I beg that I may be pel'mitted to proceed. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is speaking, as he

stated when he rose, by permission of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox.] How much time he has the Chair is unable to say.

Mr. COX, of New York. I limit the gentleman to five minutes more.

Mr. REAGAN. I beg pardon; the gentleman from New York can­not fix my time now. · The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York has fifteen min­utes remaining.

Mr. COX, of New York. I retain the floor, and am entitled tore-: snme it whenever I choose. I was extending my courtesy to the gen­tleman from Texas.

Mr. REAGAN. The House will give the gentleman all the time he mav want. I did not know I was speaking in the gentleman's time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas stated himself, when he took the floor, that it had been yielded to him by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. COX, of New York. I have given the gentleman all my time but fifteen minutes. · The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York has fifteen min­utes remaining.

Mr. BURCHARD. The gentleman from Texas took the floor on a point of order. .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman out of his own mouth stated he was on the floor through the courtesy of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. REAGAN. The Speaker misunderstands me. I asked the gen­tleman from New York to give way to me to speak first, and that then he could answer me.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas could not get the floor unless the gentleman yielded to him.

Mr. REAGAN. I took the floor, and was willing to give him the fioor to reply to mo.

Mr. ITTNER. lfr. Speaker-Mr. REAGAN. I hope by unanimous consent I may be allowed to

finish, and the gentleman from New York can get unanimous consent to follow me.

Mr. ITTNER, (in a lond tone of voice.) Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] · The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri. Does the gentle­man rise to a point of order f

Mr. ITTNER. I merely wish to remark that I llo not think there will be any disposition on the part of the Honse to take the time con­sumed by the gentleman from Texas out of the time allowed to tho gentleman from New York.

Mr. REAGAN. We will get him all the time that he may desire, and I hope I may be allowed to proceed.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the gentleman from Texas will proceed.

.Mr. REAGAN. I was proceeding to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we had appropriated the amount of money sought by the members them­selves and urged upon us from day to day, our bill would have been more than $15,000,000, instead of $7,000,000. We have not in the minds of most of those who came before us, all of them I mi~ht say, given them all they thiuk they ought to have. I do not thmk any of them got quite aa much as they sought. Protests, nevertheless, a;re made against our action on account of our not givin~ them as much as they asked; protests on the ground of our having gt ven them too much when they know we have not given them aa much as they sought.

Now, sir, we intended as a general rule in reference to these appro­priations to give about 40 per cent. on the amount of each estimate. We went above that percentage in many instances, but that was the rule we adopted. The committee was urged with great ability and zeal to grant the whole of inany appropriations in accordance with the estimates, and the most difficult of all the duties devolved upon the committee was to keep down appropriations instead of getting them up.

Now, in regard to the charge of a combination, I have only this to say, speaking for myself, that I never inquired in considering the measure whether the member in whose district the work for which an appropriation was made would vote for the bill or not. I never asked a member to vote for the bill. My idea was to get a bill which would be just and equitable and submit it afterward, when printed, to the judgment of the House to determine whether it was a just or equitable bill or not.

It is also urged as one of the grounds of the prot-est that we appro­priated money for the improvement of rivers which had no water. I am sure that suggestion came from a failure to know what rivers were appropriated for and their capacity.

Now, what make the large aggregate in the bill are not appro­priations for local objects, for small rivers and harbors, but for great national works of improvement in the country. For instance, we give ~50,000 for removing obstructions_in East River and Hell Gate, New

York, the entrance to our greatest commercial city. We appropriate $150,000 for the improvement of Harlem River and to give addi­tional wharfage and facility for httndling the grain and other prod­uce of the West. We appropriate $100,000 to improve Detroit River. We appropriate over 100,000 for a harbor of refuge on Lake Michigan, for the protection of the vast shipping of the lakes. We appropriate $175,000 for Sault Ste. Marie Canal; certainly not too much for a work of that magnitude, to accommodate. the vaat com­merce of the lakes. We appropriate in one item 250,000 for the improvement of the Mississippi River from the mouth of the Illinois to the mouth of the Ohio. We appropriate for other objects spAcified $100,000 to improve the Mississippi River from the Des Moines Rapids to the mouth of the Ohio. We appropriate 250,000 to improve the navigation of the Mississippi and deepen its channel from Saint Paul to Des Moines Rapids. We appropriate 150,000 for the Missis~ sippi and Arkansas Rivers below the month of the Ohio. We appro­priate $300,000 for the improvement of the Ohio River. We appro­priate $300,000 for the Tennessee River and to build the great canal around the Muscle Shoals. These and like appropriations included in this bill are for great national works of the most vital importance to the United States. Tho whole country will receive thu benefit of the larger port.ion of these appropriations, and if gentlemen will look to the appropriations for the smaller rivers and harbors they will find them to be as low as they have been in any bill of money yet passed.

Not to tax the patience of the HonsE> further, I will come now to the last point alleged by the gentleman from New York in his pro­test. It is urged by him in the protest against the passage of the river and harbor bill that it is unconstitutional, because it provides for the improvement of rivers wholly within the territory· of a single State. I presume the gentleman who made that statement is a law­yer, and if he is I wisn to show him that if he is right the Supreme Court of the United States and a number of other courts in the land are stupidly ignorant of what the law is.

I happen to have it collated aud right before me in some remarks that I delivered last year; and I will read from those remarks cer­tain conclusions deduced from the decisions of the courts. I shall read these first and then I shall give a statement of the decisions: after which I shall cease to trespass upon the time of the House. I laid down these as maxims of law established by the highest courts in the land:

First. That all rivers are navigable in law which are navigable in fact.

Second. That they are public navigable waters in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condi­tion, as highways of commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. -

Third. That the doctrine of the common law aa to the navigability of waters has no application in this country.

Fourth. That the ebb and flow of the tides do not constitute the test of the navigability of waters b this country.

Fifth. That they constitute navigable waters of the UnU.ed State~ within the meaning of the actA of Congress, in contradistinction from navi~able waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves or by uniting with other waters a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries in the customary modet~ in which com-:. merce is conducted by water. _

Sixt.h. That the true test as to whether Congress can appropriate money for such works is, whether the object be of local character and local use or whether it be of general use to the States.

Seventh. If it be purely local, Congress cannot appropriate money for it; but, if it be general, it matters not whether in point of local­ity it be in one State or several, or whether it be of large or small extent; its nature and chara-cter determine the right.

I now read extracts from some of the decisions of the courts and from elementary authority.

In the case of the General Cass, in United States district court for eastern district of Michigan, January term, 1872, ML·. Justice Long­year says:

Those waters are navigable in law which are navigable in fad, and they are pub­He navigable waters in fact when they are used or are susceptible of bein~ used in their ordinary condition as highways of commerce, or over which traae and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.

And he adds: That the Saginaw River (in Michigan) from Saginaw City to its mont.h, upon

which t.he towage services are claimed to have been rendered, fully answers the description above given, there can be no dispute. It is therefore public, navigable water, and is clearry within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court.-A1nerican Law Times Reports, volume 5, page 13.

This river was navigable about forty miles and wholly within the State of Michigan.

In the case of Daniel Ball, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, (De­cember term, 1870,) says, (and he is a strict constructionist:)

The doctrine of the common law as to the navigabilit.y of waters has no applica­tion in this country. Here the ebb and fiowof the tide do not constitu.te the usual test, as in Englanll, or any test at all of the navigability of waters;

2746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

After giving the reasons for this, he adds : Those rivers must be regarded as public, navij!able rivers in law which are navi­

gable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in tne customary modes of trade and travel on water. And they constitute navigable waters of the United Stat.os with­in the meaning of the acts of Conp:ress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by nnitin~ with other waters a continued highway over which commerce is or may be earned on with other States or forei,~m countries in the customary modes in which commerce is conducted by wat.er.-10 Wallace, 563.

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, section 1273 of the edition of 1873, in treating the question of the appropriation of money for internal improvements, says :

• The true test is, whether the object be of a local character and local use, or whether it be of general. use to the States. I~ it be purf:~lY: local, Congrt;ss cannot constitutionally a:ppropnat.e money for the obJect. But, 1f 1t be general, 1t matters not whether in pomt of locality it be in one State or several; whetherit be of large or small extent ; its nature and character determine the right, and Congress may appropriate money in aid of it, fofit is then, in a just sense, for the general welfare.

These authorities, and others of like kind, and these deductions settle the law, if any question can be settled by the adjudications of the highest courts, against the proposition of the gentleman from New York. And if he looks to the bill he will find there is no work appropriated for that does not come within the provisions of these definitions of the law as made by the supreme and circuit and dis­trict courts of the United States.

The portions of this protest which have for their object to impea-ch the patriotism and integrity of the committee which framed the bill and t.he patriotism and inf;{lgrity of the members of the Honse who voted for it are not, it strikes me, words to be said upon this floor by any member of another. That committee is constituted of eleven members, representing different sections of the country, the conflict­ing interests of the different portions of the· entire country, each standing guard upon the other that no one gets appropriations for particular works or for a particular section which would be inequit­able or unjust. I do not know whether I should say it or not, but if I am permitted to speak for the members of the committee and not myself, I would say that the committee labored, under their con­victions of duty, to givo an honest bill, appropriating money where it was needed, and steadily refused to appropriate money where it would be merely an expenditure of money without benefiting the commerce of the conntry.

If I have ever served upon a committee that labored faithfully, diligently, and earnest.ly, I believe that this committee did it. I feel after three months of solid, undeviating, almost ceaseless toil in maturing a bill that gave us very great labor that the committee is at least entitled to be regarded as having tried to do its duty without being impeached by charges of combination and conspiracy for local interests to plunder the Treasury of the United States. If gentlemen can reconcile it to their own sense of justice to make such charges aO'ainst their a~sociates who framed the bill and against their asso­c~tcs who voted to pass the bill, let them do it; I have nothing to say about it.

Mr. Speaker, I have occupied more of the time of the House than I expected to do. I know tbat I have not done justice to the subject, but I feel that I ought not to take up any more of the time of the House. .

:Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman from Texas need not have gone out of his way to affix an allegation of censure upon his com­mittee. There was none growing ontof this protest, except that which is plainly expressed of a public nature. There was no intention to call in question the honest intention and purpose of the gentleman and his committee. We grant that gentlemen here, upon all sides, act honestly according to their own belief. It is a part of the courtesy of our duty. When this committee brought in this bill they no doubt believed that they were acting in the public interest. Certainly, they thought it wa~ in the interest of their own constituents, however it may affect others.

Admitting all this, am I censurable if I claim the right, if possible, by this protest to reform this bad and too common practice of legis­lation, which the mode of passing this bill illustrates 'f Does it follow that in doing so I am impugning the honesty or integrity of the gen­tlemen who so ably represent the House on the Committee on Com­merce!

This practice has not, as has been said, been uniform of passing river and harbor bills by a two-third vote on Monday. We have had such bills, like other appropriation bills, often discussed, and with advantage.

Moreover, may I not say to gentlemen who are interested in this bill that they will in the end get more money, better applied, with less taxation justly levied, by fair discussions here, than by grinding such bills through by a two-third vote, with no challenge to wrong items and no amendment for any purpose f What do you do f Send this measure to the Senate to be riddled and ridiculed, torn to tatters and patched aU over; and then to come out of a committee of con­ference changed in its items, sometimes for the worse, or, in the end, as was the caBe with some recent bills of this chara-cter. vetoed. It is not for the interest of localities or the country to chive the bill through under the whip and spur. Such hasty and ill-considered action recoils.

I did not intend to debate the merits of the bill; I intended to call

attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in the nature of a question of privilege the opportunity has frequently arisen here of presenting protests. The case is pertinent, referred to by the Speaker yesterday, when Mr. Brooks presented a protest as to the organization of the Honse. That protest was accepted by the House so far as reading and printing in the RECORD. I also remember the case of the con­tested election of a member from Louisiana, Mr. Sypher; he had been admitted though not elected. While he was out of the Honse tele­graphing home that he was admitted to his seat, I drew up a protest. It was signed by some twenty-five members. It wa">S sent to the Clerk's desk without discussion, opposition, or comment. It wa..'i read; a motion to reconsider was entertained; and thereupon :Mr. Sypher was debarred from membership.

Reference has been made to the case which occurred in the Senate in the Thirty-first Congress. In that case a protest was made by eminent Senators against the admission of California. True, the question was whether the protest should go, not into the record, but into the Journal. Mr. Hunter, reasoning philosophically upon the nature of such presentments, then said:

It does seem to me that there are occasions when members should be permitt-ed thus to emphasize their opposition to a measure.

That is all intended by this protest. This bill was passed without discussion. We would emphasize our adverse unexpressed judgment to such a pernicious practice. Being debarred the usual debate, how else can we do itT We know that it contains an enormous and mul­tifarious appropliation of money. We had no chance to show how inordinate some sections and localities were fed by this bill, and how· others were compelled to pay for it without adequate consideration. In the bill Alabama gets less than half of Arkansas, and Connecticut less than Alabama; Florida twice that of Delaware, and Indiana only half of Illinois; Iowa but $28,000, being one-tenth of Georgia, while Kansa~ received almost as meager a sum as Louisiana with her great commercial entrep6t; and each of these States a score less than Mich­igan with her bountiful $..=l69,000, which is ten times the slim Massa­clmsetts bounty, with its many harbors on her coast. We know why New York should receive attention in these matters; but why should New Jersey get $245,000 while New Hampshire gets $4,400 T Compare Ohio with her $180,000, and North Carolina with her $135,000, and Pennsylvania with her $3:>8,000, •.rennessee with her $461,000, Texas with her $283,000, Virginia with her $210,000, West Virginia wi th her S272,000, and then as a climax Wisconsin with $408,000, and you will be prepared to say what influences led to these varied sums for these peculiar localities. It does not appear to be a sectional Lill. Tho North had in the printed bill $3,789,300, and the South $2,33'2,500, so that there is perfect impartiality in the general drain of money for such purposes. It is irrespective of any special favor on account of previous condition. But surely debate might have aided Congress to apportion more discreetly, if not to lessen, these sums according to the needs of commerce ·and the ability of the people to be taxed.

But there was no chance for comparison, debate, or deliberation on any one of the hundreds of items of the bill. We know that it was what in common parlance is called an omnibus bill, a Jog-roll­ing bill. The gentleman from Texas showed us that members came to him or his committee again and again to have amounts insert-ed or enlarged. Nay, it is asserted here that some of those who voted against the bill and signed the protest yesterday did so because they did not get the amounts they asked for. Does not this show that there is a tendency in such bills, as is shown in this protest, to com­bine for the exhaustion of the Treasury! Yes, and a tendency to fight when one is left out of the combination. ·

I shall now read from certain authorities to sustain the point of privilege in presenting the protest. I read first from Wilson's Par­liamentary Law, on page 163, where it is said:

The enterin~r of protests prevails in all of our le~slative assemblies, and ia generally regulated and secured by constitutional provisions.

On the next page the author says : Members may not only express their opinion by vote, but also. with the p:rounds

of i t, by protest., which, with the names of all the members who concur in it, is entered in the journal.

This rule is summarized in Cushing's Parliamentary Practice, where the protest is recognized generally as a parliamentary privilege, of great utility in the science oflegislation.

Now, sir, I have an extract from the constitution of the State of Michigan upon thisenbject.

:Mr. CONGER. The constitution of the State of Michigan provides that members of the Legislature may protest.

:Mr. COX, of New York. I will come to that in a moment. It has been the custom in various States, as Cushing remarks, to admit pro­tests both inside and outside of the organic law. The constitution of Michigan says :

.A:ny member of either bouse shall have liberty to dissent from dr protest against any act, yroceeding, or resolution which he may think injurious to any person or · the public, and l.tave the reason for his dissent entered upon the journal.

This goes to any act, proceeding, or resolution injurious to the pub­lic or to any person. It is an extensive privilege. We do not pro­pose to enter this protest on the Journal. In the interest of the public we rise to a question of high privilege, not only to reserve the constitutional rights of Congress against t.he wrongful use of pnblio money, but, if possible, to stop an insidious and, I was about to say, a corrupt system by the comQjnation of localities against tlie Fed-

\ '•

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2.747 eral exchequer and the national interests. Is not such an attempt as this protest wort-by of commendation from unselfish men bent on the common weal and not scared by mere local clamor!

There is a propriety, as well by acknowledged right as by custom of this House, to have the reasons emphasized by having them spread upon the record. This proceeding, I know, is post mortem. It is after the bill has passed the Hom;e and on its way to the Senate. But we cannot help that. Our protest looks te the future, and is in the inter­est of good legislation.

I could refer also to Alabama, where in her constitution the right of protest has been authorized, as follow!! : ·

Any member of either honse shall have liberty to dissent from or protest a~a.inst a.ny act or resolution which he may think injurious to the public or an individual, and have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journal.

So in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and in Illinois, where two members signing a pro­test may call the attention of the public or of the house to a flagrant violation of parliamentary rules or to the unwisdom of the proposed legislation against which the protest is offered. So much for that branch of the case.

The gentle-man from Texas, [Mr. REAGAN,] to whom I yielded the floor, bas entered upon an elaborate discussion of this bill as to its merits. We should have had it before its passage. I cannot avoid, though reluctantly, following him to some extent; but I will endeavor to be guarded as to bow far. The bill will not bear much discussion. Was that the reason it was rushed through here without debate f Why was it placed here in this House to be put in a machine and to come out just as they brought it in f One honorable member, whom I have in my eye, gave me the reason yesterday. He voted for the bill, but said he diu not like it; he voted for it because there was some money in it for his State. I will not mention names, either; but said he, "When we get a bill with only $5,000,000 in it, it is gen­erally lost. You have to put $6,000,000 in it and distribute it pretty evenly in order to make it carry. But when you have $7,000,000 in it, it is a sure thing; two-thirds will vote for it." This is a pregnant commentary on such legislation; but we know it is all too true.

And yet I have to stancl here with my friends who have signed this protest and submit to the harsh language of gentlemen who are also friends, because I dare, in the line of dutiful yet unavailing remon­strance, to protest against this specious practice of appropriating money without deliberation. Nor am I amenable to any selfish charge, as my State bas large appropriations in the bill, running up to $7537-

000, Hell Gate included. This bill only needs a little examination to show of what it is made.

There are propositions here for surveys, $140,000. For surveys J What are they bnt the entering wedge for future appropriations! I find in it propositions for surveying rivers in States where there are perhaps sca.rcely any navigable water courses, where I have been told that even men cannot get water when they dig a hole in the ground to boil potatoes. There is a provision here for the survey of a river in Kentucky, which a friend of mine near me says ought to be macad­amized. [Laughter.] That is the only way to make it a thorough· fare. [Laughter.]

Mr. REAGAN. Is that the membeF who asked that it be inserted in the bill f

Mr. COX, of New York. No, it is a gentleman who opposes this questionable legislation on principle; He does not ask, he scorns to ask, for an appropriation at the expense of good legislation and fair precedents. He is with me here in protesting. I cannot get my. eye on him just at this time, but he hM filled the second office in the State of Kentucky and is a parliamentarian of approved skill and ability. His approbation of this protest is consolation enough for being with the minorit.y. _

Further than that, here are provisions for the survey of all sorts of little rivers, whose currents are local to States or districts of a State. I am somewhat of a traveler, if not a geographer; I have traveled pretty nearly all through our country. I have been to the State of Texas. With its bayous and large extent of sea-coast, I know therQ is some excuse for gentlemen there who have obtained $283,000 of this appropriation. I will not complain of that, nor of the gentle­man for looking to it. The population is largely a commercial people; their bayous run away up into the land. They are arms of the sea, and much is to be said for them of a general nature.

But if you would learn some of the prime merits of this bill go farther inland, where you find little "goose-creeks,',. trout streams, and almost waterless rivers, which are dry half the year. In some of these waters you can hardly find water enough to run a mill-race; and if you should undertake to go out and find anything of utility on some of these streams, to find a mill-site for instance, some one will tell yon the old story, that you "Can't find a dam by a mill-site, and no mill by a dam site." [Laughter.] Ma-ny of the creeks and rivers in this bill are not worth a da.m. [Great laughter.] If you examine them carefully you will find that there is not water enough in them to run the year ronnd ; and hence the sequittt?' of our logicians, that there is greater necessity of making an appropriation! They are navigable" by law," according to certain authorities, and the effort of this bill is to make them navigable in fact!

Some years ago an honorable member of Congress from Ohio, no~ upon the eupreme bench of this District, Judge Cartter, brought in an amendment to appr-opriate $10,000 for the Tuscarawas River1 which

runs into the Moskingum, and the Muskingum River runs into the Ohio River. It joins with another creek to make the Muskingum at Coshocton, in the district of my honorable friend, [Mr. SoUTHARD.] lt is the place where I had the happiness and honor to be born. I have many associations with" the banks of that beautiful river," the Muskingum. What was my surprise to find this stream, already improved at a great outlay by the State lJy dams, locks, and slack­water, for stern-wheelers, in this bill. What could be the reason for that appropriation T The Moskingum is hardly over a hundred and fifty miles from Coshocton to Marietta, all in one State. Perhaps it was the same reason Judge Cartter gave for one of its tributaries, the Tuscarawas, for which he asked a ten thousand, ironical, appro­priation. He urged that it had been navigable since the deluge -; that the Indians had bad their canoes upon. it, which ran both up and down on its bosom; that it wa8 necessary as a tribut.ary to the Muskingom; that the Muskingum poured its stream into the Ohio; that the Ohio gave its volumes to the Mississippi; and the fathtlr himself of waters gave his rolling flood to the everlasting ocean. This was the grand. climax: that, therefore, Congress should give $10,000 to the Tuscarawas River. [Laughter.] That is the nature of the argument that must be ma-de here for most of these items.

Why, sir, everybody knows that in the good old days of strict con­struction of the Constitution, when we had southern statedmen here to defend the canons of interpretation of our sacred political faith; when they discriminated between national objects like "inland seas" and merely local objects like county creeks and State streams; when they had the power to enforce their philosophical rules of criticism upon all a.ppropriations according to the meaning and intent of those who founded the Federal system-in those day~-ante bellum days, if you please-no such argumentation a!! that made by the active and energetic gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] would ever have been tolerated. Gentlemen of the South, have those days gone to the rear and abysm forever Y Are we to have no more of f. he strict construc­tion of our Constitution and the rigid economies which such construc­tion taught T Or are we to float on a limitless sea of legislation, or, worse, a mercenary element which, when it .stagnates, becomes death · to our institutions f I do not say that t.he great body of these appro­priations in this bill belongs to the Sooth. I have shown that it does not. Michigan, West Virginia.1 and Wisconsin get their big and respective shares. Why, we can tell the size of it in a momeut when we see a gentleman from a favored State leap up in the air from his place and object to this protest. Minnesota gets her share; Wiscon-' sin gets her share ; Ohio, along the lakes, gets her share ; Louisiana has her little share. All around, even in New England, there are nice little douceu1·s given for gentlemen in nearly every part of the country. This is a pretty arrangement.

Mr. REAGAN. New York gets more than any two of them. Mr. COX, of New York. Yes; and I oppose this bill, although you

appropriate so much to New York. Mr. KENNA. How about your district f . Mr. COX, of New York. My district is iu one sense the United

States of America. [Laughter.] But my friend from West Virginia. [Mr. KENNA] gets $240,000 for the Big Kanawha and $18,000 for the Little Kanawha. There is where his district comes in; and he sup· ports the bill! He had better not interrupt me any more.

:Mr. KENNA. I do not think the gentleman knows in whose dis­trict those streams are. A little know ledge of geography would help him wonderfully.

Mr. COX, of New York. 'Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, thispro· test is in no sense offensive. It only calls the attention of the House and the country to a species of legislation that ought to be corrected; a species of legislation vicious beyond demonstration, even in full debate. The protest simply refers to the large amount involved in the bill and- the propriety of its consideration according to a special rule made for the consideration of the items in bills of this kind, aud that these apFfopriatiop.s should not be considered en bloc. 'fhcn it refers to our time-honored privilege in this House to debate these appropriation hills in Committee of the Whole and out ofit. Then it_ comes down to the constitutional idea that the General Government was established for general purposes; that the States should take care of their local interests, and that in these regards there should be a line of demarkation strictly drawn.

Mr. Speaker, although this debate may s:o to the merita of the bill, and although the bill may not appear qmte so presentable aR before analyzed and protested, and although the bill as printed is not the same bill as written, although the bill now goes to the Senate bap­tized by the two-third, reasonless rule, I hope the Senate, with the aid of both parties anti fair debate, will eliminate all the errors, all the "log-rolling" from it, and give ns a bill that will inure to the benefit of such commercial interests as are under the Federal author­ity and at the same time protect our rightful immunity under the Constitution from unjust taxation at a, time when the country suf­fers beyond example.

I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. ELLIS.] Mr. ELLIS. I would not now claim the att~ntion of the Honse bnt

for the fact that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce [Mr. REAGAN] in the course of his remarks alluded to certain gentlemen. who had appeared before the committee and whom his nice sense of parliamentary propriety would not permit him to na.me; and a cry went up from ahundFedlips, made brave in their uttemnces perhaps

/

2748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

because they were numerous, "N arne him!" Were it not for this fact I would not now claim the attention of the House. In response to that cry, "Name him!" "Name him!" I respond, his name is "ELLIS;" he hails from Louisiana; and he confronts you now with words of which he is not ashamed and wit.h thoughts that will bear the keen ·scrutiny of his watching countrymen.

In regard to this protest, Mr. Speaker, which has occasioned all this debate, I cannot for my life see why any one should object to it; the offensive language has been withdrawn, and I for one say that in signing it I meant no reflection upon the chairman of the Com­mittee on Commerce nor upon any of the members of that commit­tee, (most of whom I am proud to claim as my personal friends,) nor upon any gentleman who saw fit to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, look at the protest. What is there in it, unless it be the en uncia tion of principles enshrined in the Constitution and ma.de sacred by American uaage T What is the first point made T It is that this bill appropriates the sum of $7,000,000 and that the measure is hurried through without discussion and without the chance for that sharp, close investigation which members should ever bestow upon any measure which sweeps away the money of the people. '\Ve live in a broad country: four thousand miles one way and two thousand the other. It is impossible that members of this House can be familiar with tbo physical geography of all these rivers in the different States. Discussion clears away the mists. Truth is like a torch: the more you shake it the more it shines. Investigation affects injuriously only the guilty, never the innocent. When the people's money is to be voted away, when $7,000,000 are to be appropriat-ed, how strange, Mr. Speaker, that we, sent here to legislate for the country, with the whole summer before us, ay, even until December, if need bo, to transact the legitimate business of the country, should shrink from full investigation and discussion of this important measure.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask my friend to yield to me one minute simply for a question.

Mr. ELLIS. With great pleasure I yield to my friend for a ques­tion. · Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman has signed a protest here in regard to a certain practice which has prevailed in this House for a long series of years and has received the sanction of vory many very good men-even of one so good as himself. I ask the gentleman in this connection whether he will not consent to have read the names at­tached to this prot-est and also the names of those who voted in the affirmative upon the last river and harbor bill which came before the House and was passed in the same way T

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Speaker, that is not a question, and I do not yield for it.

Mr. ROBERTS. It will occupy only a very few minutes. Mr. ELLIS. I do not yield. My friend from Maryland, having

obtained consent t,o ask me a question, tries to inject into my speech a portion of the record of the last Congress, and I decline to yield for that purpose. · Mr. ROBERTS. I have no doubt it will confirm all the gentleman

has said. Mr. ELLIS. Then, sir, I will answer you thus; and I will make

confession which a good many of the gentlemen on this floor will have to make before theirconstituentsnextNovember. I was young and green then and did not pay attention to the real contents of that bill as I should have done.

1\fr.ROBERTS. Myfriend should go further and make confession, as this is a day of confession, that he ca,me to me and ru>ked to get $250,000 for the harbor at New Orleans and $200,000 for Red River, instead of the amount appropriated.

Mr. ELLIS. I will come to that; I will pay my respects to that thought before I close; the gentleman need not be afraid. Ther'3 beats nothing here in my heart in regard to the public interest which he and every citizen in this great Republic cannot look at and wel­come. Now, sir, as to the second point of the protest. I ask tho Clerk to read it.

The Clerk read as follows : 2. All onrrnles, and especially Rule 121, specially applicable to appropriations

for works of internal improvement, are intended to guafd against a vote in gxoss on such appropiiatious, and require, for wise purposes, separate votes on each item, under certain conditions. We protest against the infraction of so salutary a rule on a bill where the tendency is to combine for general spoliation upon the Treasury.

Retracting for myself the word "spoliation," Mr. Speaker, which was used there when I signed that protest, I ask could any rule be more salutary Y I ask could any rule guard against combinations for large appropriations of this kind where the individual in~erests of there­spective district, tho interests of each member, are aggregated in the whole bill, each member fighting for his district alone but leaving ont of sight for the moment the general weal of the whole country f This rule was made to meet that very spirit of log-rolli.ng in which members meet to make up bills of this kind. Now I ask the Clerk to read the third point in the protest.

The Clerk read as follows : 2. The rip;bt of the House of Representatives to consider appropria-tions in Com­

mittee of the Whole House, or at least in the Honse itself, should be sacredly pro. tected. This suspension of the rule deprives this House of our traditional privilege; and this encoura~es similar raids upon the Treasury to gratify local interests.

Mr. ELLIS. Certainly, sir. The privilege of discussing an immense a.ppropriation in the Committee of the Whole, the privilege of exam-

ining into the claims of the little creeks and into small rivers in the country, and especially of some in Pennsylvania the very names of which the Speaker of this House is ignorant of, the names of which I do- not find on the map of the United States-of rivers I never heard of. · Mr. DUNNELL. Does the gentleman refer to rivers for which an appropriation has been made f

Mr. ELLIS. They ·are named in the bill, and money poured out like water for their survey. _ .

Mr. DUNNELL. Let me correct the gentleman for a moment. There is not a river or harbor in the bill that has not been surveyed by order of Congress by the Engineer Department of the Army, or for which a recommendation has not been made.

Mr. ELLIS. That may be. One hundred and fifty thouaand dolhtrs are appropriated for the survey of numerous creeks-for Otter Creek and a creek in Pennsylvania, a creek with an unpr::>nounceablename.

Mr. DUNNELL. And in your State you have your full share of fu~. .

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir; we asked nothing for creeks, but something we did not get for our great rivera. I am informed by my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, in one of these streams for which appro­priations are made you cannot float a saw-log except in rainy weather. [Laughter.]

Now, when we discuss these measares in Committee of the Whole, light is let in upon them.

Mr. REAGAN. If that is true, then I wish to say that the gentle­man's colleague in a-sking for au appropriation for that creek commit­ted an imposition upon UB.

Mr. ELLIS. I am not here to defend the one or the other. Let the chairman of the Commerce Committee look to his own knowledge, for he is responsible. I now come to my part, the part I playe·d before this committee in asking for an appropriation for the improvement of the harbor at New Orleans and for Red River--

Mr. DUNNELL. I insist the gentleman from Louisiana should ad­dress the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana will address the Chair.

Mr. ELLIS. I will endeavor to speak so the Chair can hear me. I did appear before that committee. I appeared before it in behalf

of two great objects: one was the harbor at New Orleans, and the other the great needs of Red River; two objects which in importance lan!!llage can scarcely overestimat-e.

The harbor at New Orleans, for which your original bill provided not one dollar--

Mr. REAGAN. For which there were no estimates and for which no money was asked.

Mr. ELLIS. Yes; my colleague, General GIBSON, appeared before your committee and ru>ked for an appropriation.

Mr. REAGAN. Not till after the bill was reported and printed. Mr. ELLIS. But you got the estimates of the engineer officers of

the United States; and it was shown that the harbor of that city is being undermined; that a portion of the river is wearing into its banks threatening the very harbor itself; a harbor where rides the commerce of twenty States; the harbor of the second exporting city of this Government; a harbor whose commercial importance cannot be overrated. Yet with the estimates of the engineers asking you for $476,000, and with Licking River and the unmentionable river in Pennsylvania fully provided for, you dole out the miserable sum of $50,000. Is this statesmanship T Is this looking after the great interests of the whole country f

Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman should not state what is not the fact. There is nothing for Licking River and nothing for what he calls the unmentionable river in Pennsylvania.

Mr. ELLIS. The gentleman forgets--Mr. REAGAN. I do not forget. I state what is true. 1\fr. ELLIS. Does the gentleman state that there is no item in the

bill .for Licking Riverf Mr. REAGAN. There is an item for surveys of rivers and we did

put into this bill the authority for surveys where members came be­fore us with evidence which showed that the rivers or harbors in question ought to be surveyed.

Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask the gentleman from Louisiana to name the unmentionable river.

Mr. ELLIS. I will spell it, K-i-s-k-i-m-i-n-e-t-a-s. [Great laughter.] :Mr. REAGAN. Is there a dollar appropriated for that river f Or

is it. simply that a survey is ordered T Mr. SPARKS. There is an order for a survey with a view to future

appropriations. · Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman says he cannot. pro­

nounce these names. It is the Kis-ki-min-e-tas River he stumbles a.t. [Laughter.] The honorable gentleman's education has been sadly neglected if he cannot pronounce that name. It is a musical Indian name, having a local association, and signifies, if I rightly remember, "sprightly stream." It is one of the tributaries of the Allegheny

·River. The survey of the Allegheny is provided for also. Of this stream, traversing the western extent of our State from Pittsburgh up into New York, I shall speak a~ain. Steamboats have run up this st.ream from Pittsburgh to Olean m New York at different seasons of the year. It is one of the arteries of our wealth, if utilizerl. Twenty., seven miles above Pittsburgh the Kiskiminetas, so difficult for the

·' 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2749 gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. ELLis] to pronounce, empties into the Allegheny, being one of its main tributaries. The Kiskiminetas is formed by the junction of the Conemaugh and Loyalhanna at Salts­burgh, a town of oonsiderabl~ size some twenty-three miles above its mouth, and the Conemaugh, being caUed for a tTibe of Indians of that name, has its source in the Allegheny :Mountains. The Kiski­minetas and the Conemaugh form a continuous stTeam of some sixty miles east from the Allegheny River. If the gentleman will look at the report of the committee of the Senate of the United States, made in 1S74, of which Mr. Wn."'DOM, Senator from Minnesota, was chair­man, on transportation routes to the seaboard, he will find t.llese two rivers, Kiskiminetas and Conemaugh, mentioned and specialJy indi­cated by a distinguished engineer as links i~ the great chain of watar communication between the Ohio and the Atlantic seaboard.

:Mr. SOUTHARD. Is there a steamboat on those rivers 'f Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. There has been. I can bring evi­

dence of a steamboat in former years when there was slack-water and canal navigation along these streams going up the Allegheny from Pittsburgh to the Ki&kiminetas, thence up to Johnstown near the head of the Conemaugh. ·

Mr. SPARKS. A stern-wheel, was it noU [Laughter.] 1\Ir. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. It was not a steamer of the heaviest

draught, but, sir, we want the examination by the Government to see how far artificial appliances can improve these streams for naviga­tion and thus add to the wealth of the country.

Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to ask my colleague a question. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. What is the question f Mr. WRIGHT. I wist. to know where that stream is; where is the

stream that is called Conemaugh, Kiskiminetas, or some such name T Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. Why, the gentleman from Penn­

ay lvania, my colleague, aspil:es to be the chief executive of that State, and if he does not know th~ location of these streams he is ignorant of the geography of his State and ought not to seek such a high po­sition.

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not fish in such shallow waters for the nomi­nation of governor. If I had to go into the trout streams of Penn­sylvania for it I would abandon it. [Laughter.]

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I am glad to have given the gen­tleman an opportunity of explaining. The people of Pennsylvania may agree with him in this respect. and relieve him of his fishing.

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not know that these rivers have any existence. 1\Ir. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I am surprised that my colleague,

who claims some intelligence and to be the specia.l friend of the work­ing man and to know all about our industries, should declare before this Honse and the country that he does not know the location of the Kiskiminetaa and Conemaugh Rivers. [Laughter.] ·

Mr. WRIGHT. It is a new name; I never heard of it before. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. Whither are we drifting 'f The

gentleman is an old democratic politician in Pennsylvania. He was famous when I was a child. He stood high in the councils of his party; so high that he presided, I believe, in 1~ over the national convention that nominated James K. Polk for President. Since then he has been in our State Legislature, member of Congress, chairman of democratic State committee, now candidate for governor, aud yet does not know the location of these streams ! The gentle­man is older than he was, and his memory is possibly faithless to him. Let me give him a little history. Now, the gentleman cannot ha.ve forgotten the Pennsylvania Canal, the Pennsylvania public works, that the democratic party in our State controlled so long and manip­ulated so well to perpetuate therr power. The Western Division ran from Pittsburgh to Johnstown, the western base of the Allegheny Mountains, thence over the mountains by the Portage Railroad to Hollidaysburgh, thence by the eastern base of the mountain, thence by canal to Harrisburgh, thence to Philadelphia:_, partly by canal and partly by rail; and when these were sold for $7,500,000 the gentle­man's party, he along with them, doubtless groaned and complained in sadness. Now, sir, the western division of this canal from Pitts­burgh to Johnstown wa~ up along the Allegheny to Freeport, thence along the Kiskiminetas and Conemaugh Rivers. They were its only feeders, and along them were a number of dams built by the Rtate and slackwater navigation over them a portion of the way. From some time in 1830 to 1850 all the travel and traffic from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, from early spring to late fall, was over these streams and canal. In the statute-books of our State from the commence­ment of internal improvements in Pennsylvania until this moment are to be found the names Kiskiminetas and Conemaugh Rivers in connection with some public legislation. 1\Iy friend does not know enough of geography to be our governor, I fear.

Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to know from my colleague if a survey is ordered in the bill for these two little streams.

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. It is, and! am proud of my success on having obtained it.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are they navigable streams f Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. They can be a portion of the year,

and it is practicable, in my opinion, and I have also the opinion of mGst distinguished engineers that they can be made navigable the greater portion, if not the whole, of the year. I want the survey to show this to the country for my part of the State. •

Mr. WRIGHT. How wide are they 7

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. At high water the gentleman could not swim across them; he would lose his wind before he got across.

Mr. BRIDGES. I wish to ask the gentleman whether at low water yop. cannot step across them.

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. No, sir. Thereareferriesand fordings for horses at low water in some p1:1Ces across the streams. Only last week, on a trip home, missing the train and walking into Blairsville, some two miles I had to pay a ferry-boat my ten ~entstorow mea{}ross the Conemaugh. This was nearly forty miles above the mouth of the Kiskiminetas. The gentleman is an old, old democrat, too. He has forgotten his geography. He does not know his own State. Let him come away from his anthracite-coal fields of Eastern Pennsylvania. and visit the great diversities of resot;trces in ·western Pennsylvania, across the mountains. Come out and see our coal-fields, our cokE?. ovens, our fire-brick works, our lumber-yards, our mills, our agricult­ural wealth, our furnaces and rolling mills run by natural ga.s welling up from the bowels of the earth; our oil wells, making wealth to the State and the country. Come, travel a little and learn what your State needs.

Mr. ELLIS. That is the wa~ they slipped in so easily, being so well oiled.

Mr. BRIDGES. I know they are little insignificant streams. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman is an old man. I

want to be respectful, but must say he does not know what he is talk­ing about. I want it to go to the country that these gentlemen from the eastern part of our State who have spoken are against the improve­ment of ollr rivers, are against therr examination and survey, are against giving us an opportunity of showinl{ by scientific exploration that the Allegheny, the Kiskiminetas, the Conemaugh, can be made navigable at reasonable expense, and be of immense aid to our inter­nal commerce.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana [1\-Ir. ELLis] will proceed. ·

1\Ir. ELLIS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very kindly for his interruption, for it affords me a new argument in opposition to this hill.

We have seen a gray-headed gentleman who has lived in Pennsyl­vania more than forty years and occupied !'orne of the highest posi­tions in that State, and who is always 'right, who never heard of this river; and I was assured by the honorable Speaker that he did not know that there was such a river in the State.

The SPEAKER. The Chair stated that he had never heard of t.his application for appropriation for this river, for he did not suppose the stream was navigable.

Mr. ELLIS. I stand corrected. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I am glad that the Charr has made

that explanation, for his own sake. Mr. ELLIS. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania, venerable in

the public councils, contends that you can step over this river, and that it is not navigable at all. As I said before, the only way it crept into this appropriation bill -was because it was oily.

Mr. KENNA. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a questionf Mr. ELLIS. Certainly. Mr. KENNA. I desire to ask the gentleman what harm can be

done, even taking his own view of the character of the remarkable stream spoken of, by an appropriation for surveys or examinations ¥ If the streams are of the character spoken of no money will be spent upon them; not a single dollar. The engineers, if the streams are of· the character described, would so report. The reports of t·he engi­neering department would show for the last ten, twenty, or thirty years that the Engineer Corps ba~ never expended a dollar on the surveys of rivers of the character alluded to. I want to say further that the Committee on Commerce did not insert in this bill any pro­vision for a survey which was not based upon a statement made to them by some gentleman upon this floor or other satisfactory infor­mation of the importance and magnitude of the streams and their navigability such as would make it worth a liberal appropriation and active efforts to improve them. When a gentleman comes before the committee and a-sks for a. survey of a river which he states is navi­gable and of commercial importance, how in the name of God can any committee be protected from imposition, if the facts are not rep-resented, except by an official and proper survey Y "

1\Ir. ELLIS. I must deciue to yield further. I have but little more to say, · Mr. FRANKLIN. I rise to a point of order. I ask that the gentle­

man from Louisiana address the Chair. 1\Ir. ELLIS. I did not know that there was any rule in this House

that forbade a member from speaking to those wbose hearts and con­sciences and judgments he wished to reach. I know that the Speaker is the organ of the House, but it is not the Speaker alone whom I wish to address, but it is the brains and the great hearts of all the members of this Honse that I desire to reach. And when I talk to a man l; like to talk drrectly at him, and not through a third party. I propose now to meet the assertions and to answer the question of the gentleman from West Vrrginia, [Mr. KENNA.] In the first place he says it was impossible for the committee to guard against mistakes and that they are not responsible for the appropriation inserted in the bill for this unpronounceable river. Ay, sir, there is a way and that is by bringing the bill under the rules and under the constitu-

2750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

tional usage into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, so that we may bring the local geographtcal knowledge of members to bear upon these obscure points and it is only by close and search­ing investigation in the form of amendments and arguments when such a measure is before the Honse that such mistakes can be avoided.

:Mr. FRANKLIN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. ELLIS. I decline to yield. I desire now to answer the ques­

tion of the gentleman from West Virginia. He tells us that not a dollar is asked in the bill for the survey of rivers.

Mr. l::lpeaker, do you not know, with your great legislative experi­ence, does not every member of this Honse know that a ~urvey is the entering wedge to an appropriation f The first step is to get a survey, to get the estimate of the Engineer Corps, and then base upon that estimate an appropriation the next year.

Mr. KENNA. The gentleman misconceives my statement. I have not stated that no money is asked for these improvements for which surveys are.made. I say that, if upon proper snrvey it is found that the improvement is necessary to the interests of commerce, then ~t is appropriated for, and I am willing to vote for the improvement. If, however, the engineer, upon examination, survey, or otherwise, ascertains facts about the character of the stream which show it to be unnecessary to proper commercial facilities, he so reports and no appropriation is made. The survey is simply the official means of information.

Mr. ELLIS. The injustice of the bill is what I object to. I ap­peared before the committee and asked for an appropriation for the Red River, the second river in length of navigable waters on the con­tinent; the Red River that floats upon its bosom the commerce of $50,000,000; the Red River, the great artery of commerce for W~st­ern Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Western Louisiana; the Red River, which has twelve hundred miles of navigable waters and with two thousand miles of navigable waters tributary to it; the Red River, for which, upon the estimate of the Engineer Corps, $400,000 was asked, and which must be improved unless the Government de­sires that the mouth of the river shall be actually closed ; the Red River, which is dammed and choked year by year; the Red River, into whose miry depths have been sunk within the last ten years sixty steamboats worth $1,800,000, not including the value of the cargoes and of the precious lives that have been lost., for in one single instance two hundred and fifty souls went to the bottom becaUJ>e the steamboat was snagged; the Red RiYer, which asked this appropri­ation, is doled out the miserable sum of $100,000.

Mr. REAGAN. Thf\ gentleman addresses me. Mr. DUNNELL. The gentleman from Louisiana opposes the bill,

because the committee did not comply with his request. Mr. ELLIS. Not at alL Mr. DUNNELL. Then you should take your name from the protest. Mr. ELLIS. If you had hearkened to me, if yon had mourned

when I lamented, had danced when I piped, I would have taken the bill in its present shape and made the best of it.

Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman addresses me as if he supposed that I do not comprehend the character of that river, the extent of its commerce, and the dangers of its navigation. Every member of the Committ-ee on Commerce will bear me witness that long before the gentleman himself appeared before the Committee I urged that lib­eral appropriation be made for that river.

Mr. ELLIS. I am not putting the gentleman on hia defense to-day; he must explain his course otherwise than here.

Mr. FRANKLIN. The gentleman said he would yield to me for a question.

Mr. ELLIS. I will do so. 1\Ir. FRANKLIN. The gentleman has signed this protest against

the action of a majority of this Honse, and I desire to ask him a few questions. The confusion in this Hall has been so greattha.t I could not hear all that he has said, but from what I couldga.ther of the gentle­man's remarks, one of his objections to this bill is that it was not allowed to be discussed in Committee of the Whole. Another objection was that it contains appropriations for some streams which he considen~ of not sufficient importance to have appropriations made for them. Now the questions which I desire to ask him are these: was he not a member of the Forty-fourth Congress, and did he not vote for a river and harbor bill which passed under a suspension of the rules, without ref­erence to t'he Committee of the Whole; and did he utter any protest then T Again I ask him if the river and harbor bill that passed in the Forty-fourth Congress did not contain appropriations for streams just as insignificant as are these T And I ask him if he had obtained a million of dollars as he desired from this committee for his river would he not have voted for this bill t

Mr. ELLIS. The gentleman is barking on a cold trail; the same question has already been asked me and I have answered it.

In conclusion I desu:e to say that it iR not the size of this bill that I grumble at. I do not believe the American people are a mean peo­Jlle ; I do not believe they are stingy or narrow-minded. I believe that in t.he broad field of statesmanship there are prouder titles to be won than the very questionable one of watch-dog of the Treasury. I do not believe that statesmanship consists in meanne~:~s.

I believe the American Congress should endeavor to meet the wishes and aspirations of the people, to respond to the spirit of progress that is all abroad in the land. I will vote for ten, twelve, fifteen millions of dollars to employ idle hands and to develop t-he hidden resources

of this country. I would do that willingly provided the appropria­tions be just and wise and in accordance with the true object of legis­lation.

1\Ir. FRANKLIN. I ask that the gentleman answe1· my question. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I desire to ask a question of the

gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. COX, of New York. I yield five minntestothegentlemanfrom

Illinois, [Mr. SPRDiGER.l Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. Will the gentleman from Louis­

iana [1\Ir. ELLIS) allow me to ask him a question 7 Can be set a limit to the power of Louisiana to swallow up tho public money Y

Mr. SPRINGER. I cannot yield. Mr. KENNA. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. KENNA. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] having

risen to a question of privilege, and the point of order having been raised that the protest read here is not proper as a part of his remarks, I ask how the gentleman now undertakes to control the floor T

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York as entitled to the floor for an boor. The gentleman yielded to the gentleman from Texas, and it was understood that the time occu­pied by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] should not come out of the hour of the gentleman from New York ..

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. I desire to ask another question. Under this new rule of passing a bill and debating it afterward, is there any limit to the debate f In saying this I do not mean to be understood as favoring the bill which passed on yesterday, for I do not; but, sir, I wish to bring this unprofitable debate to a close, and to enter my objection to the new rule adopted this morning.

Mr. SPRINGER. I believe I am entitled to the floor. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] is enti­

tled to ten minutes of his hour remaining. Mr. COX, of New York. I yield to the gentleman from IllinoU!,

[Mr. SPRINGER. 1 · Mr. SPRINGER. I hope this question, so far as it relates to the

right of presenting a protest against the action of the majority of the Honse, will be oecided, not with any reference to the bill which was passed yesterday, but in view of the precedents that we may estab­lish by such decision. There are some questions about which, or con­cerning which, the only remedy that members upon this floor can have is to present a protest in respectful language, and have it entered on the Journal. There are certain rights which members have under the Constitution; certain things which the Constitution prescribes with regard to legislation. When any of these things are disregarded by a majority of the Honse, it is the right of the minority to present and have entered upon the Journal their protest in respectful lan­guage against such action.

For instance, in article 1, section 5, of the Constitution, it is pro-vided: •

Ea{lh Honse shall be the Judge of the ~lections, returns, and qualifications of its own members,. and a. majonty of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, ancl may be authorized to com­pel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as ea{lh House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceeclin~s punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirtls, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its procredings, and from time to time pub­lish the same, excepting such parts as ma.r in thPir judgment require secrecy. and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one.fifth of those present, be entered on tho JournaL

Now, Mr. Speaker, suppose that upon the passage of a bill coming before this Honse one-fifth of the members present should demand that the yeas and nays be taken anll the majority should refm~e to let the yeas and nays be entered on the Journal, that would be a case in which the constitutional rights of the minority would entitle them to have the facts spread upon the record; and for the majority to deprive them of that right would be in utter disregard of the consti­tutional rights of the mrnority.

Suppose the House should undertake, by a majority vote, to expel a member. Would it not be a constitutional right of the minority to protest on the Journal again.c;t such action T

Now, whenever members deem a bill that is passed to be in viola­tion of the terlllil of the Constitution, they have a right, and it is their only remedy, to place upon record their respectful dissent from such action. A.nd especially is this the case when such bill was passed under a suspension of the rules, which admits of no discussion, and but one reading, and that from the Clerk's desk.

The gentleman from NewYork [Mr. Cox] has cited the precedents from the parliamentary authorities. I will not consume time by re­peating them. Dot it has been said that it would be dangerous to establish such a precedent; that members would be constantly pro­testing and burdening the Journal with their grievances. This will not follow. It is presumed that members of Congress will not abuse a high pri vjlege of this kind. In many of the States there are provis­ions in the State constitutions securing the right of protest to two or more members of the Legislature in all cases where they may deem their rights abridged in any manner. Such privileges have never been abused, so far as I have ever known.

I respectfully sug~est, then, that the spreading of this protest upon the Journal can do narm to no one. It is an important principle of parliamentary right, which any member of tho House may at any

\ \ I

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2751 f.ime feel it his privilege to exercise, to have his respectful protest entered on the Journal. I ask the Houso to reflect seriously before a precedent is s.et which would deny this right to the humblest mem­ber of this body. We cannot tell whose turn it may next be to ask the privile~e of entering a protest in this way. Let us decide this question Without any reference to the bill upon which it now arises and with a view solely to the individual rights of members on this floor-rights which they cannot surrender without being derelict in their duty.

Mr. HARTZELL. Will my colleague allow me to ask him whether voting against a bill is not a respectful protest against the passage of the meaE~ure f

Mr. SPRINGER. That would be a silent protest. But a member's constituents could not understand why he had voted against a bill, which had many ~ood provisions, but which he could not vote for on account of obnoxiOus provisions which he could not point out or ex­pose. Further, this right of protest might be invoked when the yeas and nays were not called, although under the Constitution one-fifth of the members might demand to have the yeas and nays entered upon the record.

Mr. HARTZELL. Did you not have the yeas and nays on the pas­sage of this bill f

Mr. SPRINGER. On this bill the yeas and nays were recorded. I am not speaking about that. My colleague's district has the Missis­sippi River on the one side and the Ohio River on the other. It is perfectly right that he should favor a liberal appropriation for those rivers. I do not object to that. But the next bill that comes up may not suit my colleague or the distinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.] It may not suit the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. REA ;j and each of these gentlemen may then desire to have their respectful protet!ts entered on the record.

Mr. HARTZELL. Perhaps the appropriation for the improvement of the Illinois River was not satisfactory to my colleagues.

Mr. SPRINGER. I will answer my colleague. I have no fanlt to :find with the bill on account of the amount appropriated for the llli­nois River which washes my district on the west line for seventy-five miles. The Committee on Commerce have acted liberally by my dis­trict; and in my action on this bill I am not influenced one way or the other on account of the appropriation for the Illinois River.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. COX, of New York. I yield five minntes to my colleague, [Mr.

·BEWITI', of New York.] The SPEAKER. The gentleman bas but five minutes, and the

Chair understood him to yield five minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, (Mr. HOOKER.] . Mr. COX, of New York. If my time can be ·extended I would be glad to yield to others all the time that may be given to me. If there be no objection, I hope time will be extended to these gentle­men.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman asks that hi8 time be extended :five minutes.

Several members objected. lir. COX, of New York. Then I yield all the time I have remain­

ing to my colleague. Mr. HEWITT, of :Kew York. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an

impression that the protest to which some members (myself among them) have affixed their names is directed against the merits of the bilL That is not my case. I have had no chance to study the details of this bill; I do not know what it contains. The bill as it has passed this House is, I am informed, not in the shape in which it was printed. ·

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker-- · Mr. HEWITT, of New York. I decline to be interrupted. I have

had no chance to study the details of this bill; but I :fincl that it ap­propriates the sum of $7,000,000. This is the amount which it takes from the Treasury without discussion by a process of combination which is apparent upon the face of it. Now it is not against the bill, which may be right or may be wrong, but against tlle passage of it, right or wrong, without an opportunity to discuss its provisions in detail in the Committee of the Whole, according to the wise and well­settled rules of the House that we protest. These rules were made to protect the Treasury. The suspension of them leaves its doors un­guarded and at the mercy of jobbers.

I have heard gentlemen denounced here because, having gone before the committee to present respectful applications for proper works, they have still thought fit to vote against the bill and protest against its passage. This seems to me most improper and unjust. For one I can say that the city of New York bas no grievance in this matter. I find on looking over the bill that $753,000 have been ap­propriated to works in the vicinity of the city of New York. It is tho largest appropriation made to any locality in the bill. The dis­trict which I represent is more largely interested in these works than any district in this House. Yet I voted against the bill, not because my district is not fully cared for, but because I will never consent to any legislation which deprives this House of the opportunity of full and free discussion and denies to the people of the country the means of knowing how they are taxed, why they are taxed, and what is done with the proceeds of taxation. - It is for this reason I protest, .and I should blush to avail myself of the excuse that my district js taken

care of, and that therefore I should even tacitly assent to a kind of legislation which violates the fundamental principles of responsible government.

I do not know whether the protest comes strictly within the rules or not; I am inclined to think it does not; but I say there are occa­sions when precedents are made which are so dangerous that it be­comes every man to do what he can to stop the progress of legisla.­-Hon which tends to take out of the Treasury-! will not say to spo­liate and rob it, but which tends to take out of the Treasury the bard earnings of the people without securing an adequate return for the expenditure. Hence I protest; and if the city of New York never gets another dollar for these pn blic works which concern the conn try at large far more than they do her, I shall still, so long as I have a seat on this floor, vote and protest against legislation which appro­priates large sums of money without bein~ subjected to the crucible of discussion in this House. If it is right 1t need not fear discussion; if it is wrong it should never be enacted without it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] is recog­nized.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I think we can get along without any more of this discussion, and it is time t() call the previous question.

Mr. WRIGHT. I ask the gentleman from Maine to yield to me for ten minutes.

Mr. ELAM. I hope the gentleman will give me a few minutes. [Cries of " Vote!'' "Vote !"]

Mr. WRIGHT. My name is not upon the protest, but I want to give my reasons for voting against the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine asks the previous question.

Mr. REILLY. I rise to a parliamentary question. Upon what does the gentleman demand the previous question Y

The SPEAKER. He raises the question of order as to this being a question of privilege.

Mr. REILLY. Has the Chair pa.ssed upon tbatf The SPEAKER. The Chair has not. Mr. REILLY. Would not that be the first thfug in orderf Mr. WRIGHT. I ask my friend from Maine to withdraw the call

for the previous question for ten minutes. But has the gentleman from Maine any right to demand the previous question f

The SPEAKER. The previous qnestion would terminate debate if sustained, and that of course wonld bring the Chair to decide, so fa.r as he saw :fit, the question or to say whatever he may have to say on the subject of its being a que8tion of privilege.

Mr. HALE. Have I an hour if I choose to occupy it f Not that I mean to do it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized, and has a light to an hour if he chooses to occupy that time.

Mr. HALE. Very well; then I withdraw the previous question for the present. I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland five minutes.

Mr. WRIGHT. How much time has the gentleman gott The SPEAKER. An hour. Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman give me a little time f I be­

lieve that he consents to that. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maryland has the floor for

five minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I desire to have order before proceeding. Mr. WRIGHT. Have I the floor or not T The SPEAKER. No, the gentleman from Maine bas the floor for

an hour, and he has yielded five minutes to the gentleman from .Maryland.

:Mr. WRIGHT. Then after the gentleman from Maryland bas con­cluded I shall ask to be heard, and I hope the gentleman from Maine will yield to me. •

Mr. ROBERTS. After the very thorough discussion we have had on this subject I do not wish to intrude any extended remarks of mine on the House, but I simply desire to make a personal remark with respect to my connection with this river and harbor bill, and that is this: although I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and althouzh I presume I have perhaps as large a water front in my dis­trict as in most of the districts provided for in the bill, yet I have not asked an appropriatilm of a single dollar for my district. (Here Mr. ROBERTS was interrupted by a colloquy upon the floor and by shouts of laughter, which were long-continued.] Mr. Speaker, if the House is not in a fit condition to draw a reasonable and very proper distinction it is no fault of mine. I have only that remark to make in this connection.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to resnme, I repeat that I have not in connection with the discharge of my duties on the Committee on Commerce thought proper to ask a single dollar for the district which I repre­sent. I admit that I did not vote for the last river and harbor ap­propriation bill, for the reason that I had grave doubts as to whether it was right and proper, and because of those doubts declined to give it my support.

But, sir, I have had ample and satisbctory means of information as to tlle contents of the bill just passed, and I know further that I have sought by every effort in my power to prevent any wrong get­ting into this bill in any shape or form, and I think my colleagues on the committee will bear me out in sayirig that I have always sought

2752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL· 23~

to prevent the Government being used for improper purposes by ap­propriating money to hunt up streams not to be found on the map of the count ry.

But there is this to be said in connection with the vote on this bill: there are certain gentlemen who have to-day manifested great con­cern lest legislat.ion may be taking a very improper course. I think if the river and harbor o,ppropriation bill had provided certain sums of money for them. there would ho,ve been a much larger vote than is at present recorded in favor of the bill. And in so far as my friend from Louisiana [:Mr. ELLis] is concerned I think I may say with justice to him as well as .to myself that I earnestiy sought to obtain for him all he desired, and lie generously said that in the event of obtaining it he would give to the bill his earnest support. Not, ·however, re­ceiving so much as he expected, but in lien thereof only the sum of $50,000, I find he is among the immaculates who are not willing to give their assent to the fiill and must needs place upon record a pro­test against so great a wrong. I desire to send to the Clerk's desk my protest, which will explain the position occupied in the past by some of our protesting friends, and as part of it I ask the Clerk to read the second allegat ion in the protest and then the names which I have marked.

The Clerk read as followR : 2. All our rules, and especially Rule 121, specia.lly applica-ble to appropriations

for works of internal improvement, are intended to guard agains t a vote in gross on such appropriat ions, and require, for wise purposes, Aepa.rate T'Otes on each item, under cer tain conditions. We protest a :;ainst the infraction of so salutary a rule on a bill where the tendency is to combine for general spoliation upon. the Treas­ury.

.Mr. ROBERTS. Let the names be read. The Clerk read as follows:

WILLIAM P. CALDWELL. MILTON S. R.OllL~SON. A~DREW H. HAMILTON. MILTOY A. C..iNDLER. E. JOfu'r ELLIS.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, Mr. Speaker, I send to the Clerk's desk to have read that whicll I hn.ve mn.rked on page 235!> of the CONGRES­SIONAL RECORD of the Forty-fourth Congress.

The Clerk read as follows : On the passa"'e of House bill No. 302-2 making appropriations for the construc­

tion, repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works of rivers and harlJOrs, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now read the names of those I have marked who voted in the affirmative on the passage of the bill, which was on the motion of Mr. IlEREFOnD to suspend the rules.

The Clerk read as follows : William P. Caldwell, Candlor, Ellis, Andrew H. Hamilton, Robinson.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, Mr. Speaker, I protest thn.t in view of these facts the paper presented by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox,] as a characterization of the conduct o~ the Committee on Com­merco and of those who have voted for this bill, is, to say the least of it, unwarrantable and improper.

Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. HAMILTON, and Mr. TURNER rose. 1\!r. HAMILTON. I ask the gentleman from Maine to yield five

minutes t.o me. [Cries of ''Vote I" "Vote I" J Mr; TURNER. I ask the gentleman to yield me one minute for a

personal explanation. The SPEAKER. To whom does the gentleman yield Y Ml·. HALE. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Pennsyl-

vania., (Mr. WRIGHT.l . Mr. WRIGHT. I sbould have preferred it if the gentleman had

given me ten minutes, but must make the most of the time he gen­erously assigns me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take in this House a factious position. I do not want to throw any obstacle in the way of just and proper legislation. I voted against the passage of the bill, but refused to add my name to the protest. I think, however, it was no more than right that those of ns who voted against the bill, if we did it in a proper and conscientious manner, should have the opportunity of stat­ing the reasons why we voted against it.

Now, as far as regards tho appropriation for rivers and ha.rbors, if all these purposes were right and 1noper, I should not hesitate to vote for an appropriation of twenty or thirty millions of dollars. I believe it is a better way to expend the public money for proper and useful purposes in this hour of general calamity by giving laboring-men an opportunity of finding employment than to do almost any otller thing. But what I protest against, and what I think must strike the judgment of th~ House with force and power, is that there are appropriations in this bill that ought never to have been introduced. I notice there are seventy-eight new items introduced into this bill where money is appropriated for the purpose of commencing new ent~rprises. Per­haps a large majority of these will «-rmina.te upon an examination. It will be seen that any outlo,y upon them would be a useless expend­iture of money and they will be dropped. But why put them in at all Y

Now, I do not want to say anything in opposition to the views of my colleague from Pennsy lvauia [Mr. '\VIDTE] as to the appropriation for sm·veys of the two small streams on the Allegheny Mountains; bnt he knows and every one who lli acquainted with the geography of Ptlnnsyl vania knows the fact ~hat no good can result from an ex-

penditnre of money for the exploration and survey of streams of i ll is kind. Two small streams, t.he Kiskiruinetas and Conemn.ugh, tha.t are not sufficiently large in dry weather to turn an oruinary grist-mill, are not the subjects that ought to be introduced into general appro­priation bills under the name of improvements of rivers all(l harbors. They are small creeke and cannot be made navigable for steamers. Why waste the money in the Treasury for such a purpose J Is it proper and just to do sof Is this wise legislation f

So far as regards the development of the Mississippi in making navigable "the great Father of Waters," I would appropriate millions without any hesitation at all. As regards the erection of fortitic:il.­tions and defenses for the protection of the country, I would not give my assent to do any act that would cut short what is necessary to put our harbors in a perfect state of repair to meet all emergencies. This is a national duty; it enters into the question of national safety and defense. What legislators would hesitate to appropriate money for this purpose f It would not only be remiss, but the act of bad faith to do so.

But what I want to bring to the attention, the judgment, and the reason of the House, if the House has its reason-and I begin to think from the last five or six hours' experience the Honse has lost its rea­son-what I want t.o bring to the attention of the House is that to these great measures of public necessities of making your grea.t rivers nn.vigable and pnttin~ your harbors in a state of perfect repair yon · should give and give liberally; but do not under this system of log­rolling, plainly shown in this bill by granting money for surveys of inconsiderable streams that can amount to nothing with the expend­iture of any sum and will only serve a~ an example in the future for wasteful expenditures of the public money. I know that t.he good sense of the Honse, if it can be brought to think of it as it ought, will take this view of the case. I am far from opposing any useful appropriation of money for the improvements of the rivers in Penn­sylvania. I am not influenced by any other than sound judgment. Where money can be used properly for this purpose I will hold up both hands for it. Where it cannot be done I will oppose the waste of public money as well in my own State as any .others.

This bill draws from the Trea~ury over seven millions, and that money, or at least half of it, can be appropriated to much better pur­poses. There are waysenoughin which thiscan be done. There are none wit.hin the sound of my voice but can understand this.

I would have voted for the bill if there had not been introduced into it all these new subjects. But for these I should have given it · a hearty support, and I only regret it was not in my power to do it. And I think we, the minority, must not be condemned for not voting for the bill, because there are measures in it which ought not to have received the attention of the committee nor the countenance of Con­gress. Strike them out1 and this opposition to the bill will cease. We are not fighting agamst making a perfect navigation of the Mis­sissippi and its great tributaries. We are not fighting against put­ting the seaboard and the lakes in a perfect state of defense. We would grant n.ll the money that is necessarily required for these pur­poses. We are not fighting against such a line of policy, but we are fighting against a combination bringing new measures, which never can be of the least benefit to the public and because every dollar thus granted is absolutely thrown away. The public moneys should not be squandered by millions under such slender pretexts. There are famishing men to whom it would be more wise and provident to bestow it upon.

[Here the hammer fell.] .Mr. WRIGHT. Has my time exp.ired 7 The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time is out. Mr. YOUNG. I move that the Honse adjourn. 1\fr. HALE. l yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

WmTEl five minutes. The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Maine yield for the

motion to adjourn f Mr. HALE. Not at present. Mr. YOUNG. I withdraw the motion. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I am obliged to the gentleman

from Maine [Mr. HALEJ for his courtesy. Mr. HALE. There is a general idea that the gentleman from Penn­

sylvania [Mr. WHITE] will finish the speech his colleague [Mr. WRIGHT] was not able to finish. [Laughter.] .

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. That is my intention; bnt not in the way my colleague would have finished. I shall pursue a differ­ent vein of thought. I again thank the gentleman from Maine for the courtesy of the floor for a brief period.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my colleague [Mr. WruGnT] made the apologetic speech he has just closed. Something of that kind was necessary after his utterances of a few moments ago. When we started on this discussion he was unable to pronounce the euphonious word Kiskiminetas. He ha.s been instructed by the few minutes' discourse we have had. He now rapidly pronounces tuat musical word smoothly and sweetly. A little more debate about our rivers and the necessities and requests of Western Pennsylvania, and the geography of my colleague from the '\Vilkesbarre district will im­prove as rapic11y as his pronunciation.

Now, sir, a few words about the policy of this bil1. There may be some of its details objectionable and obnoxious to tile severest criti-

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2753 cism. The amount appropriated is 1arge, not too large, .! trust, to embarrass the Treasury of the country. It will be drawn out grad­ually and will be distributed like the dews of heaven upon all sec­tions of the country. I have no time to dwell in detail; if so, I could indicate various objections. But, sirl this measure is in the interest of public improvement-to make avatlable for an internal commerce, at a time when labor is cheap and seeking some employment, the avenues for commercial intercourse constructed with such liberal hand by the Author of our being in difterent parts of the country.

A few years ago we did not have bills like this so general in their character. The earlier history of the country does not give ns gen­eral river and harbor appropriation bills. But, sir, the policy of Gov­ernment aid in internal improvements in the development of our resources has obtained in the country for many years, and has ob­tained after a long struggle among the earlier statesmen. I am too young to have known Henry Clay, but I was brought up in that old whig school of politics of which he was so conspicuous an exponent; which invited the fostering, powerful hand of the Federal Govern­ment in promoting commerce among the States and with foreign nations by making more navigable our rivers, and more safe our har­bors. This attractive man, a liberal statesman, as early as 1824, in discussing "a bill authorizing the President to cause certain sur­veys and estimates to be made on the subject of roads and canals," said: It is said that the power to regulate commerce merely authorizes the laying of

imposts and duties. ~ut Congress has no power to lay IIDposts and duties on the trade among the several States. The grant must mean, therefore, something else. What is it! The ]>OWer to re,lnllate commerce among the several States, if it has any meaning, implies authority to foster it, to promote it, to bestow upon it facili· ties similar to those which have been conceded to our foreign trade. All the powers of this Government should be interpreted in reference to its first, its best, its great­est object-the Union of the States. And is not that Union best invigorated by an intimate social and commercial connection between all pa.rtll of the confederacy!

The subsequent practices of the Government have sanctioned this policy. But, sir, I have no time for extended remarks. There can now be no doubt of the clear constitutional power of Congress to make general appropriations for the improvement of the navigation of the rivers of the country to make them convenient avenues for the trade of the people. ·

It is to be found in that eighth section of first article of the Consti­tution giving Congress "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." In a noted case, Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 196, Chief-Justice Marshall says:

This power, like all others vested in Congress, is comP.lete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and a<~k:nowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.

And if any doubt this there is ample authority to declare that the power to regulate commerce among the several States does not stop at State lines, but may be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of a. State. Says Justice Johnson in the same case:

The power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States with foreign nations is that of the whole United States. Every dietrict has a right to participate. The deep streams which pene­trate our country in every direction pass through the interior of almost every State of the Union, and furnish the means of exercising that right. If it exists within the States then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State.

So, then, sir, there is ample authority in the practices of the Gov­ernment and in the direct utterances of the highest Federal court of the power of Congress to make the appropl'iations of the character contemplated in this bill. It is wise at a time like this to do eo. Sir, labor is at a standstill in many parts of the country. He is a public benefactor who invents some useful employment for the idle thou­sands.

It is said we are approaching hard-pan in the business of the coun­try, indeed have arrived there ; if so, let us now take a new depart­ure on the hard-pan principle. Hard-pan prices have been reached; let the Government, then, at these low rates profit as well as the pri­vate citizen. Let the nation seize this opportunity to do so much good for itself and its idle subjects. Such, then, being a wise policy. why hesitate! Why :find fault f The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WRIGHT] pauses at the threshold and complains at the appro­priations for the survey of the Allegheny, of the K.iskiminetas and Conemaugh in Western Pennsylvania. Why this f I have before, a few moments since, spoken of this. Let the distinct issue be made with him and others who object, right here on the record. Why shall Government aid ·be not given to improve the navigation of the Alle­gheny if it is practicable to do so f

It is a stream, not merely local in its character, rising in New York. By steamboat navigation it has long since borne commodities from Olean, from Jamestown, and other points in that State to the Ohio and Mississippi. The Allegheny and Monongahela, uniting at Pitts­burgh, form the Ohio. Much of the lumber trade to Pittsburgh comes down the Allegheny. Why, sir, steamboat navigation has existed on this stream from Pittsburgh up t{) Olean. Steamboats have run more than six months in the year more than a hundred miles up. At this very time, as I was informed a few days since, some of the manufact­urers and steamboat-owners at Pittsburgh and vicinity are raising a fund among themselves-a few thousand dollars-to dredge out the channel at what is called Garrison's Island and Six Mile Island, above Pittsbur~b, which, when done, will give a clear channel and steam­boat navigation to the mouth of the Kiskiminetas, twenty-seven miles

VII-173

above Pittsburgh. There are manufactories at Freeport, opposite, giving a market for staves which come up the Ohio from West Vir­ginia to Pittsburgh.

There are some two hundred thousand of these in barges lying at Pittsburgh in the Allegheny, waiting the risin~ of the water to go up the river to a market. A few thousand dollars Judiciously expended in dredging, and possibly in the erection of a few dams, would make this stream navigable all seasons of the year. Then, sir, it penetrates the great oil region. With this river navigable to that point for barges and heavy freights it would relieve the great question to some extent of the discrimination in freights which is now so much tor­menting the trade of that region of country. Sir, the improvement of this stream helps the commerce of the nation. It is a feeder of the Ohio, the Ohio of the Mississippi, and thence to the ocean. With the improvement of the Allegheny, with such aid as will make it navi­gable at all seasons of the year, the improvement of the Kiskiminetai and Conemau~h will follow as tributaries to the trade of the Alle­gheny and Ohio.

Why, sir, I hold in my hand now an official document with maps and charts. It is the report of the Senate Committee (of 1874) on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard, a Senate document. The pur­pose of this committee was to discover and report upon such water routes of transportation between the States and to the ocean as were cheap and practicable. I :find these very rivers, Kiskiminetas and Conemaugh mentioned favorably as links in the chain from the Ohio to Delaware Bay. Hear a moment from a distinguished engineer cited · in this report, page 96. The subject of great water communication seems yet to have inspired no very active interest in Pennsylvania, yet I question whether there is a State in the Union which has better claims for notice in that particular at the hands of the General Government. After explaining the question he says :

The seaboard may be reached from the Ohio by three different routes commencin~ at Pitta burgh. 'l'he first ascends the Allegheny River to the mouth of the Kiskiml­netas, and thence by the Conemaugh reaches the Allegheny Mountains, through whiCh a. tunnel would connect the eastern and western waters, and the Valley of th& J nniata would be used to reach the Susquehanna and thence the sea at our new eeaport on Delaware Bay, a distance of something over four hundred miles, say four hundred and twenty-five. A canal has existed on this whole line except th:rough the summit of the mountain, which was overcome by a portage railway.

This route was spoken of favorably by the Senate committee. This engineer, who is more familiar with our State than my colleague, is Colonel James Worrall, who is in full life and activity. It was wise then in this bill to provide for the survey of these streams and call for an estimate from scientific engineers of the expense of their utili-zation for constant navigation. I have no time to dwell. ,

Mr. SOUTHARD. I would like to ask the gentleman a question'. Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I cannot yield now. I have been

induced to these remarks because of my colleague's characterizing these rivers inconsiderable streams.

-Mr. WRIGHT. Do you say they are not t Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I say they are not. I say that they

are important and can be made valuable for internal commerce. Mr. WRIGHT. How large f Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. I refer the gentleman to the report

of distinguished engineers which I have in my hand, from which it appears that these streams are twice the width of this Capitol. I have the map here. If he will look he can see for hirn.st\lf.

Mr. WRIGHT. How large are theyt Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. Not less than three hundred feet

across. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. HALE. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Kentnl:lky

[Mr. TlJRNl!)R.] . Mr. TURNER. It was at my instance that the survey of the Lick·

ing River was placed in this bill. It has been stated that it is not a stream of any consideration. As far back as 1835 it was surveyed by order of the Kentucky Legislature by distinguished engineers and a. report was made to the Legislature that it was navigable two hun­dred and :fifty miles, slack-water navigation, opening up one of the richest :fields for coal and iron and other resources. 1

Mr. HALE. I now yield for :five minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr. KENNA.]

Mr. KENNA. Mr. Speaker, I have no desire whatever to detain the House. I realize the condition of its sentiment in regard to this matter, but I regard it as adutyto the Committee on Commerce, who prepared and reported the bill under discussion, and to the members . of this House who caat their votes for it, that I should say a wgrd or two upon its merits.

I shall not partake of the spirit which has characterized the dis­cussion which haa been going on. My object is to say a. few things about the manner in which the bill passed by the House was pre­pared by the Committee on Commerce. In the :first place I want to repudiate the idea on my own behalf and en behalf of all the mem­bers of the committee that any log-rolling was indulged in or wa.a necessary to secure the passage of this bill. The evidence has been ample here that if a resort to that system had been necessary the strength of this bill could have been increased to a very great extent. There is no item in the bill for which one single dollar was appro­priated which has not been thoroughly examined, surveyed and reported upon fuvorably by the engineers of the Government and which the committee, upon full examination of the recommendation"

2754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. APRIL 23,

of the Engineer Corps and of every other available means of infor­mation, did not believe would be important. in its relation to the com­mercial fadlities of the country. I can vouch personally for this much. And let me say in this connection that the principal hostility which has been displayed both toward this bill and toward the gen­tlemen who have supported it, has not come from the fact that the bill takes $7,000,000 out of the Treasury, but from the fact that it fails to contain appropriations which the committee could not con­sistently and properly put in the bill, and which were asked for by members. · ·

Mr. COX, of New York. That does not apply to meT Mr. MAISH. Nor to me. Mr. BLACKBURN. I rise to a question of personal privilege. Mr. COX, of New York. I desire to make a point of order upon the

remark of the gentleman. Mr.KENNA. lfgentlemenwillletmeproceedtheywi.llseethatthere

~s nothing in my statement, if adhered to strictly, that reflects upon any gentleman. I did not intend, and upon an examination of my language the idea cannot be maintained, that it is susceptible of such a construction as possibly to be an implication upon any gentleman. I do not accuse any gentleman on this floor of improper motive or ·action on this matter. But I do say and I mean what I say, and I stand by it, that there have been votes cast by gentlemen on this floor in opposition to this bill because of the fact that their propositions were not favorably entertained, by the committee.

Mr. BLACKBURN. Name those men. Mr. BEEBE. If the gentleman will not name the men, then, as one

who voted against this bill and refused two years ago to support such a bill, I say that his statement does not apply to me.

Mr. KENNA. The gentleman's explanation is wholly umiecessary. Mr. STENGER. I disclaim for myself. Mr. RICE, of Ohio. And I also. 1Y,1r. McMAHON. I signed that paper, and I do not think I was

before the Committee on Commerce. Mr. CLYMER. And I ask the gentleman to except me. · Mr. KENNA. If gentlemen insist upon imputing to me the idea

of charging improper motives or conduct upon them in this matter, then it may be necessary for me to make myself better understood. But I have not intended to do any such thing and I have not done it. I have not used a word that indicates that any gentleman has been prompted in this matter by improper motives.

Mr. STENGER. Does the gentleman think it would not be im­proper to cast a vote against this bill simply because a man's district has not been recognized in itT

Mr. KENNA. That is just where the gentleman misunderstands me. I do not say that it was improper for any gentleman to cast any vote. I have not said that it was improper for any gentleman on this floor to vote according to his j ndgment either for or against this bill.

Mr. REI_LLY. Did not the gentleman say in language as plain as he could use that ii more money ha-d been in the bill it would have received more votes Y

Mr. KENNA. I did say that, and I stand by it. Mr. CLARK, of Missouri, and ot.hers. Give the names. Mr. KENNA. I decline to be further interrupted or forced into a

personal assault upon any member. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. KENNA. I have been interrupted and I ask the gentleman

from Maine [Mr. HALE] to yield to me a little further. Mr. BLACKBURN. I rise to a que~tion of personal privilege.

. The SPEAKER. There is already one 'lnestion of personal privi-letye pendinO'. · •

Mr. KENNA. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN] insists upon a privileged question, when he is not included in the remarks. He was not before the committee.

Mr. BLACKBURN. When I can be recognized I desire to rise to a question of personal privilege. : Mr. CARLISLE. f ask the gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] to yield to me for a few minutes.

Many :MEMBERS. Vote! Vote! Mr. HALE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.

KENNA] a few minutes further. Mr. KENNA. I hope there may be order so that I· can proceed

without further annoyance. [After a pause.] I have stated clearly ~hat I intended, and I want to be distinctjy understood upon that proposition ; I do not mean to be forced into personalities here, nor, if I know myself, do I intend to be forced out of the position I occupy into a false one. · I have repeatedly stated, and in order that it may be well under­stood, I will state it again, that applications were made to the Com­mittee on Commerce, arguments were made before the committee for increase of appropriations already contained in the bill that was passeu, and for additional appropriations not contained in it which were rejected. All of them I have no doubt were ma-de in good faith. They were urged upon the committee, and passed upon after a fair, thorough, and laborious investigation of the merits of each and every item, which involved the reading, in open aud full committee, during the three months devoted exclusively to this work, over fifteen hun­dred pages of reports and estimates of the engineers of the Army. Some of those items were rej.~cted, and in other cases the commit-

t.ee refused to increase the amounts which had been allowed. The failure of the bill last year made larger appropriations this year abso­lutely necessary. Works in many instances were left in a half-com­pleted condition. They were impaired by neglect, injured by time and storm, and hence a bill reported now, which practically covers two years, is necessarily large.

I know that in some instances dissatisfaction was created by the action of the committee. Some of the gentlemen thought the rights and needs of their section had not been recognized according to their merits. They were not content and acted accordingly. That is the extent to which I go, as far as I want to go or mean to go, and I can­not conceive that the statement can be contorted into a reflection upon any gentleman upon this floor.

One word further in regard to these surveys. I was chairman of the subc~mmittee appointed to eonsider and report upon them. I thought, and I confess that nothing has occurred to divest me of that confidence, that when a member on this floor stated to that subcom­mittee the fa-cts upon which his application for a particular survey was based, the subcommittee had a right to believe those facts to be true and to act accordingly. I say now to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, that I have seen nothing to divest me of that opinion.

The bill provides for examinations or surveys as the case may be. One hundred and :fifty thousand dollars is the aggregate sum approp1·iated for all the surveys authorized by the bill. Of that sum not one dollar is designated for any particular stream. The whole question of the propriety of surveying any stream is therefore left practically with the engineers, who of all men on earth ought to know their business. Moreover, if any stream named in the bill is of the character which has been so rMklessly asRerted here, the engineers without expense or cost will report that it is inexpedient to undertake its improvement.

I felt called upon to say this much in view of what has occurred in this House, and particularly in view of the very reckless and thoughtless declarations which have been made by members here and by the press throughout the country, declarations calculated to create the impression upon persons ignorant of the subject that the members of t~is Honse had combined together aa a band of highway robbers for no other purpose on earth than to secure such a bill as would control a majority in its favor. God knows, sir, that no com­mittee of the House has striven more assiduously to perform its labors honorably and fairly than the Committee on Commerce has done. As one of its members, I feel authorized to make a remark applicable to all who constitute that committee. I do so upon my personal knowledge of the facts. I do not believe that section or State or politics or any consideration llas actuated them, save an honest de­sire to do their duty. The faithful performance of that duty has been abundantly vindicated by the action of this Honse.

If t.he bill does not happen to meet the approval of twenty or thirty gentlemen representing a minority on this floor, the majority of this body, representing nearly two hundred, ought no doubt to be very sorry for it. So far as I am concerned I have endeavored to do my part fairly and faithfully; and I believe that every other member of the committee has done likewise. I believe that the overwhelming major­ity which passed this bill has been prompted by the same spirit. [Here the hammer- fell.] One moment more. I wish to add that of all the times in the history of this Government there never was a period when public work could be done so cheaply as now. The advantages to be derived from the increase of our commercial facilities will com­pensate tenfold for every dollar expended. The bill contains a pro­vision authorizing the carrying on of the work by hired labor, and I desire to remind gentlemen here that it is the only bill passed or ro· be passed by this Congress in the present distressed and ruined con­dition of the country which appropriates a farthing that will reach the hands of actu,al labor. Under the provisions of this bill, while the Government rea~zes full value received for all it expends, every dollar of it will go to the relief of the unemployed millions in the land.

Mr. CARLISLE. I now ask the gentleman from Maine to yield to me for a. few moments T

Mr. HALE. I yield :five minutes to the gentleman from Louisi­ana, [Mr. E.LAM.]

M.r. ELAM. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Maine; but as I am allowed so brief a time, and as the House is evidently so desirous to come to a vote, I will not occupy time with any remarks.

Mr. HALE. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HAMILTON.]

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, because we allow a leech to suck a few drops of blood from our arms, are we to let that leech remain there until the last life-drop is gone f Because in the Forty-fourth Congress some of us saw fit to vote to give for these small streams the appropriations then asked, are members from those localities to come here in the Forty-fifth Congress and demand more¥ Is there no generosity in the world T Haa it fled from the earth f Are we always to continue to give because we have once given f Is this iniquitous legislation to continue f It was iniquitous legislation in the Forty-fourth Congr~ to attempt to pass the bill under a suspen­sion of the rules. I do not propose to plead the "baby a-ct" by any manner of means. But it was my first session in Congress; and I did believe then that committees might come with bills when it was a unanimous report which it would be safe to put through under a sus- · pension of the rules. But, sir, I find I was wofully mistaken. I

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2755 now know that committees may report unanimously bills which we never ought to pass. At that time I had no opportunity of studying the bill. I did look over such provisions as affected parts of the country I knew something about; and I presumed that the bill was right because a proper sum was allowed to those portions of the coun­try. I had no opportunity at that time to examine the bill; and I took it upon the faith of the committee.

The vote I gave in the Forty-fourth Congress I regret. I never would do it again. The vote I gave on this bill in this House I give cheerfully, and I put my name to the protest willingly, and especially because I have found that important bills appropriating money should be carefully considered in the House and not taken on the report of a committee simply. I will never take another bill simply on the report of any committee_;_neverl never! never! [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. HALE. I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. DUNNELL.] , The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to say that he thinks he could of his own volition bring this debate to a close; but as one si9.e of the House ha.a had one hour, he was willing that a like amount of time should be occupied by the other side. When, however, the gen­tleman from Maine yields to gentlemen who do not wish to speak; the Chair thinks the gentleman had better allow the question to be taken.

Mr. HALE. I would be very glad if the Chair had originally bro11ght the matter promptly to a vote.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would have done so, had he not thought that it would not be exactly fair to both sides. ·

Mr. HALE. I announced to the House in the first place that I bad no desire to use any time. I was immediately appealed to personally by many gentlemen, friends of mine, for a little time, which I could not well refuse, as I did not want to use it myself. I have been anx­ious all the time to obtain an early vote and to get rid of this matter aa soon as possible. If the Chair is now inclined to interpose to arrest the progress of the debate and bring the matter to a conclusion, I shall not object.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule now upon the points involved. In so far as this paper is concerned-­

Mr. DUNNELL. Is debate closed t The SPEAKER. It is. In so far as this paper alludes to the rules of the House, the Chair

on yesterday decided that point: that a suspension of the rules vacated them and for that occa-sion made them inoperative.

So far as the constitutional point alluded to in this paper is con­cerned, the Chair on yesterday stated it was not within his province to construe the Constitution any more than it would be in the case of an amendment to cut off the House from determining whether such an amendment was contrary to law or not. ~

Bot in so far a..s this question of a protest is concerned and whether as a question of privilege it acquires the right to be read and the. right to be placed upon the Journal, the Chair desires to refer to the proceedings of former Congresses. In the Third Congress, pre­sided over by Mr. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Garnett, of Vir­ginia, was allowed to spread upon the Journal the reasons of a vote given by him. In the Journal will be found the reasons in full, which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows : Mr. Swift; of Maryland, moved that the Honse do reconsider the vote taken on

Satnrday last on the question Shall the declaration of Mr. Garnett then presented detailing the reasons for and motives of his vote on Thursday last on concurring with the Committee of the Wbol~ on the state of the Union in their agreement to the first resoln.tion so~joined to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the subject of a recognition of the independence of the late Spanish American prov­inces. And on the question Will the House reconsid.er the said vote W it passed in the affirmative.

.And on the question Shall the said paper be placed on the Journal 7 it passed in the affirmative-yeas 89, nays 71.

· The SPEAKER. The next precedent which the Chair has been able to consider was in the Twenty-eighth Congress, over which Mr. J. W. Jones, of Virginia, presided .. New Hampshire, Georgia, Mis­souri, and Mississippi elected their Representatives by general ticket. Mr. Barnard, of New York, and forty-nine other members signed a protest against the admission of Representatives from said States. The Journal of the House says Mr. Barnard so framed his prot.est as to embody it in a resolution. Subsequently, on motion, the Journal was corrected so as to make it appear that the protest had got upon the Journal surreptitiously. It will be observed that the latter su~­gestion was the ground given for refusing it to be on the JournaL In both these cases, however, the papers were read and considered.

The next case to which the Chair has had his attention dir~cted is a case in the Thirty-first Congress, and is the one occurring in the Senate alluded to in the Manual. The decision quowtl in the Manual, page 289, under the heading of "Protest," was a protest on the part of certain Senators against the passage of a bill admitting California into the Union a.s a State. After extended debate the Senate decided by yeaa 22 to nays 19to lay the whole subject upon the table. This protest was signed by Senators Hunter and Mason of Virginia, But­ler and Bam well of Sooth Carolina, Soule of Louisiana, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and other Senators. That paper appears of record, but did not go, the Chair presumes, on Senate JournaL

The next is a case in the Thirty-sixth Congress, when John B.

Clark, of Missouri, (I believe the father of a respected member of this House,) claimed the right to submit a preamble and resolution, but the Clerk in that ca-se declined to entertain it, on the ground he had not the power t-o do so pending the organization of the House. The same was read however.

Again in the Thirty-ninth Congress, Mr. Brooks-it was the ca-se alluded to yesterday-claimed the right to put upon the record a protest against the way in which the Clerk made up the roll of members. The record shows that it was inserted in the proceedings, but the Clerk declined to recognize it, because he was then acting under the operation of law which instructed him a..s to the making up of the roll of members.

It will thus be seen in every instance the Chair has mentioned the reading of the paper was allowed and that in one instance the Jour­nal contains the protest.

The Chair, as an individual opinion, thinks that where a protest is respectful in terms no harm can come by allowing such oourtesy as will place such respectful protest of record in the Journal, especially in a case where debate was not allowed and there was no possibility of amendment. Following, however, the rules which govern him in the a-dministration of his duties as presiding officer, the Chair sub­mits the question to the House itself to determine wpether there is here presented or not a question of privilege. Those who think it involves a question of privilege will vote in the affirmative and t.hose who are of a contrary opinion will vote in the negative.

The question being taken, the Speaker stated that the " noes" ap­peared to have it.

Mr. STENGER. I call for the yeas and' nay~. The question being taken on ordering the yeas and nays, there

were-ayes 39, noes 142. So (the affirmative being more than one-fifth of the whole vote) the

yeas and nays were ordered. · Mr. MILLS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the yeas and

nays have been ordered. I wish to make a su~gestion. I think the House will agree that the protest shall be received and filed as a mat­ter of courtesy, not as a right.

Several members called for the regular order. The question being taken on the motion to reconsider the vote by

which the yeas and nays were ordered, it was decided in the affirm­ative.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs on taking the vote by yeas . and nays.

The question being put, there were ayes 33, not one-fifth of the la.st vote.

Mr. BEEBE. I call for tellers on the ye::lB and nays. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HALE and Mr. MILLs were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported ayes 47. So (the affirmative being more than one-fifth of the last vote) the

yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the question. Those who

are of opinion that this paper contains a question of privilege and should be of record on the Journal will vote affirmatively and those of a contrary opinion will vote in the negative.

Mr. SAYLER. I desire to make an inquiry of the Chair. Does the proposition submitted by the Chair to the House involve this additional idea that the offering of a protest is a privileged question in the sense that it takes precedence of all other business of the Honse f

The SPEAKER. The Chait· decides when a gentleman rises in his place and states he is on the floor on a question of privilege then the role requires that that question should be disposed of at once, inter­rupting everything else. • ·

.Mr. SAYLER. In other words, that a vote in the affirmative is a vote to declare that the reception of a protest becomes a question of privilege when a gentleman rises to offer a protest •

The SPEAKER. The Chair submits to the House whether the mat­ter presented in the protest is a question of privilege or not.

Mr. BURCHARD. That is, whether a protest of a member is a . question of privilege.

Mr. KNOTT. I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. KNOTT. I desire to know if the question now is whether a

member has a right as a matter ~f privilege to ask that his protest be entered ori the Journal. I wish to know whether that is in ques­tion or not.

The SPEAKER. The Chair asks the gentlem~n from Kentucky to repeat his question.

Mr. KNOTT. My question is this: If the question now submitted to the House is whether a inember has a right as a matter of privilege to ask that his protest be received and entered of record.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the way in which the ques­tion arose. The gentleman from New York rose in his place and stated he rose to a question of privilege. He then submits a paper and a..sks that it be road as part of his remarks thereon. The ques­tion that the Chair now submits to the House-and it is submitted in the manner proviued in the Manual-is this: Is there a question of privilege involved in the matter set forth in that protest or that paperY

Mr. RICE, of Ohio. The question submitted to the House, in other words, is whether a protest is a question of privilege.

T,ne S.P~A.KE~- It is whether the .~o~e ~il! regeiye t}Je rpa~~r

2756 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ APRIL 23,

presented in the paper as a question of privilege, and not every pro­test that may be offered. The question stated by the gentleman from Ohio is not involved.

Mr. BLAIR. I wish to inquire · whether the effect of this vote, if carried in the affirmative, is to receive and file the protest T

·The SPEAKER. The effect of a vote in the affirmative is this, that the Houso declares that this paper, which is submitted by the gentle­man from New York and which is described as a proteet, is a question of privilege. ·

Mr. SPRINGER. And should go upon the record T The SPEAKER. If the House decides that it is a question of privi­

lege, it will go upon the Journal; not otherwise. Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I

understand that the vote is simply upon the question of whether this protest is a question of privilege, and not upon the question whether 1t shall be entered upon the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The Chair repeats, if it is a question of privilege it will go upon the Journal.

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. But that is not the question now sub­mitted to the vote of the Honse.

The SPEAKER. The question submitted is: is the matter in the protest a question of privilege f

- Several members called for the regular order. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 52, nays 180, not

voting 59 ; as follows : YEAS-52.

:Baker, John H. Beebe. Benedict, Bragg, Bridges, Browne, Caldwell, John W. Caldwell, W. P. Cannon, Chalmers, Claflin, Clark, Rush Clymer,

Cobb, Collins, ' Cox, Samuel S. Dickey, Durham, Errett, Finley, Fort, Hamilton, Hart, Henderson, Henkle, Hungerford,

Jones, Frank Knott, Lapham, Lockwood, Luttrell, M.ackey, Maish, Marsh, McKenzie, Mitchell, Morse, Neal, Reilly,

N.A.YS--180. Acklen, Denison, Jones, JohnS. Aldrich, Dibrell, Joyce, Atkins, Douglas, Ke~~htley, Bacon, Dunnell, Keuey, Bagley, Eames, Kenna, Baker, William H. Elam, Ketcham, Bailon, Ellis, Killinger, Bell, Evans, I. Newton Kimmel, Bicknell, Evins, John H. Knapp, Blackburn, Ewing, Landers, Blair, Felton, Lathrop, Bliss, Forney, Ligon, Blount, Franklin, Lindsey, Boone, Freeman, Lynde, Bouck, Frye, Manning, Boyd, Fuller, :Martin, Brewer, Garth, :McCook, Briggs, Giddings, McMahon, Bright, Glover, Metcalfe, Buckner, Gunter, :Mills, Burchard, Hale, :Money, Cain, Hanna, Monroe, Calkins, Hardenbergh, Morgan, Camp, Harmer, Morrison, Campbell, Harris, Benj. W. Muldrow, Candler, Ranis, Henry R. Muller, Carlisle, Harris, John T. Norcross, Caawell, Hartri<Jge, Oliver, • Clark of Missouri, Hartzell, O'Neill, Clarke of Kentucky, Hatoher, Overton, Cole, Hayes, Page, Conger, Hazelton, Patterson, G. W. Cook, Hendee, ·Patterson, T. M. Covert, Henry, Peddie, Cox, Jacob D. Herbert, Phillips, Crapo, Hewitt, AbramS. Pollard, Cravens, Hewitt, G. W. Potter, Crittenden, Honse, Pound, Crunmings, Hubbell, Price, Cutter, Humphrey, 'Rainey, Davidson, Hunter, Randolph, Davis, Horace Hunton, 'Rea, Davis, Joseph J. Ittner, Reagan, Dean, James, 'Reed, Deering, Jones, James T. Rice, William W.

Aiken, Banks, :Banning, Bavne, BiSbee, Bland, Brentano, :Brogden, Bundy, Burdick, :Butler, Cabell, Chittenden, Clark, Alvah A. Culberson,

NOT VOTING-59. Danford, Dwight, Eden, Eickhoff, Ellsworth, Evans, James L. Foster, Gardner, Garfield, Gause, Gibson, Goode, Harrison, Haskell, Hiscock,

Hooker, Jorgensen, Keifer, Loring, May ham, McGowan, McKinley, Phelps, Powers, Pridemore,

· Pn~h, Qumn, Scales, Schleicher, Sexton,

Rice, Ame!icus V. Robinson, M. S. Sparks, Springer, Stenger, Turner, Turney, Vance, White, Harry Whitthorne, Willis, AlbertS. Wright, Young.

Riddle, Robbins, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, G. D. Ross, Ryan, Sampson, Sapp, Sayler, Shallenberger, Singleton, Sinnickson, Slemons, Southard, Starin, Steele,! Stewart, Stone, John W. Stone, Joseph C.

-"Strait, Thompson, Thornburgh, Throckmorton, Townsend, Amos Townsend, M. I. Van Vorhes, Waddell, Walsh, Ward, Warner, Watson, Welr.h, White, Michael D. Witliams, Amlrew Williams, C. G. Williams, James Williams, Jere N. Williams, Richard Willis, :Benj. A. Willits, Wilson, Wood, Wren, Yeates.

Shelley, Smalls, Smith, A. Herr Smith, William E. Stephens, Swann, Tipton, Townshend, R. W. Tuckor, Veeder, Wait, W alker,

:;mT=.nA. S.

So the paper presented by Mr. Cox, of New York, was decided not to involve a quest.ion of privilege.

During the roll-call the following announcements were made: Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina. My colleague, Mr. BROGDEN, is still

confined to his room by sickness. Mr. CABELL. I am paired with Mr. PuGH, of New Jersey. Mr. WILLIAMS, of Michigan. I am paired with Mr. BANKs. I do

not know how he would vote upon this question, and therefore I with­hold my vote.

Mr. CffiTTENDEN. I am paired with Mr. GIBSON, of Louisiana. If he were here, 1 should vote "no." ·

Mr. FORNEY. My colleague, Mr. SHELLEY, is paired with Mr. ·EvANS, of Indiana.

The result of the vote was then announced as above stated. Mr. MILLS. I move that the protest be received and spread upon

the Journal in courtesy to the members who signed it. The question was taken and the motion was not agreed to.

INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. SPARKS, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported a bill (H. R. No. 4549) makin~ appropriations for the current and con­tingent expenses of the Indtan Department and .for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various tribes for the year ending June 30, 1879, and for other purposes ; which was read a first and second time, re­ferred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. ·

Mr. SPARKS. I desire to give notice that I shall call up the bill immediately after the post-office appropriation bill shall have been disposed of.

Mr. BURCHARD. And I desire to reserve all points of order uport the bill.

DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL,

Mr. DURHAM. I rise to a question of privilege. I present a report of the committee of conference, which I ask to have read.

The Clerk read the report, as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreein~ votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 3102) authorizing the Secretaryof the Treasury to employ temporary clerks, and making appropriations for the-same; also making appropriations for detecting trespasses on the public lands and for bringing int-o market public lands in cartain States, and for other purposes, having met. after full and free conference, have agreed to recsnnmund and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows : '

That the Honse recede from its disagreement to thelamendment numbered 7, and agree to the same, with an amendment as follows: in lieu of "40 " insert "20 ;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendmentnumbered·8, and a,.,<rree to the same, with an amendment as follows : in lien of said amendment sub­stitute the following :

For railway post-office clerks, route agents, and mail-route agents, f7,000; and the Senate agree to the same.

M. J'. DURHAM, J. H. BLOUNT, JNO. H. BAKER,

Managers on the part of tM House. WM. WINDOM, S. W. DORSEY, J AS. B. BECK.

Managers em tlte part of the Senate.

Mr. DURHAM. The House will remember that the balance of the bill has been agreed to by the two Houses, and this is a compromise upon the two clauses upon which the two Houses disagreed. I now move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered ; and under the operation thereof the report of the committee of con­ference was agreed to.

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

The latter motion was agreed to. THOMAS L. MOORE.

Mr. HUNTON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 4550) to remove the political disabilities oi ThomasL. Moore; which was read a first and second time.

Mr. HUNTON. I will state that the bill is accompanied by the usual petition.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and was accordingly read the third time, and passed, two-thirds voting in favor thereof.

APPROVAL OF BILLS.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, informed the House that the President had signed bills of the following titles: ·

A bill (H. R. No. 1135) to authorize the issue of a patent to certain lands in the Brotbertown reservation, in the State of Wisconsin, to the persons selected by the Brothertown Indians ; and

A bill (H. R. No. 4:M2) to authorize the restoration of George~ Armes to the ran'k of captain.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

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

A bill (S. No. 120) authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the Canadian-built propel­ler East by the name of Kent ;

A bill (S. No. 870) granting a. pension to Rebecca and Augusta. Mil-

\

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 2757 ler, daughters of Brigadier-General James Miller, of the war of 1812; and

A bill (S. No. 1045) to provide for the admimstration of the oath of office to collectors and other officers of the customs in the district of Alaska.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted in the follow­

ingcases: To Mr. TUCKER, for four days; and To Mr. PHELPs, for one week.

FORT MACON LIGHT-HOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. KENNA, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Com­

merce, reported, as a substitute for House bill No. 2748, a bill (H.R. No. 4551) to establish a light-house near Fort Macon, North Carolina., and to provide day-beacons to mark the channels of Cove Sound; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Commit­tee on Appropriations.

EVENING SESSIONS. Mr. BRIGHT. I ask unanimous consent to submit a resolution for

consideration at this time. It is very important in relation to the public business.

The Clerk read as follows: lle8olved, That there shall be evening sesaions of the Honse of Representatives,

be~nning at 7.30 o'clock p. m., Tnesday, Wednesday, Thnrsday, and Friday of thts week; Tuesday evening for general debate only; Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for the consideration of the Private Calendar. The call of the Calendar shall begin with the first bill and one objection shall prevent the passage of a bill nnlesa it has boon previously objected to, in which case it shall require five ob.iec­tions. After all bills not objected to have been disposed of the Calendar shall be called for consideration.

Mr. CONGER. There are several bills to which I shall object at evening sessions, notwithstanding five objections have been made to them already.

Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. FINLEY objected to the resolution.

1\Ir. THORNBURGH. I move that the House now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at five o'clock and

fifteen minutes p.m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC. The following petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk,

under the rule, and referred as stated : By Mr. BRIDGES: The petition of 274 citizens of Lehigh County,

Pennsylvania, for Congress to aid in the completion of the Texas and Pacific Railroad-to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad.

By Mr. CRAVENS: The petition of Isabel Richie, for a pension from the date of the death of her husband, James A. Richie-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. FORNEY: The petitions of Hon. L. E. Hamlin and other citizens of Etowah County, and ef Hon. T. W. McMinn and other citizens of Cullman County, Ala.bama, for the favorable consideration of House bill No. 1670-to the Committee of Ways and Means.

By Mr. HARMER: Memorial of merchants and manufacturers of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and vicinity, protesting against the pas­sage of the tariff bill now before Congress on the ground that in t.he present depressed condition of the country such legislation would be injurious to the business community-to the same committee.

Also, memorial o.f the Philadelphia Board of Trade, remonstrating against the transfer of the life-saving and coast-guard service from the Treasury to the Navy Department--to the Committee on Com­merce.

By Mr. HUMPHREY: Memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, .for the improvement of the condition of the Oneida tri'Jje of Indians­to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. HUNTON : Papers relating to the claim of Charles Kirby­to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. LUTTRELL: The petition of Joseph B. Collins, that he be reappointed an officer in the United States Army and placed upon the retimd list--to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. MACKEY: Concurrent resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, requesting the Senatora and Representatives in Con­gress to aid in the passage of a bill for the payment of arrears of pen­sion to soldiers of the late war-to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

By Mr. O'NEILL: Memorial of the underwriters of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and other citizens interested in comn'lerce, urging an appropriation to enable the Light-House Board to use the Courtenay automatic bnoy as beneficial to navigation-to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. PRICE : Memorial and joint resolution of the Legislature of Iowa, in reference to securing a commercial highway by water between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan via the valley of the },ox and Wisconsin Rivers-to the same committee.

By Mr. ROSS: The petitions of Richard Decker, Martha Fordham, and John W. Van Belt, for pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. RYAN: A paper rela.tingto the claim of D. W. Boutwell­to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, papers relating to the claim of William 0. Redden-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia: The petition of B. H. Wright, for the early resumption of specie payments and proposing a plan to accomplish this object-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. THORNBURGH: A paper relating to the claim of John Blankensbip-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. VANCE: The petition of William W. Hubbell, that the Government purchase his patent musket for the use of the Army and Navy-t-o the Committee on Patents.

Also, the petition of William W. Hubbell, for reasonable compen­sation for the use of his inventions i'fl breech-loading fire-arms and ammunition-to the same committee.

Also, papers relating to the claim of Edward Kolb, of Washin~on, District of Columbia., for compensation for board of Richard E ield, Delegate from the Cherokee Nation-to the Committee on Appropria­tions.

By Mr. WILLIS, of New York: Remonstrance of Mackellar, Smiths & Jordan, and other type-founders of New York, Cincinnati, Rich­mond, Boston, Baltimore, and other cities, against that part of the tariff bill which relates to duties on type materials-to the Commit­tee of Ways and Means.

By Mr. YOUNG: The petition of Lucy E. Dowdy, executrix, &c., for compensation for property taken by the United States Army-to the Committee on War Claims.

IN SENATE.

. WEDNESDAY, .April24, 1878. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D.

THE JOU~AL.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read. Mr. MORRILL. I askforthe correction of the Journal in relation

to the bill (H. R. No. 151) directing the Secretary of the Treasury to refund to the Society of the Sons of St. George, established at Phila­delphia, the sum of $1,440.25 in gold, being the amount paid by said society upon a colossal statue of St. George and the Dragon. H was reported from the Committee on Finance adversely instead of without amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Journal will be amended ac­cording to the correction suggested. · The Journal was approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMU.l\"'CATION. The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore laid before the Senate a communica­

tion from the Secretary of Wa.r, transmittinfY', in answer to a resolu­tion of the 18th ultimo, a report relative to the necessity for erecting beacon-lights to mark the channel on the line of inland navigation through North Landing River, Currituck Sound, and North River, North Carolina; which, on motion of Mr. MERRIMON, was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS A..l.~D MEMORIALS. The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented resolutions of the Com­

mercial Exchange Association of Philadelphia, against the transfer of the life-savings service from the Treasury Department to the Navy Department, and in favor of the passa~e of the bill on the subject introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. ROBERTS; which were ordered t-o lie on the table.

Mr. WALLACE. I present a memorial of publishers and book­sellers of Philadelphia, remonstrating a~ainst the reduction of duties proposed by the bill known as the Wooa. tariff bill, and in favor of a commission of inquiry upon the subject of duties UJ?OD imports. This memorial is largely signed by houses of repute, mcluding such as Henry C. Lea, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Claxton, Remsen & Haffel­finger, Porter & Coates, and others, the whole book-publishing trade of the city of Philadelphia. The memorial is brief, and I ask that it be read for the information of the Senate. It presents the points dis­tinctly and forcibly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The memorial will be read, there being no objection.

The memorial was reierred to the Committee on Finance, and read, as follows: To the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United Sta,tes in Congress asgembled : We, the publishers and booksellers of Philadelphia, do most respectfnlly a.nd

earnestly protest against the reduction of the duty on books proposed in the tariff bill now before Congress, and we pray your honorable bodies that if any change be made it may be in convertin~ ad valorem into specific rates. The unequal competi­tion endured by all manuf:wtorers in a community so highly taxed as ours, strug· ~ling ag. ainst the cheaper labor, capital1 and production of Europe, is rendered espe­cially oppressive in the a~cl~ of books oy reason of the "!latnre of !Jte b~siness.. The foreign producer, secure m hts own market, whence his profit IB derived, sh1ps to this country his surplus, content with a fra~tiona.l profit over the mere cost of paper and press. work, and under an ad valorem rate his invoice at such cost may not unfrequently enable him to introduce his goods at a duty of but 5 or 10 per cent. on the ordinary price, instead of Z5 per cent., as is the intention of the extst­ing tariff. Under such a. competition the interests connected with the book manu­facture including printers, binders, paper-makers, and others, are already suffer­ing sev~rely, and the proposed reduction of the duty to 20/'er cent. threatens still further prostration, while an alteration to a specific rate o twenty or twenty-five cents per pound or a judicious combination of specific and a.d va.lore~ rates w;ould.