(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Speeches (in part) of Hon. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, in the House of representatives, Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses"





'^V 







VV 














V< 

V 




* .> - 1 • n f\ 



. Ck v . s • • , "V> 





/ %/^-'V° ^'•^"^ Oo * % -'"* , lf ° 




^ 0" 



. „ *^. «* < • • » * 



SPEECHES 

( IN PART ) 



OF 






HON. J. WARREN KEIFER, 

OF OHIO 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

FORTY-FIFTH AND FORTY -SIXTH CONGRESSES, 



AND 



CERTAIN PARLIAMENTARY DECISIONS MADE BY HIM AS SPEAKER 
OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 



1877-1883. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1883. 
90 A - K 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

e»EC£!VED 

FEB201922 

DOOUM£NTc DIVISION 



' 






SPEECHES 

OF 

HON. J. WAEEEN KEIFEE, 

OF OHIO. 



(Forty-fifth Congress.) 

RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS. 

November 16, 1877, the House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 805) to repeal the 
third section of the act entitled " An act for the resumption of specie payments " — 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Speaker: I think at this late hour in the discussion of this most important of 
all subjects to the American people I might well content myself with silence. I do not 
think any member ran be converted now. I prefer, however, to go upon the record, so 
that in after years when the problem of practical resumption is solved, and that myriad 
of men who now go about the country prophesying evil continually have had their pro- 
phetic lips sealed, and that other numberless multitudes of men have come forth and 
broken their silence by crying through the land "I told you so ! " I may not be accused 
of, at the proper time, hiding my light under a bushel. 

I do not, however, propose to attempt a general disquisition on finance or on the wis- 
dom of early resumption as an original question. We must deal with the law as it is, 
not as we might wish it had been made. I differ only with some of my colleagues from 
Ohio, who have enlightened the House on this question, as to the proper course to take 
now, in view of the condition of the country and the present state of the law. 

I agree with them that we must resume specie payments, but I believe it possible to 
resume on January 1,1879. I believe that when the Government issued the United 
States Treasury notes to meet a great exigency created by the war and promised to re- 
deem them or make them the equivalent of coin, (gold and silver,) the faith of the whole 
country was pledged to keep good that promise. I further believe that the act of March 
18, 1869, "to strengthen the public credit," reaffirmed the original promise and re- 
newed the faith of the nation to make such notes the equivalent of coin, and also that 
the resumption act of January 14, 1875, was a like promise that these notes should not 
be dishonored. Of the wisdom of these laws I need not now speak. We deal with the 
question as we find it. On the faith of the original sacred promise and these acts of 1869 
and 1875, the people of this country have dealt in these notes. 

It is conceded by those who have stoutly contended that the bonds of the Govern- 
ment were payable in paper money, that since the "public-credit" act of 1869 it would 
be bad faith to not pay them in coin. 

There is the same pledge given in that act, with the additional one given by the re- 
sumption act of 1875, for the payment of the United States notes in coin. Here let me 
say in passing that the public-credit act does not require the United States Treasury 
notes or other obligations to be paid in gold coin, but, in terms, they are to be paid in 
gold and silver coin. 

In defining my position on this resumption question, I wish to say that I should vote 
for the pending bill, notwithstanding the evils which would flow from its becoming a 
law, if I believed that we were to have the present United States notes at once with- 
drawn from circulation. 

I agree with the member from Kansas [Mr. Phillips] that greenbacks are the best 
paper currency we have ever had, provided we appreciate them and bring them up 
abreast with coin. In answer to the member from North Carolina, [Mr. Davis,] I say 
the paper currency of this Government is honest money, unless we dishonor it. I regret 
that the advocates of this bill seem disposed to strike down the resumption act rather 
than favor its amendment. 

There is a necessity for auxiliary legislation to enable the Government to resume and 
to make definite and certain that which may be fairly regarded as doubtful in the con- 
struction of the third section of that act. 

My colleague [Mr. Gardner] from Ohio has by fair and legitimate reasoning sought 

3 



to show that when resumption comes cancellation and destruction of the notes redeemed 
must follow. He thinks the use of the word " redeem " in the parts of the act relating 
to fractional currency and to the excess of United States notes beyond $300,000,000 
(when clearly the fractional currency and such excess is, when redeemed, to be destroyed 
or withdrawn from circulation) furnishes a conclusive argument in favor of the view 
that when the remaining $300,000,000 of United States notes are redeemed they also 
must be withdrawn from circulation. This is a legitimate but not a conclusive argu- 
ment. The context shows, independently of the word "redeem," what disposition is 
intended to be made of the fractional currency and such excess of United States notes ; 
but the act is purposely silent (as appears by the history of its passage) as to the dispo- 
sition to be made of the *:i00,000,000 when redeemed. 

The word "redeem" is not used in conjunction with the same phraseology of language 
throughout the act, and hence it is not safe to look to that word alone in construing the 
different parts of the act. 

Since paper currency was known the word " redeem " has had a well-settled meaning, 
and it has been understood to only mean, when applied to such currency, that its pay- 
ment by the party issuing it did not prevent its reissue. 

However, there should be a law passed giving a construction that would relieve this 
act from doubt. 

The amendment offered by rne I now send to the Clerk to be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

That nothing in the act to provide for the resumption of specie payments, approved January 14, 
A. D. 1875, shall he so construed as to authorize or require the Secretary of the Treasury to retire 
and cancel any United States legal-tender notes outstanding which may be redeemed on and after 
January 1 , A. D. 1879, under the provisions of said act, or which may then be in the Treasury of the 
United States uncanceled, or which may thereafter come into said Treasury otherwise than by re- 
demption ; but said act shall be held and construed to authorize and require said Secretary to re- 
turn said notes to the said Treasury, to be paid out from time to time at their par value in payment 
of all debts and demands against the United States or in exchange for coin or bullion, and for other 
purposes, as the exigencies of the public interest may require; the said notes to continue to have 
the same legal-tender character now given to them by law. 

Mr. KEIFER. It will be observed that this amendment, if enacted into a law, would 
put an end to contraction of the greenback currency, and continue it, with all its at- 
tributes, in free circulation, at the same time appreciated to a coin value. It could still 
be used by national banks to redeem its currency and as a reserve in such banks. I 
would amend the national-banking act so as to require the banks (after January 1, 1879) 
to redeem their currency, on presentation, in gold, silver, or legal-tender notes, at their 
option. This would bring practical resumption of specie payments by the banks and 
actual resumption by the Government. This would preserve the volume of the currency 
substantially where it now is, unless contraction should come through national banks 
withdrawing their circulation because it was not demanded by the wants of trade or be- 
cause of unfriendly, unjust, and invidious legislation. It is not my purpose hereto 
speak for national banks. 

The burden of the argument so far has been to assume that a repeal of the resump- 
tion act would make the poor richer and the rich poorer. There are those on this floor 
and elsewhere who pretend to believe that depreciated money is easier to get and worth 
more to the country than good money; that men are more likely to go into business 
with a paper currency at a discount than with a paper currency at par with coin. 

Most of the advocates of irredeemable paper currency assume to speak for the poor 
and the laboring man, as though these classes of our people were not entitled to be paid 
their hard earnings in a sound currency. Daniel Webster once wisely said — 

Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind none has been more effectual 
than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fer- 
tilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor moil's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excess- 
ive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with the 
fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has re- 
corded forour instruction enough and more than enough of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, 
and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well-disposed, of a degraded paper currency 
authorized by law or any way countenanced by government. A disordered currency is one of the 
greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social system 
and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness. It war* against industry, frugality, and 
economy, and it fostersthe evil spirit of extravagance and speculation. 

The effect of the unconditional repeal of the resumption act would be to give the coun- 
try no more money, but only a poorer paper currency. Such repeal would not start an- 
other wheel or spindle in a factory; would not cause another furnace to blaze; it would 
not open another new coal or iron mine, or give an additional laborer employment. Since 
the decisions of the cases of Hepburn vs. Griswold, (8 Wall., 603') and Knox vs. Lee, 
(12 Wall., 457,) it seems to be conceded that a distinctively new issue of legal-tender 
notes cannot he authorized bylaw. 

This being the ease, then, we are now engaged in an attempt to depreciate our own 
currency and destroy its purchasing power, without adding a dollar to the volume of our 
currency. It is the quality, and not the quantity, of the currency which will be affected 
by the repeal. 



I commend the advocates of repeal to the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wright] 
-who. as I understand, is in favor of the Government making and giving to his constitu- 
ents'some millions of dollars. When that policy is entered upon we shall all enter the 
lists and claim a few millions of the nation's bounty for our constituents. 

To the scarcity of money in the country every evil is attributed. I will endeavor to 
show that this, too, is far from the truth. We now have a currency, per capita, more 
than double the per capita of currency at the most prosperous times before the war. I 
have here a statement relating to the circulation of paper currency at different periods 
of our country's history before the war. It is as follows: 



Statement showing aggregate circulation of paper currency and circulation per capita for the 

years named. 



Year. 



Circulation 
of Bank 
of United 

States. 



Circulation 
of State 
Banks. 



Aggregate. Population. 



8 ="5. 



18H 85, 400, 000 

1815..! 

1816 



O 



.g a 



1820 3,589, 181 

1830 12,924,145 

1834 19.208.379 

1835;!;;;." 17,339,797 

1836 23,075,422 

1837 11,447,968 

lass:;:!:::!: 6,768,067 

1839 5.982,621 

1840 6,695,861 

1851 



828, 

45, 

68, 

44 

61, 

94, 

L03, 

140, 

149, 

116, 

135, 

106, 

155, 

207, 



100.000 
500, 000 
000, 000 
863. 344 
323, 898 
839, 570 
692, 495 
301, 038 
185, 890 
138,910 
170,995 
96s,r>72 
165. 251 
102. 477 



833, 

45, 

68, 

48, 

74, 

114, 

121, 

163, 

160, 

122 

iti; 

113, 

155, 
207, 



500, 
500, 

(Kill. 

452, 

2is. 
('47. 
032, 
376, 
633, 
906, 
153, 
664, 
165. 
102, 



000 
000 
000 
825 
043 
949 
292 
460 
858 
977 
616 
133 
251 
477 



7, 453, 000 

8,369,000 

8,614,000 

•9,658,453 

*12,866,020 

14,373,000 

14,786,000 

15,213,000 

15,655,000 

16, 112,000 

16,584,000 

*17,069,453 

23, 99.">. 1 it 10 

*31 143,321 



84 49 
5 43 
7 89 
5 02 

5 77 

7 93 

8 19 
10 74 
10 26 

7 62 

8 51 

6 66 
6 47 
6 59 



* Enumerated ; for all other years the population is estimated. 

EDWARD YOUNG, Chief of Bureau. 
Bureau of Statistics, November 16, 1877. 

I also here give a statement showing the amount of, and "per capita " circulation of, 
paper currency during the years 1861 to 1877, inclusive : 



Year. 



& ;'1 i 

-— o> c — 

s-e is p 

oj c a s 

"£ 5 ^ 5 



ft 



P-3 



Year. 



S 3 it cs ~ 
it 5 — "~ '- 



it- 



1861 *S202. 205, 000 

1862 ' *332,794,000 

1863 297,736,000 

1864 502,072,000 

1865 628,692,000 

1866 708,031,000 

1867 693,090,000 

1868 678,745,000 

1869 676,508,000 



3 
ft 
O 
ft, 



flj C H " 

% <*£ £ 

£. O 't c3 5 
it.x f i- ^ 
it ■*-* r-~ <— ^ 



_0 

ft 

o 

ft 



a) 

ft 



©a 



32,064,000 

32, 704, 000 
33, 365, 000 
34.046,000 
31.748,000 
35, 469, 000 
36,211,000 
.36, 973, 000 
37,756,000 



86 31 

10 17 

8 92 

14 74 

18 09 

19 95 
19 14 
18 36 
17 92 



1870 8683,878,000 

1871 721,582,000 

1872 731,. 355, 000 

1873 710.799,000 

1874 777,538.000 

1875 1 769,840,119 

1876 717.241,912 

1877 689,61s, 578 



3 
O 

u 

O 



138,558,371 

39,555,000 
in. 604, 000 
41, 704, ( >00 
42,856,000 
44,060,000 
45,316,000 
46, 624, 000 



817 83 
18 24 
18 01 

17 75 

18 14 
17 47 
15 82' 
14 79 



* No fractional currency included. 



t Enumerated, all other years estimated. 



Bureau of Statistics, November 16, 1877. 



EDWARD YOUNG. Chief of Bureau. 



The last statement does not include demand notes, and the large part of the apparent 
reduction from 1875 to 1877 is caused by the substitution of subsidiary silver coin for 
fractional currency. 

It will be observed that in 1864, when the paper currency had reached the highest 
point during the war, there was $187,546,578 less than there is at present. 

It will be observed that the per capita of currency is now more than it was at any time 
during the war, and, as already stated, more than double as great as under the adminis- 
tration of Buchanan. 

James Buchanan became President in 1857, at a time of great financial distress, and 
with the volume of currency as already indicated. In his first message to Congress, in 



6 

December, 1857, he charges the then hard times exclusively to the existence of an irre- 
deemable and fluctuating paper currency. 

I ask the Clerk to read from that message the paragraphs indicated. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

The earth has yielded her fruits abundantly and has bountifully rewarded the toil of the hus- 
bandman. Our great staples have commanded high prices, and, up till within a brief period, our 
manufacturing, mineral, and mechanical occupations have largely partaken of the general pros- 
perity. We have possessed all the elements of material wealth in rich abundance, and yet, not- 
withstanding all these advantages, our country, in its monetary interests, is at the present moment 
in a deplorable condition. In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions of agriculture 
and in all the elements of national wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works 
retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers 
thrown out of employment and reduced lo want. 

* * * * * * * 

It is our duty to inquire what has produced such unfortunate results and whether their recurrence 
can be prevented. In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly attributed to a variety 
of co-operating causes; but not so upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing mis- 
fortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and 
bank credits, exciting the people to wild speculation and gambling in stock. 

* * * * * * * 

The framers of the Constitution, when they gave to Congress the power "to coin money and to 
regulate the value thereof," and prohibited the States from coining m«ney, emitting bills of credit, 
or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, supposed they had pro- 
tected the people against the evils of an excessive and irredeemable paper currency. They are not re- 
sponsible for theexisting anomaly that a Government endowed with the sovereign attribute of coin- 
ing money and regulating the value thereof should have no power to prevent others from driving 
this coin out of the country and filling up the channels of circulation with paper which does not 
represent gold and silver. 

It is one of the highest and most responsible duties of government to insure to the people a sound 
circulating medium, the amount of which ought to be adapted with the utmost possible wisdom 
and skill to the wants of internal trade and foreign exchanges. If this be either greatly above or 
greatly below the proper standard, the marketable value of every man's property is increased or 
diminished in the same proportion, and injustice to individuals as well as incalculable evils to the 

community are the consequence. 

* * * * * * * 

It is this paper system of extravagant expansion, raising the nominal price of every article far 
■beyond its real value when compared with the cost of similar articles in countries whose circula- 
tion is wisely regulated, which has prevented us from competing in our markets with foreign man- 
ufactures, has produced extravagant importations, and has counteracted the effect of the large 
incidental protection afforded to our domestic manufactures by the present revenue tariff. But for 
this, the branches of our manufactures composed of raw materials, the production of our own 
country — such as cotton, iron, and woolen fabrics — would not only have acquired almost exclusive 
possession of the home market, but would have created for themselves a foreign market through- 
out the world. 

Mr. KEIFER. It will be noted that the sage of Wheatland was a believer in gold 
and silver coin as the only sound money for this country, and he deprecated all paper 
inflations. I commend this message to the member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY.] 
Nor did it ever occur to President Buchanan, or any of the wise statesmen of the time 
of his administration, that the way to turn an evil into a blessing was to enlarge the 
evil. The financial crisis of 1837. the most terrible in its consequences of any this coun- 
try has ever witnessed, was laid at the door of an overissue' of an irredeemable paper 
currency and a suspension of specie payments. President Van Buren was constrained 
to call an extra session of Congress (on the suspension of specie payments in May, 1837) 
to meet September 4, 1837, to consider the financial affairs of the country. In his spe- 
cial message of date of September 4, 1837, he attributes all the business disasters of the 
country to an unsound and irredeemable paper currency, and asked Congress to legislate 
to contract such currency and to secure universal specie payments. 

The pi r capita of currency in this country in 1837 was about one-half what it is now 
and one-third more than in Buchanan's administration. President Van Buren con- 
trasted the financial revulsions in Great Britain and the United States, and traced their 
causes to the same source, an overissue of paper money. 

An extract or two from that message may be instructive. I read: 

The history of trade in the United States for the last three or four years affords the most convinc- 
ing evidence that our present condition is chiefly to be attributed to overaction in all the depart- 
ments of business ; an overaction deriving, perhaps, its first impulses from antecedent causes, but 
stimulated to its destructive consequences by excessive issues of bank paper and by other facilities 

for the acquisition and enlargement of credit. 

***** * * 

However unwilling any of our citizens may heretofore have been to assign to these causes the 
chief instrumentality in producing the present state of things, the developnicntssubsequently made 
and the actual condition of other commercial countries must, as it seems to me, dispel all remain- 
ing doubts upon the subject. It has since appeared thai evils similar to those suffered by ourselves 
have been experienced in ( treat Britain, on the Continent, and indeed throughout the commercial 
world; and that in other countries, as will as in our own, they have been uniformly preceded by 
an undue enlargement of the boundaries of trade, prompted, as with us, by unprecedented expan- 
sion of the systems of credit. A reference to the amount of banking capital and the issues of paper 
credits put in circulation in Great Britain by banks and in other ways during the years 1831, 1835, 
and 1 s:>(> will show an augmentation of the paper currency there as much disproportioned to the 
real wants of trade as in the United Stales. With this redundancy of the paper currency there 
arose in that country also a spirit of adventurous speculation, embracing the whole range of human 

enterprise. 

* * * * * * * 

In view of these facts it would seem impossible for sincere inquirers after truth to resist the con 



viction that the causes of the revulsion in both countries have been substantially the same. Two 
nations the most commercial in the world, enjoying- but recently the highest degree of apparent 
prosperity and maintaining with each other the closest relations, are suddenly, in a time of pro- 
found peace and without any great national disaster, arrested in their career and plunged into a 
state of embarrassment and distress. In both countries we have witnessed the same redundancy of 
paper money and other facilities of credit ; the same spirit of speculation ; the same partial successes ; 
the same difficulties and reverses; and, at length, nearly the same overwhelming catastrophe. 
The most material difference between the results in the two countries has only been that, with us, 
there has also occurred an extensive derangement in the fiscal affairs of the Federal and State gov- 
ernments, occasioned by the suspension of specie payments by the banks. 

After the suspension of specie payments in May, 1837, the premium on American gold 
went up to 12 per cent. On the resumption of specie payments, May, 1838, it went 
down to a half per cent. The Democratic remedy in 1837 and 1837 was to contract or 
extinguish paper currency and to require specie payments by hanks and the Federal 
Government. 

I do not contend for contraction of the currency, but for the maintenance of it at its 
present volume, brought up and kept alongside with coin in its purchasing power. Let 
the increase of the quantity of money come through natural causes and by the increase 
of gold and silver coin, which a remonetization of silver and a healthy foreign commerce 
wifl certainly produce. The facts relating to Great Britain, given us by the member 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] the other day, from Tallis's Illustrated Atlas of 1851, 
to prove that a large volume of paper currency, regardless of the quality, was the touch- 
stone of prosperity, will bear looking at again, when I trust the honorable gentleman 
will confess that they prove the reverse of what he claimed for them. 

I send the same statement to the Clerk to be again read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 



Year. 



1818. 
1819. 
1820. 
1821. 
1822. 
1823 
1824. 
1825. 
1826. 



Bank paper. 



$47, 727, 000 
41,358,948 
35, 129, 405 
28, 699, 500 
26, 743, 260 
29,502,422 
33,124,658 
34,220,738 
30,911,323 



Effects. 



Prosperity. 
Distress. 
Distress. 

1 Great distress ; county meetings call- 
J ing for relief. 

[■ Great prosperity and speculation. 



Mr. KEIFER. It will be observed that in 1818 Great Britain, with a paper currency 
of $47,727,000, enjoyed ''prosperity," and in 1824, when that quantity had been re- 
duced about one-third, that kingdom enjoyed "great prosperity and speculation;" and 
also in 1819, when that country floateda paper currency of Sil.:5"H,948, it suffered "dis- 
tress," but when one-fifth of that sum was cut off, it enjoyed " great prosperity." 

Here, it seems, is a conundrum for the honorable member [Mr. Kklley] to workout. 

At the period of "great prosperity" spoken of, in 1824 and 1825, the population of 
Great Britain was 21,280,000, and her paper currency per capita, as shown by these same 
figures, was about $1.60, and in 1818, when it w;is at its maximum, the per capita was 
only $2.30. The United States, with a present per capita of currency of $14.79, is said 
to be in great distress for want of more paper money. This is fallacious; it is for want 
of more business enterprise, which can only be secured by a sound currency. There- 
sumption act was passi d in answer to the promise given to the noteholder, in response 
to the demands of the country, to defeat the predictions of the Democratic party through 
its leaders, during the war, that the legal-tender notes would become worthless, and to 
carry out the wishes of that part expressed since the war. The Republican party dis- 
covered in the Constitution the power to issue the United States legal-tender notes; it 
created and wrote on them a promise to make them good, which should and mast be 
kept. Good faith should be the pole-star of a nation as well as of an individual. 

In 1864 Governor Seymour sent a message to the Legislature of the State of New York, 
deprecating tbe consequences that would"follo\v from the payment of the bonds of the 
State of New York in paper money, and exhorted them to set to the State and to the 
nation a good example in the matter of paying all its obligations in gold and silver. Mr. 
Seymour was made the candidate of the Democratic party in 1868 upon a specie-pay- 
ment platform. I can only briefly refer to facts. 

We come along up to 1872, when we had this condition of things in the country; we 
had three great parties in the country, all of whom stood upon a specie-payment plat- 
form. The Liberal convention that met at Cincinnati, composed, it was said, of all the 
virtue, of all the overflowing effervescence of virtue, of all the parties in the country, met 
and adopted a platform; and the plank in regard to specie payments reads thus: 

A speedy resumption of specie payments is demanded alike by the highest considerations of com- 
mercial morality and honest government. 



8 

Sixty-odd days afterward, the Democratic party, having considered the subject well, 
and considered it not upon the report of a committee, readopted that platform in the 
light of a specie-resumption letter of Horace Greeley. They readopted it in words and 
terms. A speedy resumption of specie payments was demanded by the Democratic 
party, in 1872, "by the highest considerations of commercial morality and honest gov- 
ernment." 

In 1875 this Congress gave to the country the resumption law, which did not promise 
resumption until seven years after speedy resumption had been demanded by all the par- 
ties of the country, the Republican, the Democratic, the Liberal and all the other parties; 
and yet we are now told that we forced this matter hastily upon the country. 

Since the passage of the act the Democratic party has continued to demand specie pay- 
ments. Governor Tilden was made the standard-bearer of that party only one year ago. 
He had always favored specie resumption. He recommended, immediately after the 
passage of the resumption act as governor, and the New York Legislature passed and 
he approved, a bill, now the law of New York State, which requires all taxes to be 
collected in gold — no silver — and all contract obligations payable in the State of New 
York to be performed by payments in coin after January 1, 1879. 

Tilden was placed on a platform which favored resumption of specie payments and 
which arraigned the Republican party before the bar of the world for not having resumed 
specie payments on the surrender of the insurgent armies. Lest some may be prone to 
forget that platform, I read an extract from it, as follows: 

We denounce the failure, for all these eleven years of peace, to make good the promise of the 
legal-tender notes, which are a changing standard of value in the hands of the people, and the non- 
payment of which is a disregard of the plighted faith of the nation. 

That platform only denounces the resumption act and demands the repeal of the re- 
sumption clause of the act as ahinderance to resumption. 

To further make clear the true interpretation of that platform, I read an extract from 
Mr. Tilden' s letter of acceptance: 

" Reform is necessary," declares the Saint Louis convention, " to establish a sound currency, re- 
store the public credit,'and maintain the national honor; " and it goes on to " demand a judicious 
svstem of preparation by public economies, by official retrenchments, and by wise finance, which 
shall enable the nation soon to assure the whole world of its perfect ability and its perfect readiness 
to meet any of its promises at the call of the creditor entitled to payment." The object demanded by 
the convention is a resumption of specie payments on theleyal-tendcr notes of the United States. That tvould 
not only "restore the public credit" and " maintain the national honor," but it would "establish a sound 
currency" for the people. 

It will be observed that he, too, thinks resumption necessary to restore credit and 
maintain the national honor. 

On this platform, thus interpreted, the whole Democratic party stood one year ago. 
The majority of this House was elected on this specie-resumption platform, not except- 
ing the member from Ohio [Mr. Ewing] who has charge of this bill. 

We should address ourselves to the work of perfecting the law and not to its repeal. 

I have said enough on this question. I have sought to show that good money is better 
for the whole people than depreciated currency, that overissues of paper currency have 
in the past brought about speculation, extravagance, and extended credit, which when 
the pay-day came brought disaster and ruin, and that the present in this respect is not 
different from the past. 

I have shown that the law was passed not only to secure the redemption of the nation's 
sacred promise most solemnly made, but for a wise purpose and in answer to a demand 
of the great parties of this country, and especially the Democratic party. 

It is common to hear the Republican party charged with the passage of this law, and 
as a consequence with all the financial disasters of the country. The member from Ten- 
nessee [Mr. Riddle] gives us a summary of financial disasters for four years during the 
Avar, when people were just embarking in speculation on account of sudden paper infla- 
tion, and for four and a half years since the war, chiefly prior to the resumption act, and 
he contrasts the two periods. He ignores the real fact that the disasters of the later 
period are but legitimate results of the course taken by speculators in the former. The 
repeal of the resumption act will not pay the debts of a bankrupt, nor start him again in 
business. 

He also states that in 1865 the circulation reached $2, 2( 10, 000, 000 ; that is, $55 per capita , 
and that the Secretary of the Treasury reduced it $1,200,000,000. This is the old method 
of perverting figures on the stump to scare the people. The tacts do not bear the gentle- 
man out. No such contraction lias ever taken place in our currency proper, as I have 
already shown. Bonds bearing interest, which are included in this statement of the cir- 
culation and reduction, were, when due, paid off or interchanged for other bonds by the 
Government, which never entered into the common currency of the country. We have 
still in this country a mountain of debt, evidenced l>y bonds which represent in part the 
cost of a preserved Union. But it is said that bonds have been sold in foreign countries. 



Grant it. This was bseause they, together with the other promises of the Government, 
were decried and their repudiation threatened until we had to go to the money marts of 
Europe for purchasers. 

Had the bonds been bought and held by our own people as a permanent investment, more 
money would have been withdrawn from business enterprises and there would have been 
less employment for the laboring-men. The money arising from the sale of bonds abroad 
has been made available in business here. The honorable member also assails the Repub- 
lican party for pernicious and dishonest legislation, invidious to the laboring-man, in 
favor of the creditor and against the debtor class. 

The record of the Republican party has been written and has passed into history. 
From its birth to the present hour it has battled for the rights of man and the elevation 
of the enslaved, defenseless, and weak against the oppressions of the aggressive and 
strong. 

I draw no invidious distinctions here; this is neither the time nor occasion: but I may 
be permitted to say I have never yet seen a Republican who did not believe in giving 
every man an equal chance in the race of life and the freedom to enjoy the earnings of 
the sweat of his own face. 

Mr. Speaker, to the resumption act all linancial disasters are laid. We must remem- 
ber that the panic of 1873 came two years before its date. 

When the army of Northern Virginia surrendered to Grant at Appomattox the price of 
gold was $1.52 in currency. On July 11, 1864, just after the Democratic party had de- 
clared the war on the part of the North an "experiment and a failure," it reached §2.86. 
When the resumption act was passed gold was only $>1.12£. It is to-day only $1,024. 
Shall we, by the passage of this bill, again raise the price of gold ? Shall we, when we are 
trying to give the country a bimetallic currency, appreciate gold or depreciate our paper 
currency ? 

Had we not better devote ourselves to the work of hitching the three together and 
abreast ? They have been driven tandem long enough. 

It is a siren song to sing in the ears of those unfortunate men who are out of employ- 
ment that financial legislation has brought about hard times; but it is delusive. 

Many causes concur in putting an end in this and many of the great manufacturing 
and commercial countries of Europe to a demand for laboring-men. I can only name 
one or two of these causes. The labor-saving machinery now in use in manufactories and 
on farms has driven the laborer from the shops and fields. 

It is estimated that England, with a population of thirty-six millions of souls, has, 
through her machinery, a laboring power equivalent to six hundred millions of able- 
bodied men; and the United States, with a population now of about forty-six millions, 
has, through her machiney, a working power equal to two hundred and fifty millions of 
men. Through the inventive genius of man more men have been left without employ- 
ment in America and on the continent of Europe than through all other causes com- 
bined. 

From a state of war, recklessness in business enterprises, extravagant living, and un- 
usual and extraordinary expenditures on public improvements, we have emerged to a 
period of peace and comparative steadiness in business, economy in living, and a neces- 
sary cessation of public improvements. Individuals with wealth have curtailed their 
expenses in every way, all of which tends to lessen the demands for labor. 

The million of men engaged during the war on either side in consuming and destroy- 
ing returned to fill up the ranks of men seeking civil employment and to become pro- 
ducers. The United States is no longer the principal paymaster to the hundreds of thou- 
sands in its employ, to the growers of the products of the soil, or to manufacturers. The 
South has not yet had time to recover from the devastation of civil war. The purchas- 
ing power of our currency is now 33 per cent, greater than when the war closed. Shall 
we, by enacting this bill into a law, contract the purchasing power of our money to what 
it was when the war closed ? 

To all those who believe resumption of specie payments must and should come ; to all 
those who are opposed to repudiation of the nation's sacred debt; to all those who are in 
favor of a sound and stable currency for the poor as well as the rich; to all those who 
have the truest and best interests of all classes of persons at heart, I appeal and implore 
them to stand firm and hold the ground gained, and unite in legislation which will put 
this country upon a sound financial basis. With many who here support this bill I 
might agree as to a lack of wisdom in the resumption act as an original question, but if 
evil has flowed from the operation of the act we have tasted of that evil, and we should 
now gather the ripe fruit just within our grasp. Gold, silver, and paper money are clos- 
ing their ranks together; let us do nothing to reopen the breach. If in the future it 
should seem that the date for resumption is fixed too soon, I will vote to postpone that 
date to a more opportune time, but let us here do our duty by first perfecting the exist- 
ing law. 



10 



WIGGINTON vs. PACHECO. 

On February 6, 1878, in this election case, Mr. Leonard said that in civil cases where there are 
only two judgments possible, if the testimony is evenly balanced the plaintiff must be nonsuited, and 
that if there are three judgments possible, a judgment in favor of either one or the other claim- 
ant, or a judgment in favor of neither, and there is a conflict of testimony between the claimants, 
neither is entitled to judgment unless he makes out his case over the other claimant beyond a 
reasonable doubt — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Let me ask the gentleman from Louisiana where he finds any rule applying to civil 
cases in this or any other country which j ustifies him in making that statement. 

The distinction is broadly drawn between the testimony in civil and in criminal cases. 
Such is not the rule, as I understand it, under the civil law in the gentleman's own 
State. It is not the rule which applies in the Supreme Court of the United States nor 
in any of the States of the Union, so far as I am aware 

On the same case, February 7th — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I rise for the purpose of disclaiming any purpose to be discourteous to the gentleman 
from Louisiana, [Mr. Leonard.] As to the gentleman's rule of evidence I may have 
been emphatic on yesterday, but I certainly did not intend to be discourteous. I am 
glad that the gentleman now disclaims that he intended what he said; but I want to say 
that I entirely differ with him as to the rules of evideuce that should apply in this case. 

There are a contestant and a contestee in this case. First let it be understood that 
the contestee comes here under a certificate from the officers of his own State, which 
certificate these officers were compelled under a mandamus of the supreme court of the 
State of California to issue. Now, that makes his title good, at least for the prima facie 
case if not more; it certainly ought to make more than a prima facie case for the con- 
testee. Now, as I understand it, the contestant should overthrow that prima facie case 
by proof — a preponderance of proof. Now, how is it to be done? 

In the estimation of some gentlemen it is done by offering some kind of proof in the 
matter, and then the parties get upon a par and that is sufficient to infer that neither is 
entitled to the seat. Now, how do we get at this ? I desire as an illustration to quote 
one single case as a means of overthrowing the claim of Mr. Pachec>. I find in the re- 
port of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] this sentence in the case of Charles 
Gilbert. I quote from the report of the committee: 

A person cannot be compelled to state for whom he voted ; and the Supreme Court of the United 
States has expressly decided that when a witness cannot be compelled to answer he need not be 
called. (6 Peter's Rep.,352, 3S7.) But Mr. Pacheco might have called the voter, and if he had not 
claimed his privilege he could have made it clear for whom he did vote. Mr. Pacheco not having 
done so, we may infer that Gilbert, if produced, would have corroborated the witness whose depo- 
sition is in the record. 

I would like to know where they find any law in this country that would allow a 
man to refuse to state before a committee of Congress or upon the witness-stand for 
whom he voted; but if there is such a law, at least the contestant has never called this 
witness, and no reason is given why he did not call the witness. On this state of case 
the majority of the committee reject Mr. Gilbert's vote and deduct one vote from the 
number counted for Mr. Pacheco. 

Well, this testimony would amount to nothing in any court of justice; it would not 
be received anywhere before any tribunal that has any regard for arriving at truth, for 
it is absolutely incompetent evidence. Upon this testimony Gilbert's vote was rejected 
and counted among the votes that had been given for Pacheco, because Pacheco did not 
call the witness to prove that he did not vote for him. How many thousands of men 
were there in that district who were not called to swear how they voted? It is conceded 
by the gentleman who presents this report that the testimony is not competent to prove 
for whom he voted; but because Pacheco did not call him to prove that he had voted for 
him lie must be counted against him. On the other hand, we might say with equal pro- 
priety that Mr. Wigginton ought to have called him and asked him for whom he voted. 

But the committee proceeded on the idea that Mr. Pacheco ought to have proved that 
the man who illegally voted for him, as was alleged, did not vote at all, or otherwise the 
vote was rejected. That is as far as I desire to go. There are other examples of a like 
character, but I intend to stop here. 

Mr. LKONARD. Suppose there is this case before the House : There is a reasonable 
well-founded doubt as to who was elected, and a doubt as to whether anybody was elec- 
ted or not; what ought the House to do? 



11 

Mr. KEIFER. I should say that in this case there was a prima facie case for the con- 
tested If the contestant does not make out a case to overcome it, then the contestee 
being in his seat the House should not act affirmatively to put him out. 

Mr. LEONARD. Suppose there is a doubt as to whether he was or was not elected; 
should he be allowed to retain his seat? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes; he is in the seat, and should not be removed unless a case is made 
out against him. 



APPOINTMENT OF CIVILIANS. 

February 13, 1878. The Military Academy appropriation bill was under consideration. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

I move to further amend section 2 by inserting after the word "civilians " the words 
"except such as are regular graduates of the United States Military Academy and who 
have been honorably discharged from the service"; also to insert after the words "shall 
only be made" the words "in time of peace." 

Mr. DURHAM. So far as the Committee on Appropriations are concerned they are 
willing to accept that amendment. 

Mr. FINLEY. I ask that the section as proposed to be amended be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That appointments of civilians, except such as are regular graduates of the United States Military 
Academy and who have been honorably discharged from the service, to be second lieutenants in any 
of the regiments of the Army, shall only be made in time of peace when more vacancies exist in 
the Army than will be required in the assignment of the next graduating class of cadets at the 
United States Military Academy. 

Mr. KEIFER. I understand that the gentleman having charge of this bill [Mr. 
Durham] is willing to accept this amendment. I do not desire to take up the time of 
the Committee of the Whole by speaking in favor of it, except to say that it may often 
be of very great importance to the Army in time of peace to appoint skilled men and 
military men, men who have graduated at West Point and who from misfortune or other 
cause have left the Army after having graduated— it may be important to appoint them 
to places in the Army when they desire to return, being fully prepared to discharge the 
duties of officers in the Army. 

Let me say that in the proper exercise of their judgments the Secretary of War and 
the President of the United States may very often make these appointments in antici- 
pation of further vacancies occurring before the time when the graduating class at West 
Point may graduate, and there would be no objection to making the appointments in 
that view. In other words, it will not affect the appointment of the next graduating 
class of West Point to fill places in the Army. 

Of course, it is quite obvious that the second branch of my amendment, to insert the 
words "in time of peace," is a very important one. This section should apply only to 
times of peace. In time of war, if an exigency should be pressing, such a limitation 
as this might greatly embarrass the President and the War Department. 

Mr. BRAGG. Will the gentleman accept an amendment to insert the w T ord ' ' and ' ' 
after the phrase "in time of peace," so as to read: "In time of peace and when more 
vacancies exist in the Army," cScc. This will limit the appointments to cases of actual 
vacancies. With the word "and" left out, there is no such limitation. 

Mr. DURHAM. That is right, 

Mr. KEIFER. I have no objection to the modification, though I do not see its neces- 
sity. 



12 



DISTINGUISHED OHIOANS. 

March 13, 1878. On the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill. 

Mr. KEIFER said. 

Mr. Chairman: This seems to me a good time to say a word in the interest and on 
behalf of some other distinguished gentlemen from Ohio who have heen assailed, in my 
opinion unnecessarily. I wish, however, in the first place to indorse, from a very good 
opportunity to know the truth, what has heen said to-day and on a former occasion by 
my colleague [Mr. Jones] in favor of Colonel Alfred E. Lee. It does seem to me that 
because Colonel Lee happened to accept the position of private secretary to Mr. Hayes, 
when governor of Ohio, he should not be excluded from taking a position which he is 
well qualified to fill in a foreign country. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. He belongs to the wrong family of Lees. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, I was a little astonished to hear the distinguished 
member from New York [Mr. Hewitt] say that he knew nothing or heard nothing of 
General Comly, of Ohio, now minister to the Sandwich Islands. Why, sir, General 
Comly has been a distinguished man, not onlv as a soldier but as a civilian ; and he has 
stood at the head of his profession as a journalist. 

Mr. FIN LEY. He was the editor of a paper and the first person to suggest Mr. 
Hayes for the Presidency. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do liot wish to be interrupted on this occasion, as I have a very few 
minutes. General Comly would do honor to this country anywhere. The present oc- 
cupant of the chair [Mr. Cox, of New York] knows him. He is known very well all 
over this country : and it seems to me that the gentleman from New York did not do 
himself justice when he said he did not know him. Because he edited a paper at the 
capital of the State of Ohio, it does not follow that he is incompetent to fill such a posi- 
tion as he now holds. I might dwell further upon General Comly, who is a man of head 
and heart, but I have not the time. 

( General Noyes is also assailed as though he were distinguished for but, one thing on 
earth, and that the fact that he stood upon the rostrum in the national Republican con- 
vention at Cincinnati in 1876 and nominated Rutherford B. Hayes for President. I wish 
to remind the gentleman from New York that Governor Noyes was a graduate of Dart- 
mouth College. He was a distinguished lawyer in the Queen City of the West. He en- 
tered the Army early in the beginning of the late war. He staid there, going through 
the campaigns of Missouri down to the capture of Island No. 10. He came over and 
was in the movement upon the capture of Corinth, Mississippi. He was in the battle of 
Iuka, under General Rosecrans. He was in the Atlanta campaign ; and in celebrating 
the 4th of July, 1864, at Resaca, he lost a leg, suffering from the injury two amputations. 
He has since held the position of city solicitor of Cincinnati with great credit. He has 
presided as judge in that c\ty. and certainly it is not to his dishonor that he was gov- 
ernor of Ohio. He has been distinguished as a scholar, and he has taken great interest 
in all public affairs in this country. When he was appointed minister to the court of France, 
he was worthy of the position; for there was not a blot or a stain upon his record any- 
where, his revilers to the contrary notwithstanding. He needs no defense; but when I 
hear him assailed on this floor by the member from Mississippi [Mr. Singleton], who 
has charge of this bill, and by two distinguished members from the State of New York 
[Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Cox], I think it quite proper that I should say a single word in 

his behalf. 

* -::- -x- * * * * 

I am glad that my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Blackburn] enters a disclaimer for 
his side of the House — a gentlemen beside me suggests river, but I say House— in rela- 
tion to these Ohio appointments. But my friend seems to speak somewhat ironically 
when he comes to talk upon the subject. * [Laughter.] He is evidently not in earnest. 
He would not have the country to believe that he was candid, and therefore I do not 
credit him with being candid now. 

The gentleman starts off by saying that Ohio lias a General of the Army. I have 
heard so much from thai side of the House about civil-service reform that I am not a 
little astonished to hear that remark made. It may not be civil service which made 
General Sherman the < reneraJ of the Army, but it was military service. There was com- 
petitive examination for that appointment. [Applause.] It was competitive examina- 
tion with those who were in the Union and fighting for it ; it was competitive examina- 
tion with those who were trying to get out of the Union and fighting against it which 



13 

made Sherman, the son of Ohio, whom we are proud to honor, General ot the Army. I 
may take another instance. We are told that we have a Lieutenant-General, (Sheridan.) 
I know he too was born in Ohio in an humble station of life. I believe he used to be 
connected with the most humble people of our country. But he went into the com- 
petitive examination also, and he kept on in his examination, stopping nowhere, stand- 
ing behind no person, except it be General Grant and General Sherman, until he became 
by this same kind of competitive examination the Lieutenant-Geueral of the Army, a 
position which General Sheridan has well earned and rills well. And if there be any 
person on this floor who thinks he did not fairly earn his place, then I do not think such 
a person fought for the Union. Now let me say one word further. We have a Presi- 
dent from Ohio, and the people of the United States are responsible for that. [Cries of 
"No!" " No !" and laughter from the Democratic side.] And let me say, Mr. Chair- 
man, I heard, with some pleasure the other day, the distinguished gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hewitt] say he had a perfect title. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Will the gentleman answer a cpiestion for me ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I will try to do so. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Did the President, the present Executive of the United States, 
succeed to his office by means of a competitive examination like those other Ohio men? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, undoubtedly. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer that 
in the same way, if you gave me time. I know from personal knowledge how he 
acquired his high-standing, not only as a civilian, but as a soldier. He, too, did his 
duty in the held, trying to uphold its flag and preserve the integrity of his country. I 
should be glad to speak further of the President and of the distinguished men of Ohio 
to whom reference has been made. 



14 



BARTHOLOMEW AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. 

March 29th, 1878. On the bill for the relief of the Bartholomew Agricultural Society- 
Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker: I might answer the inquiry just made by the gentleman in regard to 
the loyalty of these persons in this way: that in an unreported case recently in the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, that court held that where there was a contract to pay 
a party, made by the United States, which was valid, it was not important whether the 
party was loyal or not loyal. I refer to the case of Clark vs. The United States. I have 
no doubt about the loyalty of these men, but I need not stop to discuss that matter. The 
sole question involved here is whether this contract was binding on the Government. If 
it was, then if we refuse to pass this bill to pay this society for, as the report states, the 
time that the grounds of the society were occupied as a rendezvous for the organization 
of troops, we simply say that we repudiate a Government contract. 

Now, one word further. It has been intimated that this contract was a forgery in 
this: that it was interlined so as to attach additional obligations to the General Govern- 
ment after it had been executed. Now, any person who will examine the contract, the 
original of which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fixley] holds in his hand, will be able 
to see. on the most casual inspection of it, that the signatures, or at least some of them, 
were written over that part which is claimed to have been interlined. It is clear beyond 
doubt that the name of Thomas Wilson was written there after the interlineation was 
made, for it extends over a part of that interlineation. Now it happened in this way: 
the contract, without those words, was sent to Washington by the officers of the Govern- 
ment who were authorized to make this contract; but the society refused to make with 
the Government any such contract as was proposed. The Government subsequently, 
through its officers, put in conditions that the society was willing to have put in and 
then the contract was executed. The Government occupied these lands before the change 
was made in the contract, and they are now bound to pay for that use of the property. 
It ought to be distinctly understood by the House that the society, by virtue of the lan- 
guage claimed to have been interlined in the contract, gains nothing under this bill. 

Mr. JONES, of Ohio. I desire to ask the gentleman one question, for I want to get 
at the truth in this matter. I would ask the gentleman whether it is not a fact that this 
agricultural society filed its claim for the use and occupancy of its property up to May, 
1864, and then, whether they did not file another claim in October, and whether both 
claims were paid or not? I ask now further, whether the society did not, at that time, 
concede that the General Government occupied their grounds from May to October, five 
months, and whether this bill does not propose to pay them for that time? 

Mr. FINLEY. I desire to ask my colleague [Mr. Keifer] a question. Does not this 
committee undertake to pay this agricultural society for the use of these grounds for one 
month and twenty-eight days before the contract was ever made? 

Mr. KEIFER. I am informed in relation to the last question asked me, that the con- 
tract was sent out and the society surrendered their grounds to the United States, and 
the Government occupied them for quite a time while there was a little controversy 
about the execution of the contract, and that explains that trouble. But the gentle- 
man from Ohio [Mr. Jones] asked me a question which I will endeavor to answer. I 
was not a member of the subcommittee which examined the papers, but my information 
is that no concession was made by this society that the Government had not occupied or 
controlled their grounds for any part of the time which it is now proposed to pay for. 
The gentleman is perhaps partly right when he says that some claims were presented 
and paid. That is true, and the committee have deducted that amount from the bill. 



15 



PENSION AGENTS. 

April 11,1878. On the pension appropriation bill- 
Mr. KEIFER said: 

For two days I have listened here to a discussion which seems to me has spread over 
almost every phase of this question, and at last, when the members of the Committee 
on Appropriations are brought up to the point, they cannot give us the facts upon which 
they ask the Congress of the United States to legislate in a matter which is to affect 
directly over two hundred thousand of the people of this country, and indirectly hundreds 
of thousands more. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Price] yesterday seemed to be 
startled at the idea that we were paying the pension agents of the country from ten to 
sixteen thousand dollars a year simply for vouchers, and then the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania, [Mr. Smith,] who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations, put a 
statement in the Record of what had been paid for these purposes, and it is upon that 
kind of a statement that we are asked to vote for this bill. 

Now, let me state that it is an absolute fact that the man who is put down on that 
list as receiving the largest sum for the payment of vouchers cannot inake, after he pays 
his clerks, his office rent, stationery, postage, and other expenses, $6,000 a year. I know 
that he does not make that much. I had it from his own lips. The statement put in 
the Record by the member from Pennsylvania shows that the agent at Columbus receives 
over $26,000. There is nothing furnished to show what he pays out. We are expected 
to go into important legislation without the facts and for the reason that the Committee 
on Appropriations get one side of a statement and leave out entirely the other side. 

Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. KEIFER. I have so short a time and there are so many gentlemen who wish to 
interrupt me that I must decline to yield to anybody. My colleague [Mr. BANNING-] 
rose and spoke a few moments ago about the pension agent in Ohio. That pension agent 
in Ohio extends facilities to thethousands of persons who have to be paid in Cincinnati, 
but my colleague said that because he did not have sufficient information as to the pay 
of the agents he thought he was in favor of the bill of the committee. Do we not know 
that agent goes either in person or by a clerk to Cincinnati on the 4th of each month, 
when pensions are due, and remains there as long as it is necessary to pay off the pen- 
sioners, for the sole purpose of accommodating these thousands of men and saving them 
from expense and delay and from distress among themselves and their families; and 
does this out of his own pocket? And yet we are told that he is receiving twenty odd 
thousand dollars a year when he is really expending a very large portion of the amount 
in the interest of the pensioners who need their money aud need it promptly. 

Now, it is said by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fort] that those pensioners who 
are in the soldiers' homes are paid direct from Washington. They amount to but 6,000, 
and if you want to legislate in their interest then you must not impose upon the De- 
partment here the labor of paying all the pensioners throughout the country, because 
that would prevent them from receiving their pay as promptly as they now do. 

Mr. PRICE. They get their pay from Washington now. 

Mr. KEIFER. The 6,000 in the soldiers' homes do; but if you require the Depart- 
ment to pay the 200,000 the same machinery will not answer with the niggardly legis- 
lation of this Congress in the direction of allowing clerks. Do we not know of the great 
delay, day by day, week by week, month by month, in giving a few additional clerks to 
the Surgeon-General's Office that is now being asked for in order to hurry through the 
decision of the large number of applications for pensions ? Congress stands quietly by 
and witnesses this delay, and yet it is proposed now to cast additional labor upon that 
Department. 



16 



LEGISLATION IN APPROPRIATION BILLS. 

April 30,1878. Pending the legislative appropriation bill — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to undertake to answer in a general way or a special 
way many things said here on this subject. I want, however, to say that I should like 
to see this House and the Congress of the United States go one step farther than has 
been advocated by the distinguished member from the State of Pennsylvania, the 
Speaker of this House; I should like to see the time, and I trust I will see the time, 
when no appropriation bill will contain or be permitted to contain any general legisla- 
tion. I have very recently looked at most of the constitutions of the States of the United 
States, and I believe that in twenty-four of the States of this Union they have found it 
wise to say in their organic acts in effect that all legislation in an appropriation bill other 
than that which pertains directly to the matter of appropriation shall be void. It would 
be found to be the highest kind of wisdom to have a rule, a constitutional rule, that 
would inhibit all legislation in an appropriation bill, save such as pertained directly to 
the appropriation of money. 

I want to say further that we should stop legislation of every character in an appro- 
priation bill, and then it would become the duty of an appropriation committee to look 
to the existing laws of the land and legislate with reference to them in their appropria- 
tion bills. I wish to say a word more. I am one of those that are classed here to-day 
as belonging to a "herd " that are voting against economy. I deny the charge. I deny 
it because I do not believe that stinted legislation in the way of paying for what we 
ought to pay for, in the way of making appropriations for the construction of public 
buildings in this country, is economy at all. I know that now we are paying in the 
shape of rent in the city of Washington larger sums annually than would pay the inter- 
est at 20 per cent, on all the money it would take to build good fire-proof buildings to 
preserve all the public records here. I know, too, that we could build these buildings 
here, and if needed elsewhere over the country, at this time when material is cheap, 
when labor is being tendered all over the country and is going without a demand any- 
where, and in so doing would relieve many thousands of people. And if any man says 
it is economy to say we should pay out large sums in rent instead of building the 
necessary buildings; if any man says it is economy to let these hundreds of thousands of 
nieu go without work when we could furnish the work by erecting the necessary public 
buildings, I say it is not true economy; it is the meanest kind of economy, if it can be 
called that at all. That is what I think about it. Parsimony is not economy; in poli- 
tics it is demagoguery. 

The Democratic party, by failing to make the needful appropriations in the Forty- 
fourth Congress for public buildings, threw out of employment many thousands of la- 
borers. I am in favor of economy, that is, paying only the proper and ordinary wages 
to men who are employed by the Government. I do not believe I would pay Congress- 
men any more than they are paid now. Yet the gentleman [Mr. Randall] who has 
spoken of the party I belong to as a ' ' herd ' ' voting against economy, has stood on the 
floor of this House and advocated the payment of §7^500 a year, including two years' 
back pay, to himself and others. [Applause from the Republican side.] 



17 



TAXING INVENTORS. 

An amendment was pending to require patentees to pay, in addition to the fees allowed by law, 
the actual cost and expense of printing their respective patents. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

I am utterly opposed to putting any further tax upon the men of genius of this coun- 
try who are inventors. Most of them, according to my observation, are poor meu, 
or men who at least have become poor, if not poor originally, in carrying out their ex- 
periments, on that which they hope to make valuable to themselves, but which at the 
last inure to the benefit of mankind. I do not think it wise policy for the Government 
to undertake to tax that class of men in this country to raise revenue. 

I believe the fact is tin- $400,000 of surplus revenue which has arisen from the tax 
upon inventors has been used in erecting buildings for the Interior Department. There 
i.s now in the Treasury, unexpended from this revenue, nearly $12,000,000. There was 
about, in round numbers, $16,000,000 standing to the credit of the Patent Office, all of 
which has been taken from this class of people. 1 would be glad to see the Law so 
changed that you could command the best talent in America to put into this office — I 
mean the highest talent. It is a tact that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the patents 
coining out of that Patent Office for the last twenty years are absolutely void when they 
have passed through the crucible of the courts. The compliant conies to us from abroad 
that we arc issuing patents in name and not in fact. There is some error in our .system: 
perhaps we have not employed the right men. In England and France they do not 
issue a patent because some man imagines that he has made a new and useful inven- 
tion, and hence they do not have their courts flooded with suits of patent cases. 

That is not the worst of it. These men obtain patents and go out through the coun- 
try and make the people believe that they have valuable patents, and they tax the pub- 
lic with them. A person charged with infringing upon one of these patents says : I 
cannot undertake to go through a lawsuit in a United States court, which is a great dis- 
tance off, and therefore I will pay the penalty. Many of these patents are utterly void. 
I know in my own experience that old machinery that has been standing in my coun- 
try unused for fifty years has been gathered up and a patent obtained upon it and the 
whole country is required to pay tribute 1<> it. 

90 A— K 2 



18 



CLAIMS OF LOYAL CITIZENS. 

May 10, 1878. On the bill for the relief of Richard Heater- 
Mr. KEIFEE said: 

It was the policy of this Government to provide the method of settling claims ot loyal 
citizens. It was the policy of the Government to allow the Quartermaster and Commis- 
sary Departments to settle claims of citizens living in the loyal States. It was the policy 
of the Government to remit all other claims of loyal citizens to the commissioners of 
claims to settle all claims for commissary stores and quartermaster stores taken or fur- 
nished, to use the language of the statute, from residents of insurrectionary States. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me state the peculiarity of this case, and I have here hefore 
me the original papers. 

Mr. BRAGG. If this property was taken by order of the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment, so as to charge the Government, would not the quartermaster have issued a vou- 
cher to the citizens from whom he took the property, so it could be presented to the 
proper Department and be paid? 

Mr KEIFEE. The answer to that is, he would if he was prepared to do it, but he 

was not bound to do it; and the second answer is, that if he had issued the voucher to 

this man Richard Heater, in the State of Virginia, the Government, by no machinery 

that has been provided up to the present hour outside of Congress, would have ever paid 

for it. The voucher would have stood for naught. I understand this man Richard 

Heater in his life-time presented his claim for these stores and this property to the 

trtermaster's Department, and there it was considered. I have the report upon my 

table. The quartermaster held that while as a matter of fact the property was taken 

from the citizen in an insurrectionary State, it was still taken from a farm belonging to 

Richard Heater, in the State of Maryland, a Loyal State. While the quartermaster 

ad the property was taken, and that the Government of the United States had the 

benefit of it, and that it should be paid for, yet under the law. the man himself living 

a insurrectionary State and his property in a loyal State, he had no jurisdiction to 

make an allowance. 

Then Mr. Heater went with his claim to the commissioners of southern claims. There 

he thought they had jurisdiction. There the testimony was retaken. The property 

was found to have been taken and used by the United States, and ought to be paid for. 

commissioners of claims held that the property was taken in a loyal State and not 

i , ., disloyal State, and therefore they had no jurisdiction to grant relief, merely because 

property was hi the wrong State. In the first instance the man was in the wrong 

Stale, while in the last the property was in the wrong State, and there was no relief 

to be obtained except from Congress. I will now yield to the gentleman for a question. 

Mr. BRAGG. How happened it that this claim lay dormant until there was a Law 

passed prohibiting the Quartermaster's Department paying it? 

Mr. KEIFER. ~ This claim went into the Quartermaster's Department while the law 
was in full force as the letter from the Quartermaster lying upon my table shows. It 
slates the reason why he did not order it to be paid. It was because the man lived in 
- insurrectionary State, and the Quartermaster-General therefore had no jurisdiction to 
pay him, and it made no difference whether the law was passed taking away the power 
from the Quartermaster's Department or not, because that Department never had the 
er under the law and the construction given it by the Quartermaster-General to grant 

relief. 

Mr. BRAGG. Does the gentleman say this claim was presented before 1864 ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir.' 

Mr. BRAGG. How early? 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not know that. I cannot give the precise date: but it was pre- 
sented in due time and considered and rejected, because the Quartermaster's Department 

1.1 it had no jurisdiction under the law to grant him relief, as he Lived in an insur- 
rectionary State. Then Mr. Heater went before the. commissioners of southern claims, 
(here presented his claim, there took all the testimony, and had the case fully heard: 
hut the commissioners found, because the property was taken in a loyal State, notwith- 
a a ding Mi'. Heater lived in an insurrectionary State, they could not grant relief*. Their 
i porl lies here before me. 

Sir. BRAGG. What is the proof showing the amount of each kind of gram that was 

i' : 
Mr. KEIFEE. The proofs are all here and are ample to show the amount. And u 
the gentleman will examine the report he will see that the Committee on War Claims 



19 

cut down the values and did what is regarded by very many people in the South, per- 
haps also in the North, as a great injustice— they reduced good cedar rails to cord-wood 
and put at the ordinary rates for which cord-wood sells here on the Potomac River; and 
fences made of good cedar timber and buildings which had been used for fuel. All this 
was put down at the rate for cord-wood and not according to the real value ot the ma- 
terial The prices allowed are the minimum prices adopted by the commissioners of 
claims who have been in the habit of allowing for such property the value at the time; 
and it was very low. Three dollars per cord was only allowed. Wheat is put in at a 
dollar a bushel and corn at seventy cents. The other things are rated exactly in accord- 
ance with the allowance uniformly made by the commissioners ot claims and the Court 

A NoTTet me say one thing further. This claim was kindred to other claims that have 
been presented to the Quartermaster and Commissary Departments and that have come 
before the commissioners of claims, and hundreds of thousands ot dollars ot claims like 
this have been paid; and this would have been paid but for the simple fact that neither 
the Quartermaster's Department nor the commissioners of claims had j unsdiction to 

allow and pay it. . . ,, ,, 

Mr. EDEN. Did not the commissioners ot claims find this claimant lojat . 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir. . , 

Mr. EDEN T . And did they not find the tact in his favor about the property being 

^Ms KEIFER The Quartermaster's Department and the commissioners of claims 
each found everything in his favor, save and except the fact that the claimant lived 
about their jurisdiction or that his property was without their jurisdiction. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin suggests that I am a convert to the payment of this 
class of claims. Let mesay first for John Heater who is now in his grave, the testimony 
showed most conclusively and the fact is well known that he was a loyal man He gave 
bis son for the cause of the Union. His son went into the Union Army with his own 
consent and gallantly served in it during the war. . 

I do not intend the gentleman shall classify me at all on this subject of paying these 
claims 1 have my own views about it, I believe in paying such claims as this I be- 
lieve in a liberal rule, and I do not care what the views of other gentlemen maybe from 
a regard to political considerations. Whatever others may do, I believe I shall advocate 
on the floor of this House as I have advocated in the committee, and gentlemen ot the 
committee will corroborate me in this statement, a liberal rule as to the payment of 
claims of loyal men living in the South. I am not to be classed among those opposed 
to pin in"' ' ind I desire— although I do not wish unneccessanly to take up the time ot 
fch e Hous'e— to send to the Clerk's desk some paragraphs from a speech made some years 
aeo in the Senate of the United States by a distinguished Senator, a man of both head 
and heart. Senator Morton, of Indiana, on this subject of the payment ot ciaims ot loyal 
citizens of the South. 

The Clerk read as follows: 
But Mr President let me take the case of a Union man in the South who has borne the heat and 
burden of' twfeivU war, wlo has been persecuted, and who has sustained all those hardships that 
m know were incident to a Union man in the South during: the war. To say that we will tieat 
him as a 'public enemy and that we will refuse to pay him for his property deliberately taken by 
het?<%en ent w ire under the same circumstances we would pay a man living in the North tor 
his ,Vr mm U kei 1. v the Government, is revolting to the plainest principles of justic el cannot 
subscribe to anv such doctrine. Wnv, sir, I know that where a camp was organized in the State of 
Indiana or < no or Pennsylvania, for the purpose of collecting and preparing troops the owner 
ot he Property was indemnified by the Government for the damage done to it, or where forage 
andTrovKs were taken for the purpose of subsisting those troops the parties were indemnified 
ft the r m -opertv ? To sav that we will not pay a Union man in the South where his property has 
b^en taken under "the same circumstances is revolting to the common principles of justice j^ouM 

(Mr WiUev which perhaps mighteven cover all the cases.and I think that was in Vattel He can 

*!..;,, llmJ J:. "id be A" war for which lb. &...-«« would not be liable, even ,o ,. loyal 

S fc , ir „„i,.i„„ thiil principle to the Southern Stoles where General Sherman on hi. numb or 

not liihle- but if General Meade in the course of expelling Lee deliberately ciesirojiu piopcny 
^^bS^^^^^^tortiaaltimt,ot seized the forage and provisions of loyal men around 
him there Uie parties would be paid, and under the same circumstances they should be paid in the 

S «n a rrnot P ^me^ **># ™» in f M 

would l\e-ai!r for his property which was deliberately appropriated by the Government, a loyal 



20 

man in the South should be paid for his property deliberately appropriated by the Government 

and where in the North a loyal man would not be paid tor property destroyed in the course of a 
march or of a battle, so in the South a loyal man should not be paid for his property destroyed in 
the same way. 

Can we afford to make any other ride on this subject'.' We might save some money by making 
another rule ; but it would in the end be penny- wise and pound-foolish economy. After having ex- 
pended some $5,000,000,001) to keep the South in the Union, and after all our labors to build up a 
loyal party down there, shall we come here making shipwreck in the end by declaring upon the 
floor of the Senate that the loyal men, whose hardships and sufferings we can never estimate, shall 
be treated as public enemies, and that we will not pay them under the same circumstances under 
which we would pay a man for the taking of like property in the North. 1 can never consent to 
it. — Congressional Globe, volume 71, page 302. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman says in the last campaign I undertook to make capital 
out of the payments of this sort of claims. I never did. Everywhere and always I 
contended that the Government ought to be just to all those men who stood by it dur- 
ing the war, whether they were from the South or the North. And when the gentleman 
makes that statement it proceeds from a spirit that lies deep in his own bosom, the spirit 
of demagogerj'. He merely imagined we would do it. 

Let me say further that I have heard that speech about John Sherman down at Mari- 
etta twice since I have been on the floor, and I do not know but it was repeated twice 
here to-day. The gentleman is utterly ignorant of the law under which that $100,000.- 

000 spoke of by Mr. Sherman was paid. After the pardon was granted by the general 
proclamation of Andrew Johnson, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States 
that that pardon remitted all persons who had property taken from them in the South, 
under the abandoned-and-captu red -property act, however disloyal, to receive from the 
Treasury of the United States the moneys derived from the sale of captured and aban- 
doned property. And in that way many millions of dollars were paid, and rightfully 
paid, because I submit the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States was right. 

Now, the gentleman has got that summed up here and included in that statement, and 
undertakes to throw it in the face of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ThoENBURGH] 
when he rises to speak for his loyal constituents and on behalf of them on this measure. 

1 am sorry the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMahox] has left the Hall and gone off to 
correct the record while I am attempting to reply to him. 

Let me say further that I do not intend to submit here to be driven from my line of 
duty by any such taunts as have been thrown out by my colleague who has just left the 
flail, or my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago, [Mr. FlNLEY.] He, too. gave as a 
reason why he did not dare to do his duty here as a member of the House, that the Re- 
publican party had voted to pay loyal claims in the past and was now trying to make 
capital out of war claims by a Democratic House. He contented himself with saying — 
for that was the logic of his whole, speech — that he was opposed for that reason to all 
these measures and these bills. I hope, sir, this Congress will not be moved by any such 
low and disgraceful motive, either on the one side or the other. 

1 did not myself believe that we should undertake to pay damages occasioned by the 
war, such as are classified under the general head of ravages of war by either army. I 
challenge the consistency of my colleagues from Ohio, [Mr. McMahox and Mr. FlN- 
LEY.] In vain have I listened to hear from them the announcement of some principle 
of law for excluding loyal men's claims for supplies furnished to the United States dur- 
ing the war. They each assail the Republican party for having paid in past years 
claims of loyal men. No political sin of that kind lies at their door. The magnanimity 
of many Southern men who were against the Union, and some of whom fought valiantly 
in the Confederate army, contrasts favorably with them. Whatever may be said of the 
reconciliation of Southern men in gi\ ing in their adhesion to the Union in good faith, 
nothing can be said for some Northern Democrats. [Applause.] 

I know that many of these questions were presented here in 1*7:2 before a commission 
that was appointed partly by the United States and partly by Great Britain — appointed 
under what was called the Washington treat.y. by the twelfth article of which the United 
States agreed to pay all legal claims of Her Britannic Majesty's subjects growing out of 
the war. Count Louis Corti, of Italy, presided over that commission ; Judge James S. 
Frazer, of Indiana, formerly a justice of the supreme court of that State, was one of the 
members of that commission ; and the Right Hon. Russell Gurney, of Her Britannic 
Majesty's privy council, I believe, represented Great Britain. That commission unani- 
mously found, when there were claims presented on behalf of subjects of Great Britain 
before it for losses of property during the late war. that there was no leg.il claim under 
the rules of international law against the United States for any losses by the war that 
came from the ordinary devastation or ravages of war. Before that commission the 
liability of the United States to pay all legal claims was admitted. No question of 
loyalty was involved. And therefore we stand upon that rule. I stand on it for other 
reasons. In effect it has been decided frequently by our own Supreme Court, and the 
rules of international law are well settled iu regard to it. But when it comes to a ques- 
tion of taking a loyal man's property and the United States getting the benefit of it. 



21 

appropriating it, using it for the purposes of the Government in the prosecution of the 
war and in putting down the rebellion, I see no reason why the United States should 
not pay a loyal man without reference to where he lives or where his property was. 

I am informed that after the vote was taken in December, 1872, on the passage of the 
bill in favor of the College of William and Mary, when the bill was voted down by the 
exact vote I stated a few moments ago — yeas 36, nays 127, not voting 78 — a motion was 
made to reconsider, and that was laid on the table. But subsequently to that time, 
near the close of that session, a new bill was introduced which did pass. To that extent 
I was mistaken. But the bill was voted down by the exact vote I stated in December, 
1872, and another bill was passed subsequently. 



POWER OF APPOINTMENT BY COURTS. 

May 20, L878. A question of the power of judges of the supreme court of the District to appoint cer- 
tain officers was under discussion. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

How does the bill read ? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill reads "shall be appointed by the judges of 
the supreme court of the District of Columbia." It is proposed to strike out "judges 
of the supreme court of the District of Columbia" and insert "shall be appointed by 
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." 

Mr. KEIFER. Then, Mr. Speaker, the point I was about to make I still insist upon. 
That is that there is no constitutional power to vest in the judges of a court as distin- 
guished from the court itself the right to make any such appointment as this. The dis- 
tinction is very plain, and certainly will be very well understood by lawyers, that power 
cannot be conferred upon a judge or all judges that constitute a court unless it be con- 
ferred upon them as constituting the court itself. 

Now. it is attempted here, as I maintain, in violation of the second section of article 2 
of the Constitution of the United States, to confer a power upon judges, not upon the 
court. That section has reference to the powers and duties of the President, and the 
clause I call attention to reads thus: 

But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, 
in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments. 

Not in the judges of the courts, but in courts acting as courts; and I insist, so far as 
concerns this vesting of appointment in the judges, this act would be held to be a nullity, 
being a violation of the Constitution. I am in favor, therefore, of the amendment sub- 
mitted by the gentleman from Minnesota. 

I wish to state another thing. I am unable to say why it is that the committee de- 
sire to change the mode of appointment of this particular officer, a higher officer than 
many others that are required to be appointed by the President of the United States 
and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. It is sought here to consolidate two 
offices, to bring them together, and to vest in certain judges of the District an appoint- 
ing power over which there is no review, of which no confirmation is required. It looks 
to me as if there was a singling out of this office for some special reason. 

Mr. CLAFLIX. There is no objection, I think, to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Minnesota. 

Mr. KEIFER. Let me just add that I always find that where there is special legis- 
lation sought there is something wrong about it. It may not crop out on the surfa«e, 
but sooner or later you find there is an ulterior purpose in it. 



22 



THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 

May 22, 1878. On the Army appropriation bill- 
Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Chairman: I do not defend the Array of the United States and here speak for 
its preservation because I come from a region of country or State which hitherto lias had 
to appeal to that Army to preserve the peace and good order of the community. We 
were fortunate enough in Ohio, within the last year, to have a Governor (Hon. Thomas 
L. Young) patriotic enough, strong enough, brave enough, and with moral courage 
enough, to declare, when there was danger in our State, (to use his own words,) " I will 
not call on the United States for troops until every able-bodied man in the State of Ohio 
has been whipped." And he went through on that declaration. But we saw in the 
East, in Maryland and West Virginia, Democratic governors appealing to the President 
of the United States for troops to preserve peace and order and property in their respect- 
ive States. 

In the West we witnessed the same thing, a Democratic governor oi Indiana appealing 
to the President of the United States for troops for the same purpose. In all, ten gov- 
ernors in the last year have made requisition upon the President of the United States 
for troops to quell disorders. The State of Ohio took care of its own troubles when 
danger threatened. 

But it is not mv purpose to pursue this line of argument. It is my duty, as I deem 
it, as a member of this House to look to the interests of the whole country, and not. con- 
fine myself to merely local considerations. 

The'Committee on Appropriations have assumed to report a bill to this House for the 
reorganization and future government of the Army. The chairman of the Military Com- 
mittee [Mr. Banning] said in his speech on yesterday that it became the duty of Con- 
gress each year to provide an Army. This is as I understood him. His speech is not in 
the Record this morning. Is it possible that the Army and Navy of the United States 
have annually to depend for existence on the action of Congress or a single branch of the 
National Legislature? 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] who has charge of this bill indicates 
that he borrowed his work from the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. 

This is a warning to the country of what is to be the future policy of the dominant 
party in this House. Our Array is to be dependent from year to year on the will or po- 
litical whim of Congress. It may be valuable to examine the history oi" the proposed 
legislation in this Congress. It must not be forgotten that the policy of the last House 
at its last session was to have an army without pay. Upon failure of appropriation 
again, the Army is to be disbanded. But let us look to the proposed legislation of this 
House in chronological order. 

The chairman of the Military Committee, [Mr. Banning,] on October "29, 1877, (see 
Record, volume 26, page 179,) introduced a bill (H. R. No. 293) to repeal section 1218 
of Revised Statutes, prohibiting the appointment of persons who have served in the civil, 
military, or naval service of the so-called Confederate States. I give the section pro- 
nosed to be repealed hereafter. 

The repeal of this section indicated to the unsophisticated an ardent desire to open the 
doors to an enlargement of the Army. Such persons could only see in this that the hon- 
orable chairman had concluded that it was impracticable to get good officers from gradu- 
ates <>i' West Point and from late officers of the Union Array (or from civil life) without 
selecting from those who have served in some capacity in the Confederate military, naval, 
or civil service. . 

On January 28, 1878, the member from Ohio, [Mr. BANNING,] in his capacity of chair- 
man of the Military Committee, introduced a bill to reorganize and reduce the Army. 
It had many remarkable provisions. Section 42 of that bill provided for the repeal of 
section 1104, which authorizes the enlistment of two cavalry regiments of colored men; 
of section 1108, which authorizes the enlistment of two infantry regiments of colored 
men; of section 1218, already referred to; of section 1258, which limited the number of 
officers on the retired-lisl to 'three hundred; and of section 1316, which excluded from 
appointment as cadets at the Military and Naval Academies persons who had been in 
( 'oul'ederate service. I will give these sections here: 

Sec. lio-l. The enlisted men of two regiments of cavalry shall he col., red men. 

Sec 1108. The enlisted men of two regiments of infantry shall be colored men. 

Sre IMS No person who has served in any capacity in the military, naval, oreivil service ot the 
so-calied Confederate states, or of either of the States in insurrection during the late rebellion, snail 
be appointed to any position in the Army of the United States. 



23 

Sec 1258. The whole number of officers ol the Army on the retired-list shall not at any time ex- 
ceed three hundred, and any less number to be allowed thereon may be fixed by the President in 
his disc ret ion. ... .... 

Sec 1316. No person who has served in any capacity in the military or naval service oi the so- 
called Confederate States, or of either of the States in insurrection during the late rebellion, shall be 
appointed a cadet. 

Here is the section of the bill of the chairman of the Military Committee proposing 

the repeal of the foregoing sections: 

Sec. 42. That sections 1104, 110S, 1218, 1258, and 1316 of the Revised Statutes, and all other acts and 
parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, be, and they are hereby, repealed. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. McCQOK was recognized, and yielded his time to Mr. KEIFER. 

Mr. KEIFER. My time will not allow me to speculate on the motives for, purposes 
and designs in, blessings intended by, or evils which are expected follow from the repeal 
of these sections now or in the future. 

Section 41 of the bill of January 28, 1878, and a section found in a subsequent bill, is 
the most extraordinary ever proposed, so far as I can learn, in the annals of the Ameri- 
can Congress or any other parliamentary body in the civilized world. I give the section 
here: 

Sec. 11. That the troops herein provided for and all others authorized by existing law. including 
all officers of every grade and in every department of the Army, shall be retained in the service of 
the United states so long as Congress shall provide for their support, by specific appropriations 
therefor, and no longer; "and if Congress shall refuse or neglect to make the necessary appropria- 
tions for that purpose at or before the expiration of the last preceding fiscal year for which such 
appropriations have been so made, such refusal or neglect shall be deemed equivalent to an express 
act for the abolition of the military establishment, and the Army shall forthwith be disbanded. 

The section if enacted into a law would leave it in the power of Congress or a single 
branch thereof, by a failure to do its duty in making appropriations, to wipe out the en- 
tire Army of the United States. Such is the design of the section, plainly appearing by 
ts language. 

This section proposes to ; in reference to our own violation of duty as members; 

to legislate in view of a violation of our oaths and the Constitution of the United .-- 1 ; « t « - - . 
We are required by our constitutional duty to make appropriations to carry on the mili- 
tary arm of the Government. 

Now, I have gone hastily over this legislation for the purpose of saying that it is not 
economy that moves some of these men to strike at the military strong arm of the Go 
ernment. Nor is it the desire, as I think, to relieve the people of the country from t axes, 
as some ot them say. ft is not that, Mr. Chairman. If you look into this bill and ex- 
amine it closely, you will find that it providesfor something not known before, or rather 
it omits to provide for something. It omits to provide for the promotion of officers in 
their regular order to the highest rank in the Army. The thirty-fourth section of the 
bill reported by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Hewitt,] the repealing claus 
the bill, repeals by implication all the sections I have referred to and leaves the 
open in case major-generals die or resign or vacancies happen for the appointment of 
others in their place without reference to whether they were in the Union Army or oat 
of it. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois, was recognized, and yielded two minutes to Mr. KEIFER. 

Mr. KEIFER. Thanks to the member from Illinois. Under cover of a provision for 
promotions there is a proviso that second lieutenants shall be appointed from the gradu- 
ates at the Military Academy or non-commissioned officers in the Army; but very adroitly 
the committee have left out of the bill any provision for promotions in the line of offi- 
cers of the Army. It provides that all officers below the rank of colonel, before they 
shall be promoted to brigadier-general, shall first submit to an examination before a mil- 
itary board. There is no provision in the bill that a colonel or any other officer in the 
regular line shall be promoted i;i the order of his rank to the position of a major-ger. 
or any other higher office in the Army. We can see underlying this that which m 
plainly crops out in the proposed legislation of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, 
the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. 

I am very sorry I have not time allowed me to fully elaborate the vicious and dan 
ous legislation now proposed in this House. 



24 



AGE OF PAYMASTERS. 

May 24, 1878. On an amendment to the Army appropriation bill fixing the age at winch persons 
shall be appointed paymasters — 

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

There is a great deal of line distinction in determining the age which unfits a man for 
service in the Army. "We know that during the late war many men. both in the south- 
ern army and in the northern army, over sixty years of age went into the Held and dis- 
charged their duties there under the most trying circumstances and discharged them 
well, breasting the storms and facing the dangers not only of the battle-field but of the 
weather at all seasons of the year.. Yet in the year L878 we find ourselves so dwindled 
down in manhood and strength that we are afraid to trust a man over forty-five years of 
age to go to Xew York or New Orleans or on the Pacific coast and pay troops, although 
many men of greater age go there merely as a matter of pleasure-seeking. It is true 
that in a very few cases these paymasters have to go to remote places on the plains, but in 
those places the climate is healthful and they gem rally go under escort, and if obliged 
to remain out of doors they are protected by tents or otherwise. 

It seems to me there is something invidious in this limitation to forty-five years. It 
must be meant to cut off some persons. It is hut a short time since that a gentleman 
born in the last century was urged for the place of standard-bearer of the Democratic 
party, and in my section of the country he had a pretty good following. He had been 
governor of Ohio, and. so tar as I know, had discharged his duties pretty well. But 
when we come to provide for a mere paymaster in the Armyto, discharge ordinarily onlj- 
clerical duties, we say that a man over forty-five years of age is utterly unfit to discharge 
Mich duties on account of age. 

Mr. Chairman, the only plausible argument against the amendment of the gentleman 
from Minnesota proposing to strikeout "forty-five" and insert "fifty-five," is that 
men who are appointed at so late an age as fifty-five may soon be retired. I wish to call 
attention to the tact that it is proposed mainly to select paymasters from officers of the 
Army — officers of the line. Now, gentlemen argue that after passing the age of forty- 
five these officers will be too old for paymasters; yet they are willing to keep them in 
service in the line, in command of troops in the field. It is argued that after this age 
these officers are utterly unfit to become paymasters, in which positions they might oc- 
casionally get rest and relief from service in the field : but at the same time it is proposed 
to require them to stay constantly in command of troops, performing service which is 
very much harder, more dangerous, and more likely to break them down. 



25 



UNPAID TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS. 

June 1, 1878. Bill to amend the internal-revenue laws- 
Mr. KEIFER said: 
think the gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. Tucker] has made a very 
good argument, if it were applied properly. But I think it will go further than he sug- 
gests. All that he refers to would he competent evidence tending to prove knowledge, 
and not alone a " reasonahle ground to believe, " as the bill provides. The objection- 
able words which the member from Tennessee [Mr. RANDOLPH] proposes to have struck 
out are these: "Or having reasonable grounds to believe." They appear in the clause 
of the bill which reads as follows: 

Or who shall purchase or receive or rectify any distilled spirits which have been removed from a 
distillery to a place other than the distillery warehouse provided by law. knowing or having rea- 
•-onable'grounds to believe that the tax on said spirit^, required bylaw, has not been paid, shall for 
every such offense be fined not less than 81,000 nor more than §5,000 and imprisoned not less than 
six months nor more than two years. 

It will be noted that the penalty for "having reasonable grounds to believe " the tax- 
on spirits has not been paid before purchasing, receiving, or rectifying is very severe; 
and this in the absence of knowledge. The bill makes it a crime for not knowing the 
fact when the accused had only reasonable grounds for knowing it. or for not believing 
a thing to be true when he ought to have believed it. or for not having sense enough to 
believe a fact which he ought to haw had sense enough to believe. 

i would like to know if we are coming to a time in this country when we will be so 
barbarous in the administration of the criminal law that a man will be held guilty of a 
crime in the absence of guilty knowledge. Let me put a case. Suppose that under this 
section of the bill, if it should become a law . an indictment is found charging a man with 
having reasonable grounds to believe that the tax had not been paid on certain spirits 
when he purchased them. Suppose that is the charge. Sir, when we have found him 
guilty under such an indictmentwe have struck down the greatest safeguards for the in- 
nocent known to the criminal law. We have struck down the rule of the criminal law 
which has stood the test for hundreds of years in England and in every other civilized 
country, that a man is entitled to two presumptions: first, that he is presumed to be in- 
nocent until proved guilty, and. second, that lie must be proved guilty beyond a reason- 
able doubt before he can be convicted. The Committee of Ways and Means think guilty 
knowledge, the sdentes, need not be proved. Under this bill, proof that the accused 
ought to nave known a fact which he did not know- is made to take the place of actual 
knowledge of the fact upon which the crime rests. 

The very point under such an indictment on the trial would be to offer proof to raise 
resumption of reasonable grounds of knowledge as distinguished from knowledge. 

A single word as to the illustration used by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hanna] 
in regard to counterfeit money. The very fact that a man has been told a bill is coun- 
terfeit is in general, when he comes to lie put on trial, sufhcieiit proof under the criminal 
law that he had knowledge the note or bill was counterfeit. Or take the case of a man 
to whom spirits are offered at -20 cents a gallon, when, if the tax were paid on them, 
they would he worth, as everybody would know , a dollar or more per gallon. If a man 
buys spirits under such circumstances, such proof, on his trial, might be sufficient in 
law to raise a legal presumption that he knew the tax had never been paid. Any such 
evidence as that would be competent to go to a jury as tending to show the guilty knowl- 
edge of the party. The trouble with this bill is that it undertakes to authorize some, 
lower class of evidence which would only tend to show that a man is guilty of a high 
crime when he hail reasonable grounds only to believe a thing and yet did not in fact 
believe it. If the hill does not mean this, it is simply nonsense. It makes it criminal 
to nun base, receive, or rectify spirits, knowing the tax thereon had not been paid. 

Sir. TUCKER. Will the gentleman allow me to put a question to him? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly.' 

Mr. TUCKER. How do you know- what I know? [Laughter.] 

Mr. KEIFER. Well, for the purpose of the criminal law, if the gentleman states a 
fact to me and I go on and act without reference t.> it, not b-!ie\ ing it, and I am after- 
ward arraigned for my act. it is competent to prove that the gentleman told me such was 
fact, and to argue therefrom that I knew it. In such a case I act on my own re- 
sponsibility if I do not believe it. 

' It is not unfair to say that, taking the bill as it reads, a person might be found guilty 
of purchasing, receiving, or rectifying distilled spirits upon which the tax had been paid, 



26 

provided a jury could be convinced that the purchaser, receiver, or rectifier had reason- 
able ground to believe the tax had not been paid. 

There certainly is nothing in the history of criminal law that furnishes a precedent for 
Ibis extraordinary provision in this bill. 

Mr. TUCKER/ Will the gentleman allow me? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. TUCKER. I admit that there are direct modes, such as he mentions, of proving 
knowledge; but are those the only modes in which I can ascertain what the gentleman 
knew ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Not by any means. 

Mr. TUCKER. If I see his act, which speaks louder than words, and which shows 
he has in his heart certain knowledge, is he not to be supposed to have reasonable ground 
for belief? 

Mr. KEIFER. That would be reasonable evidence, not only to show the state of my 
belief, but also to show the state of my knowledge, and might be given in evidence for 
that purpose. I go one step further than the gentleman from Virginia. But the mem- 
bers of the committee want to take a lower grade of evidence ; they deem it sufficient 
evidence of criminality to raise a legal presumption that the accused ought to know what 
in fact he did not know, and perhaps, with his comprehension, could not know. 

Under this bill, unless amended, a jury will be required to find a man guilty if they 

find he was too big a fool to believe what in their opinion he ought to have believed. 

June 3, 1878. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to amend the laws relating to in- 
ternal revenue. 

Mr. TUCKER. I will now propose, looking to the sentiments which have been ex- 
pressed, to amend the provisio by striking out the word " heretofore," in line 25, andall 
after the word "made," and inserting '"prior to .January 1, 1S74;" so that it will read: 

Provided, That no tax shall be remitted or refunded under the provisions of this section under 
any assessment made prior to January 1, 1874. 

Mr. KEIFER. I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia a question. Why should 
we grant relief to men who were required to pay this tax in 1M74 and not to those who 
paid it in 1873? What difference is there between them? 

Mr. TUCKER. I am about to answer that question. It is in accordance with the 
principle of the statute of limitations. If you go further back there is greater room for 
fraud. If you go back to January, 1^74, only, the transaction is more recent and is more 
capable of explanation. 

Mr. K EIFER. I wish to make a suggestion in answer to the gentleman from Virginia, 
[Mr. TUCKER.] He suggests that his amendment is in the nature of a statute of limi- 
tations. How can this be? If these people who have paid a tax unjustly have never 
had the right to apply for its return, can it be said they are cut off by a statute of limi- 
tations? The gentleman's proposition is to give to all persons who have been compelled 
to pay such a tax since January 1, 1874, the right to recover it back ; but persons who 
paid such a tax before that time and who have never had a right lo make a claim for its 
return, are to have their claims cut off by what the gentleman chooses to call a statute of 
limitations. Statutes of limitations are made to cut off right s or remedies where they exist . 
It is a hard rule to say to persons who have just and equitable claims against the Gov- 
ernment, but who never had the right to present them under any general law, that their 
claims are too old for payment, and others who have similar claims hut of a more recent 
date should be paid or have the tax unjustly collected refunded. If it is right to pay 
any of this class of claims they should all be paid. You might very properly say to the 
persons who claim they have paid tax on account of whisky or spirits which they never 
manufactured, that they must present their claims within a particular time to the Com- 
missioner of Internal Revenue or have them forever barred. 

It is a singular thing to apply the statute of limitations to cut off rights or remedies when 
they never existed. A [tarry should at least have a short day in which to assert his 
rights if any he had. 1 f we pay any of the tax on spirits wrongfully or unjustly colled 
we should pay it all. It may be unwise to repay any of such tax. 



27 



PAY OF LETTER-CARRIERS. 

June 7, 1878. The bill to flx the pay of letter-carriers being under consideration- 
Mr"' £SS: a i2n in favor of the bill reported by the Committee on the Post-Office 
and Post-Roads to fix and regulate the pay of letter-carriers. It is not my design no* 
to ommy the ^ attention of the House by discussing in detail the severa provisions of the 
bilTbut I wish in the first place, to call the attention of the committee reporting it to 
the iact thai he classification of letter-carriers in the second section ot the bill they 
have made no provision for some offices which are at the present time free-delivery offices. 
'rt second Sn provides that in all cities containing a population of less than sev- 
enty-five thousand and not less than twenty thousand there shall be a class of letter- 
carriers who are to receive a salary of $850 per annum. .,.___ 
Now, I wish to call attention to the fact that there areqmtea n "^ * S^EJJ 
offices in the United States where the population is less than twenty thousand, lhus 
it will be seen there is one class of letter-carriers not provided tor. rplaTiM 
I desire to put upon record for the examination of members some ot the ta t^ elat mg 
to these important offices in the United States. It is a singular anomah that to-day 
SSttaffi™ of the United States there are free-delivery ^ffjjj^f"^^ 
enue of less than $16,000 per annum and m some cases as ^f-^^™^. 
annum, while there are other offices producing as much as $56 000 of g oss an lualrev 
enue which under the law have uot been made tree-delivery offices 1 his is wrong 1 
shadl publish with my remarks a complete list of all the free-delivery offices m the 
Un te States-eighty-seven in number. This list shows for the fiscal year ending June 
30 " 1877, the gross revenue, office expenses, free-delivery expenses, as well as the net 
revenue of all these offices. 

* * * * * * 

Now, sir, if this bill ever reaches a point where we can consider it, I propose to offei 
as an additional section the following: 

free delivery in towns and cities where it is now established. 

Now Mr Speaker, originally the law on the subject of free-delivery offices provided 
that free delivery might be established at post-offices where the population within the 
delivery of the office reached twenty thousand. Subsequently, by an act pawed m 
1876 the law was changed so as to limit the establishment of free-delivery offices to 
cities having a population within their corporate limits of thirty thousand. Now sir 
neither test was proper. In the iirst place it is the business that ought to be the test in 
this matter of free delivery. Those who pay for the music ought to enjoy it. lhat is 
mv proposition; and perhaps it is right to have this double test, population and revenue. 
To give a place free delivery of mail matter will add to the revenue m two ways at least: 
first by the payment of double postage on dropped letters, and second by the increase of 
letters written on account of the convenience of mailing and receiving letters through 
the establishment of letter-boxes at places remote from the post-office In this way 
employment will be given to more worthy and needy men, and the people will be glad 
to pay for it. The general net post-office receipts will not be materially affected by a 
proper increase of tree-delivery offices. .,, n , >1>n ,., tif ,„ 

I surest that we go back to a test which will allow towns or cities with a population 
of twenty thousand within their corporate limits, or cities or towns that produce from 
their post-offices a moss revenue in excess of $20,000, to have the free-delivery system. 
I hold in mv hand a list (furnished to me yesterday by the Sixth Auditor of the Treas- 
ury) of post-offices (exclusive of free-delivery offices) where the gross receipts tor the 
fiscal year ending June 30. 1 877, exceed $20,000. 1 find in this list Oakland, California 
producing a gross revenue of over $20,000; Sacramento City, with a gross revenue ol 
more than S:53,000. Among the most remarkable instances in this list is Galveston, 
Texas with a gross revenue of $56,181.99. Yet that city is not a free-delivery office 
under the present law. Its net revenue is $39,586.73, which is ten times as large as 



28 

some of the offices that are free-delivery offices. Why this distinction? A gentleman 
suggests to me that it is about to be made a free-delivery office, but it is strange that it 
should not have been made one long ago. 
Here is the list referred to: 



List of post-offices (exclusive of free-delivery offices) where tin gross receipts for tin ii*<-«l year 

ended June 30, 1877. exceeded s20,000. 



Name. 



State. 



Oakland California 

Sacramento City do 

Denver Colorado 

Bridgeport Connecticut 

Norwich do 

Wilmington Delaware 

Augusta \ Georgia 

Rockford Illinois 

Terre Haute Indiana 

Keokuk Iowa 

Topeka Kansas 

Augusta Maine 

Concord New Hampshire.. 

Auburn New York 

Binghamton do 

Springfield Ohio ..!.!.!!......! 

Portland Oregon 

Austin Texas 

i 'alias do 

Galveston do 

Houston do 

Madison Wisconsin."!!!!!!."! 



Gross rev- 
enue. 



Expenses. 



$20, 588 30 
33,756 17 
43,825 55 
30,686 19 

20.886 25 
28,884 77 
26, 290 17 
24,864 58 
23,600 64 
22. 155 57 
21, 840 92 
34, 970 51 
21.515 34 I 
28, 874 02 
24, 262 03 
28, £55 90 
26, 736 69 
25,184 84 
22, SCO 29 
56.181 99 
23,647 93 

23.887 si 



18, 679 87 
16, 185 30 
17. 266 09 
1H.757 12 

8,292 IX'. 
14,984 31 

9.540 15 

7. 282 50 
10. 170 65 

7,355 55 

7, 672 81 

8, 757 95 
6,839 75 
8,826 21 
s. 074 77 
7,912 92 
9,083 34 
9,534 45 

10,819 10 

16.595 26 

11,675 40 

7. 993 71 



Net rev- 
enue. 



$11,908 43 
17,571 17 
26,559 46 
19,929 07 
12,594 19 
13,900 46 
111,750 irj 
17,5S2 08 
13,429 99 
15, 100 02 
11.168 11 
26,212 5b 
14, 675 59 
20,047 SI 
16, 187 26 
20,442 98 
17, 155: i 35 
15,650 39 
12,041 19 
39,586 7:; 
11,972 53 
15,894 10 



The fact is, the law has always been defective in this respect. I live in a city, Spring- 
field, Ohio, which for the year ending June 30, 1877, produced a gross revenue of 
§28,355.90, and a net revenue of $20, 442. 98, about rive times as large as the net revenue of 
several free-delivery offices in the United States. Vet under the law as it exists now that 
city cannot be made a free-delivery office. By a recent statement furnished me from 
the Sixth Auditor's Office I learn that that city produced in round numbers for the year 
ending March 31, 1878, a gross revenue of $33,000 and a net revenue of about $26,000; 
yet under our present defective law There are offices with a gross revenue of less than 
$16,000 and a net revenue of less than $4,000 made free-delivery offices, and Springfield. 
Ohio, with its large business and great revenue cannot be made a free-delivery office. 
This wrong and injustice I propose to remedy. 

Now, while we are willing to pay in accordance with our business, we want to have 
the privileges of the post-office system according to the amount we pay and the business 
we do. 

Mr. HANNA. Before the gentleman takes his seat 1 would like to ask him one ques- 
tion. I observe that this bill makes a distinction as to the pay of carriers. In cities 
having a population of seventy-five thousand or less the highest salary allowed is $850. 

Xow, I would like to know why a letter-carrier in a city with seventy-rive thousand 
or less population is not as justly entitled to a salary of $1,000 as a carrier in a city of 
larger population. 

Mr. KEIFEK. 1 think there are perhaps reasons why there should be a discrimina- 
tion made. But I am not the author of the bill nor a member of the committee which 
reported it, and I ask the gentleman, in order that we may get a perfectly satisfactory 
answer, to call upon some member of the committee to answer his question. 

I wish to say one word further in relation to letter-carriers. I know something about 
them. They are men who are required to go out in all kinds of weather. They are not 
permitted to ueglecf their duty either by day or by night. They are as hard-worked a class 
of men as there is in the United States. They sutler great hardships, and I think they 
are about the most poorly paid class of men in the country. The duties they perform 
are of a responsible nature, and they are required to lie men of responsibility, of charac- 
ter, of faithfulness, of honesty in every sense of the word. I think that, while we have 
only about twenty-two hundred or twenty-three hundred of them in the United States, 
many of whom are maimed soldiers, they are very poorly paid. There are many thou- 
sands of petitioners appealing to Congress to increase the pay of the letter-carriers! This 
bill does no! increase the pay very largely. 

Mr. EAMES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio a question: whether this 



29 

letter-carrier system exists in any city or place in the country where the postal receipts 

do not exceed the postal expenditures ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I take pleasure in answering the gentleman's question. I think the 
gross receipts in all cases exceed the postal expenditures, and the lowest net revenue <>i 
any of the free-delivery offices of the United States is somewhere between $3,000 and 
$4,000. That will appear by the statement to be published in my remarks. But I sub- 
mit, as I have already stated, that cannot be the test. I think cities at least that pro- 
duce as much as $40,000 of net revenue should be made free-delivery offices. 

Mr. EAMES. Is there any such city or place which is not now a free-delivery office ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes. sir; I know of one. lacking only a lew dollars of $40,000. 

Mr. EAMES. Are not all places having a population of twenty thousand free-delivery 
offices ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I live in a city, the population of which is perhaps over twenty thou- 
sand, which has not a free-delivery office. 

Mr. EAMES. I understand places of that population are entitled to it by law. 

Mr. KEIFER. Not at all. There are places having forty thousand inhabitants which 
do not have a free delivery. The test now by law is a population of thirty thousand 
within the corporate limits to be measured by the census of 1870. The law used to be 
twenty thousand within the delivery of the post-office. 

-x * * * * * * 

Mr. KEIFER. Will the gentleman allow me to make a suggestion? 

Mr. WILSON. Certainly. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am not the champion of this bill, so far as regards the discrimina- 
tion to which the gentleman refers, but I would suggest that one reason which iutluenced 
the mind of the one who drafted the bill, and of the committee which reported it, was 
that in the smaller cities of the country, in the smaller free-delivery offices, living usually 
is cheaper, and men can afford to work for a little less than in very many of the larger 
cities, such as New York and Philadelphia. 



30 



EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS. 

On June 10, 1878, at an evening session, Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, reported a bill "to enforce 
by appropriate legislation the will of the people in regard to disabled soldiers of the late war, with 
the recommendation that it do pass." It provided that whoever shall willfully violate or set at 
naught any of the provisions of section 1754 of the Revised Statutes shall be punished by a fine not 
less than one hundred nor exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not less than one 
month nor exceeding two years. 
After the reading of part of the report- 
Mr. KEIFER said : 

The report is ;i long one. and if we could have a word of explanation from the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts, I am willing that the reading be dispensed with. I 
will say right here that I am not opposed to the principle which the bill seeks to carry 
out. The section of the statute that the bill now pending applies to is a very good 
one, and it is directory in its character perhaps more than mandatory. It was in- 
tended as an expression of the wish of the people of the whole country as to the matter 
of appointments, but it was not complete either in that sense. If it is literally carried 
out it will apply to but about one-third, and not more, of the disabled soldiers of this 
country. It would probably exclude two-thirds of the men who were disabled in the 
war; I mean all that class of men who went into the Veteran Reserve Corps; all that 
class of men who suffered disabilities and who were mustered out at the expiration of 
their term of enlistment or at the end of the war. E\ ery one of these men is excluded 
from appointment under section 1754 of the Revised Statutes, and the only class included 
are. those who were honorably discharged from the military or naval service by reason of 
disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty, aud it leaves 
all the others out. 

The country is filled with thousands of men — officers, non-commissioned officers, ana 
privates — who served until the war closed, or until the expiration of their term of en- 
listment, and were then mustered out by reason thereof, and not for physical disabilities, 
and many thousands of others in consequence of wounds or other physical disabilities 
were transferred to a certain kind of service in the Veteran Reserve Corps, for instance, 
and were never mustered out on account of wouuds or sickness, and not one of them are 
included in this section. Now, there is another class of persons who may be regarded 
as worthy of appointment to office and positions of trust in this country in this latter 
day of progress and reform; a class of people now holding office under the Government 
of the United States, hundreds and thousands of them, and they also are excluded by 
this section 1754 of the Revised Statutes. I mean all the women of the country, includ- 
ing the widows and daughters of soldiers. If you are to treat this as mandatory, and 
fix a penalty and make it a high crime to violate it on the part of the Department, ;.!! 
the soldiers' widows, all these worthy ladies are excluded. If you are to give this sec- 
tion a literal interpretation then the gentleman [Mr. Butler] who champions this 
legislation and proposes to make the section mandatory by requiring the appointing 
power to give it a literal interpretation, advocates legislation that conies to nothing; it 
will prove to be legislation in vain. 

I make these suggestions, at the same time saying that I will go as far as the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts or anv other gentleman upon this floor toward appointing these 
worthy and disabled soldiers, "not only those who have been honorably discharged from 
the service by reason of physical disability or wounds, but all who have suffered by 
reason of the war and suffered physical disability, including the widows, daughters, and 
orphans of deceased soldiers and sailors. I hope this bill will not pass until it is 
amended so as to include all these worthy persons. 

****** 

Mr. KEIFER. I wish the gentleman would yield to me further. 

Mr. BUTLER. Certainly I will, with pleasure. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have given thegeutleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] a good 
opporl unity to get in his speech on this bill. I will not be so unkind as to say that there 
was any buncombe in it; I will not even insinuate that, although he is not so particular 
about imputing motives to me for my opposition to this bill— not very delicate in refer- 
ence to me. He seems to jump to the conclusion that the suggestion I made here was 
for the purpose of defeating bis bill; he will not brook just criticism on his handiwork. 
Emanating from his pen, it must be regarded as sacred indeed. 

■\nd then he suggests that we ought to amend the hill. Why, sir, we men wdio are on 
the outsi te of his gre it Judiciary Committee are not supposed to be able to perfect things 
be moving amendments, when the gentleman is already on the floor calling for the pre- 
vious question. 



31 

1 suggested here what I can show to the gentleman is a defect in this measure, one that 
is radical. If he, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, will suggest a new se«- 
fcion here which covers the class of persons to which I refer, I will vote with him. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. If the gentleman will yield to me, I will offer an amendment 
which I think will cover the case. 

Mr. KEIFEK. Wait a moment, until I am through. The gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts is utterly mistaken when he undertakes to say that the great mass of the vete- 
rans of the Veteran Reserve Corps are included under this section. I know hundreds of 
them who were discharged from their original regiments to enable them to enlist in the 
Veteran Reserve Corps; that was the mode of transfer from one volunteer regiment to 
another. They were not discharged, in the language of this section, "by reason of dis- 
ability resulting from wounds or sicknes-. incurred in the line of duty." They are ex- 
cluded under this bill, and it has been the subject of complaint on the part of these men 
that they have not been included by these champions of the soldiers, these men who are 
always coming forward as champions of the soldiers, and who want "to do something" 
on the subject instead of simply "saying something." 

I will enter the lists at any time with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. But- 
jlek], or any other gentleman on this floor or elsewhere in advocating the claims, the 
rights, and the proper preferences of these soldiers; but I will not join with the Judi- 
ciary Committee of this House, led on by the, gentleman from Massachusetts, in under- 
taking to impose a penalty upon the appointing power in behalf of a few of these worthy 
persons, leaving out the great majority of them. Why, sir, I know of men who served 
until the end of the war — officers who came out of the war with but one arm or one leg, 
who were never discharged by reason of their disabilities, but who served four years and 
more in the field, doing their duty to the en 1, though suffering, sadly maimed, and dis- 
abled. And to say these men, though indigent, could not be appointed under this sec- 
tion of the bill to any office within the gift of this Government, to appoint any one of 
them, should this bill pass not amended, would be to violate the law of the land, and 
the appointing power, the President of the United States if ycu please, would become 
liable to punishment as a felon. Has it come to this so soon after the great struggle for 
our nation's life. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts must not casT upon me the imputation that I am 
simply opposing his bill. If he knows of eases such as he states here, they are great 
wrongs; and I am ready to join with him in endeavoring to have them redressed. But 
I do know that he is now advocating here a measure which is unjust to a very large 
class of worthy, disabled, honorably discharged soldiers of the Union; and this provision, 
if made mandatory, as it was never intended originally to be, would exclude the class of 
persons to whom I have referred, and all the soldiers 1 widows, their daughters, and 
other worthy ladies who hold office under this Government. Such was never the inten- 
tion of the law. The original law was only intended, as it only could be, when read in 
the light of the Constitution of the United States, to be advisory: as expressing the views 
of the legislative branch of the Government to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and to 
others who might chance to have the appointing power. 

So far as this bill undertakes to affect the appointing power of the Chief Executive of 
the Government, I say with a kuowledge that the gentleman will charge me with mak- 
ing this utterance simply to defeat his hill, I say that in my judgment as a matter of 
constitutional law we have no right thus to dictate by imperative legislation whom the 
President shall appoint among citizens eligible to appointment to office in this country. 

One further remark : How are you to find out under this section as it stands whether 
different persons are "equally well qualified?" Would the gentleman have a jury to 
sit and determine whether Postmaster-General Key, or Secretary Sherman, or perhaps 
the President of the United States has exercised aright his discretion in reference to ap- 
pointments; in determining whether A B, who had but one arm, possessed equal quali- 
fications with C D, who had no disabilities. You propose to try the question of a proper 
exercise of the discretion of the appointing power; you are to determine by the verdict of 
a jury whether the officer invested with this discretion judged rightly or wrongly, with- 
out reference even to his capacity to judge. He might not be so astute, so smart, so 
keen, so ready to discern the qualities that go to make up a competent clerk or other offi- 
cer, as the gentleman from Massachusetts. But a jury is to sit and take the gen tie man's 
standard of judgment, the gentleman's opinion, if he is the prosecuting attorney, and the 
jury is to find out whether the law has been executed with proper discretion, and whether 
the parties who are thus charged with its execution should be condemned and punished 
as felons or not. It looks to me as if there was somewhere some buncombe in this mat- 
ter. [Laughter.] Yet I certainly disclaim ever charging upon the gentleman from 
Massachusetts any buncombe at all. [Laughter.] I would not do that. People know 
him, his habits and instincts, too well in this country for that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUTLER. * * ' * I am utterly indifferent to the fate of this bill. I have 



32 



done my duty to it. and as it is kite at night and I have no more to say I will demand 
the previous question. 

Mr. KEIFER. Let me sav a word. 

Mr. BUTLER, 1 cannot." 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 wish to sav one or two words in reply to the gentl< nan. 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot. 

Mr. KEIFER. Permit me to make a suggestion. 

Mr. BUTLER. No, I have heard your suggestion. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am sorry that the gentleman Lost his temper. 

Mr. BUTLER. I have not had a bit of temper all my life. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 am sorry he will not hear anything to qualm 

Mr. BUTLER. You cannot qualify. 

Mr. KEIFER. Allow me five minutes. 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot, 

Mr. KEIFER. Allow me five minutes. 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot. 

Mr. THORNBURGH Allow me to suggest an amendment. 

Mr. BUTLER. I will hear it read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Nothing in the first section of this act or in section 17-".4 of the Revised Statutes shall he so con- 
strued as to exclude from appointment to office any soldier who was disabled in the line of duty 
and honorably discharged, or the widow or daughters of killed or disabled soldiers. 

Mr. BUTLER. I will agree to allow that amendment to he offered, and now demand 
the previous question on the bill and amendment. 

Mr. KEIFER. Will you not permit me a moment? 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot. 

Mr. JAMES. I move the House do now adjourn. 

The House divided; and there were — ayes 46, noes 91. 

So the House refused to adjourn. 

The question recurred on seconding the demand for the ut'evious question. 

The House divided: and there were — ayes til. noes ill. 

Mr. BUTLER demanded tellers. 

Tellers were not ordered. 

So the House refused to second the demand for the previous question. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Speaker, I had no disposition to prolong this discussion. 1 de- 
sired that we should legislate in a cool, orderly, efficient, and substantial way so that we 
may legislate wisely. I am sorry the gentleman loses his temper a little about this, be- 
cause I had in my feeble way attempted to point out the defects in the hill which he 
reports and champions. 

Now he says to the House, and especially to me. that I ought to have read the report: 
that I would have learned something: but I remember very well that he told us in the 
beginning that the report was his own, and alter 1 had heard his speech and heard the 
best reasons he possessed and could give in favor of this bill, I knew when 1 heard the 
report read I would not get anything new to aid my understanding. I was advised in 
advance that the report did not contain any of the combined and concentrated wisdom 
of the Judiciary Committee of this House if I listened to it. The report contained only 
the gentleman's own statement of the case. That was all there was in it. I soon found 
I could not rely on that: and he himself in the beginning declined to have it read. < ; ' 
not want it read, and, as far as it was read, it was read at my instance. 

Yet he charges upon me ignorance of the proposed legislation. I am no more ignorant 
in that respect, admitting my ignorance compared to his in many things, for I am young 
and may not have had his opportunities, btrt I am no more ignorant, perhaps, of this 
measure than the man who will stand on the floorof this House and undertake to cite as 
an instance or example in favor of his proposed legislation that the Congress oJ 
United States has regulated the appointing power of the President in the past by prohibit- 
ing him by law from appointing a disabled man tp West Point. 

^1 here is no such thing in the law and never was in the history of the country. The 
President does not appoint persons to "West Point either; he never appointed anybody, 
nor did the gentleman from Massachusetts, as a member of Congress, ever appoint any- 
body to West Point. West Point cadets are not officers. In his capacity as Congress- 
man the gentleman may have nominated somebody that was sent to West Point to ap- 
pear before a board to be examined to see if he was eligible under the law of Congress to- 
enter that public institution. Persons are not appointed when they go there to any 
office under the United States, constitutional or otherwise. They arc nominated only 
by the President or by members of Congress, as the case may be. But the gentlema ■ 
re-enforced all his argument in favor of this bill by that single illustration. 

I am not so ignorant as to be unable to see that that is a mere scheme, far-fetched. I 



33 

try to get up an analog)" to his proposed legislation, and 1 am sorry the gentleman could 
not have found something more and something stronger. As he professes so much wis- 
dom on his part. I am Aery sorry about it. I can see through that with all my defects. 

I cannot allow the gentleman to escape from the erroneous statement he makes here 
in regard to discharged soldiers. He seems to have an idea that all men who were 
wounded in the war that went into the Veteran Reserve Corps were sent home. Three 
times in his statement he repeated that men who were wounded or disabled in the Army 
were mustered out of service by reason of their disabilities anil sent home. That, sir, is 
not true. They were transferred from the Missouri, and beyond it, to the city of Wash- 
ington to defend the Aery Capitol which we occupy to-night and to serve in the Veteran 
Reserve Corps of the Army. They brought here the wounded officers; they brought 
here the wounded and disabled soldiers, those who had broken down through sickness 
ami disease, and in various ways, and they were brought here to defend the capital of 
the Republic. And they never were discharged from the Army by reason of disabili- 
ties: they were simply transferred from one regiment to another under a law of Con- 
gress, not discharged. 

But, Mr. Speaker, there were many more that never were transferred. I know in 
this House to-night men who were in the service from the beginning of the war to the 
end and who were disabled, disabled in a material way. and yet they served until the last 
gun was fired, and witnessed at Appomattox the surrender of the great army of North- 
ern Virginia under Lee, and were only discharged from the service when there was no 
longer any service to perform; and under this legislation, if it were to be carried out. 
those men could not be appointed to office under this Administration or any other with- 
out rendering the appointing officer liable to a criminal charge. 

Now. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat what I have said, and will only refer to 
it again. I believe that this is intended to strike at the Executive, and if the Execu- 
tive has erred in this respect, as the gentleman seems to think he has erred, 1 hope he 
will correct his work in the future. I hope that all future Presidents will stand by the 
disabled soldiers and the families of deceased soldiers in making appointments to office. 
I can most freely vote for any pi-ovision that perfects the law so as to include all this 
class of persons. 

Mr. KNOTT. I ask the gentleman to yield io me for a moment. 

Mr. KEIFFR. How much time do you want? 

Mr. KNOTT. Only a minute. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly; two of them if you want them. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio yields two minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky. 

Mr. KEIFER. I yield him five minutes if he wants them. 

Mr. KNOTT. I regret, in view of the large amount of unfinished business of my 
committee, so much time has been taken up in the discussion of this question already. 
1 therefore asked my friend from Ohio to yield to me that I might say, simply in justice 
to myself, that I have not favored the passage of this bill for the reasons so forcibly 
urged by the gentleman from Ohio. I considered it an unnecessary restriction upon the 
appointing power to say the least of it, of doubtful constitutionality, that might be very 
difficult of enforcement, and that might make an unjust and invidious discrimination 
against those equally worthy with the class sought to be favored by this bill. 

Mr. KEIFER. I now move the previous question on the bill and amendment. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the 
operation thereof the amendment of Mr. Thorxiukcii was agreed to. 

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being 
engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

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

The latter motion was agreed to. 

«>() A— K 3 



34 



WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE. 



A WAR CLAIM. 



December 13, 1878. The House having under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the Pri- 
vate Calendar thebill (H. R. No. 189) to reimburse the College of William and Mary for property de- 
stroyed during the late war — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The friends of this bill press it from one Congress to another with a 
pertinacity that challenges admiration. The many speehces made in this and former 
Congresses in favor of the payment of the claim of William and Mary College would make 
a large volume. The two eloquent appeals for the passage of this bill made at the last 
session of this Congress by the member from Virginia [Mr. Goode] and the member from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Loring] were based chiefly upon sentiment. The same remark will 
apply to the speeches made in favor of similar bills in former Congresses. 

As a matter of sentiment 1 too could vote for the bill if I did not take au entirely dif- 
ferent view of my duty. The public funds should only lie voted away upon sound prin- 
ciples of law, public duty, or policy. I regard this as a war claim, and as such to be 
tested by the known and well-established rules of international law, founded long since 
upon principles of public policy. 

I may be charged because of my opposition to this bill with keeping the fires of passion 
engendered by the war still blazing. I disclaim any desire or purpose of doing so. 
Neither hatred nor ill-will toward the South or any southern man has an abiding place 
in my heart. Whatever the North suffered during the war has been more than requited 
by the losses and suffering of the South. Whatever of blood has been shed in the cause 
of universal constitutional liberty and for the preservation of the Union has been more 
than compensated for by the grand results attained. I welcome the era of reconciliation 
and good feeling between all sections of the country. I hope not to be behind any man, 
North or South, in efforts to secure universal good feeling, harmony of sentiments and 
purposes, provided at all times security is given for the full, complete, and final pro- 
tection of all citizens of the Republic in all sections of the country in the exercise of their 
rights and privileges. 

This bill is such that, to vote intelligently on it, will require the facts to be carefully 
and plainly set forth. The bill provides for the payment to William and Mary College, 
in Virginia, of $65,000 "to reimburse said college for the destruction of its buildings and 
other property, destroyed without authority by disorderly soldiers of the United States 
during the late war." I dislike to oppose the bill as it is in the interest of learning. 
The institution is an ancient one. It was chartered under the name of William and 
Mary in 1693, (fourth year of the joint reign of William and Mary,) and it is said to 
have had an existence as far back as 1660. . It was originally founded and fostered as an 
aristocratic institution, in opposition to free schools and popular education. As early as 
1671, Sir William Berkeley, the royal colonial governor in Virginia, a patron of this 
college, answered the following question from the lords commissioners of foreign planta- 
tions: 

What course is taken about instructing the people within your government in the Christian re- 
ligion? And what provision is there made for paying of your ministry? 

Answer: 

The same course that is taken in England out of towns ; every man, according to his ability, in- 
structing his children. 

We have forty-eight parishes, and our ministry are well paid, and by my consent should be bet- 
ter, if they would pray oftener and preach less. But of all other commodities, so of this; the worst 
are' sent us, and we had few that we could boast of since the persecution in Cromwell's tyranny 
drove divers worthy men hither. But I thank God there are no free schools nor printing, and I 
hope we shall not have these hundred years ; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and 
sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God 
keep us from both. 

This royal governor may have entertained the views, at least as applied to the com- 
mon people, expressed by the poet Pope, that — 

A little learning is a dangerous thing; 
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: 
These shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, 
And drinking largely sobers us again. 

Thi-i ollege, somewhat amply endowed, held its course in the heart of a State for two 
centuries where free schools were unknown until since the late war. It was regarded 
with favor in the South ; was patronized by the South ; propagated southern views ; was 
h trdly open to humble people, and h:ts always excluded women from its benefits. 



35 

It is hoped that it has made some progress since the war. By the report of the Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor we learn that patriotic considerations are relied on to in- 
duce Congress to vote for this bill. I quote from that report: 

Every civilized nation has its hallowed spots about which its patriotic memories cluster, and 
whose names rise before the imagination whenever these memories are stirred. 

* * * * * * * 

Under our form of government these hallowed spots are in the custody of States. But they hold 
them as trustees for the whole people and the gratitude and affection which surround and hallow 
them are the gratitude and affection of the whole people. 

* * * * * * * 

Unless this be true, the American people alone among civilized nations' are without any common 
objects of national reverence. 

And further: . 

"We doubt if any college in America or Europe can, in proportion to the whole number borne on 
its catalogue, show so large a list of names famous for conspicuous patriotic service. 

These considerations being pressed on this House justifies me in looking more closely 
into the history of this college. I do this- in no spirit of recrimination. That this col- 
lege was tin- ulma mater of Jefferson and Marshall and a long list of eminent statesmen, 
jurists, and lawyers is true. On account of its great age, and the fact that there were 
for a long time but few contemporaries of this college, it may truthfully be said that her 
graduates of distinguished men are comparatively large. Admitting the fact that "her 
list of names famous for conspicuous patriotic service ' ' is large, how does the case stand 
when we look to the history of the college and its graduates immediately before and 
during the late war — the country's second baptism of blood for universal freedom in 
America ? 

It is safe to say, for the number of its students and graduates, the College of William 
and Marv furnished more men than any other institution of learning in the land, who 
favored secession, rebellion, and war. 

Before we vote money to this college on the ground of its patriotic services to the coun- 
try, we should not lose sight of the fact that it was destroyed by the inexorable events 
of war, brought on in part through its own teachings. 

This college now appeals to the Treasury of the very Government which it, through 
its students and graduates, sought to destroy ; to restore and rebuild its burned and 
blackened walls within which in later days were taught lessons which denied the fun- 
damental principle "that all men were created equal," and which would lead inevit- 
ably to perpetuate human slavery and to the overthrow of constitutional liberty. 

Its board of visitors and its faculty were disloyal. Its teachings in later years were 
unpatriotic to the Union, as I shall be able to show. lis president, (B. S. Ewell,) prior 
to and during the war, was disloyal; and he is still its president, I believe. He left his 
high and honorable position as president of a college which boasted one hundred years 
ago of its patriotism in the cause of liberty, and took up the sword to destroy the country 
founded by Washington, Jefferson, the Adamses, Franklin, and their co-patriots, and to 
establish a new nation in which human slavery would be co-extensive with its bound- 
aries. The teachings of the college led its students to indorse the constitution of the so- 
called Confederate States, which contained a section as follows : 

No bill of attainder, or ex pout facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro 
slaves shall be passed. (Art. 1, sec. 9.) 

I shall not trace the individual history of the many confederate heroes this college 
gave to the late war. The history of the students and graduates of a college lead us un- 
mistakably to know what principles and doctrines were taught therein. 

As a mother who rears her child impresses indelibly upon it her character, which is 
not effaced during life, so a great institution of learning impresses on its young and 
susceptible students its true character. If this were not so, then indeed is education in 
vain. 

'Tis education forms the common mind : 
Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined. 

Let us look to the annals of this college a little. In 1874 a history of the college was 
published by its laculty. At that late day the desire uppermost in the minds of the 
members of the faculty was "to get a perfect war record of its students." 

I read a note from that history : 

All students who are known to have been in the Confederate army have the letters C. S. A., with 
known rank, attached to their names. Some, many in fact, are omitted, and as it is the desire 
of the faculty to get a perfect war record of all students, additional information is solicited from all 
concerned. 

To begin with the class of 1857-'53 — what was "the perfect war record of its students?' 
In the class of 1857-'53, the alumni were thirty-two in number; twenty -two of these 
went into the Confederate States army; the other ten seem to have no history worth re- 
cording. 



36 

The class of 1858-'59 consisted of thirty-nine in number, thirty -three of whom went into 
the Confederate States army; six have no history. 

The class of 1859-'60 consisted of thirty-four in number, thirty-two of whom went 
into the Confederate States army, one became an Episcopal minister, and one a Metho- 
dist minister. 

The class of 1860-'61 consisted of thirty-eight in number, thirty-four of whom went 
into the Confederate States army— lour are without history-. From 1861 to 1865 the 
college was closed because of the war. 

The history of this college I believe does not record one of its students as going into the 
Union Army during the late war. The committee's report is more remarkable lor what 
it does not contain than for what it does. It seems clear that on account of the patriotic- 
services of this college we cannot safely vote to pay this large sum of money. If, then, 
we cannot, on the ground that we owe as a nation a bounty to this college because its 
graduates have been "famous for conspicuous patriotic service" vote for this bill, can 
we do so on any other sound principle? Is it a war claim that should be paid on any 
principle of law, justice, public policy, or duty? The committee find some other and 
minor grounds upon which it believes this claim should be paid. Let me say here, I 
regret that this claim was not referred to the Committee on War Claims, where it appro- 
priately belonged. (Several times before, however, this bill has been referred to the 
Committee on Education and Labor. ) 

Under the rules of this House it no more belonged to the Committee on Education and 
Labor than a claim for injury in the war to a bank building to the Committee on Bank- 
ing and Currency; a claim for injury by the war to a ship, to the Committee on Naval 
Affairs or Commerce; a claim for injury in the war to private lands, to the Committee 
on Private Land Claims; a claim for injury or destruction in the war to a manufacturing 
establishment, to the Committee on Manufactures; a claim for the taking by the Army 
of products of the soil, to the Committee on Agriculture; a claim for destruction of a 
library or a botanical garden, to the Committee on the Library; over wdiich my friend 
from New York [Mr. Cox] so gracefully presides. 

The propriety of the reference is hardly strengthened by the fact that the author of 
the bill [Mr. Goode] is chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and is in- 
terested in the appropriation of this large sum of money, he being one of the visitors or 
trustees of the college. He is at least the nominal author of the report which recom- 
mends the payment to himself and other cotrustees of $65,000. The report further 
finds as reasons why the claim should be paid, in addition to the one that the college is 
a "hallowed spot about which patriotic memories cluster," that Union soldiers, "pro- 
voked by defeat and under the influence of drink, set fire to the building and prevented 
the residents of the neighborhood from extinguishing the flames till it was wholly con- 
sumed"; that "the Government had taken possession of the property for its own pur- 
poses, excluding the owners and preventing them from taking any measures to secure its 
protection"; that "by the law of nations institutions of learning are exempted by all 
civilized nations from the hostilities of war." 

Assuming the facts to be as stated in the first two of these reasons, nothing is better 
settled than that there is no legal ground, in the light of the judicial precedents, for the 
payment of this claim. 

It is not true that by the law of nations colleges are exempted from the hostilities of 
war. and if such were the law it does not follow that when they are destroyed by a hos- 
tile army, either with or without the direction of those in authority, there is necessarily 
any legal liability resting on the Government to make restitution. 

Let us consider these grounds in their order. 

The bill recites that the college " was destroyed without authority by disorderly sol- 
diers of the United States during the late war." 

In other words, it is claimed that this property was destroyed by the wrongful and 
tortious, act of the United States soldiers. 

No case can be found where a sovereign or a government has ever been held liable for 
the torts of its officers even, let alone its humbler servants. 

That the Government is not liable for the torts of its officers or agents has been repeat- 
edly and repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States. I quote from the 
syllabi of a case decided in 186 8: 

The Government is not liable on an implied assumpsit for the torts of its officers committed while 
m its service, and apparently for its benefit. 

To admit such liability would involve the Government in all its operations in embarrassments, 
losses, and difficulties subversive of the public interest.— 8 Wallace, 269. 

Also, from the opinion of Justice Miller in the. same case: 

But it is not to be disguised that this ease is an attempt, under the assumption of an implied con- 
tract, to make the Government responsible for the unauthorized acts of its officers, those acts being 
in themselves torts. No government lias ever held itself liable to individuals for the misfeasance, 
laches, or unauthorized exercise of power by its officers and agents. 



D 



7 



In the language of Judge Story, it does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of 
any of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in all operations* in end- 
less embarrassments, and difficulties, and losses, which would be subversive of the public interest. 

And further from the same opinion : 

In a few. adjudged cases where the United .States was plaintiff, the defendants have been permit- 
ted to assert demands of various kinds by way of set-off, and these cases may afford useful guidance 
where they arc in point. The cases of this class establish the principle that even in regard to mat- 
ters connected with the cause of action relied on by the United States the Government is not re- 
sponsible for the laches, however gross, of its officers. 

The language of the statutes which confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims excludes by the 
strongest implication demands against the Government founded on torts. The general principle 
which we have already stated as applicable to all governments forbids, on a policy imposed by 
necessity, that they should hold themselves liable for unauthorized wrongs inflicted by their officers 
on the citizen, though occurring while engaged in the discharge of official duties. 

It was sought in the case just cited to hold the Government liahle to loyal parties be- 
cause of the tort of a quartermaster. The books abound incases to the same effect: 
United States vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720 ; Dox vs. Paymaster-General, 1 Peters, 318 ; 
Connell vs. Voorhees, 13 Ohio, 523; Nichols vs. The United States, 7 Wall., 122; Flush- 
ing Ferry Co. case, 6 Ct. of CI. 1 . 

If, for torts committed by high officers the Government is not liable, much less will it 
be liable for the unauthorized acts of private soldiers. The maximum respondeat superior 
does not apply between the General Government and its agents who are guilty of torts. 
I am not, however, satisfied that this college was burned by Union soldiers. There was 
no reason why they should do so. There were Army stores in the building. The United 
States forces expected to permanently occupy it. The Confederates had just been driven 
from it. The Union officers would have protected it if only to save the stores. It is 
more probable that the Confederate soldiers fired it, on their retreat, to destroy the stores 
in it, and to prevent its further occupancy by Union troops, &c. In a report made by 
Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the House of Representatives, No- 
vember 19, 1792, he stated the laws and usages of nations in relation to the payment of 
certain claims thus: 

That according to the laws and usages of nations a State is not obliged to make compensation for 
damages done to its citizens by an enemy, or wantonly or unauthorized by Us troojis. 

This rule is based upon sound principles and authority, and has borne the test of time. 

It will be remembered that by the twelfth article of the treaty of May 8, 1871, a com- 
mission upon the claims of Her Britannic Majesty against the United States, and of the 
citizens of the United States against Great Britain, was constituted. 

Count Louis Corti, of Italy, was made president of that commission. Right Honor- 
able Russell Gurney, member of Parliament, member of Her Majesty's privy council and 
recorder of London, was appointed commissioner on behalf of Great Britain. Hon. James 
S. Frazer, formerly justice of the supreme court of the State of Indiana, was the com- 
missioner for the United States. 

This commission began its session in Washington in September, 1871, and during its 
two years' sessions passed upon four hundred and ninety-seven claims, involving war 
claims of every conceivable character. Counsel of the highest talent and ability a P _ 
peared before it. The most of the claims filed were of British subjects residing or own- 
ing property in the United States for damages caused by the Union Army. That com- 
mission uniformly and by unanimous vote disallowed all claims against the United 
States for unauthorized destruction of property by soldiers, and even when works of art 
were involved. 

I read a paragraph or two from the report of Robert S. Hale, esq., the agent on the 
part of the United States, to Secretary Fish, of date of November 30, 1873, and from 
page 50 of volume 3, Foreign Relations, United States: 

In several cases there were allegations of the wanton destruction of property by United States 
troops, and in some cases satisfactory proof was made of the fact of such destruction by soldiers 
without command or authority of their commanding officers and in defiance of orders. 

In the case of Anthony Barclay (No. 5) allegations were made of wanton destruction of property, 
including valuable furniture, china, pictures, and other works of art, books, &c. The proof was con- 
flicting as to whether the injuries alleged were committed by soldiers or not, but if committed by 
soldiers it was plainly not only without authority but in direct violation of the order of General 
Sherman. In the award made in favor of Mr. Barclay nothing was included for property alleged 
to have been destroyed. 

Several claims were brought for property alleged to have been destroyed by the burning of Co- 
lumbia on the allegation that the city was wantonly fired by the army of General Sherman, either 
under his orders or with his consent and permission. A large amount of testimony was taken 
upon thissubject, including that of General Hampton and other Confederate officers on the part of 
the claimants, and of Generals Sherman, Logan, Howard, Woods, and other Federal officers on the 
part of the United States. The claims were all disallowed, all the commissioners agreeing. 

Thus it appears that even the commissioner on the part of the British Government 
did not even claim that the United States were liable for the tortious acts of their un- 
authorized agents, though conceded to be liable for the necessary destruction of property 
of British subjects as incident to the war. 



38 

We come now to the question of the liability of the Government for the alleged rea^- 
son that it took possession of the college for its own purposes, excluding the owners, &c. 

The fact is, when the war came the owners — or rather the custodians of the college, 
its president and faculty — abandoned it and joined the insurgent army. 

When this college was taken possession of by the United States forces it had been 
abandoned as a college, and was being used as barracks, &c, by the Confederate forces. 
(Report, 1872, Globe, volume 88, page 939.) Finding it abandoned, the officers had a 
Tight to occupy it. It was in a hostile country that had to be held and occupied by Union 
forces. 

It is further said that it was within territory excepted from Lincoln's emancipation 
proclamation. 

This exception was not because it was in loyal territory, but because it was on Jan- 
uary 1, 1863, held and occupied permanently by loyal forces and was within the Union 
lines. (It is not certain that the territory occupied by the college was excepted from the 
operation of the proclamation.) 

By the custom, rules, and laws of war, unoccupied public buildings, of whatever char- 
acter, are to be used for public- purposes, such as shelter for stores and material of war, 
hospitals, &c, in preference to driving inhabitants from their dwellings. 

Being rightly, under an appropriation to military use, in possession of the Union Army, 
(for if wrongfully in possession of that Army, then, as has been shown, no liability what- 
ever attaches,) does it follow that its destruction raises an obligation to pay for it ? 

It is expressly held that the Government is not liable for the burning of a building 
which it has seized for its use. (Lagow's case, 10 Court of Claims, 266; Green's case, 10 
Court of Claims, 466.) 

In Lagow's case the court say in the syllabus: 

The Government is not liable for the burning of a building which it has seized and used asa .small- 
pox hospital, and it is immaterial whether it has given up possession or whether it remains con- 
structively in possession. 

To the same effect is Filor's ease, !l Wall., 45. 

By the law of nations it is said that property of institutions of learning should be pre- 
served and protected. 

Grant this to be true, and it doubtless is true, yet it does not follow that in case of the 
willful destruction of such an institution by a conquering army that any legal or moral 
obligation arises as against the government to which that army belongs to pay for such 
destruction. 

The committee have labored in vain to find instances or precedents for such an obliga- 
tion. Not one has been found. None are given in the report and none are referred to 
in the speeches made during this or any preceding Congress. None exists. 

Let us give attention to the cases cited in the report. It is said Washington made the 
trustees of Princeton College a present of fifty guineas as restitution for damage it sus- 
tained from the fire of the Americans at the battle, of Princeton, and that after the close 
of the war Louis XVI, the ally of America, caused the college buildings in the United 
States accidentally destroyed by the fire of his troops to be replaced and every injury to 
be repaired. These are the only instances found where restitution has been made for an 
injury to an institution of learning. Both of these were in the nature of a gratuity to 
loyal institutions within friendly territory. In neither case was any legal liability as 
against a sovereign government admitted or recognized, but the contrary. As precedents 
these two instances are against the legal liability of the Government in any such case. 

The committee also say: 

In the bloodiest and angriest civil strifes England has respected her schools and colleges. 

Grant this to be true, and it may truthfully be said that the United States to a re- 
markable extent " has respected her schools and colleges." The accidental or wanton 
destruction in the furnace of war of a school or college building under loyal or disloyal 
control raises no obligation on the part of the Government to pay for it. There are, it 
s true, some legislative precedents for reimbursing institutions of learning for damages 
aused by ravages of war. And here I adopt the language of Senator Sumner in a speech 
made January 12, 1869, in the Senate. (71 Globe, 301.) 

From the beginning of our national life Congress has been called to deal with claims for losses by 
war. Though new in form the present case belongs to a long list whose beginning is hidden in 
Revolutionary history. The folio of State papers now before me, entitled "Claims," attest the 
umber and variety. From amid the struggles of the war, as early as 177!', Rev. Dr. Witherspoon 
was allowed $19,040 for repairs of the college at Princeton, damaged by troops. There was after- 
ward ii similar allowance to the academy at Wilmington, in Delaware, and also to the college in 
Rhode Island. These latter were recommended by Mr. Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, 
as "affecting the interest of literature." On this account they were treated as exceptional. It will 
also be observed that they concerned claimants within our own jurisdiction. 

These claims were paid in the interest of literature alone, and the institutions were at 
11 times loyal to the Government. I do not deny but that it is a paramount duty of an 



39 

army to protect colleges, school-houses, churches, works of art, &c, belonging to the 
enemy. But it does not follow that in case such property is destroyed or injured that 
payment therefor must be made. 

There is probably no instance -where such property held or owned by an enemy has 
ever been paid for, though destroyed in violation of the usages of war. As a matter of 
discipline and wise policy, as well as humanity toward citizens of the country through 
which an army is being marched, the commanding general very often insists upon paj r - 
ing for all supplies taken for consumption by the army. The most rigid orders are often 
issued and enforced to prevent marauding upon the inhabitants. 

The Duke of Wellington when he entered France with his victorious army from Spain. 
in pursuit of Marshal Soult in 1814. near the close of the final struggle of the Emperor 
Napoleon, punished pillage and foraging upon the French people with death, to pre- 
serve the perfect discipline of his army : and he required his officers to pay for all sup- 
plies taken from the country. But no rule of international law ever required a nation 
to pay for property of any kind belonging to the enemy taken or destroyed in violation 
of orders. 

The committee quote in its report parts of paragraphs 34 to 36, section 2, of General 
Orders No. 100, giving instructions to the armies of the United States in the field. 
(This order was prepared by Dr. Lieber and approved by President Lincoln.) These 
paragraphs do not deny the right to take and use for military purposes colleges and other 
public buildings. Paragraph 34 expressly recognizes the right to seize universities, 
churches, &c, and it also asserts that they "may lie taxed or used when the public serv- 
ice may require it." 

The last clause of paragraph 37 (not quoted in the report) is as follows : 

This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their 
property, to levy forced lean-., to l>illet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, land, 
boats, or ships, and churches, for temporary anil military use-. 

Halleck on the laws of war says: 

War * * * makes legal enemies of all the individual members of the hostile Stat< 
it also extends to property, and gives'to one belligerent the right to deprive the other of everything 
which might add to his strength and enable him to carry on hostilities. 

The people in the late war were divided territorially. 

Our own Supreme Court has given us the rule of international law applied direct! 
our civil war. 

I quote from the famous prize eases: 

All persons residing within this territory, whose property may be used to increase the revei 
of the hostile power, are in this contest liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. — 2 
Black, 636. 

See to same effect Alexandria cotton case. 2 Wall.. 401. 

It has already been shown that the College of William and Mary was actually used. 
prior to its seizure by the United States forces, b3'the Confederate army. 

In Jefferson's celebrated letter of May 12, L792, to Minister Hammond, of Great Brit- 
ain, on the subject of the liability of a nation to pay for losses sustained by the enemy 
in war, he sa\ s: 

Since it is a condition of war that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it is reasonable that 
everything of an enemy's found among his enemies should change its owner, and go to the treas- 
ury. It is, morever, usually directed in all declarations of war that the goods of enemies, as well as 
those found anions us as those taken in war. shall be confiscated. If we follow the mere right of 
war, even immovable property may be sold, and its price carried into the treasury, as is the cus- 
tom of movable property. But in almost all Europe, it is only notified that their profits during the 
war shall be received by the treasury, and the war being ended, the immovable property itself is 
restored, by agreement, to the former owner. (Bynk.) Ques. Jar. Pub., 1. 1, c. 7. 

This states a sound rule as' to the status of all property of belligerents during a war. 
It is then perfectly clear that the occupancy of this property was not in any sense 
wrongful. 

There was no attempt by its destruction to appropriate it to a public use. The Grant 
case, decided by the Court of Claims, (1 Court of Claims Rep., p. 41,) now so much cele- 
brated and so often cited, does not furnish a precedent for the payment of this claim. 

The court in that case found that a United States officer during the rebellion burned 
a mil] of a loyal man, situate on loyal territory (Arizona), which had prior thereto been 
held and used by the Government of the United States for military uses, and that the 
mill was burned for the sole purpose of preventing it from falling into the hands of Con- 
federate forces and being used by them in aid of insurrection, &c. On this state of facts 
the court found, as a matter of law, the destruction was an appropriation to a public use 
and the owner was entitled to be paid for his mill. 

The facts of this college case are widely different from those in the Grant case. There 
was in no sense by the destruction of the college buildings an appropriation of the same 
to the public use within the meaning of the Constitution. 



40 

As has already been shown many losses oecur in war which cannot be compensated 
for to the loyal or disloyal. 

The hardships and devastations of war fall unequally. Individual losses are mani- 
fold. Hopes are forever blasted and homes made desolate through death and destruc- 
tion incident to war. Affection and mercy are not attributes of war gods. The great 
Napoleon said "red-hot shot could not be tired into a populous city with affection." 
General .Sherman said at Atlanta, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it." For 
the blood and tears shed in war there is no adequate compensation. A full summary of 
wrongs growing out of a great war can never be made. The full account of these on 
either side will never be stated. .Reconciliation must come without pecuniary compen- 
sation. Purification to all concerned, always incident to the triumph of a holy cause, 
must be accepted in lieu of the latter. Free schools, a necessary incident of perfect free- 
dom, given to Virginia as a result of the war, must be accepted as ample compensation 
for the loss of the William and Mary College buildings. Examples of the utter futility 
of casting up accounts of alleged national wrongs and injuries and demanding their pay- 
ment are not wanting. There is a notable one of very earty origin. Jewish profane 
and traditionary history informs us that centuries after Moses led the children of Israel 
out of Egypt across the Red Sea. and thence to Mount Sinai and through the wilderness 
to the "promised land," the King of Egypt made and presented for payment to the Is- 
raelitish nation an account of the damages and losses sustained by Egypt and the Egyp- 
tian people, caused by the plagues sent by the Lord to soften the heart of Pharaoh, and 
also an account of the "jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment" borrowed of the 
Egyptians by the Jews at the command of the Lord immediately prior to their exodus. 

The claim was stated on the part of Egypt about thus: To loss and damages caused 
by the river of blood; by the plague of frogs; by the plague of flies; by the murrain of 
beasts; by the plague of hail; by the plague of locusts, and by the smiting unto death 
of the "first born of Pharaoh that sat on the throne, unto the first born of the captive 
that was in the dungeon, and all the first born of cattle"; also for the value of the 
loaned "jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment" never returned. To this was 
superadded a claim for interest. 

The prospect of having to pay so large a claim would appall the people of a rich nation 
of the present day. Not so the Hebrew people. They regarded the enormous claim 
with complacency. The Jews were then no special pleaders. They did not seek to cast 
the responsibility on their Lord. They did not demur because the claim was too remote 
or stale, nor because Egypt had slept too long on her pretended rights and thereby for- 
feited them; nor did they traverse the particular charges made or plead the general 
issue. 

Moses had written the book of Exodus, and it had the divine sanction. Its record, to 
the Jews, imported absolute verity; and thereto turned the confident Egyptians for the 
proof of their claim. God's "chosen and peculiar people" did not, however, despair. 
The learned Levites went to work to state an account of offsets. Generally it included 
but one item, stated about thus: To work and labor performed, and services rendered by 
the twelve tribes of Israel, during four hundred and thirty years of unrequited Egyptian 
bondage in the laud of Goshen, in Egypt, with all the attendant burdens, sufferings, 
stripes, tears, sorrows, wrongs, and deaths incident to oriental slavery. The learned min- 
istry of Egypt, on receipt of this account, stood aghast and said, " ' T' is enough ! ' ' and the 
claim of the "Land of the Pharaohs" was not further pressed. 

This exemplifies the vanity of trying to take an account of great national wrongs, &c. 
The recording angel only will sum them up at the judgment day; and the Lord of Hosts 
will wield the divine scepter of justice. 

The further application of the illustration I must leave, for want of time, to reflect- 
ing minds. 

The committee further insist that: 

The collegesof the period preceding the war of the Revolution were among the most potent forces 
in accomplishing our independence and founding our Constitution. 

And they say: , 

Among them none can claim precedence over William and Mary. 

It is sufficient to say, in answer to this, as has already been shown, that in advancing 
the cause of rebellion " none can claim precedence over William and Mary." 
The committee also express the opinion: 

That if the accidents of war had led to the injury of Mount Vernon, of the house or the tomb of 
Washington, or of Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, we should have hastened to repair the 
injury. 

These cases are widely different from the one under consideration. These are ancient — 
I might say sacred — places belonging to the nation, and they have no history around 
which treason to constitutional liberty ever clustered. 



41 

I make a quotation here from the remarks of President Ewell, of the college, before 
the Committee on Education and Labor: 

Grant the prayers of petitions like this, and no more ever will t he Union need arms to save people 
or their families, or their schools, or their houses of charity and learning, or their houses of God 
from ravages of civil war. This mode of treating the wounds of the past would be a salve indeed 
and heal them. 

This contains an appeal and a promise that could be made on behalf of every weak 
and crippled institution of learning in the land, of which there are many North and 
South. . 

I hope no threat is to be implied from this language in case we fail to pass this bill. 
I have no time to speak of the propriety or constitutionality of Congress healing the 
wounds of the South by voting away the money of the people under the name of "a 
healing salve. " . . 

As a benefaction in the cause of education we might, possibly, be justified in passing 
this bill, but that would be of doubtful constitutionality. My friend [Mr. Tucker] 
from Virginia could hardly vote for this bill, with his views of the constitutional powers 
of Congress, if it is not to'be regarded as a li war claim" resting upon some legal or con- 
stitutional grounds. Too many benefactions are now pressing upon us to make an ex- 
ception of William and Mary College. 

We should apply the bounty of the nation as a '' salve " toward healing the yet open 
wounds of the living bodies possessed of souls before we can be magnanimous to the soul- 
less corporate bodies. There are yet throughout this land many sorrowing, suffering, 
and bleeding hearts of widows and orphans of dead soldiers, and they are not confined 
to the North. , 

Another matter contained in the committees report deserves mention. I read from 

the report : 

We believe that to follow the example of Washington, of Louis XVI, of Judge Cooke, of Tryon- 
will make every college in America safer if civil strife or foreign war should ever hereafter disturb 
our peace. 

It must be again noted in passing that these are not examples in favor of paying for 
injury or destruction of institutions of learning in an enemy's country, but noble ex- 
amples in favor of protecting them in war. Washington and Louis XVI only made pri- 
vate donations to repair damages done by their troops to colleges loyal to the cause in 
which they fought. There are those who believe that to refuse to pass this bill " will 
make every college in America safer," because its fate will be pointed to as a warning 
to other colleges not to encourage civil strife, insurrection, and war, much less to teach 
the divinity of human slavery. The committee are equally unfortunate in saying that 
" no gentleman need fear that a vote for this bill will furnish a dangerous precedent for 
large Claims against the Treasury," and that <; a careful inquiry has failed to develop 
evidence of injuries sustained in the late rebellion by endowed institutions of learning, 
exceeding in all the amount of $100,000. 

A full list of such institutions, with the amount of claims for damages caused by the 
late war, would be very large. Claims of this character have been presented to Congress 
for payment at different times since the late war, of which I give here only a partial list: 

Alabama University S2 ;??'!*^ 

William and Mary Cqllege, Virginia i'IS* 

Richmond Female Institute, Virginia *i ;*** 

East Tennessee University iimn 

Jackson College, Tennessee i'mn 

Alleghany College. West Virginia mmo 

Madison Female Academy, Richmond. Virginia - nm 

Male Academy, Athens, Georgia Zarn 

Strawberry Plains High School, Tennessee *■?* 

Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia i - nm 

Newberrv College, South Carolina £j •'*"' 

La Grange Col lege, Tennessee - nm 

Howard College, Alabama Z nm 

Stewart College, Tennessee c'oS 

Holstein College, Tennessee in'mn 

Cane Hill College, Arkansas '__! 

Total 490 - 63;? 

Most of these claims are now pending in this Congress. I am informed that members 
on this floor say they have been resisting the presentation of a flood of claims from their 
respective districts of kindred character to the above, which they will be no longer able 
to resist successfully if this bill passes. The Committee on Education and Labor of this 
House have already this Congress reported in favor of paying fM5,000 of the above claims 
from Virginia alone, namely, the claims of William and Mary College and of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Seminary. The claims in behalf of churches South are certainly more 



42 

meritorious than the one under consideration. We are bound to presume that these 
churches of God upheld the banner of the Prince of Peace, and not of the demon of war. 

There is a single claim in favor of the Book Agents' Publishing House, Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, now pending in the Senate, which amounts to $458,400. The 
claims on behalf of churches which have been presented to Congress exceed already 
$1,500,000. The committee's facts and law are equally bad. 

The report is a "comedy of errors." Take another instance. The committee say, as 
a reason why members should vote for this bill, that — 

A bill like the present passed the Forty-second Congress, but was not reached in the Senate for 
want of time. It was received with expressions of approbation by the press of all parties, &c. 

Certainly the draughtsman of the report did not intend to deceive or mislead any per- 
son by this statement. A bill such as the one under consideration, after amendment, 
was defeated in the Forty-second Congress by the House overwhelmingly. On the yeas 
and nays the vote stood— yeas 36, nays 127, not voting 78. (Globe, volume 92, page 
188, December 13, 1872.) Nor did the bill receive the approbation of the press of all 
parties. In February, 1873, a bill similar to this one did pass the House by a small 
majority. 

I conclude that on neither of the grounds set forth by the Committee on Education 
and Labor in their report can this House properly vote to pay this clism; nor can its 
payment be justified on any sound principle of law or true ground of national public 
policy or duty. 



43 



GENEVA AWARD. 

December 17, JS7.S. The House having resumed the consideration of the bill (H. K. No. 4553) to pro - 
vide for the further distribution of the moneys received under the Geneva award — 

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly hope to say, in the very few moments I am permitted by 
the favor of the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stenger] to occupy the. attention of 
the House, anything new on this momentous question. The millions of dollars — about 
$10,000,001) — involved in the issue of this bill demands of each member his best judg- 
ment. The wide difference among the distinguished members of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee at least warns those of us who are not able to say we have spent years in investi- 
gating the questions involved that there is room for honest differences of opinion. Prin- 
ciples, however, do not change on account of the importance or insignificance of cases. 
As to the details of the bills of the majority and minority of the Committee on the 
Judiciary I am forbidden for want of time to speak. The bill of the majority of the 
committee proposes to have the claims to the fund of all parties adjudicated by the 
Court of Claims, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States ; the 
bill of the minority proposes to revive the court of commissioners of Alabama claims, 
and submit the claims of some of the claimants to the fund to it, to the exclusion of 
other of the claimants, and to make the decision of such commissioners final. Stripped 
of all details and circumlocution, the two propositions coming from the Judiciary Com- 
mittee may be fairly stated thus: 

A majority of the committee, as set forth in the bill reported by the chairman, [Mr. 
Knott,] favors the granting to all claimants to any portion of the Geneva award fund 
or the interest thereon remaining undistributed a day in court, with a limitation of one 
year in which to tile the claims, w ith the right of appeal given to each claimant or the 
United States to the Supreme Court of the United States, these claims to be, in the 
same manner, prosecuted as other claims in the Court of Claims. All persons are to be 
deemed claimants and have judgments rendered in their favor who were actual suffer- 
ers "by the violation of the laws of neutrality of Great Britain " for such amount as in 
the opinion of the court they shall severally be "justly entitled to recover under said 
treaty and award according to the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations, 
without regard to any rule or principle of allowance, exclusion, inclusion, or distribution 
heretofore adopted by Congress, •' or by the Alabama claims commissioners; all pay- 
ments hitherto made to be deducted from the judgments to be rendered by said court. 
The judgments so rendered are to be paid ratably if in the aggregate they exceed the 
total amount of the said fund and the interest thereon still under the control of the 
United States; all expenses incident to the hearing of said claims to be first paid out of 
said moneys; and if any part of the same shall still remain it shall be subject to the 
further action of Congress. 

A minority of the committee (as set forth in the bill reported by the member from 
Ohio, Mr. McMahon) favors the recreation of a court of commissioners of three persons, 
whose judgments shall be final, before vUiom certain designated claimants shall be 
granted the right to go, within six months from the organization of such court, and prove 
their claims, without regard to the "principles of justice, equity, and the law of na- 
tions," as the" court might find and apply them. In its consideration of the designated 
claims referred to in the bill of the minority of the committee, the court will have no- 
power in its rule of allowance to exclude or include any claim save as the proposed law 
directs. 

No general principle is to be given to such court to guide it. The fiat of the law, arbi- 
trarily applied, is to be the only guide of the court in making its final decrees. There 
is to be an utter disregard of the rights of all claimants whose claims were adjudged to 
be valid within the three rules laid down in article 6 of the treaty of "Washington (May 
8, 1871) as interpreted by the distinguished members of the tribunal of arbitration at 
Geneva. By section 4 of the bill of the minority the claims sutt'ered to be presented to 
such court of commissioners are divided into three classes, namely: 

First. Claims described in section 11 of the act of 1874 relating to the distribution of 
this fund so tar as they are not adjudicated, and, to quote from the bill — 

Claims directly resulting from damage done on the high seas by Confederate cruisers during' the 
late rebellion, including vessels and cargoes attacked and taken on the high seas or pursued by 
them therefrom, although the loss or damage occurred within four miles of the shore. 



44 

Also : 

In cases of the loss of a whaling-vessel and outfit the court shall allow, in addition to the compen- 
sation provided for in the said original act, the sum of 10 per cent, in lieu of freight upon the value 
of said vessel and outfit as found by said court. 

And upon all judgments heretofore rendered under said act for the loss of a whaling-vessel and out- 
fit there shall be allowed the said sum of 10 per cent, upon the awards as made by the court, with 
f> per cent, interest thereon from the day from which said original award bore interest until the 
•date of payment. 

Second. Claims for additional interest upon judgments of the court of Alabama claims 
awarded under the act named, on which the new court is to award 2 percent, additional 
interest from the time interest was allowed to the time of payment. 

Third— 

The third class shall be for claims for the payment of premiums for war risks, whether paid to 
the corporations, agents, or individuals after the sailing of any Confederate cruiser, in determining 
which it shall be the duty of the court to deduct any sum in any way received by or paid to the 
claimant in diminution of the amount paid for any such premium, so that the actual loss only shall 
he allowed. 

Judgments on claims of the first class are to be first paid out of the fund; judgments 
on claims of the second class are next to be paid in full, or pro rata if the remaining fund 
is insufficient; and so of the claims of the third class. 

Let us analyze these classes of claims a little. 

The first class includes claims and pretended claims resting on various grounds. 

Section 11 of the original act provided for the adjustment of claims for direct losses 
caused by the inculpated cruisers Alabama and Florida and their tenders, and all claims 
admissible under that act directly resulting from damage caused by the inculpated 
cruiser Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne, (February 18, 1865.) These 
claims all ought to agree should be paid, but they are to be coupled in the same class 
with all claims for direct losses on the high seas during the rebellion caused by exculpa- 
ted Confederate cruisers, of which there were a large number, and without regard to time 
or circumstances of the loss. The bill under the first classification directs the court to 
award 10 per cent, upon the value of whaling-vessels and outfit, as found by the old 
court, in lieu of freights; and the further sum of 10 per cent, upon prior awards for value 
of whaling- vessels and outfits, with 6 per cent, interest from the date the original award 
bore interest until payment. The second classification seems to be only for the puipose 
of fixing 6 per cent, as the uniform rate of interest to be allowed. 

The third is for " premiums for war risks," or rather indirect losses, excluded from 
consideration wholly by the Geneva tribunal, and withdrawn by the United States with- 
out reservation from the "case" before that tribunal. 

Nothing illustrates more sharply the absolute inequity and injustice of this classifica- 
tion for payment than the fact that nothing is to lie included for national losses, dam- 
ages, or injuries caused by a prolongation of the war, by a transfer of commerce to the 
British flag on account of the action of the Confederate cruisers, and for expenses in the 
pursuit of such cruisers, &c. ; also excluded and withdrawn from the case of the United 
States before the Geneva tribunal. These national claims, and all private claims for in- 
direct losses, including war premiums, were unanimously rejected by the judgment of 
that tribunal before the final submission of the case. They should all stand or fall to- 
gether. 

The tribunal, through its president. Count Sclopis, (June 19, 1872,) in deciding against 
such claims, said: 

The arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged 
■on the part of the Government of the United States in respect to these claims, they have arrived, 
individually and collectively, at the conclusion that the claims do not constitute, upon the princi- 
ples of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation 
■or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded 
from the consideration of the tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement be- 
tween the governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon. 

The arbitrators being governed by the three rules provided for their guidance in article 
fy of said treaty, and as also set forth in said article, "by such principles of international 
law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable 
to the case." in their final award also found as follows: 

So far as it relates to particulars of indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit 
■of the Confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable 
from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States. The tribunal is therefore of 
the opinion, by a majority of 3 to 2 votes, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States 
any sum by wav of indemnity under this head. 

And whereas 'prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inas- 
much as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies. 

The tribunal is unanimously of opinion that there is no ground for awarding to the United States 
any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable 
■compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double 
claims for the same losses, and all claims for "gross freights" so far as they exceed "net freights" ; 
and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accord- 



45 

Knee with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of ad- 
judication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion 
and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by article 10 of the said treaty. 

The tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by article 7 of the said treaty, by i> 
majority of 4 voices to 1, awards to the United States the sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity 
to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the 
consideration of the tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in article 7 of the aforesaid 
treaty; and in accordance with the terms of article 11 of the said treaty, the tribunal declares that 
all the claims referred to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and 
finally settled. 

Furthermore, it is declared that each and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or 
may not have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shal! 
henceforth be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and inadmissable. 

The finding and award of the august tribunal is thus set forth at length to enable 
members to comprehend the completeness with which the arbitrators disposed of pos- 
sible questions coining within the scope of the treaty of Washington. 

On what principles of law and justice the private claims rejected by the tribunal are 
to be admitted and the claim for national losses (also rejected) is to be excluded we are 
not advised. In the designation of " claims on the part of the United States " national 
and individual claims were confounded and were all comprehended together, without 
making separate mention of individual claims. The General Government, for itself and 
its citizens, as it was bound by usage and national honor, pressed a general claim for all 
injuries, damages, and losses against Great Britain. The result was an award in gross 
of a large sum of money, based on valid claims, found to be such by the rules and prin- 
ciples of international law which a great and wise tribunal found should govern it. 

It is wholly immaterial whether it was, as is claimed by some members, the para- 
mount purpose of the United .States to have certain great principles of international 
law settled authoritatively or not by the treaty of Washington and the tribunal that met 
thereunder at Geneva. It is unquestionably true that so far as the proper disposition of 
the money award goes it should at least be first applied to the payment of the claims of 
parties for such losses as were, under the rules which governed the arbitrators, consid- 
ered in making the award. 

There are those who pretend to believe that the award made of $15, 500, 000 was made 
to the United States on account of all claims presented by the United States of every 
kind, name, and nature, and that the arbitrators, in assuming, as they had a right to do 
under article 7 of the treaty, to make an award in gross to the United States, utterly 
disregarded the rules which they held applied to claims and included damages for all 
losses sustained by the United States and all its citizens by reason of exculpated and 
inculpated cruisers during the whole war. 

This is so violent a conclusion that it is hard to conceive how it can be calmly enter- 
tained. To reach such a conclusion is to impeach the integrity of all the distinguished 
arbitrators save Sir Alexander Cockburn, the aribitrator on the part of Great Britain. 
It is, in the absence of conclusive proof, a most violent assumption to say that these 
arbitrators laid down with great care rules for the exclusion and inclusion of claims 
presented, and then in making up an award in gross willfully violated and disregarded 
them. Had the rules established been allowed to be applied by a board of assessors, 
under article 10 of said treaty, it is conceded that only such claims as would have 
been valid under them would have been allowed. In a certain sense it is undoubtedly 
true, as shown by the award already quoted and as required by article 11 of said 
treaty, that all claims against Great Britain were finally settled by the award. That 
article is as follows: 

The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the tribunal oi" 
arbitration of the board of assessors, should such board be appointed, as a full, perfect, and tinal settle- 
ment of all the claims hereinbefore referred to; and further engage that every such claim, whether 
the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, made, perfected, or laid before, the 
tribunal or board, shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal or board, be 
considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and henceforth inadmissible. 

It will be observed that if the tribunal bad left to a board of assessors to make up 
an award on each valid claim in detail, all other claims would still have been finally 
settled. But it does not follow that an award in gross was to be held to be paid 
on account of invalid and unpreseuted claims, as well as on account of recognized and 
valid ones. The reasoning in favor of such a view may possibly be called specious, 
yet it may lead to absurdity, injustice, and wrong. If only one valid claim had been 
presented and considered in making up the award together with an hundred wholly 
groundless ones, the holder of the valid claim, if this view is to prevail, would have 
to share the sum awarded with the holders of such other claims,_even though they 
were grossly fraudulent. The statement of such a proposition is its own refutation. 

The bill, Mr. Speaker, of the minority of the committee has no better or broader 
foundation than can rest upon such an inequitable view. The proposition is capti- 
vating, that those who lost their vessels and cargoes on the high seas by all the con- 
federate cruisers, and all those who had to pay war premiums by reason of such cruis- 



46 

era, should bo reimbursed, whether the loss resulted or payments were made by reason 
of exculpated or inculpated confederate cruisers. But it is unsound. It is only 
because Great Britain was held liable according to international law for the payment 
of certain private claims for direct losses that any of the claims can be paid at all. 
It follows irresistibly that only such claims as formed the basis of the award against 
Great Britain should be paid. 

Losses of any kind occasioned on the high seas by confederate cruisers put afloat 
through no fault of Great Britain stand on the same footing as all other losses or 
damages bv the enemy, whether on sea or on land. Untold millions of dollars' 
worth of property hare been destroyed by the enemy on land belonging to loyal 
parties North and South that have' as much right in law and equity to the Ge- 
neva award fund as the holders of rejected or unpreseuted " Alabama claims." No 
person or party, I believe, has yet proposed to pay claims for losses occasioned by the 
acts of the enemy on land. They are included under the head of " ravages of war," 
the payment of which is always refused. There were also billions upon billions of 
dollars' worth of property destroyed by the Union Army which it is not pretended 
can be paid even where the parties are of undoubted loyalty aud resided in the North. 
The sympathetic argument is not broad enough. The cloth will not cover all who 
are naked. It is specially pressed that those who paid war premiums to insurance 
companies should be reimbursed. It may be that many of them were reimbursed, and 
more too, by the war freights collected of the shipper, and hence suffered no loss. 

The bill of the minority of the committee is on its face a coufession of the inequity 
of many of the claims included in its provisions. All the claimants to this fund either 
stand abreast in point of right, or they have no proper standing at all. If the fuud 
was awarded for all the claimants regardless of the merits of their claims, then all 
should be paid iu full or surfer a reduction ratably. The bill itself discriminates not 
only against the second and third classes named, but may operate, yes, its friends ad- 
mit it will operate, to exclude certain claimants who would be "justly entitled to re- 
cover under said treaty and award according to the principles of justice, equity, and 
the law of nations." By the bill of the majority, all persons aud corporations claim- 
ing ou account of losses during the late war a share in the Geneva award fund, no 
matter how or when such losses occurred, are permitted to have their claims tested 
finally by the highest judicial tribunal in our Republic, and by the principles of jus- 
tice, equity, and the law of nations. This privilege the bill of the minority denies 
them. It has beeu said on this floor that to permit this to be done would give to cer- 
tain insurance companies a portion, if not all, of the fund. This, as a member of 
this House, I need not decide ; nor have I decided it. The highest court in the land 
is eminently qualified to determine, judicially, who is in equity and justice entitled 
to receive the fund. 

If those who argue so strenuously that the award was made to reimburse all claim- 
ants for losses, whether their claims were considered by the tribunal good, bad, or 
fraudulent, then the court may under the bill of the majority of the committee be 
bound to include and pay them. 

If the award was made to pay all claims, why not use the fund to pay all ot them f 
The bill of the minority refuses to do this, aud excludes absolutely the claims of parties 
known to have been regarded by the tribunal as valid. 

It is a suspicious circumstance that great confidence is expressed in certain things 
connected with this grave question, and yet there is such bitter opposition made to 
permitting the highest judicial tribunal in the land to determine them. 

Legislative adjudication is almost invariably unwise where great principles of law 
and equity are to be applied among a large number of parties, and it is always a 
doubtful expedieut. The insurance companies, who it is said may have some claims 
in equity and justice, are so reviled and abused as to put some men in awe and cause 
them to hesitate to do their duty even here. 

It has been vehemently asserted that these companies will, under the bill ot the 
majority, get the fund "under the doctrine of subrogation by technical rules of the 
law " or that by invoking the application of such doctrine they will be admitted to 
receive a portion of the fund. Is the invocation of the doctrine of subrogation (or 
substitution) an appeal to the law's technicalities ? If so, then the terms of the bill 
of the majority will rule out these companies. Technical rules are set aside by such 
bill. But subrogation, if not a head in equity, is a rule of equity, aud it has no con- 
nection with the law's arbitrary aud techuical rules. Equity may be invoked where 
the law fails to do justice ; it commences where the law leaves off. Subrogation as 
a rule in equity, where only it has application, had its origin in and was transferred 
from the Roman or civil law, and was founded, as says Judge Story, " in principles 
of natural justice." Thus it is made clear that the bill of the minority of the com- 
mittee proposes to override the principles of natural justice in the distribution of this 
large sum of money. . 

The assault upou the insurance companies must not be mistaken tor sound logic or 
argument in favor of a vicious proposition sought to be applied in support of pretended 



47 

claims of parties who may have no higher rights, though sufferers, than thousands of 
others who were crushed under the car of Juggernaut, drawn along by the cruelty and 
fanaticism of war. The eagerness and zeal of a lawyer, sometimes, on account of the 
extreme exigency of his case, leads him to assail the real or supposed faults of his 
adversary in person, in lieu of the ability to successfully assail the grounds of his ad- 
versary's case. Though some of us may be lawyers, we are called on to do our duty as 
legislators. Let us try to perform that duty impartially. I am led to the conclusion 
I have arrived at by my conviction of what is right in the light of what I deem to bo 
the natural justice and equity of the whole question. 

In conclusion, let me say again that the distribution of this fund, it being the fruits 
of a treaty between this and a foreign government, comes strictly within the judicial 
power of the United States, vested under the Constitution in the Suprene Court and 
in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 
(Constitution, section 1, article 3.) This judicial power extends to all cases in law and 
equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties 
made under their authority. (Constitution, section 2, article 3.) Shall Congress, as 
is intended by the proposition of the minority of the Judiciary Committee of this 
House, usurp to itself that power, or shall we relegate the whole question from Con- 
gress and send it for decision where under the Constitution it appropriately belongs, 
laying down no principles for the guidance of the court save tliose founded on the 
•ad and comprehensive basis— justice, equity, and the law of nations? 



SOUTHERN CLAIMS. 

January 21, 1879. On bill involving the payment of Southern claims— 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker: I understand the distinguished gentleman from New York to have 
been in favor of a bill that would pay all these claims in some form or other through 
the interposition of a court; but as he could not pay them all, he would not now pay 
any of them. 

Mr. POTTER. Oh, no. . 

Mr. KEIFER. That is the gentleman's proposition as I gathered it from his bill, 
which passed by so large a vote at a former session of this Congress. 

Mr. POTTER. That did not provide for the payment of any one of these claims. 

Mr. KEIFER. It looked to the payment of all of this class of claims. I of course 
yield to the gentleman when he insists, but I do insist my statement is correct. He 
is, however, mistaken about this bill, for it does not provide anywhere for a payment 
of this claim. 

Mr. POTTER. But it provides for the adjudication of the claim in the Court of 
Claims and for a recovery, a judgment there, if established. 

Mr. KEIFER. It provides for adjudication by the Court of Claims, applying to it 
the law which has been made applicable to casesof like character before the southern 
claims commission. The effect of the adjudication of this claim by the Court of 
Claims under this bill, should it become a law, will be the same asunder the omnibus 
bill of the gentleman from New York. The latter clause of this bill has been care- 
fully drawn. It was so drawn in order that the Court of Claims should not take the 
report of this committee as conclusive of the question of loyalty or of the question of 
the taking or conversion of the property for which the claim is made. The latter 
clause of the bill was intended to entirely free that court from any action of the com- 
mittee or Congress, and it was put there for the purpose of guarding against the very 
thing which the gentleman says we are in danger of doing. I am not satisfied by the 
ex parte testimony which was before the committee that these parties were loyal dur- 
ing the war. I am satisfied so far as there was any evidence, or what possibly might 
be called evidence, before the committee, that it 'showed they were loyal, but I am 
not certain that it is true, and I will not accept it, it being ex parte testimony, as con- 
clusive of that question. It frequently turns out when questions of this kind are 
judicially investigated, when testimony is taken properly, that the parties were not 
loyal. I know a very noted case. A very distinguished gentleman had a claim be- 
fore the commissioners of claims 

Mr. BRAGG. If this bill revives the law and the rule of evidence established for 
the claims commission in this particular case, does it not in fact revive that legisla- 
tion and make it applicable to one case, whereas all other cases will be excludedVrom 
the benefit of it f 

Mr. KEIFER. That is coming back to the same thing I understood my friend from 
New York to favor; that is, he would not pay one claim, however just, that may 
come within our consideration here because we could not pay them all. Let me say, 
Mr. Speaker, we have paid millions upon millions of dollars under the general law 



48 

and through the interposition of the commissioners of claims, called improperly 
southern claims commissioners : we have paid, I have said, through their interposi- 
tion millions upon millions of dollars of claims of like character to this one, assuming 
these parties to have heen loyal and that these goods were taken and used by the 
United States authorities for the benefit of the Government, 

Let me say, sir, that it is not proposed to enter upon the payment of claims gener- 
ally for property taken or destroyed iu the South either to loyal or disloyal parties. 
That is not the proposition : but'if these goods were commissary stores or quarter- 
master stores which were taken from or furnished by loyal parties to the United 
States Army, of which the Army had the benefit— used for the benefit of the United 
States— then we propose to pay* for them as we have been paying millions of dollar* 
for like property, even though the claimants happened to live in the South, if we 
find thev were loyal. 

Now that is a policy which was entered upon long ago; but there we have stopped, 
and there I propose to stand so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. POTTER. Then I understand the gentleman to say if these parties were loyal, 
and if the goods which were taken were goods of the class he speaks of, then they 
ought to be paid, notwithstanding the expiration of the law establishing the southern 
chums commission. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman states one of the troubles I have had some diinculty 
with myself all through. There are, however, a great many people, unfortunately, 
who come here with claims having never heard of this limitation. Some were minors 
and could not have known or understood the application of the law. It may be we 
are opening up a statute in this case, possibly, which we ought not to do, but on rep- 
resentations made to us and on the evidence before the conimitte- t thoughtthis was 
a proper case to open a statute and let in these parties. That is one reason why we 
should not like to pass a general law to apply to all cases. If a man knowingly slept 
on his rights when the statute gave him a remedy he should be permitted to sleep on. 
Statutes of limitation are for repose as well as iu the interest of peace. 

I know with what approval members upon this floor may receive remarks made 
against paying southern claims. The position taken by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr.PoTTEK] is a popular one, perhaps, before the country. But before this 
debate closes to-day, I desire to say that I believe, limited as I have already stated to 
the payment for propertv taken from loyal person ■* by the United States officers or 
furnished by such persons to the United States officers forthe express use ot the Army 
in suppressing the rebellion in the South, the policy of paying these claims is a wise 
one I believe it is wise because we will not say to these people down South who 
were loyal throughout the war, loyal when it cost something to be loyal— we will _not 
say to them that what they furnished to the Army freely, in order that the war might 
be carried on, they shall now be robbed of. This would be saying to the people down 
South who had their propertv there, and tendered it freely to the United States to aid 
in patting down the rebellion, and who were loyal throughout the entire war, We 
will not pay you because yon were so unfortunate as to live iu a country that was dis- 
loyal." Many members fail to distinguish between claims of southern loyal men and 
what are generally called " rebel claims." 

I stand upon the doctrine that was long ago announced in the other end ot this 
Capitol by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Morton, by Senator Sum- 
ner of Massachusetts, and others, that it was a wise policy to pay certain claims pre- 
sented by loyal men from whatever section of the country they came. If we tail to- 
do this we nut the loyal men in dis. >yal districts exactly upon a par with the disloyal 
people in disloyal districts. That is a position which I do not desire to take, popular 
or unpopular. T 

For the sake of the future of this country, if even we are to forget the past, J am in 
favor, in proper cases, of distinguishing between the loyal and the disloyal, and al- 
wavs in favor of the former. 

Rebel claims should never be paid. All claims arising out of the general ravages ot 
Avar should not be paid to loyal or disloyal persons. Supplies furnished by or taken 
from loyal parties North and South should be paid for as a matter of right, and such 
has been the policy of this Government from the beginning, and I trust it may ever 
continue to be. 



49 



PROCEEDS OF PUBLIC LANDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 

January 23. 1879. Pending consideration of the bill to apply the proceeds of the public lands for 
educational purposes — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Chairman ; I move to strike out the last word. 

I understood the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Harrison] to say that 
it was the policy of the Democratic party to favorthe preservation of the public lands 
for the people of the country. Let me say that I congratulate that party and the 
country if that is now its policy, tor when we remember the history of our country we 
know that among the last acts of the last Democratic President of the United States 
(Buchanan) — and I trust he will ever be the last — was the veto of a homestead bill. 
He vetoed the bill because, as he said, "the granting of homesteads was a boon ex- 
clusively conferred upon the cultivators of the soil" that ought not to be granted. 
He vetoed the bill because, as he said, it would "prove unequal and unjust in its 
operation, because from its very nature it is confined to one class of persons;" and 
that in his opinion it was not expedient to proclaim to all nations of the earth that 
all foreigners "shall receive a farm of one hundred and sixty acres of laud;" and that 
it is agrarian in principle. He did it because ho said it was a charity to the poor that 
he did not favor. The gentleman will find that memorable veto message dated the 
22d of June, 1860. 

I rose for the purpose of stating and putting in the Record as a part of my remarks 
the great things that have grown out of the Republican homestead law, a law passed 
by a Republican Congress; a law which had the approval of Abraham Lincoln, a re- 
publican President. It was passed upon the 20th of May, 1862, and under that law 
there have been 384,848 homestead entries made, covering a territory in extent, if you 
deduct 10 percent, of the whole number for canceled and abandoned entries, exceed- 
ing the whole of England, Scotland, and Wales. It exceeds by 10,000,000 of acres the 
whole of the territory of the New England States. The area in acres of New England 
is 43,742,720; the area of land taken up by actual settlers under a Republican home- 
stead law, after making the deduction mentioned, is "<5,418,112 acres. 

It exceeds more than twice the area of my own State, the State of Ohio. The area 
of Ohio is 25,576,960 acres. After due allowance for canceled and abandoned entries, 
under the homestead law 350,000 heads of families have acquired homes. Such are 
the fruits of the policy of the Republican party in relation to the public domain, and 
in spite of the policy of the Democratic party of old. I congratulate that party that 
it has been educated up to-day by the Republican party, though it has taken nearly 
twenty years to do it, to a point where it is in favor of homesteads. 

Mr. HARRISON. I want to ask the gentleman what bill did any Republican Presi- 
dent ever veto granting millions upon millions of acres of the public lands to private 
corporations f 

Mr. KEIFER. lam frank to say that the great' champion of Democracy in the 
State of Illinois initated the policy of granting public lands to railroad corporations, 
I refer to Stepheu Arnold Douglas, of Illinois. 

Mr. HARRISON. I would like to have the. gentleman answer my question. And 
theu I would like to have him answer the question whether Mr. Douglas did not have 
these lands given to the State of Illinois and not to a corporation ? Read history and 
you will find that the Democratic party has not been the one to set the example of 
giving the public lands to private corporations. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman is entirely wrong in his statement. The laud was 
granted to the State of Illinois in trust for railroad purposes. 

Mr. SPARKS. Still it was granted to the State and not to a corporation. 

Mr. KEIFER. It was granted to the State of Illinois for the benefit of the Illinois 
Central Railroad ; there is where it went. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. KEIFER. The following is the table to which I referred : 

90 A— K 4 



50 



o 



4 



oo 



»» 

I 



C 

•a' 

5 



© 

.5 
1 

CO 

C 



5< 

>H 

e<-" 

c 

a 

e 
o 



1 



ts 





MCh-CMM«0>«W- J 'tTt-»H<0'^OWOlN^lOiO^CCH< 


1 OO 






CM - ~ **• rf Oi ~- MriCC 
IM CO « ^ T C O t 


CD CO CO OI M ! - OS CD CO rH CO CO Ti 1- CO t- CD 


-^ 


"c3 


-Hci-MXiomr-icMa'-cai^'tr. 


'' 


O 

H 


ofco" t-"m" trf cm" ec rl h t>* « « h a h t* co"co h'co 

Jl, w ,_, ,_ r-i r^ CO OJ Ol m "<* Ol 


1* 




iC-OMOOOt^-Cib-OOXCMH-rKOHOr-N- = ^ ^ 


1 C3 


00 

1 - 


MOW-i'Orj© M^M^t-7.H-ti:;iO^Nh- iO CD in CO rn 


1—1 


co co as co ho 


i-H:or-.coco»C'Oi oi co^irei^ 


1 o 


GO 
«— 1 

* 


of ^" 


lo" co" of • 


Ol 




f i ift « ^ r h« ri « '-^ o w w x o o ^j ^ o ^ o in r- a - t- ci x 


1 CO 


!>■! 


co x co ■«*• — -n — oi t» cc or- o oa sa co oc co H* oi t- co co . i- ci 


CO 


E- 


lOO t- ^ i-h CO 


ci h >o ■* a v v co w>« - w 


1 w< 


cc 
1-1 


i-Tof r-4 r-TrH* 


^jT of i-T r-T 


|sf 




CD lO 03 iO — ' "<* >n ' •tC(-^-^"taOH-|>-'HfflXT)(pr 


Is 


CO 


co oi cr a; i- »n no • .*rj.rorocomxrHmxcooim oi m oi t^ co 


1 °° 


t- 


Oi o cs co »n x • 'HniHin^raTTr x ocoohj 


X 


00 


t-t i-H f-H r-i rH ■ • 


co" of I-T rH 


1 i-4 
OJ 




»TiiOCOCOOOiOCDXCO©OiCDCOCOCD^COCOin©CO^inol- J l"-CSCS 


o 


»ri 


O tt W 5 " 1 Tl ^ oLt-'OOQ^'-S'COOJOiiOlOCOrHaiaOOOSM 


CO 


t* 


S .-O tj. ^ CO t- rH COuOiOt-CiO t> m CO l- CO 


1 n 


00 
f-H 


rH i-h" CO" rH 


Of r-* Of r~* i-T 


Itf 




r>. ■*> r- Ol -* © -H IcOrHO — !>-C35ifi^f^rHOl>CDCftCO*CSiOift 


C7S 




Ci iO M I s - M t- f ■ t-«OJWM«WOVt- CD CO O CO CD OJ 




u:t* io»f. ^* o ■ -fiHt-TfioiNL"^ »—• -^tr-iooro 


1 r- < 


CO 


T-TrH rH i—" • 


•* i-T of ^ r-T 


1 m" 

1 o 




ectioHxa a • 


0--CO^OtOCJ:COCi010SOJ010iOCO ■"> H< 


CO 


N 00 Ol CO rH ir» . COOlXuO-iOCMOlrHGOr^O 


l> 


t- 


£- Oi iT.iOXT < 


o m x a n w a «n ■»**•— < m t* 


CD 


00 

I-H 


rjy? rS r-i . . 


t^" r-Tco" m" r-T 


CO 


oi 


05 m -«*« CO OJ Ol Ol 'f-H 
i0 O O -r Ol N • 


5HaofMoox«^oxi>H<aiflxec 

D'tOtDO-rrCiOIOI coOi-icd — rnriooro 


1 ^ 


t- 


in oi a ,-c o o ■ 


i> oo — wcjoatN r. t-mcom 


1 m 


00 
i-H 


I-H CO* I-H . 


rH m"rH r-T r-T CO*" CD" rH 


|tf 




ox^Niftoaw ■ 


-fom— 'r-ccinmo]0--coo»^ooioio;oo 


•rH 




O0 ."O C1COI' 


to j. o oo t* m '-c a x t> «o '«o i- .comcooorH 


OS 


t^ 


in Ol r-t CD Oi CO 


7-J r-.COr-T}-rH0 01 CO t-OICO^ 


CD 


CO 
H 


i-Tt* i-H ■ 


Of rH rH OJ i—> *rjT rH CD r-^ 

r-t 


Sf 






CS O • 


-rr (-— iO CO ■ • 


Or-OOCOCJmXO^-rrXCSOOOC'r^OlOl 


CO 




o 


O CO ■ 


-rf- CO CO CO • ■ 


XXCO-^.1- — r-uO-rJ-tnOlt-- X^TH- 


-rf 


l> 


t> o • 


Oi io to »o ■ ■ 


o> in i- ?: t a a ^ jo cooioiio 


rj» 


00 
I-H 


iH^T < 




rn" CD" CoTi-Tof TJT r-T 


CO 




O CO • 


CO tO CO 00 OI • 


cDi-Hroci-r»nxh-coinincocDir-ino»n • 


-r 


C) 


1—71 


I- -* IZ CO 


co a, a m o m- ^ :j h co ar:oa 


in 


O 


C- CO > 


CO -«* i<0 t- 


OI >n l- 71 :i M v H O ^ t— T CO ■ 


o 


00 
rH 


of co" ' 




Of Of CO' -hT CO" r-^ -**" T-? 






Oi in • 


O CO t- co • • 


mcoiomoiascooo— 'ooininoirH - co -h> ■ 


1 N 


CO 


CD iiO 


CD CO 1" O • • 


in in a "^ •"< ,o -)< v n h oho -coo> ■ 


** 


CO 


t- iO • 


^i coco . • 


0O CO OI CD L— »-. OS 00 U0-^P»-«' 


1 lO 


00 

I-H 


t-Tcf • 


~ : : 


rH NHOS* Of '• i-H 






CD 00 


X lO »i0 t>- ■ • 


i-H • 


lC O H- CD «0 Ol • 


IN • 


CO CO Ol • Ol t> • 


U 


t«I 


04 1- 


o oo m -h ■ 


Ol 


i.(Oi,HHin . 


•■H 


I- rH t— OS 


CD 


CD 


^ m 


UO OI OI ; * 


m ■ 


n Ol X l> Oi CO • 




r-i m • Ol Ol ' 


CO 


00 


rH f-T 


" : i 




P-T r-Trn'oir-f < 




of ' of • 


cs" 




OS Tf 


^ oaoo • r-i 


-rj< I 


U0 ■ C35 — < CO ■ 




OT 


CO CS OS ■ •* Ol 


CO 


CD 


CI Q0 


oosw • 


oo 


o> ■ co in co ■ 






CD CO ■ CO CO 


t— 


CD 


r-i 


COOl oioo « 


o • 


■«* ■ CO O rH • 






^Ji O • ^ rH 


cs 


OO 
r-i 






r-^ > 


rH ■ Of Ol* COT 






rH ■ r-f 


in" 




, , • c im a i • i-h 


m 


t- ■ cd m co « 






ncnce ' — r- 


00 


ifS 




CO t— 1— • ■ 


CO 


-r OJ "0 Ol 








Ol CO • -Cf Ol 


CO 


CD 


, 


CO rH < 


t- 


t- o«t- 








r-t CO ■ O Ol 


cs 


00 


• 






'• Of rH -rjr 








rH ; rn" 


of 

1,-T 




; 


oiwo ' ■ oa 


CO 


CO ' r-> t*-* 




■>|i m m >n • (M m 


CD 




CO in © ' • 


CD 


co • r^- cs co 




■^ IN l>- • C? CD 


•M 


■ 


CN OJ rH • • 


■V 


CO • Ol Oi CO 






CD rH • CO rH 


0B 


CO 

rH 


• 








co" 








t^* 




; 




• U0 t*« to • 'CO 


Ol 


OS '-*COH> 








CO X rH • CD Ol 


to 


CO 






■ CO CO OI • ' 


o 


rH . CO Ol T 








os m t- . r- tj« 


m 


CD 


a 




'I>IHH • • 


CO 


CO ■ 10 CD 








t^» Ol • CO l- 


CO 


CO 
f-H 


■ 








i-h" ■ of co" 








!of 


CO 


OD 


. 




:::::: 








; 




























0) 






! 1 ) '. ! '* 








] 
























'> 00 


H 


• 




i • • " 1 . • 








; 
























! "3 


rrj 


' 




! I ! ! i • 








; 
























! o 





' 




" ' i * ' ! 








1 






















-M 


ej 


', 




■ ■ t * < 1 








< 










1 e 











• T3 


09 


J « 


' c* ' : : *. 








£« 










I.Srt 


a 

id 03 


■4-» 


«8 « ^-= « 






! 




: t 




Is 




Hill H 




6 

- 


j 

r- 


■ a 

> a 

: = 

: a 


— a 

3ii 


ft 

SJ5 


a 
a 

5 


J c 

I c 

IS 


: 7 


- 

t 

> a 


J 

; a 

iiz 


C 


r 

c 
b 

a 

z 




- 
'Z 

-, 

a 
r 


1 

r 


1 C 


I 



=: 



O 

-1) 

M 
M 



00 
OO 



3 

u 

5 
&< 
o 

a 

i-l 

< 

« 

« 

o 

5 
w 

S5 
H 

H 

m 

H 

o 

a 
S 

H 

CS 
H 
Cm 

P 



51 



CLASSIFICATION OF MAIL MATTER. 

t„. „„™ 91 187Q Mr Krifer offered the folio win? proviso to the bill providing for the classiflca- 
Jannaty 23 I 1879. ^. ^euer Zwencr that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to ad- 

Ettto the ICml cla8 9 ™gMlaT pubUc ,< ions, specially designed for advertising purposes and not tor 

dissemination to regular paying subscribers.' 

Ido notSFsh to delay the progress of this bill, hut it is perhaps proper that I should 
rtate very briefly why I offered this amendment. I believe it is reported that under 
fcKuse similar to that contained in this section a man who was so unfortunate as to 
be at the sau e time the regular publisher of a paper and also the owner of a saw-mill 
?n the S county, inserted in one corner of his paper a notice in regard to sawing 
oU at h s saw-mil , whereupon the Post-Olhce Department decided that his paper 
Sough published regularly in all other respects, was primarily an advertising sheet 
a ,« therefore could not be' circulated at the ordinary rates of second-class mail 



matter. 

T 
any 



The obiect of my amendment is not to get into the law a provision which will allow 
ny kind of pnolfcation merely for the purpose of ad vertising sent out under any 
ff uL whatever, to advertise the business or occupation of the men pubbsh.ng it. I 
El* ^ drawn my amendment to guard this from any evil of that kind. I know of many 
nJblicaUons a^ other members tell me the same thing, I know notably ot one pub- 
Ficatiof T have the copy of the paperhere before me, that has over fifty thousand sub- 
Icribers' I i told ov r two thousand in the State of Texas, alone, which has very 
little advertising patronage, paid or unpaid, very little indeed as compared w.th 
anohe^ paper hJve in ,,. baud, and I am told the Department is disposed to rule 
this S r with regular subscribers does not come within the rule of second-class ma 1 
niatte^because it happens the publishers of the paper have another occupation if you 
Sease They ? are manufacturers; but if you will read the paper you wi 1 hardly fan I 
FSk-it is impossible to find a reference to their own manufacturing business m it 
invwhere and there are ninth-tenths of the entire print of general news for the peo- 
ple If thoy should happen to get in a reference to the business of their own, accord- 
ing to the present law it will beheld that it should be paid at the rate of third-class 

m i t bohUn I mThand what I picked up this evening, what I would call an advertising 
ahJt ■ it s Sled the New York Daily Commercial Bulletin. There are two or three 
co t ^ ha^ht"»e cabled general news matter; all the rest with the exception 
of soZl tt e commercial quotations, is advertising matter. I have seen h > Gom- 
mercial Advertiser of New York with less than a column of general news in it and all 
The rest paid matter that may go all over the «<>™%Xr^^ ^^"^ 
while another paper is to be excluded on a simple technicality. Ihe woui pri 
mar ilv" is in this bill, and I do not wish to mislead anybody, but I understand it 
Ssubstan^tlally toe language of the present law which is unjustly applied to pub- 

U Mr^W A.DDELL. If mv friend will allow me to interrupt him I will call his atten- 
tion to The l!rcuxd distinction between the paper from which he has read and a paper 

U ^K^Fl^f tlJisblp^su^for thepurpose of circulating with a regular list 

^S^^SmiTS^i^^^ a large amount of really interesting lit- 

&T m KEIFER. If it is merely to cover up, if the gentleman will pardon me gen- 
eral advertising business to be advertised by sending this out to persons not regular 
sutcriberMhen it is excluded in the mails as second-class matter under the ainend- 

m< Mr. W ADDELL. It is excluded under the amendment we propose. 

Mr' KEIFER. I want to still exclude it. r„„i„-w«, 

Mr WADDELL. Publications of that kind which contain a great deal of valuable 
literary matter, but which are sheets published for advertising purposes, are ex- 
cluded under our bill from the privileges ot this rate. 

Mr KEIFER My amendment excludes all publications specially designed foi ad- 
vertising purposes and not for dissemination of news to regular paying subscribers. 



52 



REDUCTION OF THE ARMY. 

February 4, 1879. An amendment was offered to reduce the number of enlisteil men in the Army. 

Mr. KEI PER said: 

Mr. Chairman: I do not desire to interfere particularly with this family quarrel 
-which lias so suddenly broken out on the other side of the House, for those who come 
in as interlopers sometimes do themselves no credit. If I could pour a little oil upon 
the troubled waters, I should be glad to do so. I wish, however, to say in opening 
that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Kimmel] who talks so vigorously against 
the dangers of a standing army forgets that only a short time since, July 20, 1877, the 
governor (Mr. Carroll) of his own State appealed almost piteonsly to the President of 
the United States to send to the city of Baltimore troops from the regular Army in 
order to put down a riot that could not be controlled by the militia and by the good 
citizens of the State of Maryland, and to this appeal the President responded. So 
much, then, for that. 

I desire, sir, also to state what I understand to have been a high compliment passed 
upon President Grant by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox]. I 
understand, stripped of the somewhat beautiful language in which he put it, that if 
it had not been for General Grant in the Presidential chair with the few troops gath- 
ered about the Capitol here, the decision of the Electoral Commission, approved and 
affirmed in this House and in the Senate, would have been overturned by violence 
and revolution.' That is the way I understood the. gentleman. In effect he said that 
but for a man in the Presidential chair who wielded the power and had the will to 
execute the Constitution and the laws as he was sworn to do we should have had 
revolution, violence, and everything else running riot in March, 1877, in this country; 
and we should have had a man put in the Presidential chair who was elected not by 
the people, not according to law and the Constitution, but put there and chosen after 
the regular election by organizations which would have come here, as threatened by 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio in his 8th of January speech, 1877 — put in the 
Presidential chair, perhaps, by that threatened hundred thousand men who were to 
come up here, inaugurate revolution, and overthrow the action of the duly constituted 
authorities of the Congress of the United States and of the Electoral Commission act- 
ing under law and by authority, and foist on this country a man defeated at the polls 
and also defeated in his attempt through bribery and corruption to buy the Presidency. 

1 am in favor of twenty five thousand men or more in the regular Army. Person- 
ally, and not speaking for my party or party friends around me now, I am in favor 
of a larger army than this bill provides for. I believe it would be economy for 
this Government to have an army that would stand guard, if you please, upon 
the borders of Texas and upon the borders of the Western frontier, and when 
we have that serenity there my friend from New York [Mr. Cox] speaks of, we would 
have an army to keep all things serene. It is bad policy to wait until blood has 
flowed, until the pioneer of the West has been driven from his home or murdered, and 
his property stolen or destroyed by the Indians, and until the Mexicans have crossed 
the Rio Grande and performed their work also of desolation and death among our citi- 
zens. It is our duty to prevent and not alone to punish outrages against our people. 
I have much sympathy for the frontiersmen. A sufficient army at all points will pre- 
vent outbreaks of all kinds, Mexican marauding and Indian wars. The experiences of 
the summer of 1877 prove that many of the States — not Ohio — had to appeal to the' 
regular Army to put down riots. 

The thieving and cowardly Mexican will not invade our borders if it is suitably 
guarded by regular troops. We owe to our citizens of the Texas-Mexican border 
ample protection. Everywhere else than within the geographical limits of the United 
States our Government makes haste to protect her citizens. It is time we were begin- 
ning to do it at home. 

Indian outbreaks will not take place if our frontier has upon it a proper complement 
of soldiers. No increase of the number of officers of the Army is needed ; but the ranks 
should be filled up. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. COX, of New York. I beg to correct the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] 
in some respects. I do not remember to have made the speech from which he quotes, 
on the 7th January, about the one hundred thousand men. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman misunderstood me. I spoke of the gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Ewing]. I spoke of the 8th of January speech. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I think the gentleman has in his mind some little loose 
talk about what was said about a gentleman from Kentucky at that time. 

Mr. KEIFER. No, sir; it was borrowed perhaps from that gentleman, but it was 
reiterated in the capitol at Columbus. 



53 



WAR CLAIMS. 

February 14, 1879. The bill for the relief of John T. Armstrong was under discussion. 
Mr. KEIFER said : 

I do not rise at this late hour of the day for the purpose of going generally into the 
question of war claims. We can hang as many speeches as we choose on that ques- 
tion ; and it seems to me each succeeding day this question is up we get some new views. 
Iu this we are cither taking better or worse ground than we have held to in the past. 
But let me say, if I understood the gentleman from Massachusetts rightly (and I tried 
to listen to him carefully) we are to understand his position to be this: that notwith- 
standing the fact a loyal claimant may come here from the South with a meritorious 
claim he is not to he paid, and a disloyal claimant is also not to be paid ; and that if 
we will enter into some sort of arrangement of that kind, drawing no distinctions be- 
tween loyalty and disloyalty on this floor, there may be such a change of seutiment in 
the North that before a great while the country will lie prepared to pension the con- 
federate soldier. If that is the position of the gentleman, and if it is not the gentle- 
man is certainly entitled to correct it now 

Mr. BUTLER. I never require, if my friend will allow me, necessity for the correc- 
tion of what I have said. I repeat that, whenever the question of the depletion of the 
Treasury by claims of anybody is put, I think the pity or the humanity of the North 
will take care of (he maimed men of the war; and if yon want to know, I say that I 
see no more reason why a confederate soldier, maimed and crippled in the honest dis- 
charge of what In- considered to be his duty, should not be pensioned than why a con- 
federate soldier who honestly believed he was doing his duty should be put into aRe- 
publican Cabinet. 

Mr. KEIFER. I invited the gentleman from Massachusetts, in order that there 
should be no mistake about his position, to restate his position ; and I was successful 
in getting himto restate it. We all understand him now. I invited the distinguished 
gentleman to restate his ease, although in the first place it was very well stated. Now, 
as the gentleman from Massachusetts is in favor of pensioning the confederate soldier, 
he is therefore, according to his reasoning, faking flu.' antithesis of all he had to say, 
in favor of putting a confederate into a. Republican Cabinet. 

Mr. BUTLER. I have never said that, 

Mr. KEIFER. But that must follow. He is in favor of both, as he puts them exactly 
on a par; when he is in favor of one, he must be in favor of the other. 

Mr. BUTLER. No, sir. 

Mr. KEIFER. I should be, at least if I were in favor of pensioning the rebel 
soldier. 

Mr. BUTLER. But I have not said so. Will the gentleman allow me ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Oh, yes; I always try to be polite to the gentleman. 

Mr. BUTLER. I have not said I am now in favor of it, nor do I think the country 
has yet come up to it; but when we have withdrawn all causes of difficulty, so that 
nobody from the North will object to a confederate soldier being iu the Cabinet, then 
I say humanity will bring 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman has already stated his proposition. The gentleman 
undertakes by fair inference to say the present Administration is only a short step iu 
advance of him ; he has not yet come to the time when he is in favor of putting con- 
federates into the Cabinet and pensioning confederate soldiers, but bethinks he will 
soon reach a point where he will favor both. 

Mr. BUTLER. Neither one nor the other now. 

Mr. KEIFER. Not yet ; but he thinks he is very nearly there ; " almost persuaded. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to misreoresent anybody; I have been one of 
those upon this floor from the beginning who have insisted steadily, persistently, and, 
as nearly as I could, consistently, upon making a distinction between loyal and dis- 
loyal claimants so far. aud so far only, as loyal claimants have come here and presented 
claims well proved for supplies furnished to the army and which were used by the 
army. All other (lasses of claims for damages growing out of the general ravages of 
war, .and all other claims of a kindred character we alike strike down, whether pre- 
sented by the loyal or the disloyal men. But I want to enter my protest again here 
against the idea of voting money to rebuild, to reconstruct, and to carry on educa- 
tional institutions where treason has been steadily fostered and where it may yet be 
fostered in the future. The gentleman from Massachusetts favors the payment of such 
claims, I believe. 

Mr. AIKEN. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I will in a moment. I am opposed to an institution of learning, 
destroyed by the accideuts of war, being rebuilt out of the public Treasury in 



54 

which the doctrine, the fundamental doctrine taught in it was against that princi- 
ple of Ihe Declaration of Independence, which held that " all men were created 
equal " and where also the doctrine was inculcated in all the students ot the n.stitu- 
ti.'m thai slavery was a divine institution, and wherein was indorsed and taught the 
principle which I once hefore quoted on this floor and found in the constitution of 
the Confederate States. I refer to the clause prohibiting any law ever being marie 
that would in any way impair the right to hold human beiugs as slaves. Now I will 
yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aiken]. . ,. , . 

Mr AIKE'V I would ask the gentleman this question : On his reasoning, it he is 
opposed to giving appropriations or help to institutions which have sent abroad men 
who favored i he rebellion in this Government, how can he conscientiously vote, for 
appropriations to West Point? How can he defend Northern institutions at which 
Southern men have graduated? Why vote for West Point appropriations when the 
leading men of the Confederate, army all graduated there? 

Mr KEIFER. The gentleman has put a very fine question, a very rehned one. It 
it happened in the, past that students who came to the North from the South, where 
thevhad drank in at the fountain-head and been taught i n the cradle the doc- 
trine of State rights, and that slavery was a divine institution, attended a Northern 
institution, then went back to their own people and still in some cases concurred in 
their early views, the gentleman says my reasoning would have us destroy that insti- 
tution or never rebuild it if destroyed. My reasoning does not go to any such extent 
as that Bat I do not object to the gentleman asking the question. He refers also 
to West Point. We hope and expect now that only loyal sentiments, true patriotism, 
and that 'this Republic is a nation not a mere league, will be taught at West Point 
to military cadets, and hence I am willing to vote appropriations to carry it on. 
Southern men have learned much by the lesson of the war. . 

1 have some other suggestions I desire to make. It has been very common on this 
floor for those who take great pains always to oppose the payment of the claim 
of a loyal man to say that' there were no loyal men down South during the war. 1 
want to call attention to the fact that the records of tin- War Department, and I say 
it to the credit of the Southern Slates, will show that above seventy thousand white 
men. from the, seceded States entered the Union Army. I here give them to yon by 
States The number of men sent from those States is as follows: Virginia, 85; JNortn 
Carolina, 3,575; Georgia, 152; Alabama, 2,471 ; Florida, 1,286 ; Mississippi, bSl ; 
Louisiana, ?,357; Texas, 2,444 ; Arkansas, K,627 ; and Tennessee, 27,637 making a 
total ol of 52 715. In addition to this number about twenty thousand white, troops 
from these States (mostly from Tennessee and Alabama) were enlisted as refugees in 
organizations not embraced in the foregoing, making a, grand total of over seventy 
thousand white loyalists who stood by the Government in its hour of danger. And 
even this does uot'incln le several thousand whose actual presence swelled the ranks 
of the Arravof theRepublic but whose real numbers cannot he, known. _ 

It is to be presumed that some of the loyal men South did not go into the Union 
Armv. I know instances of men from Mississippi, Georgia, and other Southern States, 
for I have had occasion t(> examine into their history, who stood out against their btates 

when they seceded, against their friends, their brothers, and fought the doctrine of 
secession and upheld the flag of the Union to the end, and who were trampled into 
the dust in every conceivable way during the war. We prohibited them, and right- 
fully perhaps, from coming here or going to the courts and having their claims adjustea 
and' paid because they do not consist solely of claims tor supplies. _ _ 

lint I am not here to go into that question. I have another purpose in view. When 
gentlemen have suddenly become converted to some new doctrine we are naturally 
fuspicious and cast about for the reason why. I witnessed some ot the same geutle- 
ni .n seated here uow, within the last ten days allowing a bill to go through this 
House by unanimous consent, reported by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. EdemJ, 
the. chairman of the Committee on War Claims, appropriating half a million ol dol- 
lars for .just that class of claims that gentlemen are constantly, when a special chum 
comes up. declaiming against. 

Mr. FINLEY. Why did. not the gentleman object ? 

Mr KEIFER. l did not object because 1 believed it was right. But gentlemen who 
want to make cheap capital when they have a, special case to deal With, and a toy .1 
man's case is up and not the case of a disloyal man, did not rise to oppose, that lull. 
Their object is to make capital before the country. I did not rise because it has been 
the policy of the Government to pay these claims, and it was right to pay them. 1 
will state further that within the next t wo weeks there will be another bill ot the 
same character parsed by the House appropriating over |200,000 for claims, mostly 
from the State of Tennessee and Kentucky of loyal men for supplies furnished the 
Armv.lurin..- the war, based on claims examined by the Quartermasters Department 
and the department of the Commissary ot Subsistence, ami allowed by the prop -r ac- 
counting officers. It issaid we have voted away to this class of claimants $10u,Uuu,UW. 
Well now, was that right » If it was not, t lieu gentlemen took a long time in learning 



55 

whether it was right or not. Tt has been the policy of the Government for many 
years, if not from the beginning, and it is too late to turn round upon it now. 

If we will go back a little further to the time when the war raged, even to the pe- 
riod when the first army crossed into Virginia, from Ohio, led by McClellan, and 
when we had some gold in the Army chests, we paid loyal and disloyal men alike 
for the supplies that we took. When the United States was fortunate enough to 
have money in ninny of Ihe campaigns, for good reasons and wise purposes, per- 
haps, loyal and disloyal alike weiepaid for supplies for the Army. 

But when we got through the war, and when we had come to the end of it, we es- 
tablished a principle that cutoff all disloyal persons' claims, even lor supplies; but we 
said that we would pay loyal men for supplies, and we have continued to act upon 
that principle up to the present time. And now let me say, as 1 conclude, that any 
loyal man who has not been guilty of sonic sort of laches in presenting his claim when 
the Court of Claims had .jurisdiction I woild still he in favor of paying ; all others 
I would reject. I am not prepared to say that the claim now under consideration 
should be paid. 

It is proposed by the Committee on War Claims to report a bill fixing a limit within 
which panics must present their claims to the Quartermaster and Commissary de- 
partments, or have them forever barred. 

1 want to say further, in conclusion, that I would not surrender at anv time the 
just claims of loyal men, North or South, in order that by so doing it might have 
some effect in softening Ihe hearts of the people, as the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts hopes, to the point of pensioning Confederate soldiers. 



56 



THE COAST AND INTERIOR SURVEYS. 

February 18, 1879. Pending consideration of the legislative, &c, appropriation bill, various propo s 
tions regarding public surveys were discussed. 

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

Mr. Chairman : There is some difficulty in understanding clearly what is intended in 
this hill. One thing is perfectly clear, that a system which has worked well in this 
country for a great many years is to be struck down and a system established which 
is to depend wholly upon the discretion of a single man. It is an anomaly in our 
legislation to say that we shall by law strike down a well-established system, carried 
on for many years successfully, and establish another one which will be utterly iu con- 
flict with all our laws iu relation to the public land. By this bill it is provided that 
the Superintendent of the Coast and Interior Surveys shall establish such a system as 
he pleases and change it from time to time as he pleases. 

A gentleman upon this side of the House, the other day, seemed to think that we 
had arrived at a time when it was absolutely necessary to change the system of sur- 
veys. He said that in our surveys, going westward, we had arrived, to use his own 
language, at the "foot-hills of the Rocky Mountain chain," and our present system 
of surveys are no longer applicable. 

Now let me call the attention of the committee to one fact, that so far as the sur- 
veys in the Rocky Mountains and mining regions generally are concerned this hill has 
upon its face the confession that the new system or any new system would be an utter 
failure. It provides that in the future all the, surveys of the mineral lands shall be 
done by deputy surveyors, according to the present law. It is proposed under the 
provisions of this bill which we are about to pass to survey from the foot of the Rocky 
Mountains upto their top, and across them, and divide them into sections and quarter 
sections, or other divisions. This new system, whatever it is to be, if it. is a radical 
change from the old one, will be a total failure in every sense, and all we shall have 
done will be to derange the well-established system for dividing the public lands into 
townships, sections, and quarter-sections; a system perfectly familiar to all the people 
of the Western country, as is evidenced by the strenuous opposition that is made here 
by almost every person representing the Western States. There may be an exception 
ortwo to this. These men, representing their constituents, who are so deeply inter- 
ested in this question, should be heard. They are properly alarmed at the threatened 
legislation. Why was not the. subject brought up as a separate bill and not hitched 
on an appropriation bill ? In this way we are forced to take much of our vicious leg- 
islation. 

It is proposed to force upon a people who well know their wants and needs iu this 
regard a system that is to derange everything. The gentleman said our surveys are 
inaccurate, and this was said by a gentleman who ought to have known how these 
surveys are carried on. If lines are under our present system run so as not to 
meet exactly, they are adjusted from time to time. The fortieth parallel is a base- 
line extending west from the Missouri River. It is the boundary-line between Kansas 
and Nebraska. From this base-line township-lines are run off, numbering north and 
south. There are also established principal-meridian lines running north and south, 
from which ranges are numbered east and west. By this system some inaccuracies 
are possible, but they cannot be very great. A township of land is quite easily desig- 
nated by the numbers of the township and range, and it is easily found. The whole 
system is very simple and well understood. Almost every man who is in any way in- 
terested in the agricultural lands of our country can himself find a quarter section of 
land after he has the section, township, and range. All this it is now proposed to 
change, and allow one officer to at his own will substitute some other. We are to em- 
bark upon an open field of experiment. This I am opposed to. 

Sir, we caunot change the system without great public injury. We have sold our 
lands and granted them to railroad companies, and if we change the system, in the 
future we are to have nothing but confusion among the people familiar with the pres- 
ent system. Many of our laws would have to be materially changed, and especially 
our pre-emption and homestead laws. Some gentlemen say on this floor there will be 
no material change. I do not choose to trust any one man or a board of mou on so 
important a subject. 

I have said all I desire to say, and I ask no man to vote fortius part of this bill upon 
the idea or mistaken belief that we have arrived at the point when we must from 
necessity change our entire land system. 

Now as to these mineral lands in the mountain regions, nobody ever thought that 
we would want to divide them into townships, sections, and quarter sections. They 
are only valuable for mineral lands, and I trust the Government will not indulge in 
the great folly of surveying its mountain lands and layingthem off under any system 
of survey into sections or other land divisions for any purpose in the world. 



57 



THE ELECTION LAWS. 

February 19, 1879. The legislative, &e., appropriation bill was again under consideration, and it was 
proposed to repeal the election laws. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman: During this entire Congress the majority on the floor of this House 
have not been found in any single instance in favor of a law that would put an end 

to fraud, violence, and intimidation in connection with our elections. Not one mem- 
ber of that side of the House has ever suggested or done by word or vote anything 
that would put an end to the fraud, violence, intimidation, and murders that are 
known to exist all over the South at each recurring election. Not one man on that 
side (if the House has sought in any way to do anything to purify the ballot-box, but 
all have favored free fraud in our elections. By a free election is .meant in Democratic 
eyes full freedom in the work of ballot-box stuffing, intimidation, bulldozing, and what- 
ever else will prevent a full, fair, and honest expression of the will of all persons who 
have under our Constitution and laws the right to exercise the elective franchise. 

The gentleman who ottered this amendment [Mr. Southard] states in commenda- 
tion of it (and he limits it there) that it is in the interest of economy — as though dol- 
lars and cents were to be measured here against fraud, violence, and murder. Another 
gentleman, who represents the Stare of Maryland [Mr. Hkxki.r], tells us to-day (and 
perhaps he is a prophet) that history repeats itself. Yea. it will repeat itself unless 
we call a halt soon. We will go back to everything that is terrible and awful in the 
history of this Republic if we do not put a stop to the fraud and violence sought to 
be forced upon the people of this country. At this very moment we an; engaged as 
political iconoclasts in tearing down that which stands here as a protection to Ameri- 
can liberty. 

Talk about history repeating itself! Why, sir, the great taper of the ballot-box (Mr. 
Tilden) in 1868 was indorsed in h Q 7o by the Democratic party. He was convicted in 
■ by Horace Greeley as the head and front of all the promoters of fraud upon the 
ballot-box in the State of New York; and after his full conviction, and after the Dem- 
ocratic parry indorsed Mr. Greeley in 1872, they then turned around, history repeating 
itself, and indorsed Mr. Tilden again by giving him their vote for President of the 
United States. 

If we go on tearing down all the barriers of this Government we may conic again 
to what we have seen in the past — red-handed war. . 

I be*; you, gentlemen on the other side, to pause in your career before if is too late. 
And the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Hooker] to-day cries "unconstitutional" 
as against these election laws. That is the cry raised by the Democrats when we 
sought to put down the rebellion. Democi id it was unconstitutional to save 

this fair Republic of ours. Ir has been the cry of the Democratic party ever since I 
knew it. That party, through its leaders, said it was unconstitutional when war was 
waged against the Union to preserve any Constitution at all. 

Now let me say in conclusion to the Democrats North that all the recruits they have 
which to-day make them strong on this floor come from the success of the Republican 
party in taking the bayonet, sword, and musket from the great body of the Democrats 
South and rehabilitating them again with the rights of the ballot, and the Republi- 
can party has never been thanked for all this. [Laughter and applause.] 



58 



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 

February 21, 1879. A bill involving the validity of certain contracts was np. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. ChaikmAn: I do not rise to discuss this bill. The gentleman in charge of the hi IT, 
■who is familiar with all the evidence, has stated all that is necessary to be stated in 
reference to ir, except what the report shows. I d > not rise to say that the authority 
read by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Bragg] is anything else than sound law. 
I want it distinctly understood, so far as t he Committee on War Claims are concerned, 
that that decision is quite familiar to its members. But the trouble is it does not go 
far enough. 

I admit that The Supreme Court of the United States has held that under a statute 
contracts made by quartermasters and commissaries of.subsistence must have the ap- 
proval of the Quartermaster-General and the Chief Commissary of Subsistence before 
they can be binding. In a much more recent case decided by the unanimous voice of 
the Supreme Court of the United States that very question has been reviewed, and 
the case cited by the gentleman from Wisconsin has been affirmed in a ease where a 
quartermaster made a contract for the use of a steamboat which was used for Govern- 
ment purposes. In that case, alter affirming fully the, doctrine of the case read by the 
g< ntlenian, which is known commonly as the Filor case, the Supreme Court went fur- 
ther and decided that the mere fact of making a contract which was not binding did 
not cut off the rights of the party who furnished the property which the Government 
had the benefit of. 

Mr. BRAGG. Wi'l the gentleman allow me to put a question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. BRAGG. I ask the gentleman whether that decision was not the result of an 
advantage gained by the plaintiif upon an issue made on a plea that had not been 
properly replied to ? 

Mr. KEIFER. No, sir; it was not. It was the result of the party claiming notonly 
that the contract made was valid, but upon another count of the pleadings claiming 
that he was entitled to recover upon the quantum meruit. Now to give a full answer 
to the gentleman I will ask the Clerk to read a single paragraph from the opinion of 
the court in the case of Clark vs. The United States, decided at the October term, 
1877. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

We do not mean to say that where & parol contract lias been wholly or partially executed or tier" 
formed on one side the party perfi rming will not be entitled to recover the fair value of his property 
or services. On the contrary, we think that be will be entitle! to recover such value as up >u an im- 
plied contract. In the present case the implied contract is such as arts -s from a simple bailment for 
hire; and the obligations of the parties aie those which are incidental to such a hail meat. The s >ecial 
contract being void, the claimant is thrown bark upon the rights which result from the implied eon- 
tract. This will cast the loss of the vessel upon him. A bailee for hire is only responsible f >r ordinary 
diligence and liable for ordinary negligence in the care of the property bailed. This is not only the 
common law hut the general law on the subject. 

Mr. KEIFER. In this case it was sought to recover the value of the vessel destroyed 
while under the control of the Government. Of cours s the Supreme Court declared 
there was no question of negligence involved, and the real owners of the vessel must 
suffer that loss; but the court goes on to say that, notwithstanding th • contract uiider 
which the vessel was taken was void, the Government of the United States ha, 1 the 
use of it and was bound to pay a full and fair equivalent for such use 'luring the time 
the Government, used it [trior to its destruction. In other words, the Supre.ne Court 
of the Unite, 1 States recognized the principle that the Government of the United 
States has no higher rights as between itself a i I an indivi lual than an individal 
would have as between himself and another individual. The, Unite I S'ates Govern- 
ment, has no right with reference to its own citizens to turn round and say, " We took 
your property; we havensed it; we have had the benefit of it; but we d dthis through 
officers who technically did not make a good contract, and fcheref >re we will not pay 
anything for the use, or occupation of such property. In other words, we have had 
anil used the means that enabled us to get t h i benefit of property wit bout paying for 
it; and now before the people of this countryand before the world we wi. I justify our- 
selves by standing on a technicality and robbing our own citizens." 

Mr. BRAGG. Was there a single question involved in the Clark case that was in- 
volved in the case which I read; Did it turn upon a single question 

Mr. KEIFER. Exactly the same question— permit me to auswer as you go along— 
exactly the same question was involved in the Clark case as i i the Filor case, so far 
as regards t ho validity of the contract uuder which the steamboat was taken posses- 
sion of. 

Mr. BRAGG. No, sir. 



59 

Mr. KEIFER. And the Supreme Court expressly affirm the doctrine of the Filor 
case iii saying that the contract was void, ami on that contract, as alleged in one count 
of the pleadings, there could be, no recovery whatever; but. upon the doctrine of the 
quantum meruit tin* court say that the United States arc liable for the use of the vessel 
during the time ir was used by the Government. 

Mr. BRAGG. Now will the gentleman let me finish my question 1 

Mr. KEIFER. I have answered one, I hope. 

Mr. BRAGG. You have only answered part of it. Yon put this on the question of 
quantum meruit. The question I desired yon to answer was whether in the Clark case 
it was the exercise of the sovereign power of the Government against the people who 
were in insurrection, where liy the powers given the Government under the laws of 
nations they bad the right to seize and take, and did seize and take — whether the Su- 
preme Court of I he United States said a quantum meruit would lie? 

Mr. KEIFER. Now, Mr. Chairman, the United States in this case— in the Clark 
ease — assumed that a contract, where a vessel is in the Southern waters 

Mr. BRAGG. I want the fads. • 

Mr. KEIFER. I have the printed opinion here of Judge Bradley, but my opinion 
is 

Mr. BRAGG. I want the facts, and not opinion. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not know whether this discussion has much to do with the 
merits or principles of this bill, but I had it read in answer to the argument of the 
gentleman, in which hedaims that where technically a contract is void it is the duy 
of members of Congress to stand np and say the United States shall not deal justly 
with its own loyal "citizens. That is the only question, I believe, that is left in this 
Case. _ 

Some gentlemen have inquired where the shipwas taken possession of. I Hunk 
somewhere ill the Gnlf of Mexico: I am not certain. But I remember another ques- 
tion spoken of in the Clark case. It was a vessel purchased by Clark of the confed- 
eracy, and the question was raised whether Clark could recover on that account. 
The. Supremo Court held that it was unimportant. As a matter of right Clark was 
entitled to recover, notwithstanding he bought the vessel originally from the Southern 
Confederacy . 



YELLOW FEVER EPIDEMIC. 

March 1, 1879. Pending consideration of bill to prevent the intro.luction of contagious diseases. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

1 do not think that we should draw any very fine sight when we are dealing with 
this question. I have no disposition to speak here a- if I were prepared to lecture 
members of this Congress for the levitj that has been exhibited in relation to this most 
important question. 

I have fell this afternoon and this even inn' as though this country, the people of the 
North as well as of the South, would not excuse this House if we went home without 
passing some thoroughly efficient law looking to a preveuti n, as far as possible, of 
this dread disease in onr country. .... 

Some men talk here as though we were legislating only for Louisiana or Mississippi, 
or some of the extreme Southern States, where this disease was at its worst. I remem- 
ber that The disease invaded my own State, and i he most healthful portion of it. My 
colleague [Mr. Ewing] will remember that in portions of his district the yellow fever 
appeared and swept oft' the citizens without regard to their statio i in life. It was not 
confined to those who live in hovels, but it attacked the very be.vt of our citizens. 

There is another consideration. If this disease is not likely to reach the Nor h at 
all, if it is never to invade Ohio. Pennsylvania. New York, or any of the Northern 
Stat- s. we should remember that when last yearitwas spreading through the Southern 
States and depopulating towns and cities almost, we in the North heard the cry for 
relief, and there was hardly a. village, city, or hamlet that did not p ur out from its 
means what could he spared for the purpose of alleviating the suffering people of the 
South. Should that time again come, we in the North will feel that wo are interested 
in our fellow-citizens of the South, ami will again assist so far as is in our power. 

We have already had to-day a vote upon the question whether weshall inject into 
this most important national measure the question of State rights. I wish there were 
not so many patentscmour Constitution. Weget out one every few days. This House 
has spoken' on that question and .-aid that we will not legislate or attempt to carry 
this principle of State rights into so important a question as this. Now let us go back 
upon our Bteps, and if possible get at the Senate lull and pass it. If there arc any 
amendments needed to it, as suggested by the committee, Ictus make those amend- 
ments and then pass the hill, so that when your yavel falls, Mr. Speaker, at twelve 
o'clock on Tuesday next, we can say that wo have passed at least one law looking to 
the preveutiou of the plague in our country. 



60 



(Forty-sixth Congress.) 
REPRESENTATIVES FROM CINCINNATI, OHIO. 

March 18, 1879. Ou the petition of citizens of Cincinnati in regard to Congressional elections held in 
that city. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I undersood the gentleman to state that lie was presenting a petition from twenty- 
three citizens of Cincinnati — " protninent citizens," as he calls them — a petition af- 
fecting the seats of two memhers of this House now sworn in. 

Now, I say that under the statute there could he no contest, and we could not take 
cognizance in any way of this petition so far as it asks action at our hands. If it is a 
mere petition, which the Constitution gives to every citizen of the United States the 
right to present, then it ought to go to the petition box ; or the gentleman presenting 
it, if he desires it to lie read and printed in the Record, should ask unanimous con- 
sent for that purpose. His object now, I suppose — I may be mistaken — is to have this 
p aper read before the Congress of the United States and published in the. Record to- 
morrow morning, and beyond that nothing; for nothing cau come of it beyond the 
mere publication to the country. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Do I understand the gentleman to say that it is incompetent for 
this House, under that provision of the Constitution which authorizes it to judge of 
the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, to take cognizance of 
this matter unless there .ire regular contests by some other persons claiming the 
seats ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I have said nothing of the kind. I am very much pleased to answer 
the question and to say that under the Constitution of th ■*. United States Congress has 
seen 'tit to provide by law a. method of attacking the right of any person claiming a 
seal in this House, and under that Legislation we have been professingto proceed for 
a great many years, if not throughout the entire history of the Government. Now it 
is proposed, I suppose, if the gentlernm meaus anything by his question, to override 
the law and adopt a ]\^\v method without first providing a new law. 

The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Carlisle] and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. McMahon], my colleagae, both seem to understand tin- Constitution of the 
United States very well; but they seem fco think, for the first time at Least expressed 
upon this tloor, that the Constitution executes itself, and that a law which has been 
passed fco carry out that provision of the Constitution is utterly nngatory. I know 
the Constitution provides that this House shall he the judge of the qualification and 
election of its memhers. Suppose, if they carry that out, they should say this House 
has power to vote out any member sworn in and fco vote in any person they hud any- 
where ou' side, as a mere matter of power. But the law undertakes to direct here what 
we shall do and how we shall proceed ; and it is a matter of procedure or practice, if 
gentlemen choose to call it so— it is a matter of procedure. We find here a petition 
offered for the sole purpose of getting it into the Ukcord, so far as we are able to 
learn from the gentleman presenting it. Do these twenty-three, persons intend to 
prosecute the inquiry? Have they any standing upon which to doit either under the 
law or Constitution ? 

I wish to state that this attack is the only step which it is professed these men cau 
take, and therefore they have no standing here except as mere petitioners, such as 
they may have under the Constitution, hut not for the purpose of putting into the 
RECORDa long charge against a member; and I trust the Speaker will make himself 
quite faniiliar with this petition before passing upon it He will find they are attack- 
ing members of this House who have already been sworn in, who have rights, and it 
is proper we shuold know how they are doing it. 



61 



ARMY AT THE POLLS. 

Mar 28. 1879. Pending the Army appropriation bill, which contained a section relating to the use 

of troops at places of elections. A point of order was raised against the section. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I understood the gentleman in charge of this bill [Mr. Sparks] to say in discuss- 
ing this point of order that we are now engaged simply in an effort to repeal a law. 
and as that was all the work we were now engaged in, and as it related to the use of 
the Army, it was therefore germane to this bill to attach to it the class of legislation 
contained in section 6 of the bill, lie also stated that it might be or was in the in- 
terest of economy to repeal the sections of our statutes relating to the use of the 
Army at the polls. 

I also understood the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rkagan] to state 
that because the bill- under consideration related to the Army we had a particular 
right to legislate upon it in any way we choose on any matter that appertained to the 
Army, and that it would he germane to the bill to put on any such legislation. Now 
I think both of those gentlemen have spoken inconsiderately and inadvertently, and 
that neither of them will upon due reflection undertake to stand upon their state- 
ments. 

In the first place, this is not a work of repeal which we are engaged in. It is a 
work of making that which was hitherto a duty, made so by law, a crime— a crime 
entirely new, wholly new, in connection with officers of the Army and officers of the 
Navy and the civil officers of this Government. Never before, I believe, iu the his- 
tory of this country has it been attempted to make it a crime for an officer of the 
Army or an officer of the Navy or a marshal of the United States or a deputy mar- 
shal of the United States to keep the peace. This proposed legislation is intended 
to do that. Then I say to the gentleman from Texas, this is not Legislation that per- 
tains to the Army alone. If undertakes to make it a high crime, punishable by 
fine and imprisonment, for any civil officer of the United States to appear on election 
day at the polls with an armed body of men, not troops, not United States soldiers, 
but to go with an armed body of men to the polls to quell a riot. That will be the 
express effect of this proposed legislation. 

It does not change the old section altogether, but it re-enacts the section iu such 
form as to make for the first time a civil officer guilty of a crime if he carries out ex- 
isting law. Under the present law, by the statutes of the United States and at com- 
mon law, it is made tin- imperative duty of marshals, deputy marshals, and all the 
constabulary force of the United States to put down riots and to suppress all kinds 
of disorder everywhere in the United States within their respective districts when 
such riots and disorders come under their observation and personal notice. This I 
islation undertakes to make it a crime for those officers to do this if they go with 
armed men to do it — not soldiers, but armed men. They may go with feathers in their 
hands without violating the law : but when armed force is to be resisted, when it 
becomes necessary to quell rioters with arms in their hands, persons gathered to- 
gether for the purpose of murder, intimidation, or whatever else it may he, the mar- 
shals and their deputies, whose duty it is now by law to quell such disturbances and 
restore and preserve peace, must go without any armed men with them; others 
under this proposed legislation they will be guilty of a high crime. 

Mr. KNOTT. Will my friend allow me to call his attention to section 5528 ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir: that is one of the sections we are now dealing with, in 
which we propose to strike out the words " to keep the peace at the polls." That is 
all we propose to do, so as to make the penalties provided by these sections when re- 
enacted apply first to military officers, second to naval officers, third to civil officers 
of the United States wTien they come with troops or armed men to suppress a riot or 
any other kind of disorderly and illegal organization of men at the polls. Now, when 
the marshal or deputy marshal comes, as it is his duty to come, to quell a riot, he has 
the right to summon the law-abiding citizens of the community to obey his orders, to 
go if you please armed — to become his^osse comitatus in quelling such disturbances. 
But this proposed legislation takes away from the marshals and other civil officers of 
the United States who are charged with similar duties the power of putting down a 
riot on election day at the polls aud makes it a high crime punishable by fine and im- 
prisonment if such an officer undertakes to do it. This does not relate to the Army 
and Navy alone, but to the civil side of the Government. This is the work we are 
engaged in. 

Hence I insist that this proposed legislation is not germane to the Army appro- 
priation bill. It is not germane because it affects officers of the Navy ; and this is 
not a naval bill. It is not germane because it affects civil officers of the Government. 
It is not germane in any sense. If the legislation proposed as a whole includes any- 
thing not within the rule it must all fall together. 



62 

Mr. CHALMERS. The gentleman speaks of this being a new crime. Will he tell 
me when it was first allowed by law that the Army should be used at the polls to 
keep tlie peace? 

Mr. KE'FER. When the Government was organized, when we first had an army 
of tlie United States, it became the duty of that army under certain circumstances 
to quell riots, to put down men engaged in any sort of disorderly conduct, whether 
at the polls or at church or wherever else in the country; and this has always been 
the law up to the present hour. 

Mr. CHALMERS. The gentleman will permit me to correct him. 

Mr. KEIFKR. I will not permit the gentleman to make a speech in the middle of 
mine; I will permit him to put a question. 

Mr. CHALMERS. Then I ask the gentleman whether he does not kuow that this 
law was enacted in b*(V> for the first time? 

Mr. KEIFER. Ah, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman entirely misunderstands the leg- 
islation on this subject, althongh he is a very excellent lawyer. For the first time, 
in 18ii5. there was enacted a statute making it a crime for any officer of the Army or 
the Navy or any civil officer of the Government to interfere on election day for any 
purpose except in repelling the armed enemies of the United States or in keeping the 
peace. But from the beginning of the, Government to the present hour it has always 
b< en the right and the duty of rhe officers of 'ie Army and the Navy, as well as cer- 
tain civil officers of tlie United States, to keep the peace everywhere 

Mr. SPARKS. The gentleman will allow me to ask him whether there is any stat- 
ute to that effect enacted prior to 18(>"> ; and, if so, where is it? 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sparks], as I understood him, 
a«ked whether prior to the act of February 25, 1865, there was any law on the subject 
of the use of troops at the polls. That is the way I understood him. Now let me say 
to him and to other members, that was the first time in the history of the country, so 
far as I know, that there was any restraining statute upon our statute-books at all iu 
relation to the use of troops at the polls or anywhere else iu the United States, and 
that legislation prohibited the use of troops and armed men at the polls by military, 
naval, or civil officers in the service of the Government, except for the purpose of re- 
pelling armed enemies of the United States or jto keep the peace at the polls. Those 
two cases were excepted in this legislation passed by a Republican Congress, and we 
propose that this legislation shall remain as it now is, so that it shall not be said, as 
a reproach and a stigma upon this country, that we have officers, military, Laval, and 
civil, whose duty it is by law, under penalties, to keep the peace everywhere, save and 
except on one day at least in each year these, officers shall he required to fold their arms 
and look on and witness riot, murder, intimidation, or anything else of an unlawful 
character going on hefore their eyes, or he subject to severe penalties. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
McLank] to say that he did not agree with my friend on the right [Mr. FRYE] in his 
statement in regard to the power and duty of the President of the United States in re- 
lation to the movement of troops. I understood him to state as a reason why he did 
not concur in my friend's statement that we had the power to regulate the President 
of the United States iu his government of the Army. I unde 'ood the logic of that 
to be that it is the duty of Congress, and its right whenever e have a war, or that 
which is akin to it, insurrection, riots, or domestic violence, or whatever else arises in 
the country to put down which the Army is required — that it is the right and the duty 
of Congress, in the first instance, as each impending battle or engagement comes on, 
to meet in debate and consider just how the President shall order his troops to go into 
battle. I understood that to be the entire logic of the gentleman's position. He be- 
lieves that the President must withhold his orders and act as the mere mouth-piece 
of Congress. In his view the President of the United States must wait until Congress 
has said, "Move your troops to the right or the left; charge upon the right, or the left, 
or the center, and so on." I do not understand that to be any part of the duty of 
Congress; and let me say I think perhaps it is the first time it was ever stated upon 
the floor of Congress that Congress had any such extraordinary right. The Constitu- 
tion gives to the President as Commander-in-Chief the absolute right and the power to 
move the Army or Navy when raised as he pleases, when an emergency has arisen or 
war has been declared. By the second section of the second article of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States the President is made the Commander-in-Chief of the Army 
and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called 
into the actual service of the United States; and together with other powers given to 
him he has the right to move the Army whenever and wherever it is necessary to move 
it. The Piesident is by the Constitution clothed with all the powers incideut to a 
commander-in-chief, and such power cannot be taken away by law. We may pass 
laws for the governmen." of the Army, but not to restrict and restrain the President's 
constitutional power so he cannot use it effectually and efficiently in time of war or 
any other time when it is necessary to call that strong arm of the Government into 
requisition. 



63 



SOUTHERN CLAIMS COMMISSION. 

April 15, 1879. Pending the consideration of the legislative, &e., appropriation bill, an amendment 
was offered to repeal tlie law under which the Southern Claims Commission was organized. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I h;id expected to bear some argument offered by the gentleman who submits this 
amendment for tbe repeal of tbe law creating the Southern Claims Commission that 
went to the merits of tbe case. For a groat many years this House has been entirely 
Bilent on the subject of laying down rales of practice for tbis court. To-day, after 
this committee lias carefully prepared a rule to govern tbe court in future that takes 
away all the objections that are now urged by the gentleman from Wisconsin, we 
hear a ten-minute speech against tbe court because it has bad in tbe past some agents 
wbo are said to have acted under rules that some of us thought were unwise. 

Let us go to the merits of this question. Tbe legislation which was postponed by 
action of the committee a few days ago will correct all of tbe evils that are now 
spoken of by the gentleman from WiscoMin; and when we were attempting to amend 
this bill so as to correct those evils tbe gentleman himself was silent, reserving his 
speech until after we bad made tbe amendment. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the future 
there will be very little of importance in this matter of the rules for the conduct of 
cases before tbe Commissioners of Southern Claims. On tbe 10th day of March last, 
under the present law, the time for taking testimony by the claimants in all cases ex- 
pired. Tbe term of the Commissioners will expire on the 10th day of March, 1880, 
about eleven months hence. 

The whole number of claims originally before tbe Commissioners was 22,298. Of 
these claims over fourteen thousand have been reported upon and finally disposed of, 
leaving about eight thousand unreported and now in the bands of tbe Commissioners, 
and of'these eight thousand unreported claims about three thousand of the claimants 
have taken their testimony under the rules of the law and submitted their cases for 
decision to the Commissioners, and the expenses of these claimants of takiug their 
testimony under this law of Congress has averaged in each caseabout $30, making an 
outlay of $90,000 at least for all these claimants, expended in getting their cases ready 
for decision by the Commissioners, wbo are now examiniug tbe claims and will be 
ready, as I am informed by one of the members of the Commission, to finally report 
the claims on tbe 10th day of March, 1830. 

Now let me say that there are five thousand of these claims as to which not one 
particle of testimony has been taken at all. These claims now, under the statute 
passed by t..e last Congress, are absolutely barred unless we repeal these sectionsthat 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Bragg] proposes to repeal, and the effect of that 
repeal would be to revive live thousand claims now barred by the statute. They 
ought to be barred. Under an amendment which was put on a bill of this House in 
the Senate in the last ' Ingress, and adopted in this House, the Commission was re- 
quired to report to the .'.ext regular session of this Congress the names of all of these 
claimants with their claims, so that we will have a record here of rive thousand of 
these barred claims. 

Mr. BRAGG. I desire to ask the gentleman if he thinks that this court should al- 
ways live, because if we revive the act authorizing their appointment we shall revive 
barred claims, barred by lapse of time. 

Mr. KEIFER. We do not propose to let the court live a single hour beyond the 
10th day ot March, 1880. 

Mr. BRAGG. Will not these claims revive then ? 

Mr. KEIFER. These five thousand claims are absolutely barred unless we by legis- 
lation revive them and dump them into this Congress. If we do that, no less than 
five thousand claimants would come with claims, and with some equity, telliDg us, 
"You passed a law authorizing us to prepare and present our claims, and we have 
spent thousands and thousands of dollars in preparing our claims, and we have done 
it upon the faith of a law of the United States; we were ready to submit them when 
the court was wiped out." 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. HAWK obtained the floor and yielded his time to Mr. Keifer. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am much obliged to the gentleman. 

So much for that part of the case. 

Mr. BRAGG. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him another question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly ; I shall be very glad to hear it. 

Mr. BRAGG. The repeal of the provisions of the act which I propose to repeal 
would not repeal any statute of limitation at all. 

Mr. KEIFER. It would repeal all this legislation and the legislation which would 



64 

affect these claims. All I desire to say here upon that branch is, that we are ready 
to have a final adjudication, favorable or unfavorable, of three thousand claims with 
the testimony taken. Is it wise for Congress now to repeal these sections of the stat- 
ute and wipe out tbis Commission ? It is no argument against this Commission to say 
that they have had at some time or other in the past what the gentleman chooses to 
denominate "detectives." Whatever I may have said the other day — and the gentle- 
man admitted thai he did not quote me correctly, and I will not stop to correct him — 
1 wish to add that these detectives, or, more properly speaking, agents, have uni- 
formly acted in the interest of the Government. If they have erred, it was against 
the claimant and not against the Government. 

Now, upon the questiou as to whether these claims should be paid, I have heard 
nothing on the other side, and from the large number of claimants who have had their 
claims allowed, small and great, there are less than seven thousand out of twenty 
thousand odd presented to the Comn issioners, ami the record shows that about 10 per 
cent, of the number of claims allowed were the claims of Union soldiers. The court 
records show that not one of the n — unless the Commissioners were cheated, or some 
fraud was perpetrated upon it — was disloyal in any way during the entire war. 

The law ts not now and never has been so that these Commissioners could allow and 
pay for damages caused l>y the war to loyal or disloyal claimants, but to pay for sup- 
plies furnished and which the Government had the benefit of, quartermaster and 
commissary stores, those things that the Government received when the war was 
going on and used for the purpose of carrying on the war. 

We have thought it wise in the past to provide a law to pay them all, and for my 
part I have always believed that it was honest in the Government to doit; honest to 
pay Union men and loyal men for that which they furnished to carry on the war to a 
successful issTie. Farther than that I have never been willing to go. Even though 
the law may have been originally an unwise one, still it would be exceedingly unjust, 
itwouldbe an outrage, if I may use the term, to now say to these claimants, after they 
have prepared their cases under a law that has been on the statute-book for eight 
years, and by which they have been invited to prepare their cases and bring them to 
the court — it would be unjust to say to them that the court is to be wiped out, and the 
law that gave them the right to go before that tribunal and have their claims adjudi- 
cated there was also to be wiped out. That would lie unjust; it would be inviting 
them to a feast and then not giving it to them. 

In regard to the three thousand claimants whose claims are now ready to be adju- 
dicated^ iu which cases by an absolute statute the testimony on behalf of the claim- 
ants i as been closed, it' you wipe out this law those claimants will come here to Con- 
gress, for it would be tin- only place where they could come, and they will come here 
■with an equity and say to us that we passed a law which authorized them to prepare 
their cases and present their claims, and then we took away the law before they could 
obtain a final adjudication of their claims. 

I am in favor of a good statute of limitation to put an end to all this matter of 
Southern claims : but I do not believe in the Government being unjust and entrap- 
ping any claimant. 

(April 16, 1879.) 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman : We have presented hereunder a restriction as to debate one of the 
most remarkable and startling propositions which has come before Congress since I 
have had any know ledge of its proceedings. The proposition is to repeal all the pro- 
visions of law relating to the Southern Claims Commission, and to substitute for those 
provisions a law allowing any person, loyalor disloyal, who may have a claim against 
the United States founded upon equity and justice, and not barred by any statutes of 
limitations, to go into the Court of Claims with his claim and have it adjudicated. 

It is proposed to say to all persons, whether they were loyal or disloyal during the 
war, that if they have any claims that they think are founded on "equity and jus- 
tice" they may go into the Court of Claims and prove them and have them adjudi- 
cated and paid out of the United States Treasury. To do this may cost this Govern- 
ment over $100,000,000, perhaps $500,000,000. The law that it is sought to have re- 
pealed merely allows t he Commissioners of Claims to consider claims for supplies, quar- 
termaster and commissary stores, furnished for the use of the Army, and presented by 
persons who are shown to have been loyal throughout the war. The proposition of 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Atkins] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Sl'RiNGEK] is to allow all sorts of claimants, disloyal parties as well as loyal ones, to 
come into court with claims of all kinds, including damages caused by the war, not 
hitherto paid for to loyal or disloyal persons. If we do this let us do it with our eyes 
wide open. 

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] stands up and delivers a lecture to 
this side of the House about war claims, while he is accepting from the hands of the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Atkins] a proposition to open the Court of Claims 



65 

for the first time in the history of the country to all disloyal claimants, so that they 
may have their claims examined and paid. I warn this House and the country of this 
covert attempt to provide for paying rebel claims. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Does the gentleman distrust the Court of Claims on this sub- 
ject ? 

Mr. kEIFER. I cannot yield to the gentleman. I would not give any court the 
right to adjudicate claims of persons who were disloyal. 1 want no lecture from him 
on this subject. We on this side of the House propose to stand by the loyal claimants 
of this country ; I mean those who were loyal throughout the entire war, whether 
they lived in the North orin the South. But the gentleman's proposition is to strike 
down the provision of law relating to the Southern Claims Commission, and substi- 
tute a provision that lets in all persons, whether they were loyal or disloyal through- 
out the w r ar. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not the fact, and the record 
does not show it. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not yield to the gentleman. The proposition shows clearly that 
what I state is true. A new class of claimants, as to whom there is no legislation 
putting a bar on their right to go into court, are to be recognized by law for the first 
time if we adopt the substitute offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appro- 
priations and accepted by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer]. 

90 A— K 5 



66 



REPEAL OF ELECTION LAWS. 

Friday April 25, 1879. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
bavine 'under consideration the. bill (H. R. JS'o. 2) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, 
and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other pur- 
poses. 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Chairman: The reapers over this broad field of debate have bad no Boaz to 
command them to purposely let fall bandsful of the ripe harvest for gleaners who 
should come after them. I may be permitted, however, to glean among the sheaves. 
In what I have to say to-day I shall attempt no display of wit, rhetoric, or eloquence. 
We are called on to deal with a matter of supreme national importance; it behooves 
us to talk and act with propriety and sobriety. 

If it were proposed to go forward promptly and provide the necessary appropriations 
to carry on the legislative and judicial branches of this Government, also for the 
neeessa'ry expenses of the several Executive Departments, and for the maintenance 
and support of the Army, I think no acceptable apology could be offered by me for 
occupying the time of this House in debate. Other things are proposed, however. 
At the last session of the Forty-fifth Congress there was abundant time to have made 
these appropriations, but the House of Representatives refused, and persisted in an 
effort to coerce a co-ordinate legislative branch of the Government into the repeal of 
certain laws (of which I shall speak as I proceed) in no way connected with the 
appropriations. Failing in that attempt, the last Congress adjourned without having 
performed one of its first and highest constitutional duties. 

Both of the legislative branches of the United States being now Democratic, it is 
proposed to persist in passing the requisite appropriation bills coupled with other 
legislation foreign to the subject of appropriations and radically changing existing 
laws. By threats, boasts, and defiance we are given to understand the President will 
be coerced to surrender his constitutional prerogative and to approve any legislation, 
however much against his judgment or vicious it may be, or no further appropria- 
tions for the purposes named will be made. With a bare majority in this House and 
onlv a small majority in the Senate, the Democratic party threatens (for the first time 
in the history of the Government) to annul the veto power of the President by, if 
possible, intimidating him to approve such bills as it may pass. This hujh preroga- 
tive wisely reposed in him by the Constitution, that party, in its mad and revolu- 
tionary career, says shall be rendered a nullity, or this Government shall have with- 
held from it the sustenance that gives it life. 

The Constitution (second paragraph, seventh section, article 1) invests the Presi- 
dent with a legislative power equal to one-sixth of each branch of Congress. He 
cannot refuse to exercise this grant of power, if in his judgment the rights of the 
people are about to be struck down through unwise legislation, without being _ recre- 
ant to his august trust. This power cauuot be taken from the President in the 
manner proposed without making a long stride in revolution. Let us pause on the 
brink of so fearful an abyss! _ 

It is vain to argue and read portions only oi the Constitution to prove that all leg- 
islative power is vested in Congress. To the astonishment of many of us who know 
so well the le^al attainments of two of my colleagues [Mr. McMAHON and Mr. HUKD], 
we have heard them read portions of the Constitution, with an air of satisfaction, to 
try to show that the President has nothing to do with legislation, and while still 
panting for breath after having announced so utterly untenable a position, turn upon 
the President and warn and threaten him and the country with the direst conse- 
quences if he does not lay at the feet of the Democratic party a constitutional power they 
so vehemently deny he possesses. We have listened in vain for their reference to and 
comments on'the. seventh section, article 1 of the Constitution, which gives the Presi- 
dent the veto power. They and others pass it by as though it was not to be found in 
the instrument. I would do my colleagues injustice to suppose they had never read 
or heard of it. I do them ampl*e justice when I say their ripe judgments taught them 
that no subtle reasoning would convince anybody, not even their Democratic breth- 
ren, that its plain terms were meaningless. ,,,.„, 

It is true that all legislation originates with Congress, as all bills for raising reve- 
nue must originate in this House. (Section 7, article 1. Constitution.) If Congress 
should refuse to pass any bills we would have no legislation; if this House would 
originate no revenue hills there would lie no new revenue laws; but this does not 
prove that Congress alone can make a law or that this House can alone provide for 
raising revenue, [n the cases given these bodies can alone prevent legislation hut 
cannot alone create it. 
The President is given the sole appointing power under the Constitution (save as to 



67 

certain officers), yet the Senate must advise and consent, or his appointments fall. 
The reasoning of gentlemen would authorize the President to say to the Senate that 
it should advise and consent at his dictation. The Constitution is wisely made up of 
"checks and balances. " We cannot too clearly understand the momentous question, 
the tinal issue of which now engages the anxious attention of above forty-five million 
of people, who are just emerging from au era of long sufferingand distress, connected 
with, gi'owing out of, and incident to our recent great and bloody war, and entering 
upon a new era of comparative prosperity and happiness. The party now in posses- 
sion of both branches of Congress, in its initial proclamation of ascendancy to legis- 
lative power, notifies the country that it will leave the legislative and executive 
branches of the Government unprovided for; that the administration of justice in the 
courts of the United States shall stop — "the wheels of justice" shall no longer re- 
volve ; and that the Army shall be disbanded and our frontiers be left unguarded, our 
forts and arsenals unmanned and unprotected, and the peaceable and law-abiding 
people and their property be left without security against domestic violence too great 
to be controlled by State and other authorities ; or otherwise the officers and men of 
the Army shall go uupaid, unclothed, and unfed; and all this unless the minority in 
Congress and the chief executive head of the Government will assent to the repeal of 
all United States laws affording protection to citizens at the ballot-box from intimi- 
dation, murder, and violence, and which may prevent ballot-box stuffing, repeating, 
and other election frauds. 

More briefly put, the Democratic party now says through its members here that all 
United States laws shall be repealed which stand in the way of free frauds and open 
intimidation and violence at the polls, or it, will withhold the necessary means to 
longer carry on the Government. This is the issue and this is the stake. If that 
party cannot be allowed to hold and control this nation through a violation of the 
purity and freedom of the ballot-box, then this Union shall no longer live. Is this the 
height, breadth, and depth of the patriotism of that party or the strength of the ten- 
ure of its love for this country? One member [Mr. Blackburn] goes even further, 
and in his candor and fraukuess tells us his party does not intend to stop with what is 
now proposed. In his speech of the 3d instant he said: 

For the first time in eighteen years past the Democracy are back in power in both branches of this 
Legislature, and she proposes to signalize her return to power ; she proposes to ceiehrate her recovery 
of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading badges of servitude and destroying the ma- 
chinery of a corrupt and partisan legislation. We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last 
vestige of your war measures from the statute-book, which, like these, were born of the passions inci- 
dent to civil strife and looked to the abridgment of the liberty of the citizen. 

This should be a timely warning, but warnings are seldom heeded. Eleven years 
and more have rolled by since a national Democratic convention, in 18G8, declared all 
the reconstruction acts of Congress " unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void." The 
next step may be to repeal all laws for the punishment of treason or the suppression 
of rebellion ; they are also of our war measures. 

My friend from Virginia [Mr. Tucker] and many on the other side of this House 
speak of their return to the Union, to the "long-lost heritage" of which the gentle- 
man from Kentucky speaks. Their forced return was welcomed with a patriotic joy un- 
speakable. At their coming there w^ere bonfires, illuminations, shouts, prayers, praises, 
and invocations all over the loyal North. The gates of the Union were set wide ajar 
that their coming might not be obstructed. If their return was voluntary the induce- 
ment to return was involuntary. The only condition of their return was that they 
should remain and be good citizens. Southern Democrats were forced at cannon's 
mouth and bayonet-point to take the ballot in the Union. When General Lee's army 
surrendered at Appomattox, Va., and General Johnston's at Greensborough, N. C. 
long steps toward giving the South a free ballot were taken. 

Generals Grant and Sherman with their armies made a free ballot in the Union and 
under the Constitution for Democrats in the South possible. And still the Army is 
abused and maligned. 

Paradoxical as it may seem, the Democratic party can now boast of nothing good 
in it (if it really possesses any merit) that it does not owe to defeat in peace or war. 

The Republican party blazed the way for the Democratic party South to return to 
the Union, and on its return led its members up to the ballot-box, rebaptized them 
with American citizenship, reclothed many of them with justly forfeited civil rights, 
among which is the right to hold office, and rehabilitated many of them with the right 
to again gather around the sacred shrine of constitutional liberty and worship at its 
purified altar, on which, for its preservation and perpetuation and for the benefit and 
glory of all mankind, there was immolated half a million of patriots. 

It is my purpose and design to briefly discuss the nature of the legislation proposed 
to be forced on this country, but before proceeding to do so I desire to notice the so 
often cited supposed precedent, drawn from English history, as a justification of the 
revolutionary course now entered upon by the dominant party here. 

The distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hawley] in his recent able 



68 

speech has fully show n that in two hundred years of constitutional government no such 
•attempt as this hasbeen made in monarchical England, where originally all power was 
vested in the Crown. I wish to add that from the days when a House of Commons 
was first formed and made the depository of legislative power ; from the reign of 
Charles I — 1625 to 1639 — through all the long, hloody, and angry civil strifes in En- 
gland, neither the House of Commons nor any other organized power contending with 
the King for concessions made a proposition even to take the life of the kingdom un- 
less concessions were granted by the Crown. It is true subsidies for the Crown, the 
princes, and for the elevation and maintenance of royalty have been refused, also 
money to carry on a foreign war not approved of by the Commons has been withheld, 
•and only granted as an equivalent for regal concessions To an oppressed people. But 
in vain ^ill search be made in the history of England for a precedent for the action 
now proposed. When, in the history of Great Britain or any other country before 
this, has a legislative body ever said to the chief ruler, " Give us a law such as we de- 
maud, surrender to us a section of your arch of power, or we will destroy our own na- 
tion " ? It is reserved to an American Congress controlled by a revolutionary Democ- 
racy to first enter upon any such suicidal policy. The proposition is not to with- 
hold power or appropriations from the Chief Executive, of the nation, but to destroy 
the Government by a failure to perform a sworn constitutional duty necessary to 
the Republic's life. 

I crave your attention while I review, briefly as possible, the objectionable feat- 
ures of the proposed legislation. 

THE TEST OATH. 

It is proposed to repeal certain provisions of the statute known as the jury law, fix- 
ing the qualifications of jurors, the substantive part of which is found in sections 820 
and 821 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States. There is, I believe, a general 
acquiescence in the repeal of section 820, which makes acts of insurrection or rebellion 
causes of disqualification and challenge of jurors in the United States courts. This 
section was, doubtless, wisely enacted, but its repeal can do no great harm at this 
day. 

Section 821 should not be repealed, in my opinion, though perhaps no great public 
injury would result. It only gives the attorney for the United States the right to 
move, and the court, in its discretion, the power to tender to persons summoned as 
jurors an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and that they have been 
guilty of no act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and, on their 
declining to take such oath or affirmation, discharge them from serving as jurors. 
There may still be cases where persons once engaged in rebellion should not sit in 
judgment upon acts of others involving the same elements of guilt. Under this sec- 
tion the whole matter is in the discretion of the court. 

But we are not permitted to vote alone for the repeal of the test-oath laws. The 
proposition comes coupled with one requiring the whole plan of selecting jurors to be 
overturned. I believe for the first time in the history of the United States, or any of 
the States, so far as I can learn, party politics is to be forced bylawiuto the jury-box. 
In addition to the repeal of certain sections of the law relating to jurors we are asked 
to vote for a provision which requires the clerk and a commissioner appointed by the 
court of the "principal political party opposing that to which the clerk may belong" 
to select one name, alternately, until the required number of jurors is obtained ; they, 
of course, to select from their political party friends. Should a political millennium 
be found in any United States court district where all should see eye to eye in poli- 
tics, no jurors could be selected at all. (Just now it does not look like we are ap- 
proaching a political millennium.) Such a law can only be properly characterized 
as infamous. Jurors selected for party reasons would feel that the law justified them 
in standing by their respective party friends. Verdicts would be in many cases, both 
civil and criminal, impossible, and such is the avowed purpose of the proposed legis- 
lation. Such a law would be unconstitutional. It certainly violates the spirit if 
not the letter of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. 
It would abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. 
Green hackers, Nationals, Socialists, Independents, and non-partisans are to have no 
officer to put them on juries; they are practically denied, if not rendered ineligible by 
law, to sit upon a jury in the United States courts. 

Mr. LOWE. .Swallow both parties. We will take the whole jury. 

Mr. KEIFER. I understand that you are capable of swallowing far more than you 
can digest. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LOWE. There is no Republican party in Alabama. They met in .state conven- 
tion and there committed political hari-kari, and refused to nominate a ticket, or 
arrange a platform. 

Mr. KEIFER. Taken together the proposition is to qualify those recently engaged 
in rebellion, and to disqualify those who ( as Greenbackers, & c. ) do not belong to one 



69 

of the two principal parties of the country from sitting as jurors. I protest against 
the insult and outrage. 

This proposition conies, like the others, after mature gestation, from the womb of a 
Democratic caucus, although the member from Illinois [Mr. Springer] appears as the 
putative father of it. 

supervisors, marshals, etc., at the polls. 

This bill contains provisions for repealing all of substance of the i>resent law author- 
izing chief supervisors aud supervisors of elections chosen from different political 
parties to be appointed by a United States court, to see that there is an honest regis- 
tration of voters in States where registration is required; to scrutinize, count, and 
canvass the ballots, &c, to the end that an honest, free, and fair election and count 
of ballots cast for Representatives and Delegates in Congress may be had ; also for 
the repeal of the law authorizing the appointment to keep the peace by United States 
marshals of special deputies in cities of twenty thousand inhabitants or upward ; and 
also the law defining the duties on election days of the marshal, his general and 
special deputies; also the only section of the statute providing a punishment for 
interfering witli the discharge of the duties of such supervisors, marshals, &.c. ; also 
to modify the law so as in no case to require (only authorize) supervisors of election 
to attend at the polls on election days, and to prohibit them from canvassing the 
ballots cast. 

The sections of the Revised Statutes sought to be repealed are 2016, 2018, 2020 to 
2027, inclusive, and 5522; and section 2017 is to be modified by striking out of the 
first line the words " are required," and section 2019 by striking out all relating to 
canvassing ballots, and section 2028 by striking out all relating to " a deputy mar- 
shal." and the words " city, town, and parish." 

If this bill passes in its present form it will take away all laws requiring marshals 
and their deputies to attend on election days and keep the peace and protect the su- 
pervisors of election. Supervisors (not chief supervisors) of election may still be ap- 
pointed, clothed with authority (not required) to go to the polls and stand around 
with their hands in their pockets, at the risk of their lives, so they may have the 
sweet boon of informing on and swearing against violators of the law. What a glori- 
ous privilege granted to an American citizen! And herein lies all the boasted merit 
of the retained portion of the law authorizing the appointment of supervisors of elec- 
tion — the privilege (not duty) granted by law of watching their neighbors, aud then 
swearing against them at some future time! The only section (5522) of the statute 
which would afford such supervisors the slightest protection while enjoying this priv- 
ilege is to be repealed in such way as to indicate that while the law does not make it 
a crime for supervisors of elections to be at the polls, it is perfectly proper to break 
their heads while there. Their own hauds are to be tied against resistance, and there 
is to be no law allowing any interference on election days to prevent breaches of 
the peace, murder, &c, at the polls. There is to be at the polls free frauds aud free 
crimes, unrestrained by law. 

It is not necessary to have a law to grant the privilege to become an informer and 
a witness where a crime is committed. That is a privilege belonging to every man's 
" heritage." The Democratic party (should their bills uovv pending become laws) can 
go to the country and say " it has considerately permitted free swearing after elections 
as well as free fraud in their conduct." 

The section especially objectionable to Democrats is the one (2022) authorizing the 
United States marshal, his general and special deputies, to keep the peace and to pro- 
tect the supervisors of election in the discharge of their duties, and which authorizes 
all these officers to arrest at the polls, without warrant, persons who in their presence 
commit crimes against the election and other laws of the United States. 

It should be specially noted that at the polls on election days, under the proposed 
law, all persons are to be held sacred and free from arrest for offenses against the laws 
of the United States, although committed in the presence of officers of the law. 

The power and right of marshals and their deputies in discharging their duties to 
call to their aid bystanders or a posse comitatus are to be taken away by the repeal of 
section 2024. 

Is the power to make arrests without warrant an extraordinary one! 

My colleague [Mr. HuKD]said these i: supervising officers are armed with authority 
unknown in the history of the common law or State laws. They have authority at 
the day of election to make arrests without warrants,'' &c. 

With due deference I insist that he is grossly in error both as to the common law and 
State laws. At common law, high sheriffs, constables, marshals, and all other like 
officers are authorized to make arrests on view and hold the accused until a legal war- 
rant can be obtained. Ibis right is supposed to belongto any citizen. 

In my State (Ohio), where the shackles of the law fc.it easy on the good citizens, all 
the constab alary force of the State is required by statute to arrest and detain all 



70 

persons "found violating any law of the State," &c, "until a legal warrant can be 
obtained." (Section 21, criminal code, 1869.) Another section (22) of Ohio's criminal 
code is as follows : 

Any person not an officer may, without warrant, arrest any person if a petit larceny or a felony has 
been committed and there has been reasonable ground to believe the person arrested guilty of such an 
offense, and may detain him until a legal warrant can be obtained. 

Mr. HURD. May I ask the gentleman a question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. HURD. Will the gentleman read the section of the Ohio statute to which he 
refers ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I have just read one and have accurately quoted the substance of the 
other. 

Mr. HURD. Which section has the gentleman read ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I read section 22 and quoted section 21. 

Mr. HURD. What was the section the gentleman has just read? 

Mr. KEIFER. Section 22 of the code which you drafted. 

Mr. HURD. Will vou please read it again, so that I may call the attention of the 
House to it ? 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 have not time to do it now, but I willsend it to the gentleman and 
he can read it. 

Mr. HURD. I will state that the provision of the Ohio code to which my colleague 
refers authorizes the arrest of private persons only in cases where petit larceny or 
felony has been committed. 

Mr. KEIFER. All that is stated in the law, but I caunot yield longer to my col- 
league. I will send the provision to the gentleman, so that he can read it at his leis- 
ure. He wrote it, and he ought to know all about it. 

Mr. HURD. I will state that it contains the well-established principle of the com- 
mon law that no citizen can be arrested except for felony or breach of the peace. 

Mr. KEIFER. My colleague is in error; it authorizes arrests by private persons 
without warrant. 

Mr. GEDDES. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a questiou ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. GEDDES. Will the gentleman explain the meaniug of that clause in section 
2022 of the supervisors act which provides that a Federal officer may arrest a party 
who attempts or offers to commit oue of the offenses named in the statute? 

Mr. KEIFER. I will say to the gentleman that I will do that when I have more 
time than I have now, and as I proceed. 

My colleague [Mr. Htrd] will allow me to do him an honor by saying that he 
drafted these sections of Ohio statutes which so properly arms both officers and citi- 
zens with what he now calls extraordinary power. Many of the States have the same 
wise provisions in their statutes. It is a felony in Ohio to cast a fraudulent vote, and 
to commit other offenses against her election laws ; and hence by law any officer or 
private citizen may arrest at the polls without warrant all such offenders. 

The law now sought to be repealed does not authorize arrests to be made "with- 
out process for any offense not committed in the presence of the marshal," his dep- 
uties, or of the supervisors of election. With these limitations the statute confers 
no unusual or extraordinary powers, but very necessary and salutary ones. Only 
those desiring to offend against the election laws, or to abet offenders against them, 
or to gather the fruits of election frauds would be expected to complain of the present 
statutes. 

There may be imperfections in the law or wrong done sometimes in its execution, 
yet not such as to afford a good reason for blotting it out. The sun, the center and 
source of all light and heat, has its dark spots. Who would for that reason favor 
striking it from the firmament of the heavens? 

SHALL PEACE BE PRESERVED AT THE POLLS? 

There is danger that some gentlemen may be deceived at the adroitness in which 
the proposed legislation on the Army bill is stated in debate. My friend from Virginia 
[Mr. Tucker] and other distinguished members hardly want to deceive themselves in 
this way. 

The question is not, shall troops or armed men be used at the polls to prevent a free 
and fair election ? but it is this : shall peace be preserved at the polls to secure a free 
and fair election ? No person favors the use of the military or civil power to prevent 
a free, fair ballot, but the Democratic party says, in effect, we shall not use the mili- 
tary or civil power to secure a free, fair ballot. The words " or to keep the peace at 
the polls" arc to be stricken out of sections 2002 and 5528 of the statutes, thereby 
making it a high crime for any military, naval, or civil officer of the United States to 
put down violence or suppress open crime at the polls on election days. It is now by 



71 

law a high crime for any of these officers to in auy way hinder or prevent any person 
from voting. (Revised Statutes, section 2009.) 

Existing law also prohibits officers or other persons in the Army or Navy from inter- 
fering with the right of a person to vote at any election (Revised Statutes, sections 
2003, 5529-5532.) A violation of these sections subjects the guilty to a hue of not ex- 
ceeding $5,000 and imprisonment at hard labor not more than tive years, and also per- 
petual disqualification from holding any office under the United States. (Section 
5532.) These extraordinary penalties having been affixed to any violation of the rights 
of a voter by United States officers, it remains to be determined whether their use to 
suppress riots purposely gotten up to prevent a full, free, and fair vote should be made 
a crime. 

The proposition on the majority of this floor is to, bylaw, countenance and promote 
violence and disorders by lawless persons at the polls on elections days. Failing in 
this, the Democratic party say the Union is not worth supporting. It values free fraud 
and unrestrained violence more than the country. 

To ameudthe law as now proposed will paralyze the officers of the United States, so 
that at least on one day and at one place in each year the shield of the laws of this 
country will be thrown around those who may engage in any kind of violence which 
will prevent a full, fair, and honest expression of the will of the voters. 

In all this long debate not one word has escaped the lips of auy Democrat in con- 
demnation of the bands of lawless persons who are to be permitted to invade the polls. 
Nothing lias been brought to the notice of Congress or the country during this long 
debate which tends to prove that the officers of the Government have ever prevented 
a single man from voting, and as he wished. The polls on election days should be a 
place of absolute peace. Disorders and violence are the forerunners of an incident to 
election frauds. What is the objection to peace at the polls ? 

It must be kept in mind that the legislation proposed makes it a crime for marshals 
and other officers in the civil service of the United States to suppress riots, &c., by 
the aid of an armed posse comitatus at the polls. It is not the employment of troops 
alone that is to be prohibited at the polls, but the civil power of the Government is 
to be suspended there. On a former occasion I said the Democratic party favored 
free frauds at elections. From the legislation now proposed that conclusion is irre- 
sistible. 

By statute (Revised Statutes, section 783) the duties of marshals and their deputies 
in executing United States laws are the same as sheriffs and other like officers in ex- 
ecuting State laws. These officers have always been charged with the public duty 
of keeping the peace. They have been at common law and by statute authorized and 
required not only to suppress riots, &c, but to make arrests without warrant and 
detain persons found violating any criminal law or ordinance until a legal warrant 
could be obtained. Under this legislation the functions of all this class of officers 
are to be suspended at elections of members of Congress. 

The real cause of complaint is not that officers charged with the duty under the 
present law of keeping the peace have failed to do their duty, or that they have pre- 
vented legal voters from voting, but that thej 7 have overawed, or are likely to over- 
awe, disturbers of the peace at the polls who engage in preventing, by intimidation 
or otherwise, the legal voter from voting, or who engage in promoting fraud by re- 
peating and ballot-box stuffing. To accomplish this end the Democratic party threaten, 
on failure, to stop the wheels of the Government and initiate revolution. The people 
will stand amazed in the presence of such a threat, but they will meet it with patri- 
otism and their sovereign power. 

Again and again during this discussion of the Army bill has it been said these two 
sections are unconstitutional. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hurd] and my friend 
from Virginia [Mr. Tucker], both justly distinguished for their legal learning, reit- 
erate this view r . I must be pardoned for differing with them. The sections, taken 
alone or separately, do not undertake to authorize anything to be done by any per- 
son ; they are wholly prohibitory and restraining, not permissive, statutes; they 
make the use of troops or armed men at the polls a crime on the part of auy United 
States military, naval, or civil officer ; they only limit a power which may exist under 
the Constitution and laws. As has been so often said, these sections are not to be 
repealed, but only re-enacted so as to make it a crime (hitherto unknown) to keep the 
peace at the polls. 

The claim of gentlemen, then, is this: that it is unconstitutional not to make it a 
penal oft'ense to keep the peace where elections are being held. By 7 necessary impli- 
cation the proper officers should, as a matter of duty, keep the peace everywhere else. 

During this debate it has often been stated that the legislation proposed on the 
Army bill is similar to English law. This is wholly untrue. The honorable gentle- 
men from Kentucky [Mr. Knott] and from Mississippi [Mr. Muldrow] somewhat 
astonished us by the confident manner in which they read English statutes to justify 
this legislation. I need hardly do more than invite attention to the laws quoted by 
them to convince every r person that there is no possible similarity between the two. 



72 

The English statutes read are mere police regulations for the government of soldiers 
(not officers) when not on duty ; no reference is even made to the duty of officers or 
the powers of the Crown. The English statutes require soldiers quartered within 
two miles of elect iou polls to remain in barracks, &c, when not on duty during an elec- 
tion. The proposed law would apply only to officers, military, naval, or civil. There 
is not even an inference to he drawn from the English statute that the Government 
designed to limit its power through its officers to keep the peace at the polls or any- 
where else. These English laws do not undertake even to regulate the conduct of 
all the soldiery, hut only such as are quartered within two miles of a nominating or 
voting place ; there is nothing prescribed as to the conduct of all other British soldiers 
at the polls English statesmen do not make and keep for oue huudred years a de- 
fective law on the statute-hooks. 

The statute of George II was passed when England had quartered all over it troops, 
who often made election days an occasion for riotous and disorderly conduct. The 
statute w;;s then and is still a wise one, and would he utterly unobjectionable in this 
country. 

I give here the section of the statute of George II so often cited: 

Sec. 2. And be it enacted. That on every day appointed for the nomination or for the election or for 
taking the poll for the election of a member or members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament 
no soldier within two miles of anv city, borough, town, or place where such nomination or election 
shall be declared or poll tiken shall be allowed to go out of the barrack or quarters in which he is 
stationed, unless for the purpose of mounting or relieving guard, or for giving his vote at such elec- 
tion; and that every soldier allowed to go out for any such purpose within the limits aforesaid sball 
return to his barrack or quarters with all convenient speed as soon as his guard shall have been re- 
lieved or vote tendered. 

The Government of England has frequently used its army to suppress election riots 
in Loudon and other large cities ; notably at elections held during the exciting times 
pending the repeal of the corn laws, and also when financial relief was demanded. 
In Scotland and Ireland the army has always been used to keep the peace when elec- 
tion riots have occurred. Pending the struggle which resulted in the passage of the 
reform bill (in 1831) the election riois in Belfast and other places in Ireland were put 
down by the British army, and it alone could keep the peace at the polls. Recently 
as 1872, during election and other riots in principal cities of Ireland growing out of 
the deadly strife between. Catholics and Orangemen, English soldiers were used to keep 
the peace'. By law also all the police and constabulary force of the kingdom are 
specially enjoined to keep the peace at elections. 

It will be found that it was left to the Democratic party of this country to attempt 
to legalize fraud, outrage, and violence at elections. 

My friend from Virginia [Mr. Tucker] gave an instance where in 1741 an English 
officer was, "on bended knee," reprimanded by the speaker of the House of Com- 
mons for, my friend says, " using troops at the polls." Not so; but for, under a pre- 
tense of quelling an "alleged riot at Westminster," assuming to control the election 
of a member of Parliament. 

Under our law a similar offense would not be punished by a parliamentary repri- 
mand, but the offender would suffer fine, imprisonment, and total disqualification 
from holding an office under the United States. (Revised Statutes, section 5532.) 

WHAT ARE FREE SOUTHERN ELECTIONS ? 

It is now alleged that recently peaceful, free, and fair elections have been held in 
the Southern States under Democratic rule, and Mississippi, Georgia, and other 
States are given as instances to prove the good effects of the " liberty of the citizen " 
at elections uiunfluenced by troops or United States officers. We are often told that 
the colored men when left free vote of their own volition the Democratic ticket. 
Peace and order are now said to reign at the polls in Democratic Southern States. 

An examination of election returns reveals to us some startling facts. If Demo- 
cratic claims were true we would expect to find a largely increased vote in these 
States, especially Democratic vote. At the risk of being tedious I give here some 
figures showing'the vote in years when it is alleged the bayonet and carpet-bag rule 
held sway, in comparison with more recent elections, held wholly free from such rule 
and conducted on the broader principles of " Democratic liberty." A few examples 
must suffice for the whole Southern vote where the same conditions exist. 

In the second district of Georgia the Democratic vote in 1872 was 9,530, the Repub- 
lican 9,616; in the sixth district the Democratic vote was 9,993, and Republican 6,196 ; 
and in the eighth district the Democratic vote was7,437, and the Republican 6,230. In 
187H the vote in the same Georgia districts was, second district (Mr. Cook's), Demo- 
eratic2,628, Republican ('. ; sixth district (Mr. Blount's), Democratic 3,192,R epublican 
18; and in the eighth district (Mr. Stephens's), Democratic 3,673, and the Repub- 
lican 54. 

In these three districts of Georgia the aggregate vote on Congressmen m 1872 was, 
Democratic 26,960, and Republican 22,042, aud with a Democratic "free election" in 



73 

1878 tlie total in the same districts was, Democratic 9,439, and Republican 78. The 
Democratic vote fell off from 1872 to 1878 over 60 per cent. (17,521) and the Repub- 
lican vote all vanished save 78. 

The Mississippi election statistics are, if possible, more significant. The vote given 
is on Congressmen. 

In the third Mississippi district in 1872 the vote was, Democratic G,440, and the Re- 
publican 15,047 ; in 1878 it .vas, Democratic (for Mr. Money) 4,025, and Republican 686. 

In tbe fourth district in 1872 the vote was, Democratic 6,870, Republican 15,595 ; in 
1878 it was, Democratic (for Mr. Singleton) 4,025, Republican 0. 

In the fifth district in 1872 the vote was, Democratic 8,073 and Republican 14,817 ; 
in 1878 it was, Democratic (Mr. Hooker) 4,816 and Republican 686. 

In the sixth district in 1872 the vote was. Democratic 8,509, Republican 15,101 ; and 
in 1878 it was, Democratic (Mr. Chalmers) 6,663 and Republican 1,370. 

The total vote on Congressmen in these four Mississippi districts in 1872 was 29,892 
Democratic and 60,560 Republican ; in 1878 it was 20,154 Democratic and 2,050 Re- 
publican. 

In 1872 the Republicans, by large majorities, carried each of these four Mississippi 
districts, but in 1878, when the Democratic vote had fallen oft' 33 per cent, (or 7,738), 
Democrats were elected in each nearly unanimously. The Republican vote went, 
down from 60,560 in 1872 to 2,050 in 1878. The total vote fell oft' from 90,452 in 1872 
to 22,210 in 1878. This is the fruit of a Democratic "free" election in the South. 

The member from the third district of Mississippi in 1878 received 2,295 less votes 
than Mr. Chisholm received in 1876, when he was returned as beaten. The gallant 
Chishoim and his heroic son and daughter, with many of his political friends, had met 
violent deal lis for their temerity in 1876. 

Democrats boast that in the elections in Mississippi and other of the Southern States 
in 1878 peace reigned; it was the peace and serenity which succeeds death. The 
work of the tuklux, white-liners, rifle clubs, Democratic regulators, through intimi- 
dation, assassination, and crime unparalleled in barbarity, bore its fruits and estab- 
lished the rule of an armed and lawless minority over the timid majority, and the 
elective franchise was trampled in the dust. To an implacable and merciless opposi- 
tion the people surrendered their political rights. When the people no longer strug- 
gle for their rights against lawlessness, then Democrats cry "peace reigns." The Czar 
Nicholas of Russia, after exterinmatin>; all the inhabitants of certain districts in poor, 
unfortunate Poland and making a wilderness of the country, called it "peace." By 
the proposed legislation these lawless Democratic bands are in effect to be legalized. 
The figures given show that the colored men did not vote the Democratic ticket, but 
did not vote at all. 

The honorable gentleman [Mr. Steele] of the sixth North Carolina district, who 
did me the honor in February last of answering with some feeling a five-minute speech 
of mine, then assured the House that I was in error when I charged fraud, intimida- 
tion, violence, and murder to be in election matters the allies of the Democratic party ; 
and he also then, and in his recent speech, assured us of the utterly peaceful character 
of elections in his State, and especially in his own district. I need not furnish any 
evidence to the contrary. He did not, however, tell us why the vote in his district 
dwindled down from 23,261 in 1872 and 27,539 in 1876 to 5,328 in 1878 ; and he did not 
stop to explain why the Democratic vote (as reported) went down from 17,256 in 187G 
to 4,908 in 1878, or why the Republican vote of 10,561 in 1872 and 10,282 in 1876 all 
vanished in 1878 but 258 votes. These figures are at least suggestive of a great con-^ 
trolling cause which compelled the people of his district to forego the privilege of 
voting. People do not voluntarily surrender this high privilege. 

I make no charge against the honorable gentleman, but I assure him that the fig- 
ures make out a case of wrong somewhere." He compared his district for fairness in 
the election with my own (fourth Ohio). My Democratic opponent received about 
the same number of votes in 1878 cast in the same year for the three Democratic mem- 
bers from the sixth [Mr. Steele's], the seventh [Mr. Armeield's], and the eighth 
[Mr. Vance's] North Carolina districts, and he was still beaten by 5,100 votes in a 
district below the average of Ohio districts in population, and in which no suggestion 
of fraud was made by any persou. My opponent received in 1878 about 1,000 more 
votes than were cast in that year in the second, sixth, and eighth Georgia districts, 
and he was overwhelmingly defeated, while the three honorable gentlemen from that 
State [Mr. Blount, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Stephens] are now chairmen of important 
committees of this House. With more votes than it takes to elect three of the most 
distinguished Southern Democratic members of this House, a single Northern Demo- 
crat is left at home. Other examples equally strong could be given to show the result 
of such Democratic rule. 

It does not come with good grace from gentlemen to assail my party with the 
charge of preventing the people from voting. No case has been cited to prove that 
any voter has been prevented by the use of the Army under Republican rule from 
■voting. Tbe most that can be said is that in some instances lawless Democratic 



74 

bands may have been prevented from taking possession of the polls. It is not for the 
mass of the people of the South for whom the Democratic party pleads. That party 
never did plead for their rights iu times past. Is legalized riots one of the methods 
by which " property, intelligence, and education will rule the laud ? " as says a dis- 
tinguished Senator [Mr. Thurman]. Prior to the war, when there was so much elo- 
quence expended over the rights and wrongs of the South by Democratic orators, 
nothing was said by them of the rights and against the wrongs of any persons, white 
or black, save those interested iu slavery. 

The census of 1860 showed 12,240,000 population in the fifteen Southern States, 
8,039,000 of whom were white, 251,000 free colored, and 3,950,000 were slaves. The same 
census showed there were 384,884 slave-holders in the United States, less than 5 per 
cent, of the total white population of the South. Only about 20 per cent., as statis- 
tics show, of the total white population of the South iu 1860 were, through family 
relationship or otherwise, interested in slaves or slave labor directly or indirectly. It 
is still over the supposed wrongs of this one-fifth of the white population (or their 
immediate descendants) of the South that the Democratic party had so long mourned 
and still mourn, utterly forgetting that the 4,000,000 colored people once held in 
slavery aud the 80 per cent, of white people of the South, many of whom through 
the curse of slavery, socially and otherwise, were once worse oft' thau the black slaves, 
possessed any rights to be guarded. The word "liberty" had no meaning for them. 

The Democratic party now, as in the past, iu mockery cry out for liberty and the 
people's rights. 

That party precipitated this nation into a civil war in which blood dowed in tor- 
rents for above four years to secure the supposed rights of one-fifth of the white peo- 
ple of the South, and to enable that few to forge new fetters for the feet of 4,000,000 
of God's people. And now that the Democratic rebellion has failed, that old party, 
before the sulphurous smoke and fumes of a hell-born war have quite blown away, 
proclaims itself the champion of the people's liberties. 

When we have that freedom of the ballot desired by Democrats it will be when and 
only when that sacred few of the South alone shall be suffered to vote, to the exclu- 
sion of the great mass of the white voters and all the colored. Unless a speedy 
remedy is applied the figures given warn us the day is near when this so much de- 
sired object of the Democratic party will be attained. 

CONCILIATION. 

It is also sail that all these election laws should be amended or repealed in the in- 
terests of conciliation. What is conciliation, so much talked about ou the other side of 
this Chamber ? Webster says it is " to win over; to gain from a state of hostility." 
Are the gentlemen on the other side of the House aud their constituents in a state of 
hostility ? We are told the war and the rebellion have been at au end for above 
fourteen years, and yet daily and hourly here conciliation is demanded. 

This demand is sometimes made to riug iu our ears coupled with a threat that with- 
out it the nation is still imperiled. The thiug demanded is concession (not concilia- 
tion) of the great fundamental principles of a free government, those for which the 
best blood of the laud was shed. Are we never to be through conciliating those who 
tried to take the Republic's life ? It is unworthy of a patriotic people to be constantly 
crying " Conciliate us!" " Conciliate us!" lest we do not become or remain good and 
patriotic citizens. Those who laid down their treason with their arms should ask no 
conciliation and they need no forgiveness. Out of the goodness aud abundant thank- 
fulness of the hearts of the loyal, patriotic people of this Union all this class of per- 
sons were forgiven when the bells rang out aud the cannon pealed forth the joyful 
sounds of peace ; that slavery was dead; that America's proud banner waved over 
none but the free; and that the Union was vouchsafed to us in all its integrity. Is 
conciliation all on one side? The North and my party demand nothing of the South 
but that her people, possessed of equal rights before the law, staud by the Republic 
now and for the future. 

When, unwillingly, the South laid down its arms, the Republican party handed her 
hitherto rebellious people the ballot, granted them amnesty and pardon, rehabilitated 
them with full and complete citizenship, aud without ample guarantees for the future 
made them the peers in political rights and privileges of those who, unler God, saved 
through blood and tears, at the cost of untold millions, the Union. This was con- 
ciliation superadded to high magnanimity and grace. The North may yet tire of South- 
ern Democratic demands. If, however, conciliation can be made still more complete 
by the continued exercise of grace and forgiveness, I am most sincerely and heartily 
in favor of it. But if concessions of cardinal principles are still further demanded, 
Avith no arrogance I hope, and without threat, speaking, as I believe, uot only for my 
party but the truly patriotic people of this whole country, I warn those who make 
such demands that they will be successfully opposed uot only in debate and by vote 
here and elsewhere, but should the tiual arbiter be appealed to, on the bloody theater 
of war. 



75 

Mr. Chairman, many of ns have been surprised to hear advocates of this legisla- 
tion against the purity of the ballot-box demand it in the name of 

LIBERTY. 

In February last, Mr. Hewitt, of New York, made a speech here favoring this leg- 
islation and headed it "personal liberty of the citizen." Others have said they 
favored such legislation because they desired "the subordination of the military to 
the civil power." My colleague [Mr, Hurd] says he is filled with joy to recollect 
"that the party of the Army is not in power iu this Congress." Has it come to pass 
that the " personal liberty of the citizen " hangs on his power to perpetrate fraud and 
violence on election days ? Does it not absolutely depend on his amenity to law in 
case he engages in either of those things? Is the " subordination of the military to 
the civil power" secured by protecting by law open violence at election polls? Would 
this not be under sanction of law the subordination of both the military and civil 
power to the licentious mob ? Would it not be the enthronement of lawlessness and 
the overthrow of the highest and dearest rights of an American citizen ? 

It is true the Republican party " is the party of the Army." I hope it will, iu the 
future as iu the past, invoke that strong arm of this Government as a last resort to 
save endangered constitutional liberty. What is liberty, civil liberty! The nature 
of true liberty ought in this country to be understood. Liberty and authority go hand 
in hand iu a republic. Liberty unrestrained by authority is license. Authority un- 
mitigated by liberty is tyranny. The instructed eye can see no liberty where there 
is no restraint. Liberty and law sternly confront each other; if the latter is with- 
held the former falls. Law is the rly-wheel to the great mechanism of constitutional 
liberty. It is our proudest boast to-day that events of the last score, of years have 
demonstrated that our Government is strong enough to maintain itself against foreign 
or domestic foes, yet shorn by its organic act of all power to oppress or degrade its most 
humble citizen. None now arc si. high as lo be above the law and none so low as to 
be beneath the protection of the law. Liberty teaches us to revereuce and support 
authority as well as to withstand tyranny. The love of liberty which does not pro- 
duce these effects is as hollow and hypocritical as a religion which is productive of 
immorality and an evil life. Seldom have the rights of the people been assailed or 
cloven down that it was not done in the name of "liberty" or "religion," as though 
a great wrong could be sanctified by a name. 

In the language of the heroic Madame Roland, as she bowed reverently before a 
statue of liberty at her execution: "O Liberty! what crimes are committed in thy 



name 



t" 



Secession, rebellion, and treason iuvoked the sacred name of liberty to shield from 
the broad glare of the civilized and Christianized world the shame, the infamy, and 
colossal crime of attempting to perpetually enthrone human slavery ! In this country, 
under the disgraced mantle of the Constitution of our fathers, slavery iu its direst 
form was long protected and perpetuated. War was the ouly remedy for the eradica- 
tion of such national sins. The sacrifices of that war, manifold and terrible as they 
were, are more than compensated for by the result attained. Let not licentiousness 
be mistaken for liberty. Licentiousness is a lawless power too often indulged in under 
a pretense of liberty. 

The poet Milton fitly characterized a class of persons, all of whom are not yet dead. 
He said they were those — 

That bawl for freedom in their senseless moods, 

And still revolt, when truth would set them free; 

License they mean, when they cry — liberty. 

Let us cease this mockery in the name of liberty. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I beg to say this Government would rightfully spring 
to arms to redress a wrong done to one of its citizens in a foreign land. Let it not be 
said that the broad shield of the Constitution and laws of the United States shall not 
be thrown over and around an American citizen at home. 

I hope the Stars and Stripes shall ever be an emblem of liberty and protection for 
all citizens of this Republic on land and sea, at home as well as abroad. [Great ap- 
plause on the Republican side of the House.! 



76 

PEACE AT THE POLLS. 

June 11, 1879. Against the sixth section of the Army Appropriation bill, which read: "That no 
money appropriated in this act is appropriated or shall be paid for the subsistence, equipment, trans- 
portation, or compensation of any portion of the Army of the United States to be used as a police 
force to keep the peace at the polls at any election held within any State." 

Mr. KEIFER spoke as follows : 

I cannot enter upon any proper discussion of this important measure in four min- 
utes, or even in live minutes. I simply wish to say that I am one of those who do m>t 
indorse all that has been said to-day upon the floor of the House. I apply this re- 
mark to the speeches made on both sides of the House. I am now forbidden the priv- 
ilege of giving my views on the effect of this bill, and especially the sixth section of it. 

One hour's time was given for the purpose of general debate for and against the 
sixth section of this bill, and all of that time has been used in debate by Democrats and 
Republicans in favor of it. I have asked time to-day to speak against this bill, which 
has been refused. Those of us who desire to utter our views in full on this floor 
against the bill and the objectionable legislation contained in it have been gagged, 
and we are not allowed to lie heard. Gentlemen on this side of the House who favor 
the 1*111 have all the time they desire. 

That is all I need say, except that I wish to emphasize what I have before stated 
lure by saying that I agree with those who claim they are opposed to using troops at 
the polls as a police force to keep the peace at elections, in so far and only in so far 
as their use may interfere with the conduct of elections. But I am in favor of using 
the troops, the Army of the United States if you please, to keep the peace at the polls 
by driving from the polls the irregular armed bands of men who may be there break- 
ing the peace and interfering with elections. [Applause on the Republican side.] 

I have never favored the use of troops as an ordinary police force, or as a substitute 
for the civil police, but only as an aid to the police when there were brought to the 
polls irregular and unauthorized troops of armed men, such as the kn-klux and white- 
liners, and others of like character, to drive away the police, overawe the honest 
voters, and control the elections and stuff the ballot-boxes. In that case I say it is 
time for the Government to come in and protect its citizens at home and at the polls. 

I have on this floor and elsewhere deprecated the use of soldiers at the polls to in- 
timidate the voter or in any way to interfere with the elector or the elections. I still 
deprecate such use. The United States troops have never been, as has often been 
shown, used for such purpose. They have never prevented a voter from A r oting at any 
election. But while I would not favor such use of United States troops, I am equally 
opposed to the use of lawless bands of armed men — call them what you may, ku-klux, 
regulators, white-liners, &c. — to drive from the polls, overawe, and intimidate voters 
and otherwise take control and conduct of elections. The Democratic party never 
has condemned the use of lawless bands of armed men at the polls, and it has, through 
many years, favored and justified the use there of such bands. Lawlessness is pre- 
ferred to lawfulness by that party in the conduct of electious. 

Arms at the polls are not objectionable to that party so long as they are not used 
to keep the peace. If they are to be used at the polls to promote riots, to commit 
murder, &c, in short, to prevent a full, free, and fair election, as in many instances 
in South Carolina and Louisiana, they are unobjectionable in the eyes of Democrats 
and should be countenanced and encouraged. Now, I am only in favor of using 
United States troops at the polls when and where, and only when and where, irregular 
and unauthorized bauds of armed men are first used to interfere with elections and 
with the right of the peaceable and honest voter to go freely to the polls and peacea- 
bly vote for members of Congress, and then only for the purpose of putting down such 
bands. I would only use Uuited States troops to prevent interference with elections 
and to protect United States officers, as now authorized by expressed provision of 
law — section 2024, Revised Statutes — when necessary and required, whose duties re- 
quire them to see that free, fair, honest, and peaceful elections are held for members of 
Congress. 

I cannot surrender these views by voting for this bill. While the sixth section of 
the bill repeals no law in force and does not affirmatively prohibit any act to be done 
which may be done under the Constitution or existing laws, it, fairly construed, de- 
nies the right to use any of the money ajqiropriated, to be used to feed, equip, trans- 
port, or pay any portion of the Army, if it is at any time to be used to keep the peace 
at the polls in any emergency. To vote for this bill is to surrender, in principle, all 
we have so long contended for, in my judgment. The words in the section, '"to be 
used as a police force,'" have no special meaning in the connection in which they are 
used. Whenever United States troops are used to aid the civil power to keep the peace 
they are used as a police force. In no case have United States troops been used in 
this country to keep the peace at elections or anywhere else in aid of the civil power 
save as a police force. 

While the appropriation made in this bill may be made available, I cannot assent 
to the terms on which it is made as set forth in the sixth section of it, and hence I 
must vote against it. 



77 



LETTER CARRIER SERVICE. 

June 6, 1679. On a Post-Office appropriation bill, which contained a clause repealing a recent law to 
extend the letter-carrier system. 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Chairman : There ought to be no discussion relative to the merits of this bill, 
considering its origin. It ought to be borne in mind that the law which is sought to 
be repealed was passed after petitions had come to this House from one hundred thou- 
sand persons. And in connection with that we must bearin mind this measure which 
we are now considering was reported from a committee which did not have a single 
petition before it asking it to report any such proposition. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, 
the Committee on Appropriations never has had up to the present moment, as I am 
informed, the subject referred to it at all— never; and this is pure voluntary action 
on the part of a committee which, strictly speaking, under the rules has no right to 
deal with the matter at all. They have the right to provide appropriations to exe- 
cute the existing laws 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. There was an estimate asking for this appropriation sub- 
mitted to the House and referreil to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Mr. KEIFER. Nobody disputes that ; all understand that ; and it was the duty oi 
that committee to come forward and make the appropriation and not undertake to 
pass a new law on the subject. 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. This one hundred and tweutieth rule not only permits 
but under the practice of the majority of this House commands legislation. 

Mr. KEIFER. There is undoubtedly some vile practice in this House, if I may be 
allowed to use the expression, which permits this committee, and only this Committee 
on Appropriations, to report any legislation it pleases on an appropriation bill. And, 
I repeat, this comes alone from that committee without ever having been referred to 
it so far as the subject-matter of legislation here is concerned. 

Now, there is that objection to it, and we ought to consider that this subject was 
fully debated in this House and iu the Senate, for the gentlemen who opposed it took 
the pains to follow it with their opposition to the other end of the Capitol. 

It has be n stated by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] that the bill passed 
without debate. I have not time to go over the whole history of that, but at least 
thirty speeches were made iu the last Congress on this very subject. How many did 
the gentleman from Illinois himself make against it? Can he tell. 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. This bill was never considered in a single instance. 

Mr KEIFER. Now, Mr. Chairman, if that is all that is desired I will call the gen- 
tleman's attention to the proceedings in this House on the 7th day of June, 1878, 
when speech after speech was made. I know a great many speeches on this subject 
were made, printed, and circulated all over the country. I know my friends on my 
right made speeches and gentlemen all around me made speeches pro aud con ; and 
yet we are now told that the bill was not debated. It was debated on every hand, and 
every feature of the bill was debated. One feature was not in the bill as originally 
reported, aud I took the pains from my place on this floor to have read as part of 
my speech, as the Record of the 7th of Juue, 1878, will show, the section of the law 
which I proposed to have the committee add aud which it did add to the bill, and it 
is there in that speech exactly as it appears in the existiug law. I took the pains in 
my speech then to say that under the old law we had made eighty-seven free-delivery 
cities in this country, many of them having a gross revenue of less than $12,000, anil 
many having a net revenue of less than $4,000, and yet there were cities iu this coun- 
try under that law with a gross revenue of over $50,000 which could not have free- 
delivery offices. My own city— and the gentleman thinks I ought not to vote against 
his bill because of that fact — which had a gross revenue of $34,700, could uot under 
the old law get a free mail delivery, while other cities of ten or eleven thousand gross 
revenue came in under the old law. Those were the subjects of discussion, aud three- 
fourths of the members of the House, after they had been fully informed, voted to 
pass the law. So the objection of the gentleman falls that it never was discussed, for 
it did have discussion on every baud. 

As a partial answer, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman's sweeping statement that we 
are liable to have a very large number of cities iu this country that will become free- 
delivery offices I will say that I hold iu my hand a statement made yesterday at the 
Post-Office Department, showing thirty-four cities that would probably come under 
the present law aud be made free-delivery offices. Every one of them, if they were 
made free-delivery offices, would have from $15,000 to $40,000 net revenue to go some- 
where else to be expended after having paid all their own expenses, and all the ex- 
penses of a free-delivery office. Not one of them would fall below from $13,000 to 



78 

$15,000 of net reveuue and some would range as high as $40,000, after having paid all 
expenses. I find one city, not a free-delivery office, the city of Denver/Colorado, pro- 
duces a gross revenue of $53,491. That is among the very highest. The city of Galves- 
ton, Texas, has a gross revenue of $54,077 audit is not a free-delivery office. 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. It has more than thirty thousand inhabitants. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not know but the gentleman may be right when he suggests 
that under the law which he proposes here to-day that city could be made a free-de- 
livery office. There are five cities in the State of Texas that under the existing law 
would be entitled to become free-delivery offices, but under the proposed law would 
he excluded. You, Mr. Chairman [Mr. Reagan in the chair], ought to take notice of 
this because you might be called upon here to vote in favor of some city in your State, 
and the gentleman from Illinois would have it thrown up to the country that a man 
had given a vote in the interest of his constituents in some way or other. I suppose 
that is the extent of the argument. You have five such cities in Texas, and there are 
nineteen States that would be affected in some way or other by the law if the Appro- 
priations Committee would do its duty and report a properappropriation to carry it out. 
I shall take pleasure in furnishing, as a part of my remarks, these lists to be printed 
in the Record, to which I suppose there will be no objection. 

Now, I do not want to go into this discussion further. It is not necessary to pro- 
long it. It ought to be borne iu mind, however, as has been stated by my friend who 
has just taken his seat, that there are two causes that alw r ays increase the reveuue at 
free-delivery offices. One is, in consequence of the additional convenience. Many 
persons write letters and have mail matter to send out who would not otherwise send 
it. That is the testimony and the experience not alone in this country but in Europe. 
If convenient boxes are furnished where a person can, without going a long distance 
to a post-office, mail his letters, more letters will be written. Many people write let- 
ters if they can mail them at a box near at hand when they would not otherwise do 
it if they had to carry them a mile or two to the post-office to mail them. 

But that is not the principal reason why the revenue is increased. It grows out of 
the fact that in the case of all droii-letters there is paid double jmstage at free-deliv- 
ery offices, aud in that way this system becomes self-supporting in the main. I think 
it is reported in some of the former reports of the Postmaster-General, if not a recent 
one — I am not a member either of the Appropriations Committee, which usurps every- 
thing, or of the Post-Office Committee, and I may not be exactly accurate — but I think 
it has beeu reported that with the exception of four or five of the free-delivery offices 
in the United States they have beeu self-supporting on account of the increase of mail 
matter aud also the increase of postage paid in consequence of it. What the last re- 
port may show upon this head I cannot say. Taken all together, the increased rev- 
euue at free-delivery offices is many thousands of dollars in excess of the increase of 
the expense incident to the free-delivery system. 

Therefore, when we deal with this question, we come back to the fact that we are 
simply asking to give these flourishing places mail facilities where they pay for them 
themselves. Now I want to say one word further in relation to the matter of giving 
further mail facilities to cities that pay for them, aud furnish a large net revenue in 
addition. I think in round numbers the uet postal revenue from my city (Springfield, 
Ohio) — and it is no better than others — is $28,000. The amount of gross revenue is 
nearly $35,000. Therefore we pay iu that little city toward carrying the mails and 
toward keepiug up the mail system in other places s->*,000 aunually. Is it unreason- 
able to ask to have extended to us the free-delivery system which will enable us to 
furnish more revenue — perhaps a sufficient increase to pay the whole of the expenses '! 
If we should take $3,000 more from the net revenue of the Springfield office to estab- 
lish the free-delivery system we should still have $25,000 left to contribute annually 
to carry the mails over the prairies in Illinois, and to other places throughout the 
country. Are we to be told that we are greedy because we do not give you more 
money ? Places that do not pay enough money to pay the expenses of the mail facil- 
ities furnished them complain that we waut to spend more of our own money. That 
is the effect of the argument on the otherside. My city is prosperous. We do a large 
amount of business there. I am proud to say that through manufacturing industries 
and otherwise we have built up a flourishing city. We now furnish and are willing 
to furnish much more than our own share of the reveuue to carry the mails. We are 
quite willing to continue to do so. Iu my city we make 33 per cent, of all the reapers 
ami mowers that are manufactured or used on the continent of America. We make, 
also, a large part of the machinery that plows up aud cultivates your prairies of the 
West. We carry on au extensive business of that kind. And we think while we pay 
a large sum of money for the conductiug of the postal service outside of our own place 
we ought to have all the benefits which can be furnished under the postal laws of this 
country. 

I am not making any argument for my own city that I would not make for any 
other similarly situated; but I am not ashamed to say one of the things that operates 
on my mind is the fact that I live in a city that would be entitled to have this in- 
crease of mail facilities. 



79 

There is just one other city in the State of Ohio which under the present law would 
be entitled to this service, and that is the city of Akron. Unfortunately (according 
to the gentleman from Illinois), I suppose, for my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Monroe], 
it is in his district. There are also several cities in the State of Illinois, Rockford I 
recollect is one, that might be entitled to the free-delivery system, but the list I fur- 
nish will show all these places. 

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] undertakes to state in his argument in 
explanation of the revenue of the city of New York that it is a great distributing 
office, aud that is the reason why they have such a large revenue. My understandiug 
of the matter is p and I am willing to be corrected by any gentleman who knows more 
about it than I do, that where you have a principal distributing office you have to 
have a great many more clerks, while there is nothing that adds to the revenue of the 
office. Yon have in New York and in the principal distributing offices of the country 
a large increase in the number of clerks merely for the purpose of distributing the 
mails over the country. But that adds nothing to the revenue ef the office. The 
revenue of the office is derived principally from the sale of postage-stamps; aud 
the fact of the office being a distributing office makes the expenditures far larger than 
they otherwise would be. I trust that when we come to consider the details of this 
bill" we shall by a proper amendment strike out all this proposed and objectionable 
legislation. 

Mr. KEIFER offered the following substitute for the bill : 

"A bill making additional appropriations for the services of the Post-Office Department for the flsca 
years ending June 30, 1879. and June 30, 1880, and for other purposes. 

" Be it enacted, <6c, That in addition to the amounts heretofore appropriated, the following sums be, 
and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
namely : 

" For payment to letter-carriers for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and to extend the service of 
such carriers for said year under the provisions of the act approved February 21, 1879, entitled 
'An act to fix the pay of letter-carriers,' in addition to the sum heretofore appropriated, $353,004. 
For payment of increased salary to letter-carriers under provisions of existing law for the fiscal year 
ending' June 30, 1879, $71,000." 

Mr. KEIFER. I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that the substitute is intended to 
make the appropriations necessary to carry out existing laws; it leaves out all of 
the general legislation proposed in this bill. Now, the statement made by the Post- 
master-General in a communication which he sent to the Senate some time ago in re- 
lation to the letter-carrier law which was approved by the President February 21, 
1879, makes the various estimates necessary to carry out that law. The substitute is 
a mere appropriation bill which I have offered. It undertakes no legislation at all, it 
leaves out all the legislation contained in the pending bill. In the estimate of the 
Postmaster-General he states that there will be required for the remainder of the 
fiscal year, 1879, $71,000 to pay increased salaries and $21,000 to extend the service, 
making $92,000. In the appropriation as provided by my substitute I put in this 
$71,000, omitting the $21,000 for extending the services in the fiscalyear ending June 
30, 1879, for the reason that I am informed at the Post-Office Department that in the 
remainder of this year it will be impossible to extend the service, so that the 
$21,000 is omitted in the appropriation. 

The Postmaster-General states that for the next fiscal year, that is, the year ending 
June 30, 1880, there will be required, in order to extend the service and for the in- 
creased pay of carriers, the sum of $353,000 in addition to the $2,000,000 already ap- 
propriated, it one-half of the carriers in cities of the first-class are paid an annual 
salary of $1,000 each, and $415,000 if two-thirds of them are paid $1,000 each, as pro- 
vided in section 4 of the law of last session. In my substitute I have included the 
smaller sum of $353,000 which, according; to the estimate of the Postmaster-General, 
will enable him To pay only one-half of the carriers in cities of the first class at the 
rate of $1,000 a year each. 

I understand that there are many members on this floor who think we should make 
provision for the maximum number of two-thirds of the carriers at $1,000 a year each,, 
as provided for in section 4 of the act of February 21, 1879. That section provides 
that at no time shall the number of carriers in the first-class cities receiving the max- 
imum salary of $1,000 be more than two-thirds or less than one-half of the whole num- 
ber of carriers actually in serviceinthecitiesin which they are employed. Formypart, 
I do not think these letter-carriers are overpaid. I would not, personally, object to 
paying two-thirds of them at the rate of $1,000 per annum. I have, however, offered 
my substitute so as to provide for jsaying one-half only at that rate, and I trust the 
substitute will be adopted. 

Mr. BAKER. I rise to oppose the amendment. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have not yet yielded the floor. I desire to say that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Cox] made a suggestion to me to change the sum appropriated 
by my substitute from $'.;53,000 to $415,000. If he desires to move such an amend- 
ment I will yield to him for that purpose. 

(Mr. Keifer's substitute was agreed to.) 



80 



POLITICS IN THE JURY BOX. 

June 10, 1879. On the bill making appropriations for judicial expenses, and the section providing 
that the names of three hundred persons shall be placed in the jury-box, from which shall be drawn 
grand and petit jurors, "which names shall have been placed therein by the clerk of such court and a 
commissioner, to be appointed by the judge thereof, which commissioner shall be a citizen residing in 
the district iu which such court is held, of good standing and a well-known member of the principal 
political party opposing that to which the clerk may belong, the clerk and said commissioner each to 
place one name in said box alternately until the whole number required shall be placed therein." 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I do not desire, Mr. Chairman, to take up the time of the committee if gentlemen 
desire to vote on this extraordinary measure. I believe until near the close of the 
Forty-fifth Congress no such astounding proposition as is contained in this bill was 
ever made in the Congress of the United States, or so far as I can learn in any legis- 
lative body in any of the States of the United States. I believe, sir, that so infamous 
a proposition has never crept into any law of any State of this Union, and I beg gen- 
tlemen on the other side of the House, especially from the Southern States, to rise 
and say whether in any one of their States they have ever advocated the policy of 
legislating in this manner politics into the jury-box, or whether in any of their States 
now such a proposition in principle has ever been carried out or enacted into law? 
I hear no man respond to that inquiry. Then I may truthfully say, for one hundred 
years, for a whole century, we have gone along with no such proposition as this in 
any law of a State or in the United States. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the object of this law in relation to jurors? The ob- 
ject is perfectly obvious. There have been violations of the United States laws in 
the South, the stealing of the timber belonging to the Government, the violation of the 
revenue, laws throughout certain districts of the South, and when gentlemen found, 
after attempting legislation, that they could not get these matters determined iu the 
State courts where they had juries, all of whom are Democrats, then they say, we 
will legislate into the jury-box in the United States courts enough partisan Demo- 
crats to prevent the Government from ever convicting any person charged with such 
crimes or recovering a verdict for anything iu any case. And there is the foundation 
for the whole of it. When this proposition was hist made in the last Congress its 
real purpose was no secret. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. McMahon] says there is 
something to be learned from looking to the Electoral Commission. I think there is 
where we are to learn a very bad lesson. We found that gentlemen of the Electoral 
Commission voted according to their politics. 

Nay, we have, Mr. Chairman, this extraordinary instance in relation to that com- 
mission : A gentleman who was appointed by the Forty-fourth Congress on a commit- 
tee to investigate the elections iu the State of South Carolina, to take testimony and 
report who carried that State in 1876, and whether the electors iu favor of Tilden or 
Hayes carried that State (I refer to Judge Abbott, of Massachusetts), went there, and 
after the testimony was taken and he had it all before him, came back to the Forty- 
fourth Congress with other Democratic members of the committee, reported that the 
Hayes electors had carried the State of South Carolina, and then he was put on the 
Electoral Commission; and when he had no testimony before him he voted iu effect 
that the Tilden electors had carried the State of South Carolina and that the Hayes 
electors had uot. 

Now, do you want to carry that out as a precedent ? You want to carry politics 
into the jury-box. In Ohio we have no such law, ami 1 here is no complaint. We do not 
legislate men into the jury-box with a view of their voting for their own parly in ren- 
dering verdicts. We have not hadauy trouble there, and gentlemen from the South 
do not complain in their own States where the jurors are now all Democrats. 

My objections are numerous. 1 have stated them iu a former speech I made on this 
tioor, aud I wish it distinctly understood I put my objection on the ground that men 
must not be told they are put in the jury-box expressly to stand by their party friends, 
for that is the effect of the proposition in this bill. We have had one hundred years' 
experience under our present law, and it has worked well. It is because we have 
fallen on strange times in the history of our country aud because we have peculiar 
ends to accomplish that this proposition is now brought forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I did not desire to prolong this discussion, especially on the point j 
which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] seems to be so much agitated about, 
as neither he nor I were prepared to go fully into all these reports. I staled the re- 
sult, I stated the fact, I stated the effect, aud I reiterate it. The gentleman has un- 
dertaken to read here a portion of a report not at all responsive to what I stated, 
and only of the report signed by Mr. Abbott, of Massachusetts. He attempted to 



81 

evade the point, and then to beg me to withdraw my statement in the face of the re- 
port, and I declined to do so. 

I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that the great question before the Electorial Commis- 
sion at the time the case of the State of South Carolina was being considered, if it 
was not in all cases, was this: those claiming that Tihleu was elected, or that Tilden 
electors were elected, claimed it on the ground that the returns showed the fact of 
their election on their face. 

Now I repeat here that Mr. Abbott signed a report which contains a statement and 
summary of all the election returns in the State of South Carolina, wherein it is stated, 
among other things, after summing up the returns, that "the result by thus ascer- 
taining the votes" — that is, by the returns, and that is what the Democrats stood on 
before the commission — "that the result by thus ascertaining the votes cast at the 
precincts and correcting the mistakes made by the managers in the returns is as 
follows:" and then follows a statement in summary. Then the report states " this 
gives Bowen, who received the smallest vote on the Republican ticket, 92,093 votes over 
McGowan, who received the largest vote on the Democratic ticket, 91,262 votes, a 
majority of 831." That was the report; and the question was what did the returns 
show, aud the returns did show that the Hayes elector who received the lowest vote 
on his ticket had 831 more votes, according to Mr. Abbott's report, thau the highest 
Tilden elector, and so they reported. I read further from the same report : 

Tour committee believe they have obtained with substantial accuracy the number of votes cast, &c. 

So much for that, then. 

Then, considering the great question which was before the commission, which was, 
who was elected by the returns, and denying the right of returning boards to correct 
mistakes or to throw out returns or votes for fraud, Mr. Abbott in effect voted that 
the Hayes electors were not elected and the Tilden electors were. 

There is a good deal in this report, Mr. Chairman. It is the most marvelous thing 
we have ever seen. It contains a great many things which gentlemen may speculate 
about outside of these figures, but the substance is what I have given you here. It 
contains that most extraordinary statement that comes to us twice in reports made 
by Democratic committees of the Forty-fourth Congress relating to the Presidential 
election in 1876, aud on which the Democratic party proposes to throw out votes in 
certain districts. I give the statement in the language of this report now before me : 
" Women utterly refuse to have any intercourse with men of their own race who voted 
against the Republican ticket;" and that was adjudged by Democrats to be a fraud 
upon the Democratic party. [Laughter on the Republican side.] 

90 A— K 6 



82 



THE TRADE DOLLAR. 

June 18, 1879. The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 931) to provide for the ex- 
change of trade-dollars for legal-tender silver dollars- 
Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker: This bill, if enacted into a law, will compel the Secretary of the 
Treasury to exchange legal-tender silver dollars for trade-dollars at par, and to re- 
coin the trade-dollars into legal-tender or standard silver dollars and to stop the 
further coinage of trade-dollars. I understand the Committee on Coinage, Weights, 
and Measures to recommend the passage of this bill. 

Mr. FISHER. Do not say that the committee recommend this bill without amend- 
ments. 

Mr. KEIFER. I understand them to report it back without amendment. 

Mr. WARNER. The majority of the committee are in favor of amending the hill. 

Mr. KEIFER. They have reported it without amendment, and I think my state- 
ment is correct. 

I think the whole measure unwise, and if opportunity is afforded me I will move as 
a substitute for the bill the following : 

That the silver coins of the United States known as the trade-dollars shall be a legal tender at their 
nominal value for any amount not, exceeding $5 in any one payment. 

The substitute proposed would restore the trade-dollar to the status it held in this 
country at the time it was first issued under the act of February 12, 1873, and which 
it held until totally demonetized by the act of July 22, 1876. This latter act was 
passed chiefly throiigh the efforts of Democrats in the Forty-fourth Congress and 
when this House was overwhelmingly Democratic. 

But for the demonetizing act of July 22, 1876, no trouble would ever have arisen in 
this country about the trade-dollar. But for that act no man in this country, rich or 
poor, would have suffered inconvenience or loss on account of the trade-dollars, and 
no banks or brokers would have attempted to speculate in them. 

The trade-dollar, as is well known, was coined for the Asiatic or Chinese trade, and 
this Government did not issue them on its own account, but only coined them under 
the act of 1873 for private parties (on their paying the actual expenses of coinage) 
from bullion deposited at the United States mints for that purpose. 

These trade-dollars never were intended for circulation in the United States, but 
in various ways a portion of those coined came into general circulation. The Secre- 
tary of the Treasury possesses, under existing laws, the rioht and power to restrict 
the coinage of trade-dollars to the necessities of the actual export demand, and under 
this power he wholly suspended their coinage in April, 1878. The total coinage of 
trade-dollars since the passage of the act of 1873, which first authorized them, has 
been $35,9f>9,360. Returns of customs collectors show that 25,703,950 of these dol- 
lars had been exported prior to November 1, 1878, in the Chinese trade alone, and 
after making a reasonable estimate of the number which have found their way out 
of this country through Chinese returning to their own country, and of the number 
smelted for manufacturing and other purposes, and as bullion at the mints ($1U6,000 
have been melted at the mints), and making due allowance for those returned in 
various ways, there can hardly be found in this country five million of the trade- 
dollars. 

Without making any allowance for those used for manufacturing purposes, the Di- 
rector of the Mint in his report dated November 1, 1878, estimates the number of 
trade-dollars then in the United States at five and a quarter millions, and these 
were held principally by California banks. On the 13th of June, 1K79, the trade- 
dollar, notwithstanding it had no legal-tender character, had a commercial value in 
New York City of ninety-nine cents, and the standard silver dollar then had with its 
legal-tender character a commercial value of ninety-nine and seven-eighth cents. On 
tlfat day the bullion in a trade-dollar could have been purchased for ninety-one cents. 
In view of these and other facts I would not withdraw the trade-dollar from circula- 
tion abroad at so great a cost to our Government. We can purchase the amount of 
bullion (and there is plenty of it, the product of our mines) in a trade-dollar for 
ninety-one cents, if desirable to have a more rapid coinage of standard silver dol- 
lars. The silver in the trade dollar has already been utilized, and it would now be 
unwise to offer a premium for the return to this country of over thirty millions of 
the trade-dollars already absorbed in foreign commerce ami not needed at home, and to 
take up and recoin at a loss to the United States of not less tiian nine cents on each 
of the five millions still in this country. 

I appeal to those who favor a free coinage of silver dollars and to those who are 



83 

interested in mineral districts not to favor this measure, as it will only tend to depre- 
ciate our own silver bullion and to widen the breach, at our present ratio, between 
the gold and the. silver standard. It will also be ruinous, for a time at least, to our 
silver-mining interests in this country. There is plenty of bullion without melting 
the trade-dollar to occupy our mints indelini ely to their fullest capacity. There is 
n<> legal or moral obligation resting on this Government to lake up th< se trade-dol- 
lars at above their value as bullion. The Chinese Government has no mint and is 
not likely to have, and the trade dollar is constantly increasing in favor there, hence 
I would not take away from the Secretary of the Treasury the right in his discretion 
to coin, under the original act, trade-dollars expressly to meet an export demand. 
Silver is the money standard of China and most of the oriental nations, and it will 
be largely to the interest of this country, as far as possible, from its inexhaustible 
silver mines to supply them with their coin or money. 

Dr. Linderman, the late Director of the Mint, in his last report, speaking of the 
trade-dollar, very wisely says : 

It will be to our advantage to furnish these coins, so far as we can without detriment to our own 
money system : and the trade-dollar having attained such a favorable position in China, it, would not 
appear to be advisable to repeal the law authorizing its coinage. 

No more trade-dollars will in any event be coined, unless it is to the interest of bull- 
ion-holders to have .it done. They will not, with the approval of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, deposit at the United States mint bullion to be coined into trade-dollars 
unless it will be more profitable than to sell it to the Government for coinage or to 
other parties. Why should this means of utilizing our silver productions be with- 
drawn, especially while silver bullion is so much depreciated in the markets of the 
world f No harm can come to anybody from the continued coinage of the trade-dollar 
under the restrictions stated already, provided my proposed substitute is adopted. As 
has already been stated, the trade-dollar never was intended to become one of the 
coins of our country to go into ordinary use; and notwithstanding the. fact that it 
contains 6f grains more pure or 74- grains more standard silver than the now legal- 
tender silver dollar, I would not give it a full legal-tender character. To do tholat- 
ter would destroy the original purposes of the act of 1873. 

The limited legal-tender character of that act should, however, never have been 
taken away, and should now be restored so as to protect all persous, laborers, and 
others from inconvenience and loss on account of those now iu or which may come 
into their hands. Brokers or large dealers in trade-dollars can protect, themselves by 
disposing of what they now have on hand for the continuing Asiatic export trade. 
Persons holding a few trade-dollars who have received them for wages or otherwise 
can use them in small sums, if they are only given a legal-tender quality for $5, as I 
propose. If employers should use them to pay their employe's, the latter could buy 
without discount any of the necessaries of life with them." To make them a legal 
tender for s."> will not injure the Government to any extent, but it will prevent loss to 
that class of persons who cannot always protect themselves. The bill of the commit- 
tee is against the interests of the Government and iu the interest of the banks and 
brokers who have hoarded the trade-dollar. 

The bullion in all the trade-dollars could be purchased by the Government for 
.$32,725,017 at the present advanced price of silver bullion, but under this hill the 
Government would be required to pay .$3,234,343 more than they are worth as bullion, 
thus opening a means of speculation at the expense of the Government and offering an 
inducement to parties to gather up at home and abroad aud sent to the mints all the 
trade-dollars hitherto minted. This bill is iu the interest of those who have already 
hoarded in large sums the trade-dollars, purchased at eighty-rive and ninety cents 
apiece. It provides a means of robbing the United States Treasury to the extent of 
millions of dollars in the interest of speculators, and affords no sort of relief to per- 
sons who hold trade-dollars in small quantities and who have received them for wages, 
produce, &c. It must be noted that the passage of this bill will give no relief to 
holders of small sums of trade-dollars. Such holders can only sell at a discount to 
speculators, to be sent off to the Treasury or subtreasuries of' the United States for 
exchange. To give such dollars a legal-tender quality only in sums uot exceeding $5 
will necessarily force those now in our country abroad, and will cause them not to 
circulate at home generally. 

_ Let us coin our standard silver dollars to the extent of the capacity of our mints, 
if necessary ; but out, of fresh bullion, the product of our miues and the fruits of the 
toil and enterprise of our miners. 

I am uot speaking against the silver dollar or the silver standard, but I speak » 
favor of a silver dollar for our own home circulation which may never be dishonored, 
but held up abreast, for all purposes, of the gold or now paper dollar of this Govern- 
ment, and also in favor of finding an easy market and good price for a great and in- 
exhaustible product of our country. 

We have coined, prior to June 1, 1879, under existing law, 33,485,950 legal-tender 
silver dollars, which are now ready for or iu circulation. Whoever prefers silver dol- 



84 

lars can get them in any sums desired. The -per capita of .silver dollars in this country 
is much greater than at any other time in its history. 

The Democratic party were the pioneers in the work ot destroying the monetary 
power" of silver in the United States. 

From the organization of the United States Mint (1/93) to June 30, 1873, the total 

silver coinage was as follows : 

^ ,, $8,045,838 00 

S ol ' a ^r, 99. 845, 2:i5 50 

Half dollars 22,001,218 50 

Quarter dollars •'" ,, (|(i0 7 ,, 5 50 

}>}™? 6 ,. 4. 906, !-4ti 90 

Half dimes 1,281 850 20 

Three cents ; ___ 

Total silver coinage prior to 1873 145,141,884 60 

On February 21, 1853, a Congress, Democratic in both branches by large majorities, 
bv leeal enactment took away The thitherto full legal-tender character © all subsid- 
iary silver coin, except in payment of debts for sums under $5. Upon the principle 
of this Democratic law above $137,000,000 of our silver coinage were demonetized 

It is claimed that what remained at home and weienot melted up for vanoususesot the 

$8 045 838 silver dollars coined prior to June 30, 1873, were by a Republican Congress 
demonetized by the act of February 12, 1873. If true, this would be a comparatively 
smallmatter. Avery large share of the responsibility of that act also belongs to promi- 
nent Democrats in both the Senate and the House. ^ 

Until June 22, 1874 (the date of the taking effect ot the Revised Statutes ot the 
United States), all silver dollars coined by authority of the United States were a legal 
tender, equal with gold coin. Section 358t: of said statutes demonetized all Luited 
States 'silver coinage, and made it a legal tender for only ,$5. 

The act of FebnTarv 12, 1873, provided only for limiting the legal-tender character 
to $5 of the silver coins issued under its provisions, including the trade- dollar. 

Now that members of all political parties are in favor of a coinage of legal-tender 
silver dollars, and some of each of the two principal political parties are in favor ot a 
free coinage of silver on the same terms and on an equal footing with gold, let us do 
nothing to bring discredit on a policy which tends to make coinage of silver dollars 
desirable in cur country. 

Ab( 
doll; 

lars at the expen. 
only persons in this country who have suffered irom a circulation ot silver (trade) doi- 

a Bv the adoption of my proposed substitute for this bill full relief will come to this 
last class of persons, ami the Government and other parties fillsuffCTUoJioM. 

ernmenl 

among 

any cit 

simple, and efficient. 

June l'J, 1879. Remarks on the adoption of tlio substitute : 

Mr KEIFER. I have proposed this substitute for the purpose of bringing us back 
to the point from which we started. The trade-dollar was originally legal tender t-.r 
$5 A Democratic House and a Republican Senate in 1876 demonetized the trade-dol- 
lar We are now asked to enact a bill which provides that that mule-dollar, which 
o'nl'v three yea is ago was supposed to be of a character that ought to pass tor nothing 
in this country, must now be bought in at more than it is worth. 1 he proposition is 
now that the trade-dollar is too good to circulate in this country, that it has too mucn 
bullion in it, and therefore the United States must pay nine cents on each dollar mora 
than it is worth as bullion, and take it up at a cost of over $3,000,000, if all the trade- 
dollars issued by this Government shall he presented for redemption. 

Already they'are gathering up ou the Asiatic coast and shipping these trade-dollars 
to New York City in order to speculate in view of the legislation proposed here to- 
dav I am opposed to such a policy as utterly unwise. Now, if you will simply make 
these trade-dollars legal tender in sums of $5 they will circulate everywhere. It we 
had not passed the act of 1870 demonetizing the trade-dollar we would not have heard 
on the political rostrum all this talk about the trade-dollars. Let us go back to 
where we were before the act of 187(5 was passed, aud the trade-dollar will then cir- 
culate everywhere throughout the country. 

Mr. FORT. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 




By the adoption of my proposed substitute tor tbis bin iuii reiiei win come to 

tst class ot persons, and the Government and other parties will suiter no loss. 

No money or representative of money or obligation of any character which t his l 

mment is'or has been in any degree responsible lor passing into common circnla 

to- the people should be allowed to be made the instrument ot injury or loss to 

utizen The remedy proposed, so far as the trade-dollar is concerned, is easy, 



85 

Mr. FORT. Does the gentleman think that making the trade-dollar a legal tender 
will hriug it up to par? 

Mr. KEIFER. Undoubtedly it will, as the subsidiary silver coins which the gen- 
tleman uses every day are at par. 

Mr. FORT. Then why should there not be the same inducement t<> send the trade- 
dollars back here from China and put them in circulation at par? 

Mr. KEIFER. Because by this bill it is proposed to buy them up as bullion and 
pay nine cents on each dollar more thau they arc worth as bullion. 

Mr. FORT. Your amendment would make them legal tender without recoinage. 

Mr. KEIFER. Only for $5, and therefore they will not become current to any great 
amount. 



BANK RESERVES. 

January 22, 1880. On the bill requiring reserve of national banks to be kept in gold and silver coins 
•of the United States. — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker: Notwithstanding the painful regret expressed by the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Currency [Mr. BucknerJ yesterday in reference to the 
matter of members indulging in irrelevant debate, we have been obliged to-day to 
listen to a great deal more of that kind of debate. But I wish to give a reason or two 
in the moment I have to occupy the floor why I shall vote against this bill. I shall 
not be in harmony with some gentlemen who have spoken against the bill here to-day. 

First, let me say when this bill tirst came before the House for consideration the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Btckner] having charge of it told us in substance that 
the bill was to have no effect at all upon the country. He took pains as long ago, I 
believe, as the 14th of January to demonstrate, by putting into the Record a table, 
that there was coin enough now in all the banks of this country to meet the require- 
ments of this bill. We were then to be soothed with the idea that we were to make 
no draught upon the reserve coin in the Treasury except to secure resumption. He 
then assured the House we were engaged in harmless if not useless legislation. That 
was the burden of his speech, and lie demonstrated then that there was more coin al- 
ready in possession of the national banks than was essential for the coin reserve re- 
quired by this bill. But yesterday, to our surptise, he told us that he introduced 
this bill at the extra session, or one very similar to it, and he further said : 

But my purpose was to unload the Treasury of a portion of its immense hoards of gold and silver for 
the purpose of diffusing them among the banks ami the people. 

But, Mr. Speaker, when we read the bill, we find the sole effect of it is to put the 
padlock of the law on $50,0(10,000 of the coin of the United States, that the people 
cannot reach under anj process known to t lie country. The effect of the bill is to 
lock np, in round numbers. $50,000,000 of coin that the people canuot reach under 
any circumstances. The coin reserve required to be kept in the sixteen principal 
cities of this country, where they are required to keep in " lawful mo net/ of lite United 
States" a sum equal to 25 per cent, of their circulation and bank deposits, and in the 
other banks of the country, in like lawful money, 15 per cent, of their outstanding 
circulation and deposits, which reserves aggregate, in rouud numbers, $100,000,000 — 
we are, then, Mr. Speaker, by this bill to say that one-half of that large aggregate is 
to be locked up in the banks, where it is not to be reached at all. It is to be absolutely 
withdrawn from circulation. 

We are, it is true, to turn out instead $50,000,000 of greenbacks. What for '! Do the 
people want them? I venture to say there has not been a petition presented to this 
House or to the Senate, asking that these greenbacks shall be turned out aud taken 
from the reserves of the banks — not a single one. 

We are here taking up time in trying to legislate upou a subject that is not de- 
manded by the wants of the country or by the wishes of the country anywhere. And 
wi»at is the real design and purpose of this hill ? If not the design,' what will be 
the real effect of it? Not, to use up, as I understand it, for we ought not to do that, 
the amount of coin that is now in the banks for the use of the people whenever they 
go to' the banks to get it ; not to take up the coin in the pockets of the people, for 
they need that for their own uses, aud will be likely to hold on to it, but to compel the 
banks to go to the Treasury of the United States and to draw from the fund now there 
$50,000,000 of the coin reserve, to lock it up so that it caunot be made available for 
securing permanent or continuing resumption. This is the whole scheme and design 
of this bill. It is unwise, and I trust no man who believes in the doctrine of having 
paper money and gold and silver coin abreast will vote for it. I also trust all those who 
believe resumption is right and will and should oe maintained, will vote against this 



8i-5 

bill. Not only do you take by this $50,000,000 in coin from the Treasury vaults of the 

United Slates and lock it up, uol permitting i1 to be used for the purposes of securing 
resumption — not only do you do that, but you turn out $50,000,000 of the paper money 
of the country now held in reserve by national banks, and make it available to be 
used in an emergency by opponentsof resumption for presentation for redemption. 

The bill enacted into a law withdraws §50,000,000 of coin necessary to be used for 
the purposes of resumption and substitutes therefor $50,000,000 of paper money to be 
presented everywhere and at any time for redemption. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not good financial policy in this country, or at least it is 
in the face of what is usually regarded as good financiering in any country. There 
should be a great center where coin is accumulated so as to strengthen the power 
which has the responsibility of carrying out the policy of resumption. It has been 
the policy of Great Britain and it lias been the policy hen; when we acted wisely, and 
until very recently it has beeu the policy of the Democratic party also. 

I remember very well in the last national campaign in this country the gentleman 
who had the distinguished honor of being selected as the standard-bearer of Democ- 
racy arraigned the party in power, the Republican party, for not providing for a re- 
serve of coin in order to procure resumption of specie payment upon the legal-tender 
notes issued by the Government. I have here his exact language : 

The amount of the legal-tender notes of the United States now outstanding is less than $370,000,000, 
besides $24,000,000 of fractional currency. How shall the Government make these notes at all times 
as good as specie ? It has to provide, in reference to the mass 'which would be kept in use by the 
wants of business, a central reservoir of coin, adequate to the adjustment of the temporary fluctuations 
of international balances, and as a guarantee against transient drains artificially created by panic or 
by speculation. 

This I have read from Mr. Tilden's letter of acceptance. It lays down the true doc- 
trine on this question, and the one the Republican party adopted when the time came 
to act in the matter of carrying out the resumption act of January 14, 1875. 

Mr. Tilden complained that a "reservoir of coin" was not provided several years 
before the resumption law was to take effect The Republican party was satisfied to 
provide one only when it was needed. Let us not destroy if, now that we have re- 
sumption with its good results in the revival of business, restoration of business con- 
fidence, &c. 

I might read more from this letter of acceptance, but my time is too short. The 
proposed legislation is a direct thrust at the Treasury and at the power of the Gov- 
ernment to maintain resumption, and we learned yesterday for the first time, from the 
distinguished gentleman who has charge of this bill, that it was so designed ; for he 
then said it was to take the coin out of the Treasury of the United States, and for fear 
that the money should be used as we now use the reserve provided for the national 
banks, he then offered an amendment to the bill which requires the money to be locked 
up in the vaults of the several nat ional hanks in the country. As the law is now, three- 
fifths of the reserve of the country banks may be kept in the cities which are selected 
as depositories for the redemption of the circulating notes of the banks. That is no 
longer to be done, so far as the coin reserve, which will be required to be kept by this 
proposed legislation, is concerned. It changes and alters the entire national banking 
system, so far as the reserves are con erned. We shall no longer keep any portion of 
this one-half coin in any of the cities selected for the purpose of deposits in order to 
secure the redemption of the circulating notes of the banks. There are eighteen of 
these cities in this country. Of these eighteen, seventeen may, under certain circum- 
stances, select banks in the city of New York where they may keep a portion of their 
reserves, and thus make available for business purposes a large amount of money as 
required now to be kept under the present law. 

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as the law now stands every bank, if it is 
wise, or if necessary, will keep coin as a part of its reserves. These banks are re- 
quired to keep their reserves in lawful money of the United States. The lawful 
money of this country is defined by the statutes to be gold and silver coin, United 
States Treasury notes, and demand Treasury notes for the purpose of the banking law 
of the country. I think that the passage of this bill would be the first great blow at 
the established policy of this country, that policy that has been so wisely undertaken 
and so successfully maintained, namely, the policy of resumption of specie paymen' 
after it had beeu so long suspended. 
(The bill was lost.) 



HI 



DEATH OF HON. ZACHARIAH CHANDLER. 

January 28, 1880. A message from the Senate, by Mr. BURCH, its Secretary, communicated the reso 
Unions of that body upon tlie announcement of the death of Hon. Zachakiah Chandler, late a Sena" 
tor of the United States from the State of Michigan. 

Mr. CONGER offered the following resolutions: 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives has received with profound sorrow the announce- 
ment of the death of Hon. Zachakiah Chandler, late a United States Senator from the State of 
Michigan. 

Resolved. That business be now suspended to allow fitting tributes to be paid to his public and 
private virtues; ami that, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, the House at 
the clone of such remarks shall adjourn. 

Mr. KE1FKR said: 

Mr. Speaker: II" we were to call the roll of the dead who have fallen from the 
ranks of those who have mustered in this our country's Capitol, we should hear the 
names of many historic souls familiar to the ears of the people of all lands, and not 
among the least of those would he found the name of him on whose account we meet 
here to-day to pay a last trihute of respect. 

My personal relations with the late Senator Zachariah Chandler were limited to 
occasional and incidental meetings during the last two years of his life. To those 
who knew him well and intimately during many years of his long, eventful, and 
useful life it must he left to speak of him in his social and family relations. But his 
public life and acts belong to the whole country ; and in so far as he was the instru- 
ment of good to mankind ; in so far as his life was exemplary and worthy of imitation ; 
in so far as he was a type of American manhood and an honor to his country and race, 
he belongs to history. 

While his life and public services may not have been singularly grand, they were 
transcendently gri at. It has often been said with a view of detracting from indi- 
vidual greatness that men only heeome great because they have lived and been called 
on to grapple with great events. It is not to be denied that great occasions develop 
great intellects and great men. It is also true that men who have high and responsi- 
ble public duties cast on them as a rule meet and discbarge them often to the surprise 
of their friends, with singular faithfulness and ability. But in the long and eventful 
period in our country's history through which the lamented Senator lived many 
strong men faltered, hesitated, and fell. 

The differences in men are rarely to he measured by their difference in natural and 
purely intellectual endowments ; they consist more commonly in the differences in zeal, 
energy —physical energy — perseverance, devotion to duty, to friends, and country, 
pride of success, love of honor, self-respect, high resolve, dauntless spirit, and, above 
all, a desire to <lo good. 

Senator Chandler possessed most if not all of these endowments, and more largely 
than most of the great and good men of the world. 

If I were compelled to name the one leading characteristic which he was en- 
dowed with in a higher degree than another, ami which ruled him in private and 
public affairs throughout his useful life. I should say it was heroism. Though 
not a warrior in the period of war, his whole life was a heroic one. Heroes are not 
found alone in the fiery furnace of war ; they are common to the paths of peace. He 
possessed true heroism, "the self-devotion of genius manifesting itself in action." 
He was not only of that kind of heroism denoting fearlessness of danger, passive 
courage, ability to bear up under trials amid dangers and sufferings; nor was it 
only that fortitude, bravery, and valor which is essential to those who go forth to 
conflicts with living opponents in personal mortal combat as duelists or in battle; 
it was made up of that intrepidity and courage which shrink not in the presence of 
appalling danger. Senator Chandler was unpretentious, and as a husband, lather, 
and friend, was kind, patronizing, and gentle; but when stormy times came his brow 
seemed to darken, and that great body of his, which appeared to the beholder to be 
oue of the motive forces of creation, strode fearlessly to the front, and there, by com- 
mon consent held sway until all danger was passed. 

Many courageous men, not truly heroic, falter and fail to enter the lists when a 
conflict is imminent. Not so the deceased Senator. He was a leader when the times 
or occasions demanded true valor. It is in the lead where men fall or are sacrificed. 
The leaders in charging a foe tire the most conspicuous marks, and they are the first 
to receive the manly fire of hold enemies and often the cowardly arrows of hiding 
foes in the rear, not nnfrequently springing from the bow of envy or jealousy. 

He escaped in a singular degree, and died in old age with his armor on. In a suc- 
cessful civil as in a successful military life — and in the eyes of an often un discriminat- 
ing public success in either is the only test of true greatness — it is easier to be led to 
scenes where honor and glory are won than to be one of the few who lead there. 

In the bloody conflicts of war the percentage of those who cannot, if well com- 



88 

manded, meet the actual conflict of battle with a good show of courage is very small 
indeed; yet the large mass of men are physical cow aids. Mr. Chandler had no cle- 
ment of cowardice in him. He was always a. natural leader. 

As a business man he sought out a comparatively new State, and attained success 
by foresight, energy, and enterprise. He left a large fortune. This same foresight, 
energy, and enterprise he carried with him throughout his public life. He was devoted 
to his friends and magnanimous to his foes, but not to the latter until he was sure they 
were conquered. 

As a political leader he was known to be a violent partisan. This came from his 
having no half-way convictions of duty and right. When he had work to do he struck 
heavy blows. He did not lightly tap a nail ou the head to start it on its course, but 
drove it home at a single blow. He was said to be uncompromising in his character. 
This was unjust to him, save in all matters where his country or principle was in- 
volved. He was honest, and integrity in private and public affairs was a pole star for 
his guidance. He may have erred, and doubtless did, in many things. It is only hu- 
man to err. His impetuous and fiery nature may have sometimes caused him to go 
astray, but he was willing to make amends for any wrong he had to another when in 
his power. 

Like all positive men who come prominently upon the stage of life, he had not friends 
alone, but violent enemies. But, like a giant oak that withstands the tornadoes 
as well as the gentler winds for a century, and grows stronger and firmer in its 
fiber, Senator Chaudler grew in mental and moral stature by reason of the violence of 
his foes. He. like the oak, could not have flourished alone in the sunshine of life. 
He needed, if he did not deserve, its stormy days to prepare him for his high destiny. 
It has been said by another who had to bear more than seemed to be his share of 
violent opposition, "that he could as little afford to spare his enemies as his friends." 
They fitted and qualified him for better and nobler duties. Mr. Chandler's body and 
mind were alike, of the rugged not to say rough, cast. 

His light, though not such as would be called in high literary circles as brilliant, 
yet it burned fiercely, reaching on occasions a white heat, in the presence of which 
his opponents withered. In debate he was fearlessly outspoken. He could take as 
well as give herculean blows. Better men may have lived than plain old Zachariah 
Chandler, but none excelled him in love of country or of his fellow- n en. For subter- 
fuge and dodging he had a brave man's scorn. He always spoke his mind and acted 
boldly up to his convictions. He was for war w 7 hen peace no longer seemed possible. 
As early as I860 he gave it as his opinion that " a little blood-letting would be good for 
the body politic" He was then for war. And in the national halls of legislation he 
gave his voice and votes for its rigorous prosecution. 

He believed in the fiat of the emancipation which made plain Abe Lincoln's name 
immortal . It has been said that he was indiscreet, boisterous, and headstrong. So 
far as this may have been true it was because he had in great affairs absolutely no 
nonsense about him. 

As a political enemy of his has said : "He went straight for the thing in sight, and 
generally came off with it." 

His w r arm and generous nature would not allow him to betray a friend or thrust 
an enemy in the back. If throughout his whole career his life was not one in all re- 
spects to be imitated by the young men of the country, it cannot be said that he cor- 
rupted them. 

It was my fortune to meet him for a day near the close of his life. He was then on 
duty for a cause in which his heart and soul were enlisted, and in that cause he died. 
He had then entered upon his last-campaign. It was bounded by no State lines. He 
addressed the people in Ohio on the political issues which he deemed vital to 
them ; he Hew from place to place rapidly, and was gone, and the "talking lightning" 
told us he was in the distant State of Massachusetts, and thundering his plain but 
convincing speech in Faneuil Hall to the learned men of Boston. Vv'e heard of him 
elsewhere in that State and in the State of New York; then came the news that he 
was in the far Northwest — the State of Wisconsin — pouring livid, convincing argu- 
ments out to her people. The morning papers announced that he was to address the 
assembled multitudes in that magic, wondrous city of Chicago on the night of Octo- 
ber 31, 1879. 

The early papers on the next day gave us his speech, but with it came the start- 
ling announcement — Zach. Chandler is dead. Strong men and women mourned. 
His friends and foes stood dazed in the presence of the sad tidings. They did not 
know how to contemplate him from the stand-point of death. He died as a hero might 
wish to die — like a plumed knight, "booted and spurred." It is fitting that here in 
these halls that knew him so long we should pay him a last tribute, ami shed copious 
tears to his memory. As we contemplate him dead, in his final chamber of repose, 
in the poet's language we may truthfully say : 

Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells. 

Here gro.v no damned grudges, here are no storms, 

No noise; but silence and eternal sleep. 



8y 



RULE XXI. 

February 14, lSeO. Ou a report of the Committee, on Rules — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

This seems to be a good time, Mr. Chairman, while considering this subject, to ex- 
press our opinions generally on a clause in Rule XXI of the new rules reported. 

I wish to say that I am opposed to the pending amendment in relation to the trans- 
fer of the Post-Offiee appropriation bill from the Committee on Appropriations to the 
Committee on the Post-Otiiee and Post-Roads; that is, I am opposed to it provided 
Rule XXI shall be amended as I think it ought to amended. I desire to say that in 
my judgment it is better to have one common appropriation committee, whose duties 
shall be confined entirely to the preparation of appropriation bills in accordance with 
existing law. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if you transfer to the various committees of this House 
the duties of preparing the several appropriation bills there will be a strife between 
those committees, the C< mmittee on Military Affairs, the Committee on Naval Affairs, 
the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, and so on through, each striving to 
obtain the most appropriations for the Department of the Government directly under 
its charge, and in that way we will necessarily augment the annual appropriations 
beyond the ordinary revenues of the Government. 

While, however, that in my mind would be a great evil, it would be simple and in- 
significant in comparison with the evils that would result from the operation of clause 
3 in Rule XXI as now reported, and which have resulted from the rule as it now ex- 
ists. That clause is a mere trap. It has been claimed by our distinguished Speaker 
that it furnishes the great means of reducing appropriations and saving money to the 
people. But I have observed in this Congress, I observed iu the last session, that the 
sole purpose of that clause was to enable the Committee on Appropriations to hang 
political legislation on appropriation bills. Under the guise of that clause of our 
rule we were here during the last session lor more than three months, standing face 
to face and eye to eye, lighting over the question as to whether we should repeal our 
election laws, and whether we should by a law* of this Government make it a crime 
to keep the peace at the polls on election days. There is no such thing as retrench- 
ment intended. All that was intended was to coerce the minority of this House and 
to coerce the Executive of this Government to submit legislation dictated by the ma- 
jority of this House ou the other side. That is what is meant by this clause under the 
guise of retrenchment to force legislation upon appropriation bills. 

Let me give yon an example that is not political. I remember that in the Forty- 
fifth Congress, by more than a two-thirds vote of the House and by a unanimous 
vote of the Senate, regardless of party, we passed what was known as the letter-car- 
rier bill ; yet when this same Appropriations Committee came to deal with that mat- 
ter they said in substance tbattbe House and the Senate had passed the letter-carrier 
bill and the Executive who approved of it did not understand the subject. They said 
they would cut that bill to pieces or they would make no appropriations at all for the 
purpose. That committee came in here with an appropriation bill containing a very 
small sum of money for the letter-carrier branch of the service, and with new legisla- 
tion, proposing altogether to repeal and overthrow the action of the House and the 
Senate. We fought that committee here for a whole day to compel it to make appro- 
priations in accordance with existing law . That committee did not report those pro- 
visions under auv sniise of retrenchment. 



90 



SPECIAL DEPUTY MARSHALS. 

March 18, 1880. To the deficiency appropriation bill an amendment was offered, providing: " That 
hereafter special deputy marshals of elections and general depr.ty marshals, lor performing any duties 
in reference to any election, i- hall receive the sum of $2 per day in full for their compensation ; and 
that all appointments of such special deputy marshals or of general deputy marshals having any duty 
to perform in respect to any election shall be made hy the judge of the circuit court of the. United 
States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the district judge, in 
the absence of the circuit judge, and not less than two nor more than three appointments shall be 
made for any voting precinct where such appointments are required to be made, and the persons so 
appointed shall each be of different political parties, of good character, and able to read and write the 
English language, and shall be well-known residents of the voting precincts in which their duties are 
to be performed." 

Points of order were raised against it. 
Mr. KETFER said : 

The points of order have been well stated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Hiscock]. I wish to call attention to a bill introduced by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] and referred to the Committee on Elections, and 1 will say 
that this amendment is in substance that bill. I agree that it is not in precisely the 
same language, but in every sense it is in substance that bill. I take pleasure in 
sending a copy of the bill to the Chair. 

Now I wish to say if this be not true— if it be controverted by the gentleman from 
Illinois — if he claims that this proposed amendment is not in substance the bill now 
before the Committee of Elections, then the point made by the gentleman from New 
York is sound — that this subject-matter referred to in the amendment was never be- 
fore the Committee on Elections. It was never referred to that committee if it did 
not get there by virtue of the reference of the bill of the gentleman from Illinois. 

In terms the proposed amendment contains more than the bill that was referred. 
It contains in addition an appropriation, but in its subject-matter it proposes to 
change existing law in relation to the special deputy marshals and their mode of ap- 
pointment. The objection must go, of course, to the whole amendment. If the amend- 
ment simply proposed to pay these special deputy marshals in the State of California 
the objection would not be good, and I think I am safe in saying that no Objection 
would he made, at least on this side of the House, to such an amendment. That 
amendment would be entirely in order, because this is a deficiency made in accord- 
ance with law. I know it is that sort of deficiency that my colleague [Mr. McMahon] 
undertakes to say the Congress of the United States ought not to make good. But, 
Mr. Chairman, while I do not characterize that utterance of my colleague, I wish to 
characterize the conduct of the Congress of the United States in refusing to make ap- 
propriations which are in exact accordance with the mandates of law. It is not 
cowardly to refuse, but it is doing that which will he denominated before the 
country and the world dishonest not to appropriate money to pay a debt which has 
been contracted in exact accordance with law. 

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order must go to the whole of this 
proposed amendment ; and 1 wish to have it distinctly understood the gentleman can 
make proper appropriations but in this way. He cannot change existing laws. We 
do not wish either to have a repetition of what we have had in the early days of this 
Congress. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from Ohio, who has just taken his seat, makes 
the point of order, first, that the subject-matter of this amendment has not been be- 
fore the Committee on Elections; anil secondly, that the subject-matter of it is before 
the Committee on Elections, and for that reason is not in order. 

Mr. KE1FER. The genth man will understand me : I say that it is not before the 
Conup ittee on Elections unless it gets there hy virtue of a bill which the gentleman has 
introduced ; and if it does get there by virtue of that bill then he can only report in 
accordance with the subject-matter contained in that bill. If it is not in accordance 
with that then it should be ruled out upon that ground. 

I simply wish to add a Avoid or two to what I have already stated. I am induced 
to do it by the intimation of the Chair that on one point I suggested the Chair dif- 
fered from me. As has already been said, I regard the ruling on this question as a 
veryimportaul one, not for to-day or perhaps for this session or for this Congress, but 
for'the future Congresses. I wish to state again what I tried to state in the first in- 
stance : that is, if the Committee on Elections had the subject-matter of this amend- 
ment referred to it by reason of the reference of the bill offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], and if we gave that committee jurisdiction to report 
upon this question at all, or jurisdiction to consider the question at all, then it was 
because the amendment itself was in substance the same as the hill. 

I have invited the attention of the Chair to the consideration of the bill. The anal. 



91 

ysie of the amendment will show that it pertains generally to an alteration of an 
existing law relating to the appointment of special deputy marshals. Isnot that 
tin' substance of the bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer]? If it is 
not then the committee which this morning undertook to instruct its chairman to re- 
port an amendment to this House was doing a vain thing and one outside of its ju- 
risdiction. 

Let me repeat, if that bill gave jurisdiction to the Committee on Elections over 
this matter, then it was because it contained the substance of this amendment. If 
the amendment contained the substance of the bill, then we can come log- 
ically. I think, to the conclusion, that it isnot in order under the fourth clause of 
Rule XXI, which prohibits the introduction by way of amendment of" the substance of 
any other bill, or resolution pending before the House." That is all I desire to say 
on this point of order. 

(The points of order were overruled, and debate followed.) 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, on the merits of this bill which we have been con- 
sidering for many days I have not undertaken to occupy a moment's time. I would 
not take the short time allotted to me under the rules but for the fact that I think we 
are again launching ourselves upon the issue which divided this House and divided 
the country and concentrated the interests of this country all through the extra ses- 
sion of this Congress. 

The amendment proposed to the substitute by my distinguished colleague from Ohio 
[Mr. Garfield] may be entirely unobjectionable in form and in terms, but, Mr. Chair- 
man, to me it is wholly objectionable, because it comes here in the form of a rider to 
an appropriation bill, and a mere deficiency bill at that. While I may feel bound to 
vote for it if I think it is the best we can get, especially after the Chair has ruled such 
an amendment is in order, yet I wish here distinctly to protest against it. 

I am not particularly surprised that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] un- 
dertook to set himself up agaiust the Supreme Court ol the United States and at his 
undertaking, by his t/>-sr dixit, to say. that a solemn, well, and carefully considered de- 
cision of that mostaugnst body of this country is wrong. I was not surprised to hear 
him say that. Mr. Chairman, I was not surprised to hear the general applause coming 
from that side of the House when they responded to that statement. The decision of 
the Supreme Court remains, however, the supreme law of the land under the Consti- 
tution. 

That Supreme Court of ours he says is partisan in its character ; packed is the word 
he uses. Who packed that court? Turn to the character of those men; read it ; 
read the record they have made in all their life-time— each one of them — and you will 
see how utterly reckless and false this statement was. I might say their lives would 
give the lie to such a charge as that. The source of the charge need not be con- 
sidered. 

1 desire, Mr. Chairman, to say one thing further, in reference to a remark made by my 
colleague from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] who has charge of this bill on the floor. He un- 
dertook to state to the committee a day or two ago that while the Supreme Court de- 
cided these election laws were constitutional, yet that court did not decide thelaw was 
a good one. Of course he made that statement without having read the opinion of the 
court. I have not time here, in the limit allowed me, to go into that opinion. I hold 
it in my hand. There are some grand views stated there in the opinion of Justice 
Bradley, who spoke for the majority of the court. Unless there is objection, I will in- 
sert an extract or two as part of my remarks. 

The court say in the recent case of Ex parte Seibold et ah, in speaking of govern- 
mental power, that — 

In exercising the power, however, we. are bound to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious 
manner: that it has endeavored to guard as far as possible against any unnecessary interference with 
State laws and regulations with the duties of State officers, or with local prejudices. It could not act 
at all so as to accomplish any beneficial object in preventing frauds and violence, and seeming the 
faithful pei formance of duty at the elections, without providing for the presence of officers and agents 
to carry its regulations into effect. It is also difficult to see how it could attain these objects without 
imposing proper sanctions an t penalties against offenders. 

And in another place Justice Bradley, in the opinion, says: 

"Without ftie concurrent sovereignty referred to, the National Government would be nothing but an 
advisory Government. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. 

"Why do we have marshals at all if they cannot pin sically lay their hands on persons and things in 
the performance of their proper duties ! What functions can they perform if they cannot, use force? 
In executing the process of the courts must they call on the. nearest constable for protection; must 
they rely on him to use the requisite compulsion and to keep the peace while they are soliciting and 
entreating the parties and b\ slanders to allow the law to take its couse ? This is the nec< ssary con- 
sequence of the positions that are assumed. If we indulge in such impracticable views as these, and 
keep on refining and rerefining, we shall drive the National Government out of the United States, and 
relegate it to the District of Columbia, or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall bring it- back to a 
condition of greater helplessness than that of the old confederation. 

The argument is based on a strained and impracticable view of the nature and powers of the National 
Government. It must execute its powers or it is no Government. It must execute them on the land 
as well as on the sea, on things as well as on persons. And to do this it must necessarily have power 



92 

to command obedience, preserve order, and keep the peace ; and no person or power in this hind lias 
the right to resist or question its authority so long as it keeps within the bounds of its .jurisdiction. 
Without specifying other instances in which this power to preserve order and keep the peace un- 
questionably exists, take the very case in hand. 

Let me read a single extract more on the power of the Government and its duty : 

It is argued that the preservation of peace and good order in society is not within the powers con- 
fided to the Government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. Here again wo 
are met by the theory that the Government of the United States does not rest upon the soil nnd terri- 
tory of the country. We think that this theory is founded on au entire misconception of the nature 
and powers of that Government. We hold it t n be an incontrovertible principle that the Government 
of the United States may, by means of physical force — 

Note the words, gentlemen — 

by means of physical force exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil 
the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the power to command obedience 
to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace to that extent. 

A power that gentlemen on the other side deny — the power to keep the peace >o 
elections, if yon please, the places of all others where it should be maintained. 

I might pursue this further, but I will not. It is sufficient for me to say the Su- 
preme Court of the United States has not only said this legislation which has proved 
good whenever executed was constitutional, but it has in effect pronounced it a good, 
wise, and wholesome law. This law ought to have been executed with a stronger 
arm and firmer hand than it has been. Now that the Supreme Court has held all 
these election laws to be clearly within the purview of the Constitution of the United 
States and that it is right in principle, it becomes our duty to appropriate money 
to pay for its execution, and especially is this so since a debt has been contracted on 
the faith of the law. The Democratic party can hardly afford to persist in refusing 
to pay officers chosen under a constitutional act of Congress, and who have in good 
faith performed their duty on the faith of it. No party can afford to be thus faith- 
less to its duty. 

April 23, 1880. Pending a proposition to regulate the appointment of special deputy marshals. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

I have but a word or two, Mr. Chairman. I regard this clause relating to the mode 
of appointing special deputy marshals as a piece of the proposed legislation which 
we have had pending along through the entire life-time of this Congress, all of which 
tends, and was so intended, to hedge about the powers of the Government and to so 
provide when wrong is threatened or actually exists at the polls on the part of those 
who are anxious to destroy the purity of the ballot-box, the Government should stand 
there mute and powerless. 

This is a piece of it. It is intended to .break down the power of the Government at 
the very fountain-head and at the very source of all our strength. 

I do not agree with the remark made by my colleague [Mr. Garfield] who has 
just taken his seat, that because this amendment may be by implication a repeal of a 
portion of the election laws uow on the statute-books on the subject of special deputy 
marshals, that it necessarily provides a mode of executing itself. It may be by im- 
plication a repeal and a total destruction of that part of our law which I regard wise 
and necessary, and yet in and of itself not make provision for a peaceful election or 
the appointment of these special deputy marshals at all. It may be, in other words, 
a repeal without adding anything or putting anything into the law which can take 
the place of what is repealed. I think this House already understands my views on 
this subject of the right and duty and the constitutional power of this Government 
to execute all its laws and especially election laws. I iutended when I rose to make 
a remark in reply to a reference of the honorable gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] 
which I thought was possibly, by implication at least, a little unkind to my distin- 
guished colleague from Ohio [Mr. EwiNGj, who spoke the otlier day after the pre- 
vious question had been ordered. We had the benefit of hearing what he had to say, 
but not the pleasure yet of reading what he said. 

The honorable gentleman from Maine incidentally referred to a recent election in 
Ohio in which my colleague was prominent, intending, I presume, to refer to the fact 
that he was recently the standard-bearer of the Democratic party in Ohio in the elec- 
tion for governor. Now, in his defense, and I may add he can defend himself, I wish 
to say he went into that campaign with a high character, not only as a civilian, but 
as a statesman and a soldier. He went there embodying all that was good, if there 
be auy good, in the Democratic party. He had it all with him, and he had clinging 
to his skirts some of the good things gathered when he trained in the gallant, chival- 
rous, patriotic, and progressive Republican party. He also had embodied in himself 
everything good that belonged to the national Greenback party. With till these 
things emblazoned on his banner, he went into that campaign under apparently favor- 
able circumstances; but, Mr. Chairman, he and his party were damned at the polls 
by the patriotic people of Ohio because of the conduct of the Forty-sixth Congress in 



93 

the extra session, in which the Democratic parly proclaimed that we bad a Govern- 
ment of so little value to the people of this country that it should be starved to death, 
by withholding appropriations unless the President laid his constitutional powers at 
the feet of the Democratic party and allowed it to pass into laws the most vicious 
things ever proposed by a legislative body in any civilized country. 

A continuation of this evil and dangerous course here will cause more men to be 
led to the sacrifice. Their political blood will be on the heads of their own political 
friends. 

We are on the eve of the time when the national political ax will fall. 



PATENT EXTENSIONS. 

March 26, 1S80. Pending consideration of a bill to extend a patent. 

Mr. KETFERsaid: 

I offer an amendment to the bill which I understand is not objected to by the friends 
of the measure. 
The Clerk read as follows: 

Add to the bill the following : 

And provided further, That no prior assignee or purchaser of an interest, legal or equitable, in said 
patented invention shall acquire any interest therein by virtue of an extension of said patent under 
this act. 

Mr. KEIFER. A single word, Mr. Speaker. It is rarely proper to extend a patent 
or to pass a bill authorizing the extension of a patent which has run for the period of 
■even teen years, as this patent has. It was originally patented in 1863, to date from 
some period in 18o"2. I am informed in this case, however, this man claims still to be 
the owner of that patented interest ; that he never parted with it. Yet men are often 
mistaken; and it turns out after we pass a bill here through grace, and not because 
of any right, in order to reward some person who has shown great genius in invent- 
ing something that is valuable to the general public or something that is useful, it 
turns out, I say, that assignees who have acquired interest under that patent when 
the extension has been granted have acquired the entire interest, and the man in 
whose favor the bill has been passed is a mere name under which the extension has 
beeu obtained and under the law has no interest in it whatever. 

The records of the Patent Office will show that almost all these patents, where ex- 
tensions have been granted, do not, at the time, belong to the patentees ; and when 
we have gotten through with the bill in favor of the original inventor we find that 
we have passed a law simply for the purpose of benefiting those who control monop- 
olies and control patents — persons who are entitled to no grace at our hands at all. 
I do not concede we do anything on this question as a matter of right ; but with this 
amendment which I have proposed I shall be satisfied with the passage of this bill. 



94 



BRADLEY VS. SLEMONS. 

March 30, 1880. On this contested election case — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker. I shall occupy but a few moments in the consideration of this ease. 
It was not my purpose to say a word upon it. With a great deal of reluctance Icaine 
to the conclusion that the sitting member, Mr. Slemous, upon the testimony found in 
the record, was entitled to hold his seat iu this House. I came to hat conclusion 
following' the precedents which make the law for the government of this body. 

There are many things in and about this case not in the. record, and there are some 
things thrown into the record which excite a very considerable amount of suspicion 
that the contestee was not entirely free from very bad conduct in the course of the 
election in his district in 1878. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing is true — and upon that 
my distinguished friend from Iowa [Mr. Weaver"] will agree wiih im — that the tes- 
timony here which attacks a portion of the majority of the contestee obtained in 
election is sufficient to overthrow his entire majority. 

In all kindness to the gentleman from Iowa, without desiring to detract at all from 
the glory he may take in attempting to assume here to be the champion of free elec- 
tions, let me say that in his report he did not find that any such tiling had happened 
as would suffice to overthrow the entire majority returned for the sitting member. 
The gentleman's very short report is not quite up to his boldness on the lioor of the 
House, for it simply suggests that there may be, something in th s ease tending to show 
that Mr. Slemons was not elected. In the discharge of our duty here toward a fellow- 
member, are we called upon on such a finding as that to oust a sitting member? I wish 
to observe here that I do not deny the right of 'he House to reject the entire vote of a 
voting precinct where it is shown that intimidation, fraud, or bribery so far entered 
into the election as to render it impossible to eliminate it from the honest vote cast. 
But in such case the unlawful means used in a particular voting place would not 
vitiate the election held in other voting places iu the district. 

Mr. Speaker, there is one question which may arise, ami doubtless has arisen, in the 
minds of many gentlemen around me. Suppose it appears by the proof that the sit- 
ting member's majority as returned is 2,827 ; suppose it appears that of this majority 
2,000 votes were obtained through intimidation, fraud, or other improper means; sup- 
pose it appears that these 2,000 votes ought to be struck off of the coutestee's major- 
ity, because the proof shows that he was guilty of fraud and violence; suppose his 
majority is thus reduced to about 800. Now, are we upon that sort of finding called 
upon to say that this gentleman was not elected. Let it be understood that we give 
to the contestant the benefit of every claim, every shadow of claim, that lie submits; 
yet in the case I put it leaves the contestee with a majority of 800 unattacked. Upon 
such a case are you prepared to find that the contestee, as a matter of law, was not 
elected? That would be equivalent to saying that because he claims 2,800 majority 
and was entitled to claim only 800, therefore he is not elected at all. This is a propo- 
sition which the gentleman from Iowa does not meet, aud cannot meet. In his report 
he does not undertake to say that the majority of the contestee was overcome. Ho 
does suggest that if the House would find certain things which he does not undertake 
to say were proved by the evidence, then he is in favor of the resolution which he 
submits. The gentleman was a member of the sub-committee that examined this ease, 
and if he had been able to point the committee or the House to any evidence showing 
that the majority of the contestee was overcome by reason of improper conduct on his 
part or on the part of his political friends, I would have been willing to respond to 
his appeal to vindicate the purity of the ballot-box. I would not draw fine legal dis- 
tinctions to save the contestee or any person who might be guilty of polluting the 
ballot-box. But the gentleman does not make such a case. In his report be utterly 
fails to do so. 

Now let us go one step further. If the case which I put be true— that the contestee 
has an untainted, unpolluted majority of 800— are we to declare the seat vacant be- 
cause he has been guilty of intimidation or fraud in the course of that election ? 

Mr. HAZELTON. I would like, to ask the gentleman how the aggregate number 
of votes as counted comparts with the census or registry of voters .' 

Mr. KEIFER. lam unable to answer that question; there may be other gentle- 
men who can answer it. 

Mr. CALKINS. There was a very light vote throughout the district. 
Mr. KEIFER. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call attention again .to this proposi- 
tion whether it is within the power of the House, properly exercised, to -ay to a man 
who has been guilty of fraud in the conduct of his election which did not affect the 



95 

result of the election, whether it is in the constitutional power of Congress to declare 
tlic election was void. I undertake to say, Mr. Speaker, in the hundred years of our 
constitutional history, you cannot find a case where that position has been taken. I 
have examined the strongesl case pointed out in rhe history of the country, the case 
of Abbott vs. Frost, which arose in the State of Massachusetts, on which the commit- 
tee reported, and the House stood by the report, and held where the charge was one 
of bribery by one of the parties, and' they could purge and purify the ballot-box by 
throwing out the bribed votes, that it was the duty of the House to do it. We have 
the more recent case of Platte against Goode, from Virginia, where the minority of 
the committee reported to the Forty-fourth Congress in favor of the sitting member, 
and reported that there had been bribery at a certain place, I think in Norfolk. Va., 
and they held it was their duty to come forward and purge that election of all bribery 
and count the unbribed votes. A different rule, Mr. Speaker, is claimed to exist in 
England. 

Mr. BAKER. I have some familiarity with the two cases alluded to by the gentle- 
man from Ohio, and I ask him to yield to me for a moment. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly; but do not make a speech. If you wish to contradict 
this I will hear it. 

Mr. BAKER The question I wanted to submit was this: Whether, in either of 
those cases, there was any evidence adduced or any tact found by the committee that 
connected the sitting member, or the member who was adjudged entitled to the seat, 
with the fraud which was found to exist in the election; and whether or not the gen- 
tleman can point out a case where the party who claimed to be entitled to a seat 
upon the floor of this House is connected with fraud, you are to carefully tear oft' the 
fraud, so tar as you can discover it, on the assumption he has done nothing but what 
you have been able to unearth? The rule is, where a man claims to be entitled to a 
seat on the tloor of the House and has been connected with fraud, he is the man who 
is to come forward and show that all the votes he claims are fair and honest. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have no objection to a question, but I do object to a speech. I 
take it the gentleman's position would be this, if he means to take any position at all, 
and I give it as an illustration, and that is in the case the return of a majority for a 
man was 3,000, and it was shown the man had bribed three voters only, then the bur- 
den was upon him to prove he was elected. That is the gentleman's position. 

Now take the first case, of Abbott against Frost, where the committee, without de- 
ciding whether or not the sitting member had been shown to have been guilty of 
bribery, but going on to state the law, say that the votes are to be thrown out, not 
that the sitting member is to be ousted from his seat ; not that, but they say that bal- 
lots obtained through bribery ought to be disregarded. Then, to quote: 

To count them in a general canvass is to place them on the same footing with the votes cast by the 
honest, free, and independent voter. To seat a member upon majorities obtained through such influ- 
ences is to defeat the proper object for which the statute was created. 

No, Mr. Speaker, the language here is "to seat a member upon majorities obtained 
through such influences." That leaves out of view the question, where a member 
does not obtain his majority through such means are we to say we would not seat 
him? If I understand the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana, it is to the ef- 
fect that where a man has been guilty of bribery which does not affect the majority, 
we are to resort to an absurdity and to stultify ourselves by saying still the man was 
not elected. It is a question of election. Mr. Speaker, we are trying now. We are 
inquiring as to the fact of election, not the fitness of a member to his seat. 

Just one word further. It may occur to gentlemen that there would be some remedy 
for a case where a man has been guilty of fraud or violeuce, intimidation, bribery, or 
whatever else you choose to call it, and through that means does not secure his seat, 
but through tliat means taints himself and renders himself impure aud unfit to hold 
a seat on this floor. If a case can be made— and I am not required to find that for 
the present— if a case is made against the sitting member, and it is shown he was 
guilty of gross fraud and violence, or of bribery or anything of that kind, the Con- 
stitution of the United States has probably pointed out to us our only remedy, and 
that is by expulsion. 

It is said that in England they hold to the rule that where it is found a man has 
been guilty of bribery in his election to a seat in the House of Commons the election 
must be declared void, although the bribery did not affect the result, or, in other 
words, did not produce his majority. I do not think from an examination of parlia- 
mentary authorities that will be found to be true even in that country; but if it is, 
it is a rule which has grown up there where they have no written constitution to guide 
them in such cases. Then the rule might obtain in that country upon the theory that 
the man was elected, but still is unworthy to hold a seat, and, therefore, by means 
of an election contest he should be expelled. What we deal with here is a pure 
matter of election contest, and it is unfair to the sitting member to treat him as 
though he were on trial, with a view to his expulsion, when he should be entitled to 
a trial in a wholly different way for an offense which would justify his expulsion. In 



96 

such case before lie loses bis seat here there must, be a two-thirds rote against him, 
Sw^edSthe fifth section, article 1 of the Constitution ol the United stales. 

I P donot find from the testimony in this case that Mr. Slemona has secured a ,na- 
ioritvoTthe votes for hi.n by any of the means it is said were resorted to by him and 
Ks friends; Jnd I undertake to say that no member of the committee found any such 
thin" I do undertake to say, though, Mr. Speaker, that the majority^ of the _com- 
Sfe-those"hat signed the report proper without any qualification- did give to the 
Contestant all that he could claim under bis testimony, and then they found that if 
d d oive hittt all the votes which be claimed he would still be defeated by over 
800 maioritv It is fair to say for the committee that they did not, absolutely reject 
the testimony that was taken out of rule and out of time under the law They did 
not Sectthlt testimony, but they considered it in cutting clown the returned ma- 
?orityTom?|00 votes to about 800. For my own part I wish to say that under all 
the circumstances I was m favor of considering that testimony, and it resulted in the 
entire Smony Ling considered by the whole committee, as will appear by looking 

ilt Mr g BOWMAN. wfthe gentleman permit me to ask him a question II understand 
that \S a^u^nent is based upon this proposition, and I wish to ask whether he is w.ll- 
h>: to s\: e tat this proposition is applicable to all snch cases, namely : if there was 
mfimidatfon and fraud in the election it must neverthe e* .be , show ^ afhrmatively 
by competent evidence that enough votes were changed to affect the result. 
*Mv KFTFER Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. 

Mr BOWMAN But I wish to understand the gentleman's proposition. It I have 
understood his a rgument it is that no matter if there was intimidation and violence 
SSSiortStunlessyou can identify the votes cast under intimidation, and 
unless ymfproVe that the result of the election was changed by these frauds, it must 

8t Mr 1 SlFEK ' N^Sr: 1 stated no such proposition. I submitted no general prop- 
er rfrtriw./' T did sav that if the, proof showed, after giving to the coutest- 
S? eve^ng ^^fclaimtd onlvty hand and every vote' he could claim was affected 
bv Ids testimony and then it appeared that the sitting member still bad an untainted 
m > ?oritv o ^ side'of that, it was not our duty-nay, our right-to vote the sitting mem- 
Sout of his seat Now, if you undertake to infer a different proposition from what 
h-^v 8 id an 1 state it as the distinguished gentleman has stated it, then I do not 
indorse it not claim it is necessary to deal with anything beyond the testimony 

n this case If from ail the testimony in this case it is clear that the Bitting member 
^n^ii^d'naiority, it is not our duty to oust ^^n bis seat do regard 

it o* ah-mrA in the highest degree to say that, a man has a majuity rejecting e^ij 
Snug S ! which he is not entitled, and yet at, the same time resolve that that man was 

"l^fcoUeL™ [M? CAMpfstates here on my right, if be has committed that sort 
of ^flaSntSe which renders him unfit to bold a seat in this- body, then the ques- 

cmiumtted hy his f.iends. Otherwise we cannot bold him responsible at all tor it. 






97 



THE ARMY AT THE POLLS. 

April 8, 1880. Pending the Army appropriation bill, the following amendment was read by the 
Clerk : 

Sec. 2. That no money appropriated in this act is appropriated, or shall be puid, for the subsistence, 
equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the irmy of the United States to be used 
as a police force to keep the peace at the polls at any election held within any State. 

The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] 
raises the point of order. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, I regard this point of order as of very great impor- 
tance. While I will not occupy many moments in attempting to have the Chair un- 
derstand the precise questions of order which can or ought to he made against this 
amendment, in my judgment, I shall have to ask the Chair to indulge me for a little 
while. 

The proposed amendment has just been read. I shall claim under the rule that it 
is not in order because it, at least for the coming fiscal year, changes existing law. 
I shall claim also it does not retrench expenditure. I shall claim it was not reported 
at all, as a matter of fact, aud properly considered under our rules, from the Com- 
mittee on Military Affairs. I shall also claim, assuming I am wrong in that point, 
that the Committee on Military Affairs have no jurisdiction on the subject-matter of 
this proposed amendment to the Army appropriation bill. 

And now, sir, before I proceed to take these points up and discuss them in detail, 
in order that I may demonstrate the first point if possible, I ask the Clerk to read 
section 2002 of the Revised Statutes. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Sec. 2002. Ko military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military, or naval service 
of the United States, shall wder, bring, keep, or have under his authority or control, any troops or 
armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be neces- 
sary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls. 

Mr. KEIFER. I ask the Clerk also to read sections 2004 and 2005, to show the 
present condition of the law. 
The Clerk read as follows : 

Sec. 2004. All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election 
by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, munici- 
pality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, with- 
out distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; any constitution, law, custom, usage, 
or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Sec. 2005. When, under the authority of the constitution or laws o of any State, or the laws of any 
Territory, any act is required to be done as a prerequisite or qualification for voting, and by such con- 
stitution or laws persons or officers are charged with the duty of furnishing to citizens an opportunity 
to perform such prerequisite, or to become qualified to vote, every such person and officer shall give 
to all citizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and 
to become qualified to vote. 

Mr. KEIFER. Let the Clerk read next sections 5298, 5299, and 5528. 
The Clerk read as follows : 

Sec. 5298. Whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages of persons, 
or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall become impractica- 
ble, in the judgment of the President, to enforce, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the 
laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call 
forth the militia of any or all the States, and to employ such parts of the land and naval forces of the 
United States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United 
States, or to suppress such rebellion, in' whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United 
States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed. 

Sec. 5299. Whenever insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in any 
• State so obstructs or hinders the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, as to deprive 
any portion or class of the people of such State of any of the rights, privileges, or Immunities, or pro- 
tection, named in the Constitution and secured by the laws for the protection of such rights, privi- 
leges, or immunities, and the constituted authorities of such State are unable to protect, or, from any 
cause, fail in or refuse protection of the people in such rights, such facts shall be deemed a denial by 
such State of the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the 
United States ; and in all such cases, or whenever any such insurrection, violence, unlawful combina- 
tion, or conspiracy, opposes or obstructs the laws of the United States, or the due execution thereof, 
or impedes or obstructs the due course of justice under the same, it shall be lawful for the President, 
and it shall be his duty, to take such measures, by the employment of the niilitia or the land and naval 
forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means, as he may deem necessary, for the sup- 
pression of such insurrections, domestic violence, or combinations. 

Sec. 5528. Every officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service 
of the United States, who orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control, any troops or 
aimed men at any place where a general or special election is held in any State, unless such force be 
lacessary to repel armed enemies of the United States or *o keep the peace at the pells, shall be fined 
not more than $5,000, and sutfer imprisonment at hard labor not less than three months nor more than 
five years. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, I have caused to be read these sections of the United 
States statutes which are in force for the purpose of making clear this one point, 
to wit, that the proposed amendment would change existing law for and during the 
ensuing fiscal year. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not prepared to concede 

90 A— k 7 



98 

now that it is within the power of Congress through any sort of legislation to take 
away from the President of the United States his power under the Constitution to 
execute the laws of the United States. And, sir, while I state that proposition 1 
doubt further very seriously whether or not by any legislation which we may put 
npon the statute-hooks we can take away from the President the power to execute 
all of the laws of the United States which he is sworn when he enters upon the duties 
of his office to execute. While I say this I am bound to assume that this proposed 
amendment is offered for the purpose of annulling that presidential power, or, in other 
words changing existing law. Under section 2002 of the Eevised Statutes we find 
that the military, naval, and civil officers of the Government are to be punished if 
they in any improper way, interfere with elections; but we also find by the clearest 
sort of implication that it is regarded under our law eminently right and proper, in- 
deed absolutely lawful, for these military, naval, and civil officers of the Government 
to keep the peace at the polls under certain conditions. Now, so far as this section 
can apply at all, it is intended to prohibit the President of the United States from 
using the military power of this Government to keep the peace at the polls on elec- 
tion days, and to that extent, Mr. Chairman, I hold that it would change existing 

law. . , „ ., 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. My point of order is that the gentleman is not con- 
fining himself to the point made against the amendment, but is making an ad cajHan- 

dum speech. . 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will confine himself to the point ol order. 
Mr KEIFEE. With all deference to the Chair, I desire to state that I am pro- 
ceeding to do that, as I understand it, and I trust that I will not be under the cen- 
sorship of a man who is used to making ad caytandum speeches, for which purpose he 
takes wide latitude. I am trying to demonstrate as briefly as I can that this amend- 
ment is out of order on the ground that it changes existing law, first, because it takes 
away from the President of the United States the power to use, when necessary, the 
military force of the Government to keep the peace at the polls. I might extend it 
by running over each of the several sections of the statutes which I have caused to 
be read. But it will be apparent to every person who reads the sections or who has 
read them and examines this proposed amendment that if it passes all the power ex- 
pressly given under these several sections to the President of the United States to use 
the military officers of this Government to execute the laws on certain occasions and 
to execute the laws of the land where there has been a breach of the peace, or where 
riot rei<nis, or where violence is controlling the peaceable action of the people— I say 
that this amendment is offered here for the purpose of saying to the President he shall 
not use these officers or any part of the Army for the purpose of preserving the peace. 
That is the effect of it. 

Now it is true this amendment does not say that the Army shall not be used tor 
the purpose of preserving the peace at the polls or for the purpose of executing the 
laws of the United States, the duty of executing which is intrusted to the President 
of the United States under certain circumstances, but it does say that no money ap- 
propriated in this act, referring to the appropriation bill which is supposed to con- 
tain all appropriations for the Army— that no money in this act is appropriated or 
shall be paid for the subsistence; that is, to feed the soldiers— for the equipment or 
transportation or the compensation of any portion of the Army of the United States 
to be used as a police force to keep the peace at the polls at any election held within 
any State. This amendment, if adopted, would amount to an absolute inhibition on 
the President in the use of the Army for any of the purposes contemplated under the 
existing laws to which I have referred. 

Mr. FRYE. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment / 

Mr'. KEIFER. Certainly. . ... . 

Mr FRYE. I wish to state that the gentleman has inadvertently said tliat it tins 
amendment is enacted into a law it would take away from the President the power 
to use the troops for the purposes which he has enumerated. I say the gentleman 
has inadvertently made this statement. I do not understand he means that. But I 
understand from a former statement that he means to say it is an attempt to take 
away this power. I hope no Republican, at all events, will admit, even it this amend- 
ment does becomes a law, that it will take away from the President that power. 

Mr. McMILLIN. If the proposed amendment does not change existing law, tnen 
why does the gentleman make the point of order against it ? 

Mr KEIFER. I cannot qualify every portion of my remarks. I opened by saying 
that I did not concede that Congress had the right to take away from the President 
the power to execute the laws of the United States, but I was bound here to treat 
the proposed amendment as if that was its scope and design — -• _ 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. It is evident tnat tne 

gentleman from Ohio has prepared an elaborate speech upon this amendment 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman is very much mistaken. 



99 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. And I make the point of order that he nnist con- 
line himself to the point made against the proposed amendment, and not enter into a 
discussion of the merits of the amendment itself. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not expect to convert the gentleman. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. of Illinois. If the gentleman has any desire to print his speech 
on this amendment I have no objection to that, but I make the point of order that he 
cannot debate the merits of the amendment on the point made against it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already admonished the gentleman from Ohio to 
confine his remarks to the point of order. There is a limitation on the debate as to 
points of order. 

Mr. FRYE. The gentleman from Ohio has not in the slightest degree transgressed 
that limitation. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio will proceed in order. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I ask the Chair to decide whether the gentleman 
from Ohio is confining himself to the point of order. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will be obliged to the gentleman from Illinois if he will not listen 
to my argument to keep still. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois, rose. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is a matter for the Chair to decide. It is sometimes very 
hard to prescribe the precise limits to be observed in an argument of this nature. The 
gentleman from Ohio will proceed in order. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have, Mr. Chairman, concluded for the present and perhaps for 
all time all I desire to say on the first proposition. I desired to make it clear to the 
House that this amendment was designed to take from the President all his power in 
the coming fiscal year to use the troops at the polls to keep the peace. It will hardly 
be claimed on the other side that the President could use the troops at the polls 
to keep the peace when he was forbidden by this proposed new section to feed them 
while there; forbidden to equip them while there ; forbidden to transport them there ; 
forbidden to pay them there while they were engaged in this duty, so that it amounts 
to au absolute prohibition against his right to use them during the coming fiscal year 
at all to keep the peace at the polls. 

When we come to the merits of the proposition, if we should be so unfortunate as 
ever to do so, then I may perhaps have something further to say. I now submit that 
the amendment is not in order under paragraph 3 of Rule XXI, a part of which I de- 
sire now to read. Perhaps I might as well read it all : 

3. No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an annnd- 
rnent thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of appro- 
priations for such public works and objects as are already in progress. Nor shall any provision in 
any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as, being germane to 
the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures by tne reduction of the number and salary 
of the officers of the United States, by the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the 
Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill : Provided, 
That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the, report of 'the committee having jurisdic- 
tion of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment, being germane, to the subject-matter 
of the bill, shall retrench expenditures. 

It already appears the amendment will change existing law. It is clear that the 
proposed amendment does not retrench expenditures. All the money, Mr. Chairman — 
and I beg your careful attention to this — all the money appropriated by this bill will be 
appropriated and expended whether the amendment becomes a part of the bill or not. 
If that proposition is disputed I should be very glad to yield to some gentleman who 
would be able to enlighten me or the Chair on that subject. The amendment does 
not propose in any feature of it to cut down the expenditures of the Government. It 
leaves the appropriation complete in every respect. It leaves the money to be ex- 
pended, every dime of it, all the same whether this second section is added to the bill or 
not. So that we may say with perfect safety that the amendment does not, and will not, 
if it should become part of the law retrench expenditures. 

The amendment applies to the proposed appropriation for the Army for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1831. The whole sum, I repeat, appropriated by the bill if it be- 
comes a law will be expended even though the amendment should become a part of it. 
The proposed new section does not reduce " the number and salary of the officers of 
the United States;" nor does it reduce "the compensation of any person paid out 
of the Treasury of the United States ; " nor does it reduce " the amounts of money cov- 
ered by the bill." This is necessary under the rule before the amendment could be in 
order. 

Nor is the amendment in order under the proviso of the third paragraph of the rule 
just read. I call attention specially again to that in order that the Chair may have 
it fresh in his mind : 

Provided, That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of the committee 
having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment; which amendment, being geimane to 
the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures. 

Having already shown that the amendment will not retrench expenditures if ruled 
in order, and if as a part of this bill it is enacted into law, it is scarcely necessary fo T 



100 

rue to pursue the subject much further. Under this proviso just read, though an 
amendment may be reported from a committee having jurisdiction of the subject-mat- 
ter of the amendment, still it will not be in order unless it shall retrench expendi- 
tures. 

Then, if I am right, Mr. Chairman, in the proposition that this amendment does 
not retrench expenditures, it is quite immaterial whether or not this amendment was 
reported from the Committee on Military Affairs or not ; but I further insist, Mr. 
Chairman, that the amendment within the true meaning of the rule was never re- 
ported from the Committee on Military Affairs. The rule requires the amendment 
before it is in order to be " upon the report" — for that is the word — "the report of 
the committee having jurisdiction," &c. Mr. Chairman, no report has been made 
from that committee. I wait for a reply from the gentleman who offers this amend- 
ment, if he desires to state whether or not there has ever been a report made from the 
Committee on Military Affairs on this subject. 

Mr. HASKELL. I desire to call the attention of the.gentleman from Ohio to the 
fact that every report to this House from any committee must be in writing under the 
rules. 

Mr. KEIFER. I think the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Haskell] is right in his 
suggestion. I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, I listened with care 

Mr. SPARKS rose. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will hear the gentleman from Illinois in a moment. I listened with 
care to learn — fori wanted to be accurate in any statement I might make — I listened 
to learn whether or not the gentleman from Illinois came here clothed with the power 
to make a report from the Committee on Military Affairs, and I learned no such 
thing. I now yield to him to make any statement he desires, even stronger than he 
made on yesterday. 

Mr. SPARKS. Are vou through ; or do you just want me to answer a question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I am not through. 

Mr. SPARKS. I presume the gentleman certainly understood me to report this propo- 
sition from the Committee on Military Affairs. I certainly was explicitly instructed 
by that committee to do so. 

Now, the point the gentleman seems to be making — I presume he alludes to that — 
is whether or not any proposition was sent by this House to that committee, and the 
committee acted upon any proposition pending before it having come from the House, 
to wit, a bill to that effect. I state to the gentleman that I do not remember whether 
there was any such proposition sent to the committee or not by the House. I will 
assume that there is not any. I will take it that such is the fact ; at least that is my 
understanding. The Committee on Military Affairs considered this subject, and in- 
structed me to report this proposition as an amendment to the Army appropriation 
bill. I presume that answers the gentleman. Does it ? 

Mr. FRYE. With the leave of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] I will ask the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sparks] a question. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. SPARKS. I will answer it if I can. 

Mr. FRYE. Was the subject-matter of this amendment ever referred by the House 
to the Committee on Military Affairs ? 

Mr. SPARKS. I have answered that by stating that to my knowledge it was not. 
1 have not sent to the committee-room to ascertain ; but I do not know that any such 
proposition was ever referred to the committee by the House. 

Mr. FRYE. Does the gentleman know of any way in which the Committee on Mili- 
tary Affairs could get jurisdiction of a subject which has not been committed to it by 
the House ? 

Mr. SPARKS. I will answer that under the rules of the House it could do so by its 
■own volition. If there is any point in that, make it. I will take it for granted that 
no bill or resolution upon this subject has been offered in the House and referred to 
that committee. I do not know that to be the fact, but I am willing to assume that 
to be the fact; I believe that to be so. I could learn, as a matter of course, by sending 
•to my committee-room. 

Mr. KEIFER. One thing at least is made clear, if not everything that I havespoken 
about : that is, that the gentleman never was authorized to make and in fact never 
did make a report to this House on the subject-matter of this proposed amendment. 

Mr. SPARKS. How do I understand the gentleman? 

Mr. KEIFER. I will try to state it as plainly as I can. The gentleman himself says 
that he never in fact and under the rules made any report to this House on the sub- 
ject-matter of this proposed amendment. 

Mr. SPARKS. I beg the gentleman's pardon ; he entirely misunderstands me. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 put my own construction on the gentleman's language. 

Mr. SPARKS. The gentleman certainly will allow me to put him right. He does 
not want to misrepresent me, does he / 

Mr. KEIFER. No. 



101 

Mr. SPARKS. I will state the fact that the Committee on Military Affairs especially 
and positively instructed me to report this proposition to the House, and move it as 
an amendment to this appropriation bill. This identical amendment was acted upon 
by the committee, and I am instructed to move it as an amendment to this bill. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman has repeated that two or three times; but he never 
undertakes to tell us where his report is, when he made it, under what rule he made 
it to the Committee of the Whole, or in what morning hour he made it to the House. 
He leaves it perfectly clear, as I said before, that he never has made such a report. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Has the gentleman a copy of that report ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I would be glad to have it read. The gentleman stated yesterday 
what he has stated to-day. I will read his language : 

Mr. Sparks. By instruction of the Committee on Military Affairs I offer as an additional section tha* 
which I send to the Clerk's desk. 

That is, he was instructed by that committee, perhaps by only a majority of the mem- 
bers of the committee, to propose an amendment here to the Army appropriation bill. 
But that committee never authorized him to make a report to the House in favor of 
such an amendment, and the gentleman will not say so, for he never did in fact make 
such a report. 

Mr. SPARKS. The gentleman is technical, I think. "What I stated is critically 
correct. 

Mr. KEIFER. Well, if it is "critically correct," I am satisfied with it if the gen- 
tleman is. 

Mr. SPARKS. That is so. 

Mr. KEIFER. That is, in some sort of way, formally or informally, he got the con- 
sent of a majority of the members of the Committee on Military Affairs to come in 
here and offer an amendment to the Army appropriation bill, not to make a report to 
enlighten this House, not to make a report that would give us the reason for tacking 
such an important amendment on an appropriation bill. The gentleman still insists 
that what he stated on yesterday is exactly right. 

Now, the second point I make here in this connection is this : I deny that this amend- 
ment comes from a committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the proposed 
amendment. That is a part of the requirements of the proviso of the third paragraph 
of Rule XXI. I repeat that the committee did not have jurisdiction of the subject- 
matter of this proposed amendment. 

Pray tell me how it acquired such jurisdiction. I am authorized to state that no 
bill of this character was ever referred by the House to the Committee on Military 
Affairs; that no measure of this character was ever referred to that committee. In 
the very nature of things, none could have been so referred. You could not refer a 
bill of this character to that committee, a bill that was intended to limit the use of 
money in an appropriation bill ; that could not well have got before the Committee 
on Military Affairs. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, this section analyzed amounts to nothing more than a direc- 
tion as to how money appropriated in this Army appropriation bill shall be used. It 
has no connection with military affairs at all in that sense. But in other views it is 
perfectly clear that this committee could not have had jurisdiction of the subject-mat- 
ter of it, and that the House, obeying its own rules, would never have dreamed of 
referring such an amendment to that committee. The subject-matter did not belong 
there. In what way did the committee get jurisdiction of regulating, not military 
affairs, but the powers of the Chief Executive of this nation in his constitutional 
duty to execute the laws of the United States? I might stop here and read the, last 
paragraph of section 3, article 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which de- 
fines the powers that will be affected by the adoption of this amendment at least for 
the coming year. I call attention to this, in order that members generally as well as 
the Chair may bear it in mind. In speaking of the powers of the President, the Con- 
stitution declares : 

He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the 
United States. 

His oath of office requires him to faithfully execute the laws. 

Here is an attempt by an amendment to take from the President his constitutional 
power to execute the laws. This committee had not jurisdiction of a subject-matter 
of that kind. When and in what manner was the subject-matter of this amendment 
referred? I have made that point perfectly clear already. Under the new rules the 
subject-matter of the amendment could not have been referred, as I have stated, to 
the Committee on Military Affairs. I read from Rule XI: 

All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the preceding rule, as follows, 
namely : Subjects relating — 

* * * * * T * 

10. To the military establishment and the public defense, other tban the appropriations for its sup- 
port : to the Committee on Military Affairs. 



102 

It U thus made clear nude, •»*«J* , ^^SffiSI:^ 

^Ke^^ 

already appropriated amendment if adopted 

fclESSS: ^l? toe ren^man^oTotS allow Ja moment , 

w kat I conceive to be a conclusive answer to^uegioi em £ n from ollio to 

from Ohio to the gentleman from DbBOM- £ ^ JJ^J this amendment as a report 
inquire whether the gentleman from Ilh "«« ha^oyg t ^ ^ ^ ^ 
from a committee. The reply of the 8^°™"J™ is no report from a committee in 
the amendment. It is urged that ^Jw »nieud men is no rej bm res0 . 

the sense of the rules. The rules require £ ^ritten re* > & om IUinois i nt ro- 

lntion, or petition re P. orted r b y ^.^ ge did what he was authorized to do by the 
duced no bill, resolution or petition He .did ^ rule requiring a report in writing 
twenty-first rule, which has no relation at all to tm .me i J^ The new rule8 

to accompany a bill, resolution, "^^^^g^SS^S^otatto". OT Pf" 

of the House, it is true require that a — toe re 01 t {mneilt of the rule8 

tion shall accompany it with a ret >oi t jn wni in £; firgt r „i e expressly authorizes a 

^Z^^ZZT^Xr^^^ « *" diSti,,Ct r,,leS_0n6 * 
quiring a report in writing to ajnnmpany * WU ti<m of a comm ittee— 

£ sis Vy>K«^ &•&»-&,■ <sr 8tion MlJ - 



Mr. McLANE. 
Mr. SPARKS 






I yielded to the genuemau iiu.u ^j- — - - - - „,,," ° 

the leave of the gentleman from Ohio — ,«>,-, tleman from Ohio that he had 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair des ires tosay to « l \f a ^Xr t v The Chair hasnot, 
ten minutes to explain his pom -of £rder and h^ has taker ^iorty. f ^ .^ 

of 7n^hoS a " d the ^^ ^ ^ ° PUU ° n 

of the Chair, ought to be five minutes. 

Si SMARTS XJrts a disoretion on^ni^t He has .Unwed the 
gentleman to speak forty minutes ms tend o! ten He w 11 , proceed ^ 

tie distinction I have pointed nnt. gentleman from Obio finish. 

£• i^H I am^to^sS^he !»eaning g »f language if the twenty 

SSSSEwwSSEt - - --- -— 

That means a reportheeause it says so. I eannot dwell longer on that, and will cun- 
"Xw, Mr. Chairman I *^£^,£^£^&£Z2%S} » 

disorder. Section 2002, already read, ^ J ' jSgte It is the section making 
inal and not a part of ^^^^^^^^SS^oSin of the United States 
improper interference on the part ofm.lt » "J> » "^ ^«? S?^*es si-a*«t:os wlaicli xrecosnazes 

in elections a crime. _ It is the ^^^eVmMMWBK ^ g 

the right of the President ^ m ^ d ^f a C ^f ao t *f it This section is found in the 
keep the peace at the polls ^.^'1^^%% e first section under that title 
statutes under the title " The elective fra "^idment refers more to the manner of rega- 
in the Revised Statutes. I submit ^ a mendment TC^amo^ peculiar as 

lating elections, more to the ."^ * ^SuSS^ iT refers also to toe manner of 
it may be, the criminal statutes of the United btates.x^rew ^ come 

nsing appropriated money It does ino ^'5«53E. hM n0 jurisdiction 
SS if SK^^SSb^R ~ or at least ought to be, ruled out of 
° r iTmed not savaword,M, Chairman on the subject of the great impropriety and 
the very bad policy of this character ot legislation. 
(The point of order was overruled.) 



103 



EXECUTIVE POWER TO USE THE ARMY, &c. 

April 10, 1880. The House having; resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. K. No. 5523) making appropriations for the support 
of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, and for other purposes — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Chairman : This Congress will be known in future history as the one in which 
it was proposed by the party in power to destroy the Government unless the minor- 
ity of this House and the President of the United States would allow laws to be passed 
legalizing in effect fraud, violence, and crime ; and it will be known as the first Con- 
gress in the history of this country in which it was proposed in both branches to 
annul all the President's power to execute the laws of the United States authorizing 
the preservation of peace and order at the polls on election day. 

In the course of the discussion of this question I propose very briefly to review the 
history of legislation in this Congress. 

First, I may say that the Forty-fifth Congress adjourned without having performed 
its constitutional duty by appropriating the money necessary to carry on the legisla- 
tive, executive, and judicial departments of the Government, and also without pro- 
viding for the pay of the Army. The Democratic party then embarked upon the pol- 
icy of coercing the minority of the House of Representatives and a Republican Senate 
and the President in the matter of important legislation. How far has it succeeded ? 
The first bill of this Congress proposed to appropriate for the Army, only on condition, 
that a section in it should be allowed to become a law making it a high crime to keep 
the peace at the polls on election day. That section was notice to the country that 
the Democratic party, in the future as in the past, proposed, when necessary to ac- 
complish its ends, to have riots and other breaches of the peace on election days at 
the polls. This legislation was shipwrecked by the veto of the President. 

The second bill brought forward was designed to disarm the Executive and paralyze 
his power to enforce all laws of the United States even to the suppression of rebellion 
except on the motion first taken of the State authorities. This also signally failed. 
The third bill proposed to appropriate for the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches of the Government, only on condition of the repeal of all United States elec- 
tion laws which secured the constitutional right through supervisors of elections, 
special deputy marshals, &c, to have free, fair, and honest elections of members of 
Congress. This bill also was notice to the country that open fraud by means of vio- 
lence, intimidation, repeating, tissue ballots, and other unlawful measures would be 
in the future as in the past the pernicious policy of the Democratic party. It met at 
the hands of the Executive the fate of the other two bills. 

These misfortunes, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the defiant boasts of certain 
Democratic members, led the Democratic party to "dally" and "doubt" in the face 
of the authoritative statement [by Mr. Blackburn] that "he who dallies is a das- 
tard, and he who doubts is damned." Other direful threats came to us that certain 
members of the Democratic party would stand by the revolutionary policy entered 
on "until the marble of this Capitol crumbled into dust by the never-failing action 
of time." But, Mr. Chairman, time, aided by the firm stand of the Republican party 
here in Congress, and the vetoes of the President, acted with singular rapidity on the 
minds of Democrats and on their unwise policy here. 

It is said that when disease seizes on the human body, it develops first in the weaker 
parts. Through the purse of Democrats the weakness in the first place cropped out. 
The remedy was applied. An old-fashioned appropriation bill, shorn of all extraneous 
matter or political legislation, was at the extra session promptly prepared — one on 
which all parties struck hands, although it was an anomaly in form, omitting the usual 
appropriations for the judicial branch of the Government. It was hastily pushed 
through without a rider, and it received the Executive approval. 

The pay of members for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, being made certain, 
the old policy of coercion of the Executive was promptly returned to ; a new Army 
appropriation bill was brought forward from the Democratic caucus which contained 
a section restricting the right to use any of the money appropriated to clothe, equip, 
or transport any portion of the Army to be used as a police force to keep the peace at 
the polls at any election. We have the same amendment now before us; and I ask 
the Clerk to read it. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Sec. 2. That no money appropriated iu this act is appropriated, or shall be paid, for the subsistence, 
equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the Army of the United States to be 
used as a police force to keep the peace at the polls at any election held within any State. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment would, in my opinion, if 
literally carried out, have the effect to annul the appropriation for the Army to the 



104 

extent that no part of it conlcl be used to keep the peace at the polls. To use troops 
in aid of the civil power, all authorities concur in holding, is to use them as a police 
force. While troops of the United States are being so used, they may possibly be 
said to be used as an army, but they are none the less used as a police force. Ths 
very language, Mr. Chairman, of the proposed amendment indicates that the soldiere 
are not to be transformed into policemen, but that they are simply prohibited from 
being used as a police force in keeping the peace. 

One of the early struggles in the history of this Government was during the adminis- 
tration of President Washington, about the right to maintain a navy ; and also as to how 
that navy was to be used. Alexander Hamilton, who was the leader of the Federal- 
ists, maintained that it was the right and the duty of the Government to establish a 
strong navy; and, to use his own language, he said that "it ought to be established 
and maintained to be used on the high seas as a police force to protect our flag and 
our commerce." He did not mean that the seamen were to be turned into policemen, 
but that our ships, properly manned, should patrol the seas "as a police for6e," and 
there maintain the majesty of our Government, &c. That great controversy, which 
lasted for years, between Alexander Hamilton and the great Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, Albert Gallatin, the leader of the then Republican party, resulted in the question 
being settled (and since maintained) in favor of the United States having a Navy to 
be used on the high seas as a police force. In this amendm ent is found the precise 
language used in that controversy; it speaks of using the Army of the United States 
as a police force to keep the peace at the polls. But I will not dwell further on that 
point: 

Let us analyze this amendment. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it is exactly the 
sixth section of the Army appropriation bill which was passed at the extra session of 
this Congress, against which my friend here [Mr. Williams, of Wisconsin] and a few 
others with myself voted. A fair construction of this proposition drives us to the 
conclusion that it inhibits the use of the Army at the polls to keep the peace and 
quell election riots, and that it is purposely gotten up to prevent a quiet and an hon- 
est election. By the very terms of the amendment the President of the United States, 
if he feels bound by it if enacted into a law, and I think it is our duty to oppose it as 
though it was binding on him, although it might be regarded by him as a nullity, 
would not have for the ensuing fiscal year the right to use the Army in the discharge 
of his constitutional duty in enforcing all the laws. I maintain, if we enact this 
amendment into law it will have the moral force at least of saying that the Army of 
the United States shall not be used to put down riots on election day. 

But let us analyze it a little further. Before troops could be used at the polls on 
election day they must be stripped of their Union blue. They are not to be clothed 
if they go to the. polls when an election is being held during the coming fiscal year; 
they are to have no equipments ; they are to have no subsistence; they are to have 
no ammunition or arms ; in other words, they are to go naked and hungry and with- 
out arms to put down a riot if there be one at the polls on election day. That is what 
we propose to say if we adopt this amendment. I understand some gentlemen con- 
tend this does not prohibit the use of troops at the polls on election day, because it 
does not expressly repeal any law. I simply answer such persons by saying it pro- 
hibits their use at least to the extent that, if they are used, they are to go to the polls 
unclothed and unarmed by the Government of the United States, and they are not to 
eat at the Government expense while there, and while they perforin that most im- 
portant duty they are to be docked their pay. 

It is claimed they are only prohibited from acting " as a police force." I repeat 
they cannot act in aid of the civil authorities at all unless they act as a police force. 
Some gentlemen claim that because men are soldiers they cannot act as a police force. 
The very terms of the amendment provide, not that they shall be changed from sol- 
diers to police, but as soldiers they shall not act as police to keep the peace at the 
polls on election day. 

Passing from that, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, has the merit of conveying lo 
the country by irresistible implication the willingness to allow the President of the 
United States to use the Army of the United States " as a police force to keep the 
peace" at all other places within the States and Territories — at all other times and 
places save at such times and places when and where an election is being held for 
Delegates and Representatives in Congress. 

Nothing short of free fraud, free riot, and free crimes at elections is to be regarded 
as constitutional, according to Democratic notions of constitutional law! Now, I do 
not propose to be misunderstood on this question. I have heard on both sides of this 
House the claim made that it was wrong to use the troops of the United States at the 
polls to regulate elections. I have heard gentlemen on both sides talk about this 
character of legislation as though it was intended to prevent interference in elections. 
On another occasion when I was permitted to have only about two minutes' time, I 
undertook to draw a distinction, which I beg leave to refer to again in this connec- 
tion. I am opposed to the use of troops at the polls on election day to in any way in- 



105 

terfere with the election officers or with the voters in the rightful exercise of their 
constitutional privilege. lT .. ,, ,, 

But, Mr. Chairman, I am iu favor of the use of troops at the polls, or the use ot auy 
other force under the command of the Government, to interfere with tlie bad men 
who arm themselves and go to the polls to get up riots and interfere with the election 
officers in the honest discharge of their duties and to interfere with the right of the 
citizen to cast his vote. That is the extent to which I would go in the use of physical 
force at the polls. What this legislation is aimed at is not to protect the voters or 
election officeTs on the day of election from being interfered with by the United States 
Arrnv but it is to prevent Ku-klux bands, White-liners, and armed bands of what- 
ever 'name, who propose to interfere with elections, from being interfered with by the 
Army when they are too powerful to be controlled by the civil authorities. The men 
who engage in fraud, in intimidation, in high crimes, and iu the work of driving the 
honest voter from the polls, are the only ones to be shielded by the proposed law. 
Such is its avowed purpose. A Eepublican Congress long since put upon the statute- 
books a law making it a crime for military, naval, or civil officers of the Government 
to in any manner by the use of troops interfere with elections. (Revised Statutes, 
sections 2002 and 5528.) The Democratic party now desire to make it a crime for these 
officers to interfere with those who do interfere with elections. I contend that the 
Government should execute its laws on the subject of elections and that it should 
have ample power to enable it to execute them. We ought no longer to hear doubts 
expressed about the constitutionality of laws designed to enable the United States 
authorities to preserve the national authority at elections. A recent decision ol the 
Supreme Court of the United States has authoritatively settled this constitutional 
question of governmental power in that regard. 

I hope the House will pardon me while I read an extract from the syllabi 111 tne 
case of Ex parte Seibold et al. 

I read : 

The National Government has the right to use physical force in any part of the United States to 
compel obedience to its laws and to carry into execution the powers conlerred upon it by the Oonsti- 

U The" concurrent jurisdiction of the National Government with that of the States, which it has in the 
exercise of its powers of sovereignty in every part of the United States, is distinct from that exclu- 
sive jurisdiction which it has by the Constitution in the District of Columbia, and in those places 
acquired for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, &c. . , ' 

1 he provisions adopted for compelling the State officers of election to observe the State laws regu- 
lating elections of Representatives, not altered by Congress, are within the supervisory powers ot 
Congress over such elections. The duties to be performed iu this behaU are owed to the United States 
as well as to the State ; and their violation is an offense against the United States winch Congress may 
rightfully inhibit and punish. This necessarily follows from the direct interest which the Rational 
Government has in the due election of its Representatives and from the power which the Constitution 
gives to Congress over this particular subject. 

The right to use physical force iu any part of the United States to compel obedience 
to the laws is thus authoritatively settled. This right must now be regarded as the 
fixed law of tin' land. 

From the exhaustive opinion of Justice Bradley, who spoke for the court, 1 read 

further : 

The more general reason assigned, to wit, that the nature of sovereignty is such as to preclude the 
joint co-operation of two sovereigns, even in a matter in which they are mutually concerned, is 
not in our judgment, of sufficient iorce to prevent concurrent and harmonious action on the part ot 
the National and State Governments in the election of Representatives. It is at most an argument ao 
incoHveniente. There is nothing in the Constitution to forbid such co-operation in this case. Un trie 
contrary as already said, we think it clear that the clause of the Constitution relating to the regula- 
tion of such .lections contemplates such co-operation whenever Congress deems it expedient to inter- 
fere merely to alter or add to existing regulations of the State. If the two Governments had an entire 
equality of jurisdiction, there might be an intrinsic difficultj in such co operation. Then the adoption 
by the 'State government of a system of regulations might exclude the action of Congress. By lirst 
taking jurisdiction of the subject, the State would acquire exclusive jurisdiction in virtue ot a well- 
known principle applicable to courts having co-ordinate jurisdiction over the same matter. Hut no 
such equality exists in the present case. The power of Congress, as we have seen, is paramount, ami 
may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient ; and so tar as it is exer- 
cised, and no further, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent 

As a general rule it is no doubt expedient and wise that the operations of the State and National 
Governments should, as far as practicable, be conducted separately, in order to avoid ucdue jealousies 
and jars and conflicts of jurisdiction and power. But there is no reason tor laying this down as a rule 
of universal application. It should never be made to override the plain and manifest dictates ol tne 
Constitution itself. We cannot yield to such a transcendental view of State sovereignty, lhe Con- 
stitution and laws of the United 'States are the supreme law of the land, and to these every citizen 01 
every State owes obedience whether in his individual or official capacity. 

And quoting further from this opinion : 

In exercisin" the power, however, we are bound to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious 
manner- that It has endeavored to guaid as far as possible against any unnecessary interference with 
State laws and regulations, with the duties of State officers, or with local prejudices. It could not act 
at all so as to accomplish any beneficial object in preventing frauds and violence, and securing the 
faithful performance of duty at the elections, without providing for the presence of officers and agents 
to carry its regulations into effect, It is also difficult to see how it could attain these objects without 
imposing proper sanctions and penalties against offenders. 



106 

And in another place Justice Bradley, in the opinion, says : 

Without the concurrent sovereignty referred to, the National Government would be nothing but an 
advisory government. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. 

In speaking of the fair and ohvious interpretation of the Constitution and the mode 
of reaching it, the judge says: 

"We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of 
speculation. 

The greatest difficulty in coming to a just conclusion arises from mistaken notions with regard to 
the relations which subsist between the State and National Governments. It seem to be often over- 
looked that a national Constitution has been adopted in this country, establishing a real Government 
therein, operating upon persons, and territory, and things ; and which moreover is, or should be, as dear 
to every American citizen as his State government is. Whenever the true conception of the nature 
of this government is once conceded, no real difficulty will arise in the just interpretation of its pow- 
ers. But if we allow ourselves to regard it as a hostile organization, opposed to the proper sovereignty 
and dignity of the State governments, we shall continue to be vexed with difficulties as to its jurisdic- 
tion and authority. No greater jealousy is required to be exercised toward this Government in refer- 
ence to the preservation of our liberties than is proper to be exercised toward the State governments. 
Its powers are limited in number and clearly defined, and its action within the scope of those powers 
is restrained by a sufficiently rigid bill of rights for the protection of its citizens from oppression. 
The true interest of the people of this country requires that both the National and State Govern- 
ments should be allowed, without jealous interference on either side, to exercise all the powers which 
respectively belong to them according to a fair and practical construction of the Constitution. State 
rights and the rights of the United States should be equally respected. Both are essential to the pres- 
ervation of our liberties and the perpetuity of our institutions. But in endeavoring to vindicate the 
one, we should not allow our zeal to nullify or impair the other. 

I am tempted to read another extract from this most admirable exposition of the 
constitutional powers of this Government : 

It is argued that the preservation of peace and good order in society is not within the powers con- 
fided to the Government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. Here, again, we 
are met with the theory that the Government of the United States does not rest upon the soil and ter- 
ritory of the country. We think that this theory is founded on an entire misconception of the nature 
and powers of that Government. We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the Government 
of the United States may, by means of physical force exercised through its official agents, execute on 
every foot of American soil the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the 
power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace to that extent. 

This power to enforce its laws and to execute its functions in all places does not derogate from the 
power of the State to execute its laws at the same time and in the same places. The one does not ex- 
clude the other except where both cannot be executed at the same time. In that case the words of the 
Constitution itself shows which is to yield. " This Constitution and all laws which shall be made in 
pursuance thereof * * » shall be the supreme law of the land." 

And still another : 

Why do we have marshals at all if they cannot physically lay their hands on persons and things in 
the performance of their proper duties? What functions can they perform if they cannot use force ? 
In executing the process of the courts must they call on the nearest constable for protection ? must 
they rely on him to use the requisite compulsion and to keep the peace while they are soliciting and 
entreating the parties and by-standers to allow the law to take its course ? This is the necessary con- 
sequence of the positions that are assumed. If we indulge in such impracticable views as these, and 
keep on refining and re-refining, we shall drive the National Government out of the United States, and 
relegate it to the District of Columbia, or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall bringjit back to a 
condition of greater helplessness than that of the old confederation. 

The argument is based on a strained and impracticable view of the nature and powers of the National 
Government. It must execute its powers or it is no Government. It must execute them on the land 
as veil as on the sea, on things as well as on persons. And to do this, it must necessarily have power 
to command obedience, preserve order, and keep the peace ; and no person or power in this land has 
the right to resist or question its authority so long as it keeps within the bounds of its jurisdiction. 
Without specifying other instances in which this power to preserve order and keep the peace unques- 
tionably exists, take the very case in hand. 

There are other extracts which might be read to the same effect, but I will not stop 
to read them now. 

The power to keep the peace at elections is here expressly recognized, and it is a 
necessary power; otherwise the foundations of our Republic would crumble away. 
A Government without power to protect all of its people from lawlessness and violence 
at all times and places is unworthy to exist, and of all other times and places it should 
have and exercise the power of preserving the peace on election day at the polls. 

On the necessity of this Government having ample power and the right to exercise 
it in all fundamental matters which concern its life, I read a single extract further 
from Justice Bradley's opinion : 

The true doctrine, as we conceive, is this, that while the States are really sovereign as to all matters 
which have not been granted to the jurisdiction and control of the United States, the Constitution and 
constitutional laws of the latter are, as we have already said, the supreme law of the land; and when 
they conflict with the laws of the States they are of paramount authority and obligation. This is the 
fundamental principle on which the authority of the Constitution is based, and unless it be conceded 
in practice, as well as theory, the fabric of our institutions, as it was contemplated by its founders, 
cannot stand. The questions involved have resnect not more to the autonomy aud existence of the 
States, than to the continued existence of the United States as a Government to which every American 
citizen may look for security and protection in every part of the land. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in State sovereignty in purely State matters. But I believe 
in United States sovereignty in all United States matters. I believe States to be 



107 

creatures of the Constitution, and in all matters not reserved by the Constitution to 
the States they are subordinate to the United States. Some of these States the United 
States bought and paid for with both treasure and blood. We bought from the first 
Napoleon the territory comprised in the States of Louisiana, Arkausas, &c, and in 
due time we erected this once French territory into States. Later some of these States 
set up for themselves the pretense that the thing created was superior to their owner 
and creator The Republic of Texas, not quite able to stand alone, knocked at the 
door of the United States, and it was admitted within the portals of the Uniou and 
habilitated with the garb of a State in the Union with a Republican form of govern- 
ment ; and in a few years she, too, proposed to turn the United States out and set up 
a new government on the same mistaken notion that the created was superior to the 
creator. 

Time, shot, shell, bullets, bayonets, powder, and spilled blood, in short, war, proved 
this a mistaken notion to eleven States in this Union that went into rebellion. 

It should now be clear to the blindest of partisans, at least, that we have a nation. 
By stealth, or if I should not say that, under false colors, it is proposed fifteen years 
after the close of the war to accomplish by peaceable methods what the inexorable 
events of war failed to do. It is a marvelous and yet dangerous spectacle for the 
people of a great nation to look on and see a party which arrogates to itself the cham- 
pionship of liberty, struggling for the right to maintain violence and disorder on elec- 
tion days at the polls. If there is to be no disorder or no broken peace, what is the 
necessity of tying the hands of the General Government so that it cannot keep the 
peace or queli disorders at elections? The whole country is bound to judge the Dem- 
ocratic party for the future by its acts of preparation as well as its past deeds. The 
proposed action to-day is notice to the order-loving people of this country, North and 
South, that in the coming elections of members of the next Congress, and also in the 
election of the next President of the United States, it is essential to Democratic suc- 
cess that no force possessed of the requisite power shall be used to preventthe use of 
such violence as may be needed to secure Democratic success against the will of the 
pf ople when fairly and peaceably expressed. There will be no mistake made by the 
people in this matter. The Republican party, a party of law and order, of course can- 
not fear the use of troops at the polls to keep the peace. The law is not a terror to 
those who do not expect to violate it. There would seem to be no necessity for strug- 
gling here from day to day and from month to month as we have been doing in this 
Congress to get an inhibition against the power of the Government to put down riots 
and disorder, if there were not a party somewhere in this Government that was in 
favor of organized riots and broken peace, especially on election day. 

A little further review, Mr. Chairman, of the revolutionary legislation had and pro- 
posed may be valuable. I need hardly offer an excuse for reviewing the past. I think 
it throws light on the present. We find here that party that started off so defiantly 
in the latter days of February and the first days of March, 1879, claiming that this 
Government should not live, should not have the necessary sustenance, unless these 
vicious measures were allowed to be adopted. We find to-day in the presence of 
debate and in the presence of a shocked people the members of that party hesitating 
and sitting mute in their seats. They were warned before we entered upon this gen- 
eral debate — perhaps in pleasantry, but certainly none the less a warning — that if any 
one indulged in debate on that side of the House he should be shot. Their tongues 
cleave to the roofs of their mouths in the presence of this combat. Why are they 
silent? Let it be noted in this land that they sit silent in their seats, unable if not 
unwilling to meet the contest. 

Mr. ATKINS. Thegentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cook], who made the remark the 
other day in the purest spirit of jest and pleasantry, to which the gentleman from 
Ohio has adverted, is not in his seat. I do not think it is worthy of the gentleman 
from Ohio to make use of that remark in the way he does in his speech. 

Mr. KEIFER. I said the remark might have been made in pleasantry, but it was 
none the less a w T aruing, as the gentleman from Tennessee would have understood if 
he had been listening carefully. But if that remark was uttered in pleasantry, it had 
also a well-understood meaning. 

Gentlemen tried hard all through the extra session of Congress to convince the peo- 
ple of this country that it was the right of the majority in Congress, nay that it was 
patriotic to sit here and attempt to tear down the whole fabric of this Government, 
unless the President of the United States would lay at the feet of that party all his 
veto power and allow them to pass just such legislation as they deemed essential to 
their future success ; and when their proposed legislation was spread out before the 
country, it was all found to be vicious and in opposition to good order. 

Mr. CONGER. If the gentleman from Ohio will permit melw r ill call his attention 
to the fact that the gentleman from Georgia who said every one should be shot who 
spoke on this subject on the Democratic side is now in his seat. 

Mr. KEIFER. If the gentleman from Georgia desires to rise and deny that state- 
ment, I will yield to him. 



108 

Mr. COOK. I will say that I had no thought of intimidating the gentlemen over 

th Mr" KEIFEK 6 * 8 ^, sir ; the intimidation was meant for the gentlemen on the other 
side who thought they had not enough of idle debate. The threat was not to shoot 
us down, but to shoot down his own colleagues if they were so foolish as to attempt 
hereafter to enter upon debate on a subject that they had already heard debated to 
their utter overthrow and disgust. 

Mr SPARKS. Well, I suppose you would like to see some of us shot. 

Mr KEIFER. And then, Mr. Chairman [Mr. SPRINGER in the chair], I know you 
have been quite impartial to-day and willing to recognize gentlemen over there. But 
with the single exception of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sparks], who made a 
remark or two in explanation of his amendment, in which he did not enter upon the 
merits of this discussion, and who was so very clever as to yield fifty-five minutes of 
of his hour's time to a gentleman on this side of the House-with that single excep- 
tion they have all been silent to-day, and we understand that they promise to re- 

m Tmi ? ght say that some of the distinguished gentlemen who were in the lead, who 
were'iS the van, who were early in the battle and sounded the charge m the extra 
session, are now out of their seats; they are otherwise engaged. Whyaretheyawayt 
Why do we not hear their clarion voices here ? Has there been any edict of the Dem- 
ocratic caucus to seal their lips or keep them out of the House for fear that in listen- 
ing to this debate they would become excited and rise to their feet and say: foolish 
things in the estimation of the country, and thus jeopardize the coming President al 
election ? [After a pause. ] I have been a little deliberate, thinking that in the in- 
terval some of the leaders, some of those who with great readiness issue fia ts to that 
side of the House, might rise and say that they would take oft the gag; but they are 
Sill silent. There are deeds so dark or so grave that they can only be done in 

8il I speak now for myself if not for my party. I have referred to the action of the 
Democratic party to show that its members here do not desire to openly leg slate on 
the merits of a measure. During the extra session the Democratic partataruri to men- 
ace the Executive into approval of appropriation bills containing vicious amend- 
ments, and when failure after failure had come to that party it abandoned passing 
the usual bill making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial de- 
partments of the Government, It might be unkind if not un fairto < »y ha tt he Dem- 
ocrats of this Congress, who but a few mouths ago proposed to couple all ki ndsot 
extraneous legislation with appropriation bills discovered their l** *^^. *>«*" 
lect into one bill and intelligently act upon it the ordinary appropriations for the sup- 
port of a single department of the Government. But time and Presidential vetoes 
have done much to demoralize the Democratic party m this Congress and I hope 

WSr^ extra session of this Congress the Wjjgj^ffi 
judicial department of this Government had to he dropped from what is known as the 
legislative appropriation bill. The appropriations for that departm^ had tobe 
segregated, seemingly to enable the Democratic mind to grasp and comprehend t n m 
It was of course reasonable to suppose at the close of the extra session that with the 
aid of numerous deficiency bills to be passed at future sessions theseveral ^depart- 
ments of the Government would be provided for in some way in the ensuing fiscal 
year save only the fees of United States marshals and their deputies and also com- 
Psatfon for special deputy marshals provided for by statute, andwhose. duties are 
{o aid supervisors of elections in the discharge of their duties under the United States 
Section laws. We now know that these United States officers who performed their 
duties without pay are not to be paid unless the election laws of the United States 

m &§g£E?SuSSSl dangerous to prophesy; but it U Uff-gg^ 

prophesy of the shortcomings of the Democratic party In the ^'^J*™™£ 
tba the' so-called legislative appropriation bill, which became a law ^at the extra ,«£ 
sion, was not understood in its full scope by its authors or supporters in ■ ei «.iH m 
of Congress-and I mean no reflection upon the capacity to understand of auy Senator 
or member of this body, for the bill was simply i comprehensible— the Government 
wouMbeundei Constant embarrassment until Congress should give construction to 
that measure. It was an anomaly in legislation. . , , fil .„ linp< , (1 „. 

The marshals bill vetoed at the extra session contained, as printed five lines de 
voted to the appropriation of |600,000 for the payment of the fees of United States 
marshals and their general deputies for the fiscal year ending June 30,1880 I be re 
maining twenty-seven lines of the bill were devoted to vicious legislation, al o which 
has reel ved the disapproval of the President. Some of this objectionable Ration 
[s now abandoned in the face of the judgment of the people and the decision of the 

Sl T have another purpose in view in speaking to-day. and I cannot review fully the 



109 

effect of the proposed legislation at the last session in relation to United States mar- 
shals. It* the marshals bill had become a law, however, the effect of it conld have 
been summarized thus : First, no part of the money could have been used to pay any 
compensation or fees or expenses of any kind or character incurred under title 26 of 
the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to elections. Second, it was pro- 
posed to make it unlawful for any Department or officer of the Government to incur 
any liability for the payment of money under the provisions of said title 26 until an 
appropriation had first; been made by law ; notwithstanding the provisions of the 
said title are as imperative on the judges, supervisors, marshals, and other officers 
as any law on the statute-book. 

Ou proper application of a court or judge, who is sworn to obey the laws, he must 
art aud appoint supervisors of election, and thus necessarily incur a liability on the 
part of the United States for compensation, expenses, &c. That bill enacted into a 
law would have made it unlawful for a judge or court to obey an imperative statute. 

Third, the penalty which would have been incurred by a judge for acting in obe- 
dience to a mandatory law was subjection to a fine of not exceeding .$5,000, or by 
imprisonment for not exceeding five years, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the 
discretion of the court. 

Gentlemen on the other side said at the last session of this Congress that the so- 
called marshals' appropriation bill should typify the "last ditch," in guarding which 
they resolved to die. It was quite fitting. The purpose of the Democratic party, so 
easily understood from the beginning, was quite prominently shown in that bill. 
The country noted it, and we had its verdict. It was then and still is proposed to 
withhold from the courts of the United States their sole executive arm in enforcing 
their judgments, orders, and decrees; it was proposed that the marshals and their 
general deputies should go without payment of their lawful fees and the expenses 
incident to the performance of their duties unless the minority in this Congress and 
the President would yield assent to the vicious legislation already referred to. The 
duties of marshals and their general deputies are many and of the highest impor- 
tance. They constitute the physical arm of the United States courts iu the arrest of 
all violators of the law and in the execution of all processes. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from occupying a few moments more, with the in- 
dulgence of the House, in making some observations suggested to my mind in the 
course of the debate on the marshals appropriation bill at the close of the extra 
session. The member from New York [Mr. Cox] then took pains to have read an old 
resolution of his and the vote thereon relating to the issues settled by the late war. 
My honorable friend from Michigan [Mr. Conger] had read in reply a like resolution 
of his and the vote thereon. It seems to me it is of more concern to know how 
members now stand on the issues made up and determined by the war. A close 
observer of the debate between my colleagues [Mr. Garfield and Mr. Hurd] at the 
last session, on this marshals bill, would have had no trouble in discovering, with 
unerring certainty, how members regarded the war issues and their settlement. 
When my colleague [Mr. Garfield] declared that the principle of national unity 
was perpetually and eternally settled by the war, free from the right of a State or 
any number of States ever to destroy it, applause went up in response from this side 
of "the House ; but gentlemen on the other side sat as mute and dumb as they do to- 
day. When my other colleague [Mr. Hurd] declared his belief in the superior sover- 
eignty of a State under the Constitution, that heresy which brought this country to 
the court of war, before which the Union shook from foundation to turret for more 
than four years, a general and spontaneous cheer went up from the Democratic mem- 
bers of this House. My colleague [Mr.. Hurd] undertook then to expound to us some 
other supposed constitutional law long since exploded. He then claimed that the 
Constitution and the Union were "the creature of the States," to use his own lan- 
guage, and he then read to us the tenth amendment of the Constitution. This amend- 
ment, Mr. Chairman, was found necessary to be adopted long after the Constitution 
went into operation, for the purpose of granting to the States or to the people such 
powers as they could not otherwise possess, and which were not expressly delegated 
to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States. Had the 
gentleman begun by reading the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, he 
Avoiihl have found out whose instrument it was he was talking about so inconsider- 
ately. I quote that preamble and commend it to the gentlemen on the other side: 

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
United States of America. 

You will note the opening language, "We, the people of the United States." In 

he judgment of the framers of the Constitution, "the people of the United States" 

>rdaiued and established this instrument. It was not ordained by the States. The 

trainers of the Constitution understood that the sovereignty of the States was merged 

in the Federal Government under the Constitution. In the letter of the convention 



110 

bearing date September 17, 1787, the day of the signing of the Constitution by its 
framer!, George Washington, speaking for the convention as its president, uses this 

language : „ . . . . . , 

t+1« nlwimmlv imnracticable in the Federal Government of these States to. secure all rights ot mde- 
pende^ loZftfto S and ylt provide for the individual safety of all. Individuals entering 
into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. 

He further says in the same letter : 

T„ all nnr deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the 
^iSSrtrf^itaS American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our 
prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. 

I have not time to follow my colleague through all bis other propositions of bad 
constitutional law. He still reiterates in tins session ot Congress his old theory >f tue 
riffht of this House— because of. its constitutional right to originate money bills-to 
have grievances redressed before making appropriations to carry on the Government 
and to execute existing law. This theory has been so f^^J^^A^Z 
speeches and bv the recent back-downs of Democrats in both ends of the Capitol, that 
5 hardly comment on it now. When the cool judgments of men of both parties 
gain full sway, there will be no person found bold enough to announce the dread doc- 
?dne that it is'the constitutional duty of this House of T*^*^***"¥J$£ 
nation's life by withholding needed appropriations, unless the party m the majority 
in the House for the time being, shall be allowed to dictate to the Senate and the 
President of the United States the passage of laws for the redress of real or supposed 
grievances. No legislative body of any country ever before undertook to destroy the 
fation which its members were sworn to support, unless some other branch of the 
o-overnment of the same nation would assent to its dictation. 

g My colleague still adheres with characteristic obstinacy to the view tha iihe. mens 
ures to which the Democratic party objected were unconstitutional. He still stands 
bv his constitutional argument made early in the extra session to demonstrate that a 
law on ^^the statute-book was unconstitutional because it did not make it a high crime 
Jo 7-i civil null try, or naval officer of the United States to keep the peace at the 
polll This was the doctrine announced by the gentleman in the extra session and 
I understand him to adhere to it now as a constitutional propos.tioii \ er by we 
have developed strange expounders of constitutional law when it is declared, that 
an act is inimical to the Constitution of the United States because it does not m terms 
make some act of the people a crime. Britain 

A confident appeal was made to English statutes to show that in Great Britain 
troops were not permitted to keep the p°eace at the polls. A statute which provided 
for the conduct of British soldiers not on duty was often read and referred to as proof 
of thfs History, however, reveals to us the tact that at no time up to the ■ Igjjenthjj 
the Government of Great Britain failed to use its military power to , pnt 1 v n note 
and to keep the peace at the polls in England as well as in Ireland and Scotland Do 
gentlemen challenge that proposition ? In the long and sometimes angrj debates dur- 
fnfthHxtra sessiln of Congress, Democrats have gone down before tacts, principles, 
and arguments, until there may be some excuse for their present silence 

I wif notice tnother attempt at constitutional exposition by my colleague [Mr 
Huhd]. I quote from a speech of his, made in the last expiring hours of the extra 



session : 



Stwmo-P to sav the President and his advisers and the gentlemen on the other side fo the House seem 

tution so provides. 

Mr. Chairman, it must have distressed my friend's constituents when , after reading 
his speech they took down the old Constitution and read it through, and found itcon- 
tane^no'sueh 1 language as he attributed to it The Constitution nowhere in terms 
authorizes or empowers the President to call out the militia of the United States. 
SecX 8, article 1, which gives Congress power to raise and support armies grants 
to it power " to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, 
supprXinsuiTection, and repel invasion." The President, it is true, is the Commander- 
in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the sev- 
eral States when called into actual service of the United States ; and Congress haj 
the same power over the organization of the militia in actual service that^ it hasov er 
the creation of a regular Army, except the right is reserved ^.^^t^™^ 
the States to appoint the officers and to raise and train the militia accoiding to the 
discipline prescribed by Congress. „ . ., 

I commend, then, the rereading of the Constitution to my colleague He with 
others, still insists if Congress does .take from the President his right to use the Ai my 

the duty still rests upon him to " take care that the laws are faithfully executed as- 

required by the Constitution and his oath of office. 



Ill 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in order to promote the comfort of the gentle- 
man from Ohio [Mr. Keifer], and without the slighest fear of doing any detriment 
to free elections by the presence of troops at the polls, I move his time be indefinitely 
extended. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am always thankful to my friend for any favors. I suggest, how- 
ever, I only want a minute aud a half. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. This side is more than willing to give him an hour. 

Mr. KEIFER. I only need a minute and a half. 

Mr. TUCKER. I hope the gentleman's time will be extended. 

The CHAIRMAN. There being no objection the time of the gentleman from Ohio 
is extended. 

Mr. KEIFER. While I thank my honorable friend from Kentucky for his great 
consideration for me, I feel very glad that by anything I have said, whether it has 
been pleasing to his ears or otherwise, that I have at least brought him to his feet. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I must be frank enough to state that I have 
not been induced to listen to what the gentleman from Ohio has said; lam fortunate 
in having been absent from the House. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KEIFER. I have in the course of my remarks included the gentleman from 
Kentucky among those who were absent, aud one of those who may have been re- 
garded on the other side as unsafe to have present. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. The gentleman knew my good taste. 

Mr. KEIFER. And vour proneness to give utterance to your peculiar views. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. 'Thank you. 

Mr. KEIFER. I was referring when my time expired to some propositions which 
were maintained or insisted upon by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hurd]. Let me 
add he, with others, still insists that if Congress does take from the President his 
right to use the Army, the duty still rests upon him to see that the laws are faith- 
fully executed, as the executive power of the United States is by the Constitution of 
the United States vested in him. 

We are cautioned to remember that to take away the right to use the Army does 
not withdraw any constitutional power or duty from the President. Granting this 
to be true, how will the President execute the law if the instrumentalities by which 
he may do it are taken from him, as is proposed by the present amendment? It is 
proposed to strip the President of all means with which to enforce the laws of the 
United States, and then in mockery point out to him his duties under the Constitu- 
tion. The logic of the proposed amendment to this bill would require the President 
to go in jtersou to execute the laws; require him to go on election day in person to 
keep the peace at all polls where riots raged or were threatened. We were told at 
the extra session that party issues were made up. I concur in this, and await com- 
placently the verdict of the whole country. We have recently had the verdict of the 
people in my own State. Until the people have declared that civil liberty is en- 
dangered by not allowing fraud, intimidation, ballot-box stuffing, riots, and blood- 
shed at the polls, I shall have full faith in them and in my country's future. [Ap- 
plause.] 



112 



COURT OP PENSIONS. 

May 18, 1880. An amendment proposing to strike out a clause providing that from and after the passage 
■of the act only pension cases certified by the court shall be passed upon by Congress was under dis- 
cussion. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

In addition to the objections which have been assigned to this clause that is 
proposed to be stricken out I wish hrst to say that it is flatly in the face of the 
Constitution of the United States. By enacting this clause in this section we un- 
dertake to say to the people and the soldiers of this country that they shall not 
petition Congress for the redress of grievances or for any relief whatever, and that is 
the proposition here ; and when you turn over to the fifth section of this bill we find 
that all the pension cases now pending in this Congress are to be thrown out of Con- 
gress without consideration and remitted to this court. That includes ninety-nine 
cases out of every hundred of them that do not come within the provisions of the 
second section of this bill. 

They are not cases where the Commissioner of Pensions had original jurisdiction 
at all over them. We are to say by the adoption of this clause proposed to be stricken 
out, that no person in this country, no matter who, whether the widow of a deceased 
soldier or a maimed and wounded soldier himself, no person, no matter what are his 
merits, no matter what are his deserts or what right he may ha-^e in the premises, 
is to be permitted to come here to apply as an original proposition for a pension. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Does the gentleman think that this law would have the 
power or the force to prevent that ? 

Mr. KEIFER. No, I do not; but we perpetrate the supreme folly of saying that we 
would not have the power to perform our constitutional duty if we pass this bill. It 
is the most supreme absurdity in the world for us to pass such a bill as this and say 
that we shall not have the power to perform our constitutional duties ; in other words, 
to limit ourselves as to our future power. We cannot do it. Of course we can pass 
the bill, but the Constitution of the United States prohibits us from passing a law 
that will cut of the power of any citizen of the United States to petition us for re- 
lief. Yet this clause proposes to do it, and the fifth section of this bill proposes to 
wipe out all of the pension cases upon our calendars or pending here in Congress and 
transfer them to the court. This is a strange sort of legislation. I must confess I 
canuot understand it. I do not know what it means. 

Mr. WHITE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. KEIFER. I have very little time to answer questions. 

Mr. WHITE. Will not the passage by Congress of any pension law repeal that 
portion of the law ? It is nothing. 

Mr. KEIFER. I suppose the gentleman is not in favor of it because it is nothing. 
I am in favor of striking it out. I am in favor of striking out the whole of the fifth 
section. I am in favor of some law that will give the pensioners the opportunity that 
they want to get their claims speedily acted upon ; in other words, that will give them 
relief. But I am opposed to saying that they shall not come here to Congress for re- 
lief, and that is the purport of this section. 



113 



MANAGERS OF THE NATIONAL HOME FOR SOLDIERS. 

May 27, 1880. The House having under discussion the sundry civU appropriation. till< a point of or- 
der was raised on the paragraph providing for the support of the National Home for Disabled Volun- 
teer Soldiers and the appointment of managers therefor. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Chairman : I have to-day had the misfortune to hear points of order made from 
the other sids against the provisions offered in the interest of science, and the Chair 
has been appealed to to apply the strictest possible construction of the rule in order 
to exclude provisions which we desired to incorporate into this bill and which were 
entirely germane to it. But up to the present moment I fiud the leaders of the other 
side and the men who have charge of this bill sitting silent here and allowing new 
legislation to be incorporated in this bill which has no sort of relation to or connec- 
tion with an appropriation bill. 

Audi learn as a mode of arguing before the House of Representatives, that it is 
sufficient in the estimation of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Bragg] to show 
that previotis Congresses have violated the provisions of the charter under which 
this National Home was organized; and that is held up as a sufficient argument 
why the Chair should rule that this Congress should again violate the law. He gave 
you not one, but two and three instances where the original law, which provided that 
these men should be selected by joint resolution, had been disregarded. Hence he 
says that you are now bound to disregard that old act, that old charter, and to hold 
that this provision is not in violation of the law, and does not change the operation 
of that law. Some of us have never learned, even up to this time, with the aid of 
all the singular propositions submitted here, that that is sound logic. 

The gentleman says that on a former occasion I made a point of order against a 
similar provision to this, which it was proposed to incorporate in an appropriation 
bill, and the point of order was ruled against me. And he now says that you, Mr. 
Chairman, ought to rule the same way, notwithstanding that the rule under which 
the point of order is now raised was not in existence at all at that time. He waives 
that all aside and says that the old ruling is sufficient for you. 

Mr. BRAGG. While yon are trying to make a distinction between a law which is 
a joint resolution and a law which is an act, are you not subjecting yourself to the 
criticism of my Lord Coke: quihceretinlitera, hceretin cortice. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman will draw his own conclusion about that ; he will 
arrive at his own conclusion in regard to that matter. I will say, iu the first place, that 
I have not yet undertaken to show any such distinction ; but 1 will do so now. 

The provision of the original charter which required the appointment of these 
trustees of the National Home was doubtless put in the form it was in order to exclude 
us from doing the very thing which it is proposed to do here to-day. And although 
the gentleman says there is uo distinction between a joint resolution and an act of 
Congress — and I agree with him that after they are passed they are in effect the same — 
there is a vast distinction between a joint resolution and an act when we come to 
deal with the subject here in the form of legislation. 

You cannot incorporate a joint resolution in an appropriation bill as a rider, even 
with all our strange rulings, up to this time. It is sufficient now to say that under 
the third clause of Rule XXI such a provision as this is expressly excluded. That has 
been read once, but I beg to call the attention of the Chair to it again: 



r? 



Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order 
except such as, being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures— 

"Retrench expenditures" how? 

by the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States, by the reduction of the 
compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of 
amounts of money covered by the bill. 

Is this provision germane to the sundry civil appropriation bill ? Gentlemen on the 
other side say yes, because under a former rule of this House it was ruled to be in 
order ; not under the present rule, for they do not deign to read the present rule. 

But last of all we get the most singular and strange declaration that comes from 
the examination by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Bragg] of the joint resolution 
which was passed February 26, 1875. He reads the whole of that joint resolution 
which appointed three of these trustees, and says that, although the joint resolution 
says nothing about it, yet those three men were appointed for terms which began 
long before the joint resolution was passed. Now I beg of the gentlemen to point out 
where there is a syllable in that joint resolution of February 26, 1875, which indicates 
that the three persons there named, Martindale, Bond, and Wolcott, were appointed 

90 A— K 8 



114 

for terms of office which began at an earlier day than the one upon which that joint 
resolution was approved. 

It is true, Mr. Chairman (and I beg your careful attention to this), the bill recites 
that the term of* office of these three persons as originally tixed expired some time be- 
fore. But the original act, which lias been read by the gentleman from New York, 
provides, as the Chair will remember, that the term of office shall be for six years, and 
until their successors are appointed. Now, all that this bill undertakes to state is that 
their term (referring to their six years' term) had expired some time before. But 
their lawful terms would continue forever if Congress did not act. So we have here 
three persons whom it is proposed to appoint to take the place of persons who have 
been appointed and whose term does not expire until February 26, 1881. It is proposed 
by this very proviso to shorten the term of Marti ndale, Bond, and Wolcott. . 

Mr. BR1GGS. The Revised Statutes also provide that the term of office shall be 
for six years, and until their successors are appointed. 

Mr. KEIFER. I am told that in the Revised Statutes the same language is used 
that was used iu the original act when the national home was incorporated. 

Now, to summarize my points briefly. This provision is not germane. It does not 
retrench expenditures. It has no reference to cutting down salaries or expenditures, 
or amounts of money appropriated by the bill. It undertakes to limit the terms 
(fixed by law or by joint resolution, as gentlemen prefer) of three of the present 
managers of the home. More than that, it undertakes in an appropriation bill to 
violate the terms of the original act and to appoint these persons. 1 have not claimed 
that if an act is passed making these appointments it will not have the same effect 
as a joint resolution ; but I do claim that this is not a joint resolution, and hence is 
not in accordance with the existing law, and is in effect new legislation. 

Mr. SPARKS. Mr. Chairman, it is a mistake when any gentleman asserts that the 
term of any one of these officers expires next February. Their terms all expire April 
SI, 1880. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. Will the gentleman explain how he reaches that conclusion. 

Mr. SPARKS. I will with the greatest pleasure. General John H. Martindale, 
whose term is the only one in question, was appointed a manager for the term begin- 
ning April 21, 1868, and has continued in office for that and a subsequent term, mak- 
ing twelve years from April 21, 1868, to April 21, 1880. 

Mr. KEIFER, General Martindale was appointed February 26, 1875, by an act 
passed in the Forty-third Congress. 

Mr. SPARKS. lam reading and make this statement from the joint resolution of 
March, 1868. 

Mr. KEIFER, It does not make any difference what the gentleman is reading. 
Here is the law. 

Mr. SPARKS. I have it before me. 

Mr. KEIFER. No, sir, you have not. 

Mr SPARKS. Yes, sir;- I beg the gentleman's pardon. I have the joint resolution 
before me and from which I read that General Martindale was appointed at the time 
I have mentioned to fill a full term of six years. I read from the joint resolution — 

That Erastus B. Wolcott, of Wisconsin, anil John H. Martindale, of New York, be, and are hereby, 
appointed managers of the National Asylum for Disabled Soldiers, under the provisions and conditions 
of the third section of an act approved March 23, 1866, lor six years, from the "-'1st day of April, 1868 ; 
and that Hugh L. Bond, of Maryland, be, and is herebj . appointed a manager to serve out the unexpired 
term of Horatio G. Stebbins, of California, resigned. 

This act was approved March 12, 1868. You will perceive, Mr. Chairman, that the 
term commenced April 21, 1868. l have not the next act appointing General Martin- 
dale; but he could not have been appointed under any circumstances so that his two 
terms would extend beyond twelve years. By the act I have read he was appointed 
for six years ; and I presume that at the end of six years he was again appointed. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. That is where the gentleman makes his error. 

Mr. SPARKS. His second term must have expired on the 21st of April last. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. Not at all. 

Mr. SPARKS. Why not? 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. His term began February 26, 1875— his last term. 

Mr. SPARKS. Oh, no! I have read the law showing that he was appointed for a 
full term of six years, beginning April 21, 1868. 

Mr. KEIFER. Will the gentleman read the law of February 26, 1875, passed more 
than six years after the law which he has read .' 

Mr. SPARKS. He was appointed April 21, 1868, for six years, as the joint resolu- 
tion says. 

Mr. KEIFER. When I heard the opening remarks of the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts I knew in advance where he was going to land, for a man always prepares 
himself by first speaking of his own supreme virtue before he makes a lunge in some 
strange direction. I would not make this remark of the gentleman if he had not 
chosen to lecture me and all ou this side of the House before he undertook to lay down 



115 

his strange position of law, to sustain which lie stopped hy reading only a part of a 
paragraph. 

Tbe law fixing the terms of managers of the National Military Asylum says that the 
term shall be for six years and until a suecessor is elected. When the gentleman 
stopped after reading simply the provision that the term should be for six years, of 
course we knew he was preparing to spring into some great field of virtue. 

Except in case of death or resignation there cannot be a vacancy in the office of 
manager of the Soldiers' Home. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when in your ruling 
you undertake to say that there are terms for less than six years you do it by inter- 
polating in the law what is not there. All laws that provide for filling vacancies, 
where vacancies can possibly occur, speak in terms of the unexpired term. But in all 
these laws— the original act and all subsequent acts, whether in the form ©f joint res- 
olution or specific acts of Congress— there is not a word about the unexpired term. 
No man since the origiual appointments could be appointed for less than an entire 
term. 

Now let us suppose that General Martindale, instead of being appointed (if he was 
so appointed) as his own suecessor, had been appointed as the successor of some other 
person who had held the position for six years or longer. Do I understand the Chair 
to rule that this appointment, without anything said in the act about the term, would 
have been tor a less period than six years ? Of course that is what the Chair means 
to conclude, and that is what my distinguished friend from Illinois claims is the law. 
But we have decision after decision arising under State organic acts in this country 
all of them holding, in the absence of provision for filling unexpired terms, that the 
term means the time fixed in the organic act. And I venture hereto say to the law- 
yers on this iloor, at least to those who are not filled with partisanism or with supreme 
virtue, they cannot find a single law anywhere that has been construed otherwise, or 
a single constitution. There is not one which can be pointed out. 

After appealing to my friends on this side of the House, simply as Republicans with- 
out claiming anything more than belongs to me as a partisan, I now appeal to law- 
yers on the other side not to vote alone as partisans, but to adopt and accept and 
carry out some of the plain virtue laid down by my distinguished friend from Massa- 
chusetts, who prefers some of these men in this bill to some who are to be legislated 
out. 



116 



DEPUTY MARSHALS AT ELECTIONS. 

June 11, 1880. Pending a bill on the subject of deputy marshals, at the polls. — 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 
Mr. Speaker: Before entering upon a brief discussion of this measure I desire to 
have the Clerk read section 2021 of the Revised Statutes relating to the time and man- 
ner of appointment of special deputy marshals to assist the supervisors of elections. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Sec. 2021. Whenever an election at which Representatives or Delegates in Congress are to be chosen 
is held in any city or town of twenty thousand inhabitants or upwards, the marshal for the district iu 
which the city or town is situated shall, on the application, in writing, of at least two citizens residing in 
such city or town, appoint special deputy marshals, whose duty it shall be, when required thereto, to 
aid and assist the supervisors of election iu the verification of any list of persons who may have regis- 
tered or voted; to attend in each election district or voting precinct at the times and places fixed for 
the registration of voters, and at all times and places when aud where the registration may by law be 
scrutinized, aud the names of registered voters be marked for challenge; and also to attend, at all 
times for holding elections, the polls iu such district or precinct. 

Mr. KEIFER. I desire the Clerk also to read the succeeding section of the Revised 
Statutes, which relates to the duty of the marshal and his general deputies and also 
such special deputies as may be appointed under section 2021. 

The Clerk read as follows. 

Sec. 2022. The marshal and his general deputies, and such special deputies, shall keep the peace, 'and 
support and protect the supervisors of election in the discharge of their duties, preserve order at 
such places of registration and at such polls, prevent fraudulent registration and fraudulent voting 
thereat, or fraudulent conduct on the part of any officer of election, aud immediately, either at the 
place of registration or polling place, or elsewhere, and either before or after registering or voting, to 
arrest and take into custody, with or without process, any person who commits, or attempts or otters 
to commit, any of the acts or offenses prohibited herein, or who commits any offense against the laws 
of the United States; but no person shall be arrested without process for anv offense not committed 
in the presence of the marshal, or his general or special deputies, or either ot them, or of the super- 
visors of election, or either of them, and, for the purposes of arrest or the preservation of the peace, 
the supervisors of election shall, in the absence ot the marshal's deputies, or if required to assist such 
deputies, have the same duties and powers as deputy marshals ; nor shall any person, on the day of such 
election, be arrested without process tor any offense committed on the day ot registration. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Speaker, bad as this bill is, devoid as it is of anything which 
would be at all efficacious in the direction of enforcing the United States election laws, 
great sham as it is in merely pretending to be in favor of something which would be 
efficient in the direction of enforcing law and order at the polls, with all these defects 
in the bill, I consider it a matter of congratulation that we should now have it before 
us. The Democratic party is especially to be congratulated that to-day, in the ex- 
piring hours of the first regular session of the Forty-sixth Congress, it should be 
pressing a bill which in name at least, if not in substance, recognizes the constitu- 
tional power of the United States to enforce its own laws and preserve order on elec- 
tion day at the polls wherever members of the House of Representatives are to be 
chosen. To this extent I want to congratulate not only the Democratic party, but 
the whole country. 

But this bill is a mere sheer deception, if I may be pardoned for using the expres- 
sion. It is intended to be passed for the purpose of annulling, instead of really im- 
proving, the statutes upon the subject of the use of special deputy marshals at the polls 
to aid the supervisors of elections iu preserving peace and order when there is open 
disorder aud violence. Already it appears, by what has been read by the Clerk, that 
there are two classes of deputy marshals known to the law, to wit, general and special 
deputy marshals. Each class has duties to perform under the law, as defined in section 
2022 of the Revised Statutes, which duties relate to the conduct of elections on elec- 
tion day when a Member of the House of Representatives or a Delegate is to be chosen. 

But the bill proposes to create a distinct class called "deputy marshals for services in 
reference to any elect ion." In the original draught of the bill as offered by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayakd] the word "special" preceded the 
word "deputy," and it was supposed it was the purpose to pass a law which referred 
to and regulated the appointment and conduct of special deputy marshals of elections 
as they were appointed under section 2021 of the Revised Statutes. It was thought 
wise to strike out the word "special," and to define this class of deputies as "deputy 
marshals for services in reference to any election." Such deputy marshals have always 
been unknown to the law, and they are still unknown to it. 

In order that we may understand what this bill is, let us go through it and analyze 
it. The bill provides that these deputy marshals for services in reference to any elec- 
tion shall be appointed by the circuit court of the United States at the next term pre- 
ceding any election of Representatives or Delegates in Congress, and it further pro- 
vides if there should be no session of the circuit court in the State or district where 
such marshals are to be appointed, then the appointment may be made by the district 
court. Here we have a new class of deputy marshals appointed by the courts with- 



117 

out suggestion from the executive power, without the cognizance, and against the 
will, if you please, of the marshal of the district where the deputies may he required 
to serve". In no event is this class of officers, if they may he dignified with the name 
of officers— iu no event are these officers to be responsible to the executive power, that 
power which by the Constitution of the United States and by the laws of the United 
States is responsible for the execution of all the laws of the United States. 

But if we look further we will see that under the very thinnest kind of gauze it is 
proposed to hide away the real purpose of the bill. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is im- 
possible for any gentleman to name a possible case where a district court of the United 
States could appoint under this bill, if it should become a law, a deputy marshal to 
serve in reference to an election— to appoint anybody under the bill. Before the 
exigency can arise where the district court of the United States may be invoked to 
make these appointments we will have to discover a district in the United States 
wherein there never has been or will not be before the coming election a term of the 
circuit court of the United States. 

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that before a district court can acquire jurisdiction under 
this bill to appoint a deputy marshal to serve at any election you must find a district 
wherein no circuit court has ever been held. If gentlemen on the other side desire to 
use any portion of my time for the purpose of telling me where and how a case cau 
arise and the district'court cau ever make an appointment of any one of these depu- 
ties to serve at an election, I will yield with great pleasure. Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to know whether there is any gentleman here prepared to defend this scheme, if 
I may be pardoned for using the expression. Under the terms of the bill it is impos- 
sible' for the district court to appoint one of these so-called officers in any place iu the 
United States. 

If that cannot be done, then what? Unless it happens between this and the com- 
ing election for members of the House of Representatives and Delegates to Congress 
that a circuit court is in session, and iu such session that its power might he invoked 
for the purpose of making these appointments, then it will be impossible to have one 
of these deputy marshals at the succeeding election. 

The bill does not propose to have the district court exercise this power in the ab- 
sence of the circuit court that might be held after the passage of the act and before 
the election ; but if there ever has been a circuit court in session in any district, then 
the district court is not allowed to take jurisdiction for the purpose of making ap- 
pointments under this proposed law. So it will be impossible, and I am quite war- 
ranted in saying it will be impossible in most if not all the cases, to have this class 
of officers should this bill become the law. By the terms of the bill it is not made 
the right or duty of any person to pray the court to appoint deputy marshals. The 
court must act, if at all, on its own motion. 

The time I shall occupy will be for the purpose of trying, in my way, to develop 
what there is and what there is not in this proposed legislation. A provision of this 
bill is to the effect that the officers appointed shall be in equal numbers from the dif- 
ferent political parties. Some persons misnamed this measure as non-partisan. I am 
not quite well enough advised to speak with confidence, but I believe that it is the 
only absolutely partisan measure pending before Congress. Under this bill every 
non-partisan iii the United States is rendered ineligible to be appointed a deputy mar- 
shal to serve at an election. Under this bill it is proposed to make special partisans 
of the officers who execute the most delicate law «f the land, to wit, the election law. 
We are to give power to the most vicious partisans, if you please, upon either side, 
amid the heat of political controversy, and send them to the polls armed with that 
power to stand face to face and eye to eye in opposition to each other on political 
grounds. They are to be specially chosen with reference to their partisan character. 
There may arise an emergency where one party, through its supporters, will try to 
overthrow the election officers, or may try to compel them to do what is not their duty 
under the law, or one party may engage in an effort to prevent honest voters from 
exercising their right of voting. In such an emergency there would be found a dep- 
uty marshal on one side who would be willing to see the law executed and the officers 
and voters protected, but the other deputy, denying the right to interfere, stands face 
to face with linn, and says. " My duty here, is to see that you do not do your duty. I 
am appointed under the law of Congress because I am a partisan ; I represent my 
friends, the plug-uglies and the bulldozers here, the partisans on the other side. I am 
the chief captain of them all, and it is my purpose here to see that you do not inter- 
fere or perforin your duty. I was appointed for that purpose. I was recommended 
to the judge of the court because I was a partisan, and I will do my duty to my party." 
And tliis is the kind of non-partisan legislation that you are proposing to write upon 
our statute-books. 

I might elaborate this, but it is sufficient to cite the provisions of the law which it 
is proposed to enact, for all here at least can comprehend them and their real design. 

In this connection, Mr. Sneaker, it must be remembered that these so-called officers 
are in no sense responsible to the appointing power. No power by the provisions o* 



118 

the bill can remove them. The judge that appointed them has no power to remove 
them. They have, as I have already pointed out, no connection with the executive 
power of the Government. They are to receive no orders, no instructions, and are 
under no control by the marshal of the district. They give no bond, and it is fair to 
say that under the provisions of the law as it now stands they are not required to 
qualify at all, even by thetakingof an oath of office. No qualifications, no bond; and 
nobody gives a bond for them, as in the case of the deputy marshals now provided for. 

And further, Mr. Speaker, it will be observed by following the language of this bill 
that they have no jurisdiction outside of the immediate location of the election polls. 
If it should be thought by one of them that it was his duty to arrest a man at the 
polls who was committing or was proposing to commit some crime against the elec- 
tion law he could arrest him possibly, but the very moment he passed with his pris- 
oner a rod beyond the immediate looation of the polls he would be required to release 
him for want of jurisdiction to continue him under arrest. The jurisdiction of the pro- 
posed new class of deputies is not to extend beyond services at an election. 

I have just called the attention of the House to the fact that the supposed officers, 
called deputy marshals for services in reference to any election, if they have any sort 
of power as officers can only exercise it in connection with the election ; and if it 
should turn out that they were obliged to arrest a person who was guilty of repeating 
at the polls, guilty of any sort of crime against the United States election laws, guilty 
of a breach of the peace or any other offense known to the law, they might perhaps 
technically have the right to arrest the man and carry him a few feet from the place 
of election and let him go. Nobody pretends that this proposed law gives such deputy 
marshals jurisdiction to arrest an offender and hold him for trial and punishment, or 
that they can execute a warrant under the direction of a marshal of a district. By 
the terms of this bill — and I give the exact language as set forth in the proviso added 
to the second section — 

The marshals of the United States for whom deputies shall be appointed by the court under this act 
shall not be liable for any of the acts of such deputies. 

They are not to perform the duties of a general deputy marshal. They are not to 
perform the duties of a special deputy marshal of elections appointed under section 
2021 of the Revised Statutes, and whose duties are defined by section 2022 of the 
Revised Statutes; but they are officers without duties save and except as they may 
be inferred from the use of the language in the first section of the bill, to wit: 
Deputy marshals for services in reference to any election. 

That is all. Then they are not to be responsible themselves : and I repeat they are 
not to qualify by the form of oath provided for deputy marshals appointed by the 
marshals themselves under section 780 of the Revised Statutes, and the form of oath 
given in section 782 of the Revised Statutes. These deputy marshals for services in 
reference to any election could not qualify at all. The bond of the marshal required 
to be given by the statute (section 783) for the purpose of securiug the faithful con- 
duct of the marshals covers the duties of his own deputies. 

While the bill provides that there shall be such a singular and anomalous thing 
known to our statutes as a deputy marshal, who will himself Irresponsible to nobody 
for his acts, it was wisely thought by the draughtsmen of this bill that it would be 
well to make nobody responsible for him. Hence the bill says that the marshals of 
the United States shall not be liable, for any of the acts of the deputy marshals which 
the court might appoint. He has no qualification under the law ; he has a naked ap- 
pointment, and is required to fight an adversary who is to be chosen because he is 
able to compete with him, and peculiarly because he is a pa'tisan. He is not respon- 
sible for malfeasance or misfeasance, and he has no sort of duty to perform that any- 
body can hold him liable for failing to perform. He is to be called a deputy marshal 
for services at any election. 

Now it is a grave question whether or not the general statute dehning the duties of 
special deputy marshals or general deputy marshals under our election laws would 
apply to such officer at all. It is exceedingly doubtful whether they would apply to 
such deputies under any fair construction, and the hill, if it becomes a law, is not to 
have a liberal construction. When we are determining the powers of an officer who 
may arrest a man for crime we are not to construe his powers liberally but strictly as 
dehued in the statutes. Strictly speaking, the statute laws of the United States could 
give and would give no sort of power to an officer called a deputy marshal for serv- 
ices at an election. The general statutes require duties of the marshal of the district 
and of his general deputies and his special deputies, as will appear by the sections of 
the Revised Statutes already read ; but no provision of the general statute would reach 
these deputy marshals for services at any election. Therefore, when you strip this 
all down to the bare pole, you will find that it is a mere scheme to destroy our elec- 
tion laws, barely recognizing the right of Congress to uphold the power of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States in the execution of such laws. The law, however, is to 
be so drawn that it cannot be executed, and that great power, the power which, wisely 
executed, preserves peace and order at the polls, where of all places in this country 



119 

we should have peace and order, the entire machinery for that purpose is to be de- 
stroyed under the guise of a new and more perfect law. 

This is the worst of the Legislation proposed in this Congress and in the closing 
session of the Forty-fifth Congress. It was more manly to stand up openly and say 
that y<m wanted to and would repeal all the laws of the United States that gave to 
the Government of the United states the power to preserve peace at the polls on 
election day. The party that took that position, as did the Democratic parly a few 
months ago, once stood upon a more heroic plane than now. 

It is of necessity groveling' now, coming down to an attempt to enact a law that is 
a mere pretense for a law and to say that by it the election laws of the United States 
to preserve peace at the polls are to be enforced, but really undertaking to put on the 
statute books a law that cannot be executed at all. If this bill should become a law 
the Democrats will at least be enabled to go before such of their people as will listen 
to them and say that, while they could not repeal the election laws of the United 
States, while they could not repeal the laws that secured peace and order at the polls, 
they did succeed in getting through the Congress of the United States a bill that ren- 
ders nugatory all those provisions, in so far at least as deputy marshals at the polls 
are concerned. 

I like the Democratic party for some things. It is an obstinate party. 

Mr. WILSON. And an honorable party. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman from West Virginia says that it is an honorable party. 
By that I suppose I am to infer that he means that when the Democratic party is 
whipped and overthrown in a fair fight it will attempt to accomplish its purpose in 
some other way. 

We find that party here pressing for a vote on a bill entitled "An act regulating 
the pay and appointment of deputy marshals." A few mouths ago we were warned 
that we should have no appropriations to carry on this Government until we allowed 
all the laws relating to the appointment of deputy marshals and their use at the polls 
to be absolutely repealed, lu the light of what' has since taken place, especially in 
the Forty-sixth Congress, in the light of the overwhelming defeats of that party in 
this Congress and at the polls, in the broad glare of the light which conies to us from 
the Supreme Court of the United States through recent decisions, we are to-day wit- 
nessing the grand scene of that party bowing humbly to the powers that be and rec- 
ognizing the Constitution of the United States as a Constitution conferring upon the 
Government of the United States power to preserve itself and to enforce its own laws. 

Education conies slowly to that obstinate party. If I were to review its history I 
could lind a vast number of things that it set out* to oppose. Step by step it opposed 
all the grand measures that now stand forth as great monuments to the success of the 
Republican party, the party of progress. 

When we proposed at thi- close of the war to amend the Constitution of the United? 
States so far as to wipe out human slavery, Democrats stood up in this Hall in the- 
Cougress of the United States, and said that it was unconstitutional to amend the 
Constitution of the United States so far as human slavery was concerned. The Re- 
publican party, by its might and power, recognizing the right to amend the Constitu- 
tion in every respect, wiped out human slavery by the adoption of the thirteenth 
amendment to the Constitution, and the Democratic party, after the fact was accom- 
plished, in time bowed and said, " We, too, are in favor of destroying human slavery." 

We tried them on the fourteenth amendment, that amendment which proposed to 
define citizenship, and which contains various other wise j)rovision8. We found the 
Democratic party steadily against it, not only in the Halls of Congress, but in the 
halls of the State legislatures all over the country. By voice and vote they were 
against it, but they were defeated. After being defeated, as time rolled on, they 
again said, "We were wrong then, but now Ave are right." 

We said, " We will enfranchise all American citizens by the adoption of the fifteenth 
amendment of the Constitution ; and every Democrat, I believe, voted against that 
measure, and so far as the members of that party spoke they spoke against it all over 
the country, in Congress and out of it. But the Republican party erected another 
monument to its glory and adopted the fifteenth amendment. Then lagging along 
behind came the Democratic party, crying out that they, too, were in favor of the 
fifteenth amendment. 

Everything that this party has learned in a score of years has been through its de- 
feats; ay, a large part of its* members learned patriotism through defeat, not only at 
the polls, but upon the field of battle. I do not doubt their patriotism now; but I do 
know that they learned it, many of them, before the mouths of cannon and amid the 
clash of arms in the held. I glory in this, for this was an heroic way of acquiring it 
Avhen other methods failed. While speaking to this measure (and I do not intend to 
occupy any moie time) I wish to say that as we close this session we add one thing 
more to the success of the Republican party — the education of the Democratic party 
up to the idea that we have a Government* strong enough to defend itself from foes 
within or without, and yet shorn of all power to oppress any of its citizens. 



120 



COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTE. 

December 7, 1880. Against the concurrent resolution of the Senate in reference to counting th« 
electoral vote for President and Vice-President, Mr. Keifer made the point of order that it was not a 
question of privilege. 

He said : 

Mr. Speaker : I do not desire to enter into any general discussion of the point of 
order ; but I wish to say that, while it may be true that under the Constitution of the 
United States and the statutes, the counting of the electoral vote, when the time ar- 
rives, may become a question of privilege, I deny that a resolution (such as this at 
least) undertaking to regulate the manner of the count is a question of privilege. In 
other words, in my opinion the Constitution of the United States, together with the 
laws on the statute-book, regulates the whole subject of counting the electoral vote. 
I deny also that it is a matter of proceeding of the two Houses in joint session to count 
the electoral vote. The proceedings for the purpose of counting that vote, when the 
two Houses are assembled, are the proceedings of the President of the Senate in the 
presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and nothing is required to 
be doue by the Senate and the House. I think the rule — if we were permitted to look 
at that; a rule that is to be established without having the force and effect of law, 
but a mere rule of the two Houses — cannot confer constitutional power such as is at- 
tempted to be conferred by this resolution on the two branches of Congress. 

But I did not rise to elaborately argue this question. I repeat what I said before, 
that the manner of counting the electoral vote may be a question of privilege when- 
ever it may come up in either branch of Congress; but the matter of a concurrent 
resolution which undertakes to confer extraordinary power on the Congress, or, as 
this resolution does, upon one branch of Congress, is not a question of privilege. 

The point of order was overruled. 

* » » • • • » 

Mr. Speak r, this resolution passed the Senate at its last session, and this House 
was then, with great zeal, pressed to concur therein. Failing to force the resolution 
through the House before the last adj >urument, it was made a special order for the 
opening day of this session. Its prompt passage was supposed to be important, be- 
cause we were in a Presidential election year. 

On every hand we were warned that under its provisions this Congress, with a 
Democratic majority in each House, would count in the Democratic candidates of 
1880 for President and Vice-President of the United States. Leading Democrats out- 
side of Congress openly proclaimed to the country such a purpose. But now, for- 
tunately, the people of this country, having in their sovereign capacity given a judg- 
ment so unmistakable as to hush to silence all further talk of this kind, it seems as 
though wisdom would dictate that we should agaiu plant ourselves on the plain pro- 
•visions of the Constitution as interpreted in the light of the precedents of almost a 
century. 

In the consideration of this question partisan spirit should be forgotten. A re- 
membrance of the fact that after the presidential election of 1876, on account of a 
•division of opinion on this question, not confined to party, this nation was brought to 
the brink of anarchy and civil strife, business was paralyzed, and faith in the per- 
petuity of the Government was shaken, should force us to a solemn realization of our 
duty as legislators and cause us to anxiously inquire what can be done to prevent a 
repetition of like scenes and events. 

I propose now to give some reasons why I am unalterably opposed, not only to this 
proposed joint rule, but to legislation in every form which undertakes to withhold 
from the President of the Senate his constitutional powers and vest them in Congress, 
or one branch thereof, and which also proposes to provide a means by which the vote 
of the electors of a State may not be counted. I deny that the power not to count the 
electoral vote belongs anywhere. 

I know the ground I purpose to tread has been trodden in recent years by some of 
the great statesmen and political giants of this country, and I am conscious that I 
shall be charged with attempting to parry with a rapier the broadsword cuts of polit- 
ical friends as well as political foes. I shall, however, endeavor to show, as an excuse 
for my temerity, that the construction of the Constitution which 1 maintain is the one 
given it by the convention that framed it, by individual members of that conven- 
tion after its adjournment, by the almost uniform course pursued under the Consti- 






121 

tntion, and by statesmen who figured prominently in the political arena in the early 
days of the Republic. 

PROPOSED JOINT RULE. 

The first section of the resolution provides for the meeting of the two Houses to 
witness the count, which the Constitution and laws already provide for. Sections 4, 
5, and G relate to wholly immaterial matters, such as the preservation of order, ar- 
rangement of seats, &c, in joint session. The material parts of the resolution are 
these : 

Appointment of tellers. 

Sec. 2. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part ot 
the House of Representatives, to record and compute the votes of electors. 

Opening the list of votes and receiving and counting them. 

Sec 3. The certified list of votes of electors shall be opened by the President of the Senate in the 
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives and in the alphabetical order of the States, be- 
ginning with the letter A. He shall open all the certified lists of votes of electors, (or papers pur- 
porting to be such certified list of votes), of each State respectively, which shall have been delivered 
to him, in the order herein prescribed, and shall deliver them to the tellers, by whom they shall be read 
in the presence and hearing of the two Houses. 

When the papers in one of such certified lists shall have been so read, and before another sealed 
package or list of votes of electors from the same or any other State has been opened, the President of 
the Senate shall call for objections to receiving such certified list of the votes of electors and to count- 
ing the votes therein certified, or any or either of them. If no objection is made, in the manner herein 
after provided, such list shall be received and the votes be counted, and no other package purporting 
to be a certified list of votes of electors from such State shall be opened. 

If objection is made to receiving such certified list of the votes of electors, or to the counting of any 
vote therein certified, such objection or objections, if more than one objection is made, shall each be sub- 
mitted in writing and shall state the grounds of objection succinctly and without argument, and must 
be signed in duplicate by at east two Senators and three Members of the House of Representatives; 
and one of said duplicates Phall be handed to the President of the Senate and the other to the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives; and the said objection shall be stated by the President of the Sen- 
ate in the presence and hearing of the two Houses ; whereupon he shall proceed to open another pack- 
age, if there be any other, purporting to contain a certified list of votes of electors from said State. 
And the same proceedings shall he had, and in the same order, with reference to said list and any other 
certified list of votes of electors from said State, or papers purporting to be such lists, in succession, 
if two or more lists are opened and read in accordance with this rule. 

If any list of votes of electors from such State is so opened and read, and no objection is made to 
receiving such list, or to counting any vote therein certified, it shall be received as the valid and au- 
thentic list of votes of electors from such State, ami the votes therein shall be counted, and the list 
or lists proviouslv opened, read, and objected to shall be rejected. 

If upon the reading of the certified list or lists of votes of electors from any State no list has been 
received without objection to the same or to any vote therein certified, the Senate shall withdraw to 
its Chamber and shall proceed to consider such objections as have been made as aforesaid. And there- 
upon the House of Representatives shall also proceed to consider said objections. 

Senators and Representatives in their respective Houses may each speak upon such objections ten 
minutes and not longer, nor oftener than once (except by unanimous consent), and after one hour's de- 
bate on the objections the main question shall be put upon receiving each list of votes and counting 
the same. And when all objections so made are decided upon in either House, it shall communicate 
its decision to the other House ; and when both Houses have disposed of such objections, they shall 
immediately again assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives, and the President of the 
Senate shall state the decision of each House upon the questions so submitted to them. 

And all objections so made to the receiving or counting the votes of electors from any State shall be 
disposed of before a list of votes of electors from any other State is opened. 

If but one list of votes of electors from any State'has been so submitted to each House for its decis- 
ion, and it shall appear that the Houses have not concurred in rejecting said list, the same shall bo re- 
ceived. But if both Houses shall have concurred in rejecting any vote contained in such list, such 
vote shall not be counted ; otherwise all the votes therein shall be connted. 

If more than one list of votes of electors from any State, or paper purporting to be such list, has 
been submitted to each House for its decision upon objections made thereto, and it shall appear that 
the Houses have not concurred in receiving either of said lists as the authentic and lawful list, they 
shall each be declared by the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives, as being rejected ; and no list of votes of electors so rejected shall be afterward read in 
the presence of the two Houses except for information. 

The votes having been ascertained and counted in the manner provided in this rule, the result of the 
same shall be delivered by the tellers to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the 
state of the vote, and the names of the persons, if any, elected, which announcement shall be deemed 
a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-President of the United States, and, 
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. 

An analysis of the proposed rule will show its startling character. It is sought by 
a concurrent, not a joint resolution, to adopt a joint rule that casts new and inconsis- 
tent duties on the President of the Senate — an officer whose duties are defined by the 
Constitution — by requiring him to open u papers purporting to be certified lists of rotes" 
whether they are such or not, and this in the face of the constitutional provision only 
requiring him to open actual certificates of votes, all of which votes are required to 
be counted. It is proposed to give Congress the right not only to count the electoral 
votes for President and Vice-President, but also the power not to count them at all. To 
do this, would, by a concurrent resolution, coufer extraordinary and dangerous powers 



122 

<in the bodies passing it. and without a reasonable pretense of constitutional war- 
rant. 

The last clause of section 8, article 2 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to 
make all necessary laws to carry into execution certain enumerated powers, " and all 
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in ana de- 
partment or officer thereof,''' The right of Congress to make laws to carry into effect 
every provision of the Constitution will not authorize it to confer power on itself. A 
joint rule adopted by a concurrent resolution, such as the one now being considered, 
and without the President's approval, could in no sense be regarded as a law. This 
is a bold scheme in enable Congress to select the President and Vice-President of the 
United States from the persons voted for, regardless of the one receiving the highest 
number of electoral votes. 

I do not admit by any means that the foregoing or any clause of the Constitution 
gives the right to Congress to by law confer such high power on itself. 

The grounds of objection (if indeed any are required under the rule) to the certified 
list of votes of electors are left to the whims ami partisan views of members of Con- 
gress. Whatever the objection may be, the two Houses must separate and consider 
it ; and if there be a genuine certificate from a State and a paper purporting to be 
a certificate from the same State, the electoral vote of such State cannot be counted 
at all, on objection being made to each, without the concurrent action of both Houses. 
Under the rule, then, either House of Congress could prevent the vote of a State 
from being counted. This would result in one House (not Congress) controlling by 
its negative actiou the election of Presidenta nd Vice-President of the United States. 
Under such a rule the case could arise where by the Senate and House acting to- 
gether, or separately, no electoral vote would be counted, and there would then be 
no power to elect a President or Vice-President, and the country would be without 
either. 

The House cannot elect a President, or the Senate a Vice-President, except from 
persous who have received counted electoral votes. 

The resolution then goes to the extent of giving to each House the right to count or 
not to count the electoral votes of any or all of the States ; and I agree there is as much 
warrant in the Constitution for this as for the authority to give Congress such right, 
especially by a joiut rule of the two Houses. 

The member from Iudiana [Mr. Bicknell] in charge of this measure was once in 
a speech here (June 10, 1880, candid enough to say : 

In my [his] judgment no joint rule will meet the existing emergency. Where an obligation rests on 
Congress to provide the legislation necessary to carry into execution constitutional provisions, a 
joint rule is not legislation. A joint mle in such a case is a mere make-shift, a temporary expedient ; 
it binds nobody. Either House adoptingit to-day may abandon it to-morrow. It carries no moral force 
with it. 

Still with these views the distinguished member presses this resolution as its chief 
advocate. Constitutional obligations at times are made to set easy. 

I am surprised that the advocates of the right of Congress to count the electoral 
votes should be willing to support that part of this "make-shift" which allows elect- 
oral votes to be counted without the concurrence of both Houses of Congress. I 
refer to this language of the resolution : 

If but one list of votes of electors from any State has been submitted to each House for its decision, 
and it shall appear that the Houses have not concurred in rejecting said list, the same shall be re- 
ceived. 

In such case who will count the electoral vote ? Will not the President of the Sen- 
ate count it ? 

But the measure of this proposed usurpation of power is to be found in that clause 
of the resolution which gives to one branch only of Congress the power to l eject, with 
or without grounds, any and all electoral votes. 

Two sets of certificates can be furnished for any State. Any person can make and 
return "papers purporting to bea certified list of votes," and then one House could throw 
out the entire vote of the State. A simple illustration of the workings of the rule in 
this respect may be given : Suppose a presidential candidate received 214 electoral 
votes including the States of New York and Pennsylvania, aud another had 155, and 
two sets of certificates were placed in the hands of the President of the Senate for each 
of these States. On objection being made, if one House should vote not to count the 
votes as shown by either of the certificates, 64 (New York 35, Pennsylvania 29) votes 
of the leading candidate would be rejected, his remaining vote would be only 150, and 
the candidate having 155 votes would become President of the United States. A ma- 
jority of one branch of Congress would thus make a President from those voted for 
by the electors. A Vice-President would he made in the same way. 

'Having indicated the design, scope, aud workings of the proposed rule, and in some 
measure shown the want of power to adopt it, let us take a broader view and con- 
sider who has the right to appoint electors, determine the validity of their votes, and 
to count their votes t 



123 

THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORS 

is a purely State matter. The language of the Constitution is : 

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a numher of electors, 
equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the 
Congress, &c. — Section!, article 2. 

The same section of the Constitution provides that— 

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give 
their votes. 

Here the power of Congress in relation to the electors hegins and ends. It has 
nothing to do with the moaner of appointing them, and it follows that it has no right 
to establish a mode of determining when the legislature of the State has appointed 
them if it has acted at all. 

Nothing is clearer than the fact that if electors have heen chosen as the Constitu- 
tion provides, at the time and in the manner fixed by law, aud they have cast their 
vote on the day prescribed bylaw, that it must be counted as cast ; and every attempt 
to prevent its being counted would be a bold effort to rob the people of this country, 
in flagrant, violation of the Constitution of the United States, of their choice for Presi- 
dent and Vice-President. 

The proposed joint rule can only be characterized as a measure of usurpation and 
fraud, the enforcement of which could hardly in the end lead to anything short of 
bloodshed and war. It proposes to vest Congress, through the rejection of electo- 
ral votes, with the prerogative of selecting the two highest officers of the Government 
from the persons voted for, no matter how clearly it may have been determined by 
State or other authority that the votes were duly cast. It occasionally happened in 
republican Rome that her senators, the lords, and aristocrats would appear in the 
Campus Martins, and, with the aid of their armed servants and a hired retinue, pre- 
vent on an election day the choice of a consul unfriendly to them. This at least had 
the merit of boldness compared to a subtle method of depriving the electors of their 
votes after they were cast. The barbaric methods of two thousand years ago have 
been adopted in elections in some places in our Republic ; they now seem to be giving 
way to the more bloodless method of not counting the votes cast. In these Halls we 
should give no countenance to either method. 

WHO TO COUNT THE VOTE. 

If the right to count the electoral vote, or, rather, to decide what vote should be 
counted, is not given specifically by the Constitution to any authority, it does not 
follow that Congress can assume it. The debates on the adoption of the Constitution 
show that it was designed to remove as far as possible the choice of President and 
Vice-President from the control of Congress. 

Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, a member of the constitutional convention, 
January 2'i, 1800, when speaking on the subject of the election of President of the 
United States, said: 

He rememhered very well that, in the Federal convention, great care was used to provide for the 
election of the President of the United States, independently of Congress, and to take the business, as 
far as possible, out of their hands. — Elliott's Debates, volume 4, page 424. 

It may be observed here that it is quite immaterial who counts the electoral vote. 
The addition of a few figures is an easy task for any person. It is purely a matter of 
computation. The privilege of counting the vote, however, carries with it no right 
to reject it. The uniform construction put upon the language of the Constitution by 
its framers when adopted and first put in practice justifies the claim that Congress has 
no duty to perform in relation to counting the electoral vote other than to witness i 8 
count. 

PRECEDENTS OF CONSTRUCTION. 

The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, and on the same day a resolution 
passed the convention unanimously directing the mode of putting the constitutional 
government into operation ; and on the matter of counting the electoral vote for the 
first President, it says : 

That the Senators should convene at the time and place assigned : that the Senators should appoint 
a President of the Senate for the solepurpose of receiving, opening, and counting the vote for President. 

Washington, the president of the convention, signed this resolution. 

Here was a clear construction of the Constitution, before the ink used in writing 
and signing it was dry, and by the voice of all its framers, which should alone close 
the mouths of doubters aud modern constitutional expounders. 

In accordance with the resolution the first Senate chose John Langdon, one of its 
number, President of the Senate ; and, as its order declared — 

For the sole purpose of opening the certificates and counting the votes of electors of the severa» 
States in the choice of President and Vice-President of the United States. 



124 



Accordingly on April 6 1» Jota Laugon «* fSSMESuSS S«S 
SS3SJ?W-S3S15 °JotaAdau5 % *i«, the fo^ r—. and the 

"™1 "ghest evideuce that the Present of *h-B— . not only opened the 
certificates but declared the electoral votes tc .he counted u convention 

«5 ffb5^^2S^^=S^S??SS5!Ld to protest against 

^b^o^^ 

Snei^a^S^'^^So'^^^ the United States on 

*Wfinele1£:p^ 

did the counting which made George \ *•*!?<« and ft .'" T oJl i,,nefaceof Inl- 
and first T^^^^Z^^^^V^XZJ^, bring them- 
tory, denies that fact; yet they, 05 some ""'"'J . , Co „„ rMS alone may count 
selves into mutual embrace and agree that one b . »"«& ot > on t - the constitution in 
or not cunt the electoral cote After giving a eonst.mtm re u C( , nKrea s 

favor of the President of the Senate's nght to count toe elecw^ iM . pi . esklenti 

rdiuere^ogStfcu %2£ss? asssfc- »f « — » «"-« - 

the ascertainment of the vote is this: ™.„ naru * * * succeeding every 

That Congress shall be in session the ^ J^K^JSS^SLll have been received, shall 
meeting of the electors, and the said creates or sc ^'^ ^11 flll the offices of President and Vice- 
then he opened, the votes counted and the person. * ™° ? l f n 

Presiden&scertained and declared agreeably t the °«"J£"J^ count or - ect 

In that act there is no intimation that Congress J b*J«¥j Snow proposed to annul 
electoral vote.. This law, hoary with age but yetinfo c ertv sn ^ P ^ 

by a simple concurrent resolution of Congress unoer it ., Washingt on President, 
tificates, counted the votes (February 5 1793) and flee . xeu „ February, 

^tnn'S.^^^ 
S^eS^ueTauu 1 ^ 

which I read an extract : ,„, ,. a ; r i pn t of the Senate, did, in the pres- 

<T »'Vfor a President and for a Vice-President. 

No clearer evidence could have been preserved "^^^^^Sllet^^ount 
bu tofthe;ud g mento f ^th^ 



the eletoral vote, In the fourth V^ ^ S^^si.ued a cer- 

Vice-President discharged his doty "i r V *» .Se Sou which this is an extract: 
tificate in compliance with an order of the Senate tr m geu ^ in tl e 

The underwritten, Vice-President of ^e Um^ggw ^jKe certificates and ^ oBttJ 
presence of the said Senate and House ot I ep. esentat m so Jeffer80 n, of Virginia, and Aaron 

H ere i 8 the most conclusive ^SS^JS; KS^£«SSS£i3^lS?S2j 

Constitution. The distinguished men.bei tiom Iowa I Air. 



125 

last made an exhaustive argument on this subject, has shown that Mr. Jefferson was 
called on to count the vote of Georgia for himself on a certificate (if it could he so 
called ) which was more than technically defective. An account of his conduct, show- 
ing that he directed without consultation with anybody the vote of that State to be 
counted for himself and Aaron Burr, will be found in Davis's Memoirs of Burr, vol- 
ume 2, page 71. 

The honorable member from Georgia [Mr. Stephens], who, as I understand from 
his public writings and speeches, wholly repudiates the principles of the proposed 
joint rule and favors both Houses of Congress, while in joint session, exercising the 
right to settle by a vote per capita all disputed votes, in a published article (Interna- 
tional Review, January and February, 1H78) says Mr. Jefferson favored legislation by 
Congress to regulate the electoral count, and he quotes from what is said to be Mr. 
Jefferson's draught of an amendment to a bill pending before the Senate while he was 
Vice-President. It is fair to say that Mr. Jefferson's subsequent open public act which 
resulted in making himself President of the United States is in opposition to such a 
construction of the Constitution. No public act or speech of his supports this post- 
humous claim as to his views. It is quite certain that after Mr. Jefferson had written 
the paper referred to by the honorable gentleman he did not think well enough of it 
to have it offered in the Senate or to otherwise give it publicity, and he entombed it 
so thoroughly that its resurrection day did not come for seventy-five years and until 
grass had grown over his grave above half a century. 

In the draught he is made to say that it is to be inferred from the wording of the 
Constitution that the members of the Senate and House of Representatives are to do 
the counting, and that they are brought together " for that office, no other being assigned 
them." 

The views of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] and those of Mr. Jeffer- 
son are in harmony on the question of the right of the two Houses in joint session to 
count the electoral vote, if this paper of Mr. Jefferson can be accepted as his settled 
views, and both are against the usurpation sought to be worked out through the 
pending resolution. 

If we take Mr. Jefferson's draught as a whole, we will find that he did not believe 
any authority could or should deprive any State of an electoral vote. I quote from it : 

That whenever the vote of one or more of the electors of any State shall for any caase whatever be 
adjudged invalid it shall be lawful for the Senators and Representatives of the said State, either in the 
presence of the two Houses or separately and withdrawn from them, to decide by their own votes to 
which of the persons voted for by any of the electors of their State [or to what person] the invalid vote 
or votes shall be given, for which purpose they shall be allowed a term of [one hoar], and no longer, 
during which no certificate shall be opened or proceeded on. 

This, however, so flatly contravenes the Constitution, which gives to States the right 
to select the persons who shall cast the electoral votes, that Mr. Jefferson on reflection 
may well have consigned this fugitive paper to supposed oblivion. 

Those who assume to be the guardians of his name and fame should not have dis- 
turbed its resting place or discovered it to the public eye. 

My friend from Georgia, while he regards Mr. Jefferson as an apostle of strict con- 
struction to be followedin the matter of the authority of Congress to ascertain the vote 
to be counted, could not but repudiate his views set forth in the quotation just made. 
He does not think Mr. Jefferson should be followed so far outside of the pale of the 
Constitution as to favor the casting of rejected electoral votes by members of Congress 
from States having such votes. While some differences of opinion developed early, 
yet they, on discussion, were dropped, and the uniform course obtained for the Vice- 
President to count the vote, and this prevailed until modern expediency has found it 
necessary to try to change it. 

I might take up, did time permit, each Presidential election succeeding those given, 
and show the method I now contend for was uniformly pursued. Apology may he 
necessary for having gone into the details of history at all. I should not have done 
so but for the fact that at a recent session at least one member [Mr. Hunton, of Vir- 
ginia] confidently claimed that (with a single exception) " the two Houses of Congress 
have exercised the power of counting the electoral vote." It is a misfortune that we so often 
read history awry, or that we do not read it at all. 

constitution. 

A recurrence to the language of the Constitution on this subject and the history ot 
its enactment will confirm us in the belief that the early and uniform practice we 
have shown to have existed was in accordance with its letter and spirit. The lan- 
guage of that instrument (section 1, Article II) is this : 

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open 
all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. 

This same language is found in the twelfth amendment to the Constitution, which 
is now in force. That amendment was proposed at the first session of the Eighth 



126 

Congress (December 12, 180:]), and it was adopted by the required number of States 
in 1804, after four Presidential elections had been held under the Constitution, in 
■which 'the President of the Senate counted the vote in the presence of the two Houses 
of Congress. If, as has been claimed, there is a casus omissus in respect to the electoral 
count, those who set the Constitution in motion did not discern it. No amendment 
was deemed necessary to change the prevailing construction of the Constitution, or 
to inaugurate a new oolicy in the matter of counting the electoral vote. No fears 
were then felt that the prevailing practice would lead to serious trouble. Why should 
we now drift from the old moorings? What new light has poured upon us in respect 
to this question ? To use the language of Mr. Dallas in its defense : 

The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophis- 
ticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. 

In the original draught of the Constitution, reported to the convention from a com- 
mittee of eleven (September 4, 1787, Elliott's Debates, volume 1, page 283), the lan- 
guage used was : 

© © 

The President of the Senate shall, in that House, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then 
and there be counted. 

Two days later, when the report was under consideration, the convention added to 
this clause, after the word counted, the words in tlie presence of the Senate and House of 
Representatives, thus showing it only intended these bodies to be auditors at the open- 
in" and counting of the vote. No Vote or other act of the convention indicates any 
change of such intent on its face. All that appears is that in a reformation or revis- 
ion of the language of the clause it wasthoughl best, without any change of the sense, 
to transpose it and insert the wcrds in the presence of the Senate and House of Represent- 
atives in lieu of the words in that House, and also to strike out, as superfluous, the 
words and there. This left the clause as it now stands. From such revision no possi- 
ble inference can reasonably be drawn that the convention intended to alter its pre- 
viously expressed purpose of requiring the votes to be counted in the presence of the Sen- 
ate and House of Representatives. The language of the clause was improved, i he meaning 
was not changed. Eleven days after this clause was agreed upon the same conven- 
tion by resolution, as already shown, gave construction to it in harmony with its 
plain words. The convention did not, bv inference, confer powers on Congress. Its 
powers were all carefully enumerated. (Section 8, Article I.) 

The language is imperative and requires the votes shown by the certificates opened 
bv the Vice-President to then be counted. What votes are then to be counted? Only 
the certified votes, and all these are absolutely required to be then counted. If votes 
are not certified they cannot be counted; if they are, and the certificate is laid before 
the joint convention", they must be counted, and then, for the Constitution so says. 

If all that were contended for here was the privilege to perform Hie mere ministe- 
rial act of counting the votes, as so evidenced, it might be conceded, as no possible 
harm could come i'rom it. Any person learned in addition could be trusted to do that. 
There is no objection to tellers doing it, as has always been the practice. The mate- 
rial thing is the declaration of the vote to be counted, and this duty devolves on the 
President of the Senate. This resolution requires the tellers " to record and compute 
the rotes of electors,"' and this is all the actual counting needed. What is proposed, I 
repeat, is, under cover of an alleged power to count the electoral votes, to give Con- 
gress, and in certain cases' one branch thereof, the right not to count them. 

Those who advocate this plan contend that the right to count (or not count) the 
vote is not expressly granted to the Vice-President, and hence Congress may assume 
it. No right is given to Congress to gather to itself all powers not elsewhere con- 
ferred. It is said ir is dangerous for the power to count the vote to be vested solely 
in one' man— the President of the Senate, Grant this; it is always dangerous to re- 
pose power anywhere, If such power must belong somewhere it will be as safe with 
him as with Congress. In nearly one hundred years of our constitutional existence 
no case of abuse of power (unless Mr. Jefferson's acts constitute one) can be or has 
been charged against a President of the Senate in respect to the counting of the elec- 
toral vote'? We could not hope for as happy results if Congress were clothed with 
this important duty. 

Large bodies are more tyrannical than individuals. Oppression, tyranny, usurpa- 
tion, and injustice, as history teaches us, are the offspring of party factions in repub- 
lics as well as the children of absolute monarchs. The Roman senate in the last two 
centuries of republican Rome incited, countenanced, justified, and condoned more 
wanton bloodshed than can be laid at the door of individual monarchy for the same 
period in the history of any so-called civilized nation. If we turn on the light of the 
present in our own' Republic we are not reassured. We have recently seen, under 
the diclum of party caucus, crime, and fraud, in the presence of which civilized man 
stands appalled, justified— not only justified, but sought to be legalized. We have 
witnessed legislative bodies abuse as well as usurp power. We have seen members 
of both great parties at our recent Presidential electoral count united in a commis- 



127 

aion hennaphroditically organized, partaking of law judges and law makers, divide 
on every material question — 8 to 7 — according to party bias. This was not calculated 
to quiet the sensitive nerves of the Republic. The defeated party cried through the 
land that the result was a larceny, grand larceny, Presidential larceny, and that it 
would be vindicated. The vindication lias not yet coine, it is true, audit is not likely 
ever to come in that case. A bad cause can have no vindication. 

It has frequently occurred that, a President of the Senate has unflinchingly dis- 
charged bis duty under the Constitution, by counting the electoral vote and declar- 
ing elected a President and Vice-President of the opposite political party. When 
the tires of civil war were already lighting, in 1861, John C. Breckinridge (shortly 
thereafter a leader in rebellion), himself a Presidential candidate, then Vice-Presi- 
dent, opened the certificates and counted (with the aid of the usual tellers), and so 
certified, the electoral vote that made The now immortal Lincoln President of the. 
United States. 

It is conceded that the President of the Senate, and be only, has authority to "open 
all the certificates," showing the electoral votes. This is a more dangerous power 
than the right to count the votes thus shown. He is to judge of the genuineness of 
the certificates. Should he decide that a paper purporting to be a certificate of such 
votes was not what it purported to be he need not present it, and there would then 
be no opportunity to count the vote of a State. This has actually occurred. On Feb- 
ruary 8, 1865, Vice-President Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, withheld certificates from 
the States of Louisiana and Tennessee: and when, during the joint session of the 
Houses, he was called on to submit them, he refused, and they were never submitted, 
nor the votes counted. It is true he had the authority of a joint resolution (approved 
by the President), which had the force of a law, for refusing " to receive or count" the 
votes of these or other States. I refer to the joint resolution President Lincoln ap- 
proved (Februarys, 1865), and then sent a protesting message to the Senate dis- 
claiming all right of the Executive to interfere in the matter of counting the elec- 
toral vote. 

My friend from Virginia [Mr. Hunton], in a speech here, says President Lincoln 
approved the twenty-second joint rule, adopted in that year. It was adopted by a 
concurrent, resolution (February 6, 1865), and it was never submitted to him for his 
action. Other members have fallen into the same error. I understood the honorable 
Speaker, to-day, to cite the message of President Lincoln on the "joint resolution de- 
claring certain States )iot entitled to representation in tlieelectoral college" in support of the 
power of Congress to count the vote. Errors of judgment track in the wake of errors 
of history. 

I do nor justify the long-since abrogated twenty-second joint rule. 

The resolution which President Lincoln approved set forth iu its preamble that 
eleven States, and named them, were then in rebellion and on that account declared 
that " noeltctoi'dl votesshall be received or counted from said States." This went to the root 
ot the case, and it was nofra regulation of the conduct of the count in joint conven- 
tion of the Houses. Then Democrats, South, wereabsent, claiming these eleven States 
were out of the Union for all purposes, and Democrats North were agreeing with them 
in the main ; hut some of them claimed they were still in the Union tar enough to help 
elect a President of the United States. In that instance, if in no other, the Repub- 
lican party sided with the Southern Democrats, and acceptedtheir view of the case, to 
a certain extent. 

I am aware that my opinions are not parallel with any party lines. 

Some members say, in the cases where the President of the Senate has couuted the 
vote, he has done so under the authority of Congress. This cannot be true. Con- 
gress cannot delegate the constitutional powers it possesses. John Laugdon, the first 
President of the Senate, bad no authority of Congress to count the vote, yet he 
counted the vote without objection. 

Tbe accountability to which a Vice-President would be heldin case he should abuse 
his official power or fail to faithfully perform his duty is a sufficient guarantee that he 
will never attempt either — certainly not before his party friends in Congress would 
be ready to do likewise. 

It maybe going too far to hold that Congress has not power to, in the ordinary way, 
pass a law to guide the Vice-President iu opening and counting the electoral vote, but 
any law or rule which would deprive him of the right to do either would bo uncon- 
stitutional. 

The opiniou entertained by Mr. Jefferson, and which my friend from Georgia fol- 
lows, that whatever is done having relation to the count must be while in joint con- 
vention, is undoubtedly sound. It harmonizes with the Constitution. The Constitu- 
tion absolutely fixes two things: (1) the certificates shall be opened ; (2) the votes 
shall then be counted, and all in the presence of the two Houses. 

There can be no counting or agreement to count or not count the vote in separate 
sessions. 

In the adoption of this resolution the text and spirit of the Constitutiou is to be 



128 

ignored, the truth of history is to be denied, all good and sale precedents are to be 
disregarded, ami a single doubtful, dangerous, and repudiated precedent which 
grew out of a wholly unanticipated state of affairs incident to a civil war is to be 
invoked as a justification of the act. 

If the Constitution does charge Congress with the duty of counting the electoral 
vote, it will exist without the aid of a joint rule; and if it does not exist under that 
instrument, then Congress cannot by joint rule impose that duty on itself. 

That it could not have been contemplated that Congress should have the right, by 
vote, to disfranchise a State in the choice of a President, is x>lain enough from the 
whole structure of the Constitution and the division of powers. 

The duties of Congress are legislative, and it cannot change itself into a returning 
board any more than it can resolve itself into a court with jurisdiction to try causes. 

"What is required to be done is "in the presence of the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives," and not by these bodies acting jointly or separately. 

A final count of the vote and announcement of the result is very commonly made 
in the presence of both houses of a State legislature, as required by statute or 
organic law. In Ohio this is done by constitutional requirement, by " the president of the 
senate in the presence of a majority of the membeis of each house." No person in that State 
has yet been crazy enough to start a question of the right of the general assembly of the 
State to connt the vote or, what is worse, to throw out by its own iiat such votes as 
it pleased. It is quite convenient and proper for a formal count of votes cast in the 
election of high officers to be made and the result announced in the presence of a 
State or national legislature. In the effort to hud some justification for the proposed 
rule some members resort to the clause of the Constitution which says "each House 
may determine the rules of its proceedings." (Section 5, articled.) Just what ray of 
light is thrown on this question by that clause some of us cannot see. Not even the 
right to make joint rules is given by it, much less a warrant to Congress to impose 
duties upon and withhold others from the Vice-President of the United States and to 
confer extraordinary powers on itself. 

The "proceedings," when the Houses have met in joint session, are not those of 
either body, but rather of the President of the Senate in the presence of both bodies. 

The supreme danger from such a rule can, however, only be seen when we look to the 
fact that no concurrent action of the Houses is required to reject the votes of a State. 
When objection is made the certificate is not even prima facie authority for counting 
the vote certified if there is another paper which purports to be a certificate from the 
same State. The Constitution charges States with the duty of appointing electors in 
such manner as their respective Legislatures may direct, thus making their appoint- 
ment a State matter exclusively. It also defines their eligibility. It is binding on 
States and their legislatures as much as upon Congress, and w r e are not in this or 
any other matter to assume, as does the proposed rule, that they will not only obey it 
as faithfully as Congress. What authority is there in that great charter for making 
that body the judge of how others upon whom a constitutional duty devolves dis- 
charge it ? It may be enough for us to be the keepers of our own conscience. If we 
are seeking for grounds of apprehension we can soon satiate ourselves. We can find 
mauy ways by which the electoral vote of a State may be prevented from being 
counted. This would result from a failure of electors to meet after they were chosen, 
or after meeting, if they refused or neglected to vote, or make a certificate of 
the vote, or to return it if made, &c. ; or if the President of the Senate should sup- 
press the certificate, &,c. 

This resolution, based as it is on the idea that members of Congress can do no wrong, 
is not broad enough to cover all possible cases of failure of officers to discharge their 
duty. Bribery, as has been attempted, of a single elector might alter the result of a 
Presidential election. 

I do not say that the President of the Senate would not be bound by a law which 
gave him fixed rules by which to ascertain the genuineness of electoral certificates, 
and which otherwise directed him in the execution of his duty, but such a law is 
scarcely necessary. The Constitution requires him to open the certificates, genuine 
certificates only, of the votes cast, and the counting of them follows as a matter of 
course. No judgment or suggestion of judgment or discretion is enjoined on this 
officer or other person or body iu this regard, but the power only is given to declare 
the result of the prior action of the electors iu the several States. 

Neither the President of the Senate nor other authority can constitutionally dis- 
franchise, in whole or in part, a State by rejecting certified electoral votes. There are 
persons who assume that if Congress has not the right to count or reject the electoral 
votes, that right is left with the President of the Senate. It is a grave error to sup- 
pose such right rests anywhere. There are few, if any, boards that are authorized to 
count and make returns of votes cast at any ordinary election that have any power 
to reject them. 

The count of the electoral vote everybody has the right to make when the certifi- 
cates are open, but it must be made once before the joint convention. No formal 



129 

declaration of the result need be made; the Constitution does not require it. If a 
majority of the votes are for one man his election follows ; if no person has such ma- 
jority then the House must immediately proceed to elect a President as the Constitu- 
tion directs, and the Senate in like case a Vice-President. There may be a necessity 
for some authority to judge finally of the true result in all cases of dispute. This 
necessity will exist as much in case the Congress counts the vote and in cases where 
the House and Senate elect the President and Vice-President, where no election has 
taken place by the electors, as if the President of the Senate counted it. 

With appropriate legislation the question might possibly bo settled in the Supreme 
Court of the United States by proceedings in quo warranto or by some other form of 
contest. To its final judgment all patriotic people would bow in submission. We are 
forced by the very nature of our Government, free as it is, to have to submit at last 
to some hual arbiter, and often sutler injustice if it is meted out to us; otherwise the 
pillars of our political structure would go down in the first storm. The judgment of 
a high court would be more freely acquiesced in than the action of a partisan Con- 
gress. 

Let us abandon this attempt to exercise j>owers not granted in the Constitution; 
let us cling firmly, persistently, and to the end to all our constitutionally granted 
powers; let ns guarantee to all authorities or officers in the Union their properly 
granted powers, and no more; let us encourage them to faithfullydischarge all then- 
duties ; let ns cease to set bad precedents to others in the matter of usurping powers 
belonging elsewhere ; lastly, if we have been so unfortunate as to find a weak place 
in the great charter of our national existence, let us gather around it and devote our- 
selves to curing its weakness; stand close about it and guard it from attack, strain, or 
break, so that our Republic, which has already, in, as we hope, the youth of its exist- 
ence, been compelled to withstand the shock of a political earthquake from which it 
barely escaped being rent in twain, may never again be rocked in the cradle of civil 
strife. 

Greater devotion to purifying the political morals and to the education, civilization, 
and Christianiz.it iou of our people, and less to expedients under the pretense of pro- 
viding against apprehended wrong, will be more fruitful of happy results. If we find 
our organic law is defective, let us amend it agreeably to its own provisions. Such 
a policy will avert any possible danger and transform all our fears to hope and confi- 
dence. 

This country should now only be in the blossoming period of its growth and great- 
ness. The possibilities of the future we do not yet hope to compass, but we may do 
our duty by strengthening all weak places as they appear, and by not attempting 
legislation based on an assumption that fraud and wrong will exist generally through- 
out all the departments of our dual Government. 

Time would be well spent here if we devoted ourselves to legislation that would 
condemn electoral frauds in every part of the Union, and set the seal of infamy upon 
all persons, whether in high or low places, who practiced, excused, or countenanced 
them, or accepted the fruits of them. 

Political morality ingrained into our national existence will create, strength as noth- 
ing else creates it. Without an improvement in this respect and an abandonment of 
expedients by which one or another party hopes to gain, against the expressed will 
of the people, some advantage over all others, the time may not be far distant when 
this American Republic, teeming as it already does with above fifty millions of the 
happiest and freest people of the earth, may be found ready for final judgment. This 
particular epoch in our history is an auspicious one to adjust persons and parties on 
a true aud patriotic basis ; and if it should be found that any party ship has sailed 
so far out of a true course as to be incapable of being brought back, it should be scut- 
tled, abandoned, and consigned to a deep-sea burial. This Government will roll on 
in safety upou the old lines if those who control its destiny are content to steer it by 
the landmarks of the Constitution planted by the patriotic fathers who set it in mo- 
tion. 

February 9, 1881. On the resolutions providing for assembling the two Houses in joint session to count 
the votes of electors for President and Vice-President. 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Speaker : I do not rise for the purpose of specially opposing these resolutions. 
Phe first resolution is in the usual form, and it is wholly unobjectionable. The sec- 
ond resolution provides the alternative of not counting the vote of any State about 
vhich there may be a question. Of course that is directed, in this particular case, 
against the State of Georgia. It is seemingly an innocent expedient. It has prece- 
dent for it ; but it is objectionable because it assumes a direction by Congress in the 
counting of the electoral votes. It undertakes to direct by a mere resolution of the 
two Houses what the President of the Senate shall do in the performance of a consti- 
tutional duty specially cast on him. 

I deny that any power, whether the Vice President or the Congress of the United 

90 A— K 9 



130 

Slates, has tlie right to say the counting of the vote of any State shall not takeplace* 
and I deny that there is am' power anywhere to reject the vote of auy State after it 
has been cast and properly certified and returned. I believe the election of President 
and Vice-President look place, in effect, at least, in November last. I believe that on 
the first Wednesday in December last the voice of the people was recorded through 
the electoral colleges over this country, and that the President and Vice-President of 
the United States were then elected, and that the forms we are about to go through 
here are mere forms provided and fixed by the Constitution. I believe that our ac- 
tion in the matter of counting electoral votes does not make or unmake the President 
or Vice-President. . 

In the presence of the two Houses the Constitution requires certain things to be 
done, which amounts only to a public declaration of an election of President and Vice- 
President which has already taken place. 

After electoral votes are ascertained to have been cast, it would be high usurpation 
in any person, official, or body to reject them. 

I wish to say a single word in reference to Georgia. If the question were presented 
here now, with the light I have upon that subject, I should, if I were to participate in 
determining it— and I do not see how that could possibly be under the Constitution— 
I should be°in favor of couuting the vote of Georgia, because I believe the people voted 
in November for electors for President and Vice-President. They then elected the 
electors of the State ; and while those electors did not meet on the precise day fixed by 
the laws of the United States, still they seem to have in good faith met and cast their 
votes in accordance with the instructions and directions, so to speak, of the people of 
the State of Georgia. There was no fraud or intention to commit fraud or wrong. I 
do not hold that time can be the essence of that vote, although I admit if any fraud or 
any wrong were thereby committed, the State might be disfranchised for that reason. 

Mr. COOK. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will hear it. . 

Mr. COOK. Suppose the vote of Georgia changed the result of the Presidential 
election, would you then vote for counting it ? 

Mr. CALKINS. I would if there were no fraud. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not admit, in the first place, that I would have or could have, 
under the Constitution and laws of the United States, any right to decide that ques- 
tion; but if I had, as I now understand it, I should vote under such state of case to 
admit the votes of that State in the count. 



131 



FEES OF EXAMINING SURGEONS. 

December 16, 1880. The House, in committee, had under consideration the pension appropriation hill ; 
the pending clause was a provision fixing one dollar as the fee for the examining surgeon for each ex- 
amination of a pensioner, as provided bylaw, " except when the examination is made by a board of 
surgeons, in which case the fees now allowed by law shall be paid." 

Mr. Keifek moved to strike out "one " and insert " two," making the fee two dollars, against which 
a point of order was made. 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Chairman. If I understood the honorable gentleman aright in his answer a few 
moments ago, when I called his attention to this matter, he now makes a statement 
which is entirely the opposite of that. He then stated to us, and I thought be was 
right, that the law gave to each examining surgeon in these cases $2; but that under 
this new-fangled method — that is, the effect of what he said — of legislating upon ap- 
propriation bills, for a few years past, this has been ingrafted on the law and the fee 
thereby cut down to $1. 

| Is it not true that under existing law, without a provision in the appropriation bill 
and without a limiting clause in the bill, the allowance would be $2? From year to 
year for a few years past we have been changing existing law on our appropriation 
bills, and in this case we have cut down the sum allowed examining surgeons to $1. 
Now, if I understand the law aright, the amendment that I offer is not only in exact 
accordance with the existing law, but simply proposes to restore the law to what it 
was before this temporary change was made, and the point of order therefore ought 
to have been made that this, which in reality changes the law, is legislation on an 
appropriation bill. This provision in the bill, coming from this august Committee 
on Appropriations, is simply an undertaking to change existing law itself. My propo- 
sition is to restore the clause so that it will be entirely consistent with existing law. 
If the gentlemen on the Committee on Appropriations deem it possible that they can 
violate a rule by injecting into their bill or by undertaking to put into their hill a 
provision that changes existing law, I ought to be allowed by my motion at least to 
restore the law. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair presumes, and it will not be controverted, that the 
appropriation made heretofore for the purpose of providing fees for surgeons in such 
cases has been at the rate of .$1 for each examination. 

Mr. KEIFER. Will the Chair allow me to suggest that that applied to the law regulat- 
ing the distribution of the appropriations under that particular bill and for that fiscal 
year only, but it did not undertake to change existing laws permanently. 

The CHAIRMAN. Be that as it may, the Chair is of opinion that the existing law 
provides that the fee shall be .§1. It will not be denied that for this year at least the 
law has been fl. Then, if yon hold that, you do not repeal the present law you will 
have the absurdity of two laws existing at the same time directly the reverse of each 
other, which is an impossibility. The Chair is of opinion that this is the existing law, 
and therefore that the point of order is well taken. 

Mr. KEIFER. Do I understand the Chair to say that if the law was modified for 
but one year, not by repealing the act, but modified simply for that year, that it 
would change it forever? I believe it is conceded that recent appropriation bills of 
like character to this have only undertaken to amend that law pro tanio in this re- 
spect, and for the fiscal year appropriated for ouly. But in the absence of any other 
legislation on the subject the old law would operate again. The existing law for the 
coming fiscal year, for which we are now appropriating, would be $2. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I believe it is entirely right the House should have had a chance 
to express an opinion on this question. Therefore, I would suggest to the gentleman 
from Ohio that he modify his motion and move to strike out the proviso. 

Mr. KEIFER, That I intend to do. 

The point of order was sustained. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will not appeal from the decision of the Chair, although I am in- 
clined to think that my amendment does not change existing law for the year for 
which this bill proposes to make appropriation. But the point of order having been 
sustained, I move to strike out the proviso beginning on line 29, as follows : 

Provided, That a fee Oi' $1, and no more, shall be paid to the examining surgeon for each examina- 
tion of a pensioner, as provided by law, except when the examination is made by a board of surgeons, 
in which case the fees now allowed by law shall be paid. 

The object of my motion will be quite apparent to the committee. It is to get rid 
of the legislation proposed in this appropriation bill on the subject of regulating the 
fee to be paid to an examining surgeon for the examination of pensioners. I under- 



132 

stand, and I believe it to be conceded all around, that in tbe absence of such a limit- 
ation as is found in this bill tbe fee of an examining surgeon, under existing law, 
would be $2. Tbe last clause in tbe proviso that is proposed to be stricken out is 
simply in tbe nature of an exception in favor of paying tbe sum of $2 when there is 
an examination made of a pensioner by a board of surgeons. The proviso says tbat 
in such a case the fees now allowed by law shall be paid. So that if the committee 
and the House should decide to strike out all tbat I have called attention to and that 
is included within my motion, the law would operate and the sum of $2 would be 
paid, under the law as it now stands, to examiuiug surgeons. 

Mr. HUBBELL. As I understand, there is no general law as to that. 

Mr. KEIFER. Gentlemen all around me say there is. And there is certainly a pre- 
sumption there is a general law when we find the Appropriations Committee under- 
taking to do something in limitation of that general law. It is a very late day, it is 
true, to undertake to talk about legislation upon appropriation bills; but I may be 
permitted to say again that it is exceedingly unsatisfactory, not only to members of 
tbe House, but to the country. We have to get along with these appropriation bills 
rapidly. We are expected to appropriate the necessary money to carry on the differ- 
ent departments of the Government and to pay for the important services that are 
to be paid for by appropriations ; and we very often find that in the appropriation 
bills we have struck out many provisions of law that are very wise for tbe country. 

[Here tbe hammer fell.] 

Mr. SAPP obtained the floor, and yield his time to Mr. Keifer. 

Mr. KFIFER. 1 am very much obliged to the gentleman from Iowa. 

Now, a word as to the merits of this. In the first place, it is but simple justice to 
pay a skilled surgeon or physician what his services are worth. I need not add any- 
thing more than that. All over this country, when you employ a good surgeon or 
physician to do so important a thing as to examine the man who claims to be suffer 
ing from wounds or diseases contracted in the service of the United States, it will b> 
agreed that $1 is too small a sum. For my part, I think the general judgment of th< 
country would say that $2 was too low a fee for such a service. The corporations 
that are called upon to employ physicians to make examinations in reference to life- 
insurance I think in every case pay at least $3 for a single examination, and in many 
cases $5. But that is immaterial. It is but just that a physician who is fit to be 
selected for this duty should be paid what it is worth. 

Without any reflection upon the physicians who accept this duty, I believe it is 
better for the Government to pay what the service is worth ; it is in the line of 
economy to do it ; and it will at least be some incentive to the physician to do his 
work well, and will protect the Government also against any mistakes or errors of 
his, and iu some degree, however slight, will avert that great danger to which the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan says we are constantly exposed in the matter 
of appropriations. 1 do not quite agree with that gentleman in the methods he would 
adopt to ferret out what he calls suspected cases of fraud. If we employ a good Com- 
missioner of Pensions, if we employ good clerks, if we employ the best physicians of 
the land, and pay them, we are very likely to get rid of much of what the gentleman 
denominates and classifies generally as frauds upon the Government. 

Now, I think it would be a wise thing to take the judgment of a Congress that has 
passed upon this question deliberately, not in an appropriation bill, but in a law, 
and tbat re-enacted that law in the Revised Statutes of the United States, and pay 
at least something that approximates the real value of this important service to the 
Government. 

Mr. ROBINSON. I do not desire to speak upon the merits of the pending proposi- 
tion, but I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] that he should 
consider what is the law now, for there is great doubt about his accomplishing with 
his amendment what he wishes. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not know but possibly there is something in the point made by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Robinson], though I am inclined to think there 
is not. I am obliged to him, however, for making the suggestion. I think tbe clause 
he has read from the last pension appropriation bill has reference to the payments for 
examinations of pensioners under that act. 

Now let me submit a slight evidence at least in favor of that position. It is that 
our Committee on Appropriations in preparing this bill gave interpretation to their 
bill of last year and came to the conclusion that in order to prevent the operation of 
section 4777 of the Revised Statutes, which allows the payment of $2 for each exami- 
nation, it was necessary to repeat this clause iu this appropriation bill. If I am not 
mistaken, then under the law of last year, by a provision put into an appropriation 
bill — I will not say stolen into it — with the understanding that it applied only to the 
then coming fiscal year, gentlemen have accomplished a repeal of a general law. I 
do not think they intended to do that, and I do not think they did do it. I think if 
my motion to strike out this proviso shall prevail we will go back to tbe general law 
found in section 4777 of the Revised Statues. 



133 

Before I close I desire to say one word in response to the argument, if I may so call 
it, which came from the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Blount] in favor of economy. 
As I understood it, amid the confusion around me, the gentleman was under the im- 
pression that distinguished physicians of the country ought to perform this work for 
less than it was worth because it might be an advertisement for them. 

Now, I wonder if we here work on any such principle? I wonder if the gentleman 
himself takes his seat in Congress, draws his pay of $5,000 a year, and his mileage for 
coming here and returning, on the theory that his services are worth a vast deal more 
than that amount, but that the rest is paid him by a mere advertisement to ihe peo- 
ple of the country and to the world? 

The humble physician in a remote village, wherever he may be, is to be annoyed by 
pensioners and called upon to perform a great and valuable service to the country merely 
as an advertisement ! Sir, the people in my portion of the country do not accept such 
an advertisement. I am told by gentlemen around me that in the principal towns 
on the frontiers of Kansas, Nebraska, and other States physicians cannot possibly be 
found who will, for the miserable sum of $1, make this examination; and the poor 
pensioner is obliged in many instances to travel scores of miles to tind some man who 
is willing to perform this service for the pitable sum of $1. 

Now, if we are to protect the Government as we should protect it, we should em- 
ploy the best men for the purpose and pay them for their services; we should secure 
the best skill of the country and pay for it as individuals are willing to pay for it and 
as large corporations pay for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Keifek"). 

Mr. SPARKS. Has not a point of order been raised on that amendment? 

The CHAIRMAN. No point of order has been made upon it. 
, Mr. KEIFER. None can be made. 

Mr. SPARKS. Of course none can be made now. 

The question being taken on agreeing to the amendment, there were — ayes 62, 
noes 62. 

Mr. KEIFER. I call for tellers. 

No quorum having voted, tellers were ordered; and Mr. Keifer and Mr. Hubbell, 
were appointed. 

The committee divided; and the tellers reported — ayes 80, noes 74. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 



134 



BISBEE VS. HULL. 

January 21, 1881. On this contested-election case of Bisbee against Hull- 
Mr. KEIFEE said : 

Mr. Speaker : I propose to occupy the time of the House but a very few minutes. I 
■was about saying, when interrupted, that the subcommittee of the Committee on 
Electious, consisting of five members, heard this case early in the extra session of this 
Congress. Counsel were heard orally before the committee. Printed briefs were fur- 
nished. And I may say that that subcommittee considered this case long and care- 
fully before it was enabled to reach a unanimous conclusion. It then did reach a 
unanimous conclusion, which conclusion was affirmed unanimously by the full Com- 
mittee on Elections, at least so far as its members were present at the time the case 
was considered. 

Now, I will say, briefly, that when the State canvassing board of the State of Flor- 
ida canvassed the votes of the second Congressional district of Florda it rejected the 
entire vote of one county of that district, Madison County. By the rejection of that 
vote a result was reached which gave to the sitting member [Mr. Hull] a majority 
of 12 only. That State canvassing board had before it the returns from Madison 
County, all regular in form, as shown in the record in this case, and all unassailed 
then and now. There never has been a word uttered or shown in the record against 
a single one of the returns from Madison County before that canvassing board. Up 
to the present time not a word has escaped the l'ips of the sitting member or his coun- 
sel in the form of an objection to any one of those returns that were before the State 
canvassing board. By canvassing those returns with the other counties canvassed 
by the State canvassing board, Horatio Bisbee, jr., was found to have received a ma- 
jority of 201. The State canvassing board, it is fair to say, rejected the returned vote 
of Madison County because the return of one precinct of that county, precinct No. 4, 
was not there. Somebody had destroyed it or disposed of it, or it had been lost ; so 
that it was not present. The contestant applied to the supreme court of the State of 
Florida and obtained a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the State canvassing 
board which compelled that board to assemble again and canvass the returned vote 
of the county of Madison. 

When it had been canvassed they found that the contestant, Mr. Bisbee, had a ma- 
jority of 201. When that majority was ascertained the contestant appealed to the then 
governor of the State of Florida to issue to him a certificate, the governor having there- 
tofore issued a certificate of election to the sitting member. The governor very politely 
referred that application of Mr. Bisbee to the attorney-general of the State, a distin- 
guished lawyer and Democrat, asking his opinion as to whether he ought to annul 
his former certificate and issue a certificate to the man who, as shown by the canvass 
of the canvassing board, had been elected. The attorney-general with commendable 
promptness returned the application with a lengthy opinion, exhibiting great ability, 
and saying that it was the imperative duty of the governor to cancel his previous cer- 
tificate and issue one to Mr. Bisbee. Thereupon the governor declined to do so. 

The Committee on Elections, I will say, put no great stress on all this that I have 
stated about the supreme court, but finding the whole of the returns before the com- 
mittee, together with the indisputable return from poll No. 4, Madison County, show- 
ing the precise vote in that precinct — the committee having all the returns before 
them, said unanimously, "It is immaterial what the supreme court did or what its 
powers were; here is the vote of the county all here; it is regular in form, unas- 
sailed in every respect." Hence the committee counted it, and by counting that vote 
the committee found that the majority for Mr. Bisbee, without taking anything else 
into consideration, was 258 instead of 201. We fouud that at poll No. 4, the poll un- 
returned to the canvassing board, the majority for Mr. Bisbee, undisputed by the con- 
testee in his brief, was 57. There is no case where, with the vote all before the House 
and its committee, with the returns all regular, the votes undisputed, the House has 
ever undertaken to reject a claim to a seat because somebody failed to do his duty. 

Now I turn to Marion County, and only to refer to what is very commendable in the 
sitting member. The contestee himself, after examining the vote in that conn ty 
concedes openly and plainly in his brief that there was fraud in the Long Swainpor, 
Whiteville poll of that county— fraud committed by the judges of election, they tak- 
ing 93 votes from those actually cast for Horatio Bisbee, jr., and transferring them 
to the vote actually cast for the sitting member, thereby making a change of 186 
votes. The vote of that county was canvassed by the State canvassing board, giv- 
ing to the sitting member in that precinct 134 votes and to the contestant 41, whereas 
it is admitted on all hands and abundantly proved that it should have been 134 votes 
for the contestant and 41 for the contestee'. We have there a change of 186. 



135 

We find that in one precinct in Alachua Comity, Cow Creek poll, the vote was not 
returned, and that poll really gave to the sitting member 24 votes, and to the con- 
testant 2 votes. 

The county of Brevard I have not spoken of; and that is the only other part of the 
case to which I mean to refer. In that county the vote was returned in some form or 
other to the State canvassing hoard, but the board unanimously rejected the entire 
vote of that county— did not canvass it— for what particular reason we have been 
unable to ascertain. We do know from their return that they threw the whole 
vote aside for souk- reason which they deemed sufficient. The contestant, Mr. Bisbee, 
attacks the whole vote of this county. He thinks there were irregularities. It is 
shown in the case, it is true, that in one precinct, in the absence of a ballot-box such 
as is prescribed by the statute of the State of Florida, in the absence of a box or any- 
thing with which to make one, the vote was taken in a beer-bottle. It is shown that 
in another case a cigar-box was used, and so on. But we examined all these things 
carefully ; and in view of an agreed statement of fact which we tind in the case we 
have decided to count the vote of Brevard County, which gives to the contestee 116 
votes and to the contestant, Mr. Bisbee, 41 votes. 

In view of everything in the case we have concluded that it is our duty to canvass 
this vote. Canvassing all the votes in the light of the returns, in the light of agree- 
ments and everything that is before us, we find 350 majority for Horatio Bisbee, jr. 
This is subject to a very slight deduction. The contestee objects to 18 votes in certain 
counties— Duval, Putnam, Baker, Columbia, and Suwannee. He claims that those 
votes were cast by non-residents or non-registered voters. Without stating any rea- 
sons, I may say that the committee deduct 11 votes from the majority of 350, and tind 
the majority of the contestant to be 339. Only 18 votes were attacked in that way. 

Now, Mr. "Speaker, I have occupied much more time than I intended. I demand 
the previous question on the resolution, and if, after that demand is seconded and the 
main questiou ordered, the gentleman desires a portion of the time accorded to me 
under the rules, I will be willing to yield it to him. 

(Mr. Bisbee was seated.) 



136 



YEATES VS. MARTIN. 

January 27, 1881. On the North Carolina contested-election case of Yeates against Martin — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker. It has seemed to some gentlemen on this floor, as they indicated a few 
days ago, that we were considering two cases here as though each were a pure matter 
of favor. When we were considering the case of Mr. Bisbee of Florida vs. Mr. Hull 
some gentlemen thought we ought to couple it with this one, because in tbat c ise it 
was proposed to turn out a man who was a Democrat and put in a Republican, and 
that we ought as a matter of reparation and by courtesy all agree that we should 
now turn out a Republican and put in a Democrat. I wish to say that up to tins 
moment, although I think I have given due consideration to the report of the com- 
mittee, as well as to the argument of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia — 
and I will say for him that it is the best argument I think tbat side of the question 
is'susceptible of — I have learned of no higher or better reason than that for unseating 
Mr. Martin, and tbat in my judgment it is proposed here to commit a great outrage 
upon tlie gentleman from North Carolina. I would not speak in this way if I did 
not feel that I was justified by the report of the majority in saying that in every 
case — every case I believe with the exception of the one where it is claimed that the 
gentleman from North Carolina himself was guilty of an act of indiscretion in regard 
to a certain voting precinct — all that is claimed here in effect is that the Democrats 
have contrived at the election held in the several precincts in North Carolina, over 
which a contest arises, a scheme by which they might fix up a plan for unseating 
this man and putting another one in his place. We will see if we do not show this 
as we go along. 

I intend to consider this case, I think, as impassionately as possible. It ought to 
be kept in mind that the election held on the 5th day of November, 1878 was an elec- 
tion for members of Congress in the State of North Carolina, and that it was coupled 
with no election for any other officer whatever. It was a simple question as to who 
should be chosen for Representative in Congress, and was not complicated by any 
State, municipal, or township election. The returning board of North Carolina is 
composed of the governor, the secretary of state, the attorney-general, and two State 
senators, the latter appointed by the governor from each of the two parties. The 
canvass made by the State board gave Mr. Martin his seat by 51 majority. Now, 
it is conceded, I think, on all hands that the county canvassing board had no right 
to reject the vote of Providence Township, in Pasquotank County, North Carolina. 
In that township the contestant received a majority of 119 votes. I want to say, Mr. 
Speaker, that I have saved myself a very great deal of trouble in the consideration 
of this case over this question as to whose duty it was to bear the returns from the 
voting places to the county seat. It is claimed — and I do not care whether that is 
true or false — that a registrar of a voting x>recinct could not be chosen properly under 
the laws of the State of North Carolina to carry the returns to the county seat. 
There is some little difference of opinion on that point, but we bottomed a case a few 
days ago in which we all were happily united upon this principle, that it matters not 
what irregularities had taken place from the time the votes were put into the boxes 
up to the time they came to be considered and counted here in the House, that it 
matters not what irregularities were shown as to the returns if we had the vote or 
the returns before us here which would indisputably show the real vote cast, that it 
was our duty to count it. That is the law, and has never been disputed, so far as I 
know, unless in this present ease. So it is unnecessary to write long reports or to 
make long speeches to show that A ought nor that B ought to have carried the 
returns, if we have the returns here. It is our duty, in fairness to the people and as 
an act of justice to the man elected, to give him the benefit of the votes cast. 

I agree that it was not right to reject the vote of Providence Township, which gave 
to the contestant 39 majority, simply because the Avroug man may have carried the 
returns to the county seat. 

I find in the briefs of counsel for the contestant this same question discussed as to 
whether it is not the duty of the House, on the same ground that we admit this vot- 
ing precinct, to reject Salem precinct, in the same county. It is not very clearly shown, 
I admit, in the certificate that was read by the gentleman from Georgia whether or 
not these two precincts were rejected by the county board solely on the ground that 
the right man did not carry up the returns. But it is argued all through the case, 
and the distinguished gentleman himself in preparing and presenting his report to 
ibis House assumes that was the state of things, and says we are not called on in this 
township to reject that vote — the vote of Salem Township — because he says it is al- 
ready rejected. And that is the summum bonum of all his argument in the report 



137 

against counting the vote in Salem Township, which, was rejected on the ground that 
the right man did not carry the returns to the county seat. 

The difficulty about counting that precinct was that it gave a majority of 135 for 
Mr. Martin, the sitting member. This was the trouble about its being counted 
Tbere was no trouble about counting 39 votes for the contestant ; there was no diffi- 
culty, no legal trouble about that. 

But I admit, and I shall come to that as I go along, that there is some question 
made on another ground as to counting the vote of Salem precinct. But I shall con- 
sider that when I consider the same question as applied to other precincts in other 
counties. 

The contestant objects to counting the vote in several precincts because polls were 
not opened at the proper hour. This objection applies to precincts giving the con- 
test ee the majorities following : Salem precinct, Pasquotank County, 135 ; South Mills 
precinct, Camden County, (54 ; Vandemere precinct, Pamlico County, 40. The votes 
in South Mills and Vandemere were canvassed by the returning boards. The vote 
in Salem was not canvassed. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the registrar in each of these precincts, J. S. Lester in Salem, 
John E. Spence in South Mills, and H. C. Holton in Vandemere, were Democrats. I 
may say as a matter of fact that all the registrars in the State of North Carolina were 
Democrats. Now in these three precincts it is claimed that the contestee, the Repub- 
lican, should not be entitled to have counted for him the majorities that were cast 
for him because, as the facts show, Democratic registrars connived, schemed, planned, 
and arranged so that the polls should not be opened until after the hour of seven 
o'clock in the morning. They planned it and arranged it and sent Democrats through 
the township saying that they would not open the polls, when in fact they did open 
the polls after the time fixed by law. 

Mr. MANNING. You do not pretend to have any testimony for that? 
Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir; and it is Democratic testimony, too. 

Mr. MANNING. I give notice to the gentleman that I will assert and undertake 
to maintain that there is not a syllable of proof to justify the criticism he is now pro- 
nouncing. And I will show that the gentleman in the statements he is now making 
is giving way too much to his passion instead of manifesting that impartiality which 
ought to characterize the discussion of a case like this. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will say to the gentleman from Mississippi that I am the mildest 
mannered man, I trust, and tin' best tempered man in this House. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MANNING. I hope wheu I take the floor I will not be so reckless of the testi- 
mony, as I understand it, as the gentleman from Ohio is now illustrating himself to 
be. 

Mr. KEIFER. That which hurts gentlemen always makes them squeal. 
Mr. MANNING. I give you notice that I will make good what I have just stated. 
Mr. KEIFER. I have named the men who are the registrars. I am hardly re- 
quired, iu order to satisfy a gentleman who is possessed of an acute, reasoning, logical 
mind— I am hardly required to go and get some man to swear that these Democratic 
registrars got somebody else to perpetrate this outrage when it was their duty to 
prevent its being done. Do you want me to call a witness to swear that Holton did 
not manage Vandemere precinct, in Pimlico County, so that the polls were not opened 
until after seven o'clock ? Why, he swears he did it himself, if you want that. The 
gentleman from Mississippi wants the proof. The fact is admitted that all these reg- 
istrars were Democrats. They did call on some men to serve as inspectors, but took 
pains to call on men who would not serve when there were plenty around who would 
serve. It is shown that when Democrats found the polls were not opened at the hour 
fixed they scattered off like rats. That is not the language of the witnesses, but 
the effect of what some of them say. It seems that the Democrats only ran off for 
fear the polls would be opened and they might have a right to vote. Some of them 
hastened away, according to the proof, offer the polls were just about being opened 
Now, who is to blame that these polls were not opened ? Not the contestee, but 
the friends of the contestant. It is proved, I think, to the satisfaction of everybody 
that these precincts where they did not succeed in getting the polls opened at precisely 
seven o'clock in the morning were largely Republican precincts. No Democratic pre- 
cinct suffered such a hardship. I say that inipassionately. 

Mr. MANNING. We prefer, I think, to take the conclusion that Mr. Field reached. 
I say that iu reply to all which the gentleman states so iinpassionately. 

Mr. KEIFER. "There were a few Republicans who went away in one place where it 
was publicly stated that the polls would not be opened. I think gentlemen will want 
to rely on something more than Mr. Field if they expect to satisfy the judgment of 
this House. Mr. Field reaches a conclusion fairly. I wish they would take him in 
everything. Geutlemen must not assert that his conclusion is iu opposition to what 
I am saying on this question, for it is not. 
Mr. MANNING. I do assert it, and the testimony will show it. 
Mr. KEIFER. Does the gentleman say that these registrars were not Democrats ? 



138 

Mr. MANNING. That is begging the quesi ion ; you must live up to your sweeping 
charge. 

Mr. KEIFEK. I am willing to yield to any proper question without getting into 
a mere colloquy. I always yield to gentlemen for proper questions. 

Mr. MANNING. I do not want to interrupt you any further. 

Mr. KEIFEK. I do not want to get into any colloquy about this matter of testi- 
mony. It is proper to say that there was a man by the name of Wilcox who was 
substituted along in the day in one of these precincts for registrar, and he was not a 
Democrat. He got the polls opened as quickly as he could after he was substituted. 

Mr. MANNING. I do not want you to modify what you have said. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do uot modify it. I say that the registrars who had the duty of 
opeuing these polls in every instance were Democrats. It is said some of the election 
officers were not sworn, or if sworn, it was by persons not authorized to administer 
oaths. The authorities and the argument already made make it clear that this can 
make no difference. I will not stop to argue that, for if these officers performed their 
duty and committed no fraud or wrong, they became de facto inspectors and judges 
of elections, and the election under the law must stand just the same as if they had 
been de jure officers. Iu this the whole blame was on the Democratic registrars and 
other officers. 

Now, no fraud is shown to have taken place in any of these precincts w T here they 
say the polls were not opened in time. None is charged, noue is alleged. None of 
these persons had a right to leave the polls until the registrar and other officers whose 
duty it was to open the polls had left. And they have no right to complain now that 
they were not permitted to vote. 

There is one of the polling precincts, that of South Mills, where the additional 
objection is made that a Democratic board and a Democratic registrar or judge of elec- 
tion by the name of Overton, when they went to dinner, took the ballot-box, locked 
it lip in a room and kept it there, and after they got through dinner took the box 
back to the voting place and the election went on. 

Now, we are asked to decide, and I believe some of the members of the Election 
Committee hold, that that act ought to destroy the majority which the sitting mem- 
ber received in that precinct. Saying nothing now about any scheme or contrivance, 
for it may not have been a scheme on the part of the officer in that case, the law is 
against throwing out that vote. There is a recent case in my own State precisely in 
point (19 Ohio St., 25), and the decision follows the uniform decisions all over the 
country. In those decisions it, is held that unless there was fraud, unless somebody 
was wronged, unless somebody was prevented from voting, the election should not be 
declared void. There is no charge of fraud or wrong done in this case. 

In Hamilton precinct, Martin County, 64 votes are to be excluded because Mr. Mar- 
tin, the sitting member, in the presence of the Democratic registrar, assisted to check 
off some of the votes. I repeat that 64 votes are to be excluded from the vote of the 
sitting member because a Democratic registrar allowed or permitted or requested the 
sitting member to check off the list some few of the names of those who voted. 

Now,, the testimony shows that no person was harmed. The testimony affirma- 
tively shows that there was no corruption in that case. The testimony clearly shows 
that no man was prevented from voting; that there was no harm done any one, and 
that there was nothing done by Mr. Martin as registrar at all, except in one or two 
instances to act as the hand in striking off votes of the Democratic registrar, who 
was there, and who himself swears that there was no corruption and no harm done. 

I understand that only a minority of the Committee on Elections hold that the ob- 
jection urged on that account is a valid objection. Perhaps it would be well, in order 
to make the point clear (for it is au important matter), to call attention to the testi- 
mony iu this case upon that point. 

I will read all the testimony that has any material bearing on the subject of the 
alleged misconduct of Mr. Martin. I read first from the testimony of Justus Everitt, 
who says he was present at the election in Hamilton precinct, Martin County. He 
further says : 

I was there a part of the time, and Mr. Martin was also present, and had charge of the registration 
books, and had charge when I ieft, which was in a few minutes. 

Q. What Mr. Martin did, was it done in the presence of the poll-holders? 

A. It was. 

Q. Did Mr. Martin act corruptly ? 

A. Not that I know of. 

Now I read from the testimony of Jonathan G. Carroway, the Democratic registrar. 
In answer to a question he says : 

I was present on the day of election spoken of; Mr. Martin was present around the polls, and I saw 
him check off some of the registered names of voters as they voted ; and my impression is that at one 
time he came around the counter where the judges of election were, and while on the side of the 
counter where the judges of election were I think he did not check off any names while there ; and 
when he checked off names he was on the side of the counter where the people came up to vote. 



139 

I read further from his cross-examination : 

Q. How many names did Mr. Martin check off the poll-book ? 
A. I can't say positively, but I think he checked off some forty or fifty. 
Q. Was the checking off done in the presence of the poll-holders ? 
A. I think it was, or a majority of them. 
Q. Did Mr. Martin act corruptly in checking off the names ? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Who received the votes ? 
A. W. K. Glatlson. 

Q. Was any man's name deposited in the box before his name was checked off of the poll-book ? 
A. None that I know of. 

Q. Were you one of the judges at said eleetion ? 

A. I was acting as registrar for Mr. Justus Everitt, who was the legally appointed registrar. 
Q. Was the election conducted fairly ? 
A. So far as I know. 

(The counsel for the contestant objects to the above upon the ground that it is going into new mat- 
ter.) 
Q. What party do you belong to ? 
A. To the national Democratic party. 
Q. Who did you vote for ? 
A. I voted for Jesse J. Yeates. 

That is all the testimony in the record, I think, bearing on this question. So I 
may leave that point. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen feel that I have spoken with some earnestness or 
even passion on this subject of the exclusion of votes because Democratic registrars 
did not go to the polls in due time, let them reserve their feeling-for this next point. In 
Merry Hill precinct, Bertie County, 108 votes cast for Mr. Martin where thrown out 
because of an alleged " device" upon the tickets. Now let me state the facts of this 
matter. A man, said to be a distinguished lawyer of the State of North Carolina, 
named J. B. Martin— (please do not confound him with J. J. Martin) J. B. Martin, 
a distinguished lawyer and the attorney in this case for Jesse J. Yeates, unblushingly 
swears that he hired a man by the name of Bond, a Democratic printer, to print these 
tickets which were thrown out, and which we are told are not to be counted. J. B. 
Martin had them printed with this so-called "device" upon them; he himself, ac- 
cording to his own testimony, distributed them to unsuspecting persons— colored per- 
sons and others — and this caused these tickets to be voted ; and when he found they 
were being voted he went and appealed to the judges of election, a majority of them 
Democrats, to throw them out ; and they did his bidding. 

As soon as this contest came up we iiu£ J. B. Martin appearing as the counsel of 
Jesse J. Yeates in this case; and the majority of the committee say that it would be 
a righteous thing to purge the ballot-box in this precinct by not allowing these 
tickets to be counted for Mr. J. J. Martin. If anybody disputes the facts I will prove 
them from the record. The majority of the committee say that the purity of the bal- 
lot-box in North Carolina requires that these tickets with this wonderful "device" 
upon them should not be counted. Perhaps it would be a good thing to put into the 
Eecokd the testimony of this most unsavory gentleman. It would take too much of 
my time to read it, but unless there is objection I will print as a part of my remarks 
the testimony of Mr. J. B. Martin himself upon this point, and also the testimony of 
Mr. Bond ; Mr. J. B. Martiu being the man who had the tickets printed, who distrib- 
uted them, who then had them rejected, and Mr. Bond being the man who printed 
them. Here is the testimony of J. B. Martin: 

Q. What is your ago and occupation ? 

A. James B. Martiu ; age thirty- five ; occupation attorney at law ; resident of Bertie County. 

Q. J ust previous to the Congressional election in 1878 did you have printed some tickets, as follows : 
"Republican ticket: " For Congress, J. J. Martin*" If so, who printed them, and how many of them 
were received by you ? . 

A. I did. I did not receive to exceed one hundred and fifty. Wm. M. Bond, of Edenton, printed 
them. 

Q. Were those received by you prior to the election ? 

A. I received them night before election. 

Q. What did you do with them ? 

A. A part of them were put in an envelope and directed to Daniel Cooper, and deposited in Nieholls s 
store, at Merry Hill precinct, in a box, where the public got their mail. I think some of them were 
placed near the voting place in a box near the polls. 

Q. Who directed the envelope ? 

A. I did. 

Q. Who is Daniel Cooper? 

A. A negro politician of the Republican party. 

Q. Was he an active supporter of Mr. J. J. Martin at said election ? 

A. I presume so, from the fact that he distributed those tickets very rapidly. 

Q. Who did you support? 

Q. Did you and James B. Nicholls put up those tickets in packages at the time and place men- 
tioned ? 
A. We put them up in one package and directed them to Daniel Cooper. 
Q. Who requested you to have those tickets printed ? 
A. No one. 
Q. Is Cooper an ignorant man ? 



140 

A. I judge he could read from the fact that he examined those tickets and compared them with 
■others. 

Q. Was any representation made to Cooper that those tickets were sent by J. J. Martin ? 

A. No such representation made to him by myself, nor any other person to my knowledge. 

Q. Was the envelope containing the tickets stamped with a United States postage-stamp ? 

A. It was not to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Q. Were any of these tickets voted at Merry Hill precinct at said election? 

A. Tickets similar in appearance were voted at said election — about one hundred and nine, as I am 
informed. I am not positive as to the number. 

Q Were the said tickets so voted refused to be counted for J. J. Martin, candidate for Consress, at 
said November election held at Merry Hill precinct, Bertie County, in said Congressional electionand 
State ? 

A . I do not know of my own knowledge. 

Q. What is your best information and belief as to that? 

A. Basing my answer on hearsay evidence, they were not counted. 

Q. By whom'were the said tickets thrown out and refused to be counted ? 

A. I do not know of my own knowledge. 

Q. What is your best information and belief on that point ? 

A. From hearsay testimony, by the judges of election at said precinct, on the ground of device and 
voting more than onr ticket ; the device consisting in the words "Republican ticket' printed on the 
said ballot. 

(Answer to the two preceding questions objected to on the ground of hearsay.) 

Q. What was the political complexion of the board of judges of election ? 

A. My impression is that J. E. Nicbolls, J. H. Brown, T. J. Webb, and James W.Smith were the 
judges of election, all of whom were Democrats, and supported J. J. Teates for Congress. 

Q. Did you not advise the judges of election that these tickets were illegal and should not be 
counted ? 

A. I did. 

Q Did vou send or give any tickets to D. C. Winston, in form " Republican ticket. For Congress, 
J. J. Martin/' 

A. I did. 

Q. About how many ? 

A. About twenty four. 

Q. Is D. C. Winston a resident of Windsor, Bertie County, a lawyer, andastrong supporter of Joseph 
J. Teates in said election ? 

A. He is and was. 

Q. Do you know if D. C. Winston received said tickets ' 

A. I was informed by D. C. Winston that he received them. 

Cross-examined : 

Q. Did you see any official connected with said November election take any of those tickets, "Re- 
publican ticket; — For Congress, J. J. Martin," and publicly exhibit them to Republican voters, and ad- 
vise them that said tickets were illegal ? 

A. I did ; Mr. J. C. Freeman, the registrar. Myinpression is they were so exhibited by him before 
any of them were voted. * ▼ 

Redirect by counsel of contestee : 

Q. Did Mr. Freeman do this at your request ? 

A. He did not. 

Further this deponent saith not. 

J. B. MARTIN. 

Deposition of William M. Bond. 

William M. Bond, a witness on part of the contestee, Joseph J. Martin, being duly sworn, deposes 
and says : 

Q. What is your name, age, and occupation ? 

A. William M. Bond; age, twenty-one; occupation, newspaperman. 

Q. In the fall of 1878 were you editor and manager of the Chowan Gazette, a Democratic newspaper 
published in Edenton, North Carolina ? 

A. I was. 

Q. Do you know James B. Martin of Merry Hill precinct, Bertie County. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Was he then and is he now a leading Democratic politician in said county? 

A. Tes. He was an active Democratic politician of that county. 

Q. Did he hold any official position in said county at that time f 

A. I think he was chief-justice of the inferior court of that countv. 

Q. Was he. in the Congressional election in November, 1878, an active supporter of Jesse J. Teates? 

A. I think he was. 

Q. Who were candidates for Congress in the first Congressional district of North Carolina in Novem- 
ber, 1878 ? 

A. J. J. Teates, J. J. Martin, J. B. Respass, and I. S. Chamberlain. 

Q. Were you, just previous to said election, requested by any one, and, if so, by whom, to print 
several hundred tickets, of which the. one attached is a copy ? Please state if the said tickets were 
printed and delivered or received by any one ; and, if so. by whom ; and any other facts connected 
therewith. 

A. I was requested by J. B. Martin to print said tickets for him, of which the attached is one. I 
printed several hundred of them, and sent them to Mr. J. B. Martin, and he stated afterward that he 
received them. 

Q. AVere they printed and received prior to the November election, 1878 ? 

A. They were. 

(Contestant's counsel declines to cross-examine.) 

Further this deponent saith not. 

"W. M. BOND. 

Witness: Wit. P. Gurley. 

REPUBLICAN TICKET. 
For Congress : 
J. J. Martin. 



141 

The question presented here is whether you shall unseat J. J. Martin because the 
counsel for Jesse J. Yeates succeeded in getting these votes, which are called fraudu- 
lent, cast for J. J. Martin. That is the proposition that gentlemen are invited to 
come up to. It is said that these tickets were fraudulent because they had a " device n 
on them. Now was there a "device" on these tickets? What was the form of the 
ticket? It was a very small ticket, having printed at the top of it the words " Re- 
publican ticket;" then followed the words "for Congress;" then followed the words 
"J. J. Martin." The ticket was printed upon white paper, and was in every respect 
iu accordance with the law of the State of North Carolina. There was no " device" 
on it in the proper meaning of the term. It is claimed that the "device" consisted 
of the words " Republican ticket " on the face of the ticket and at the head of it. I 
refer to the law of North Carolina. From section 1H, chapt.er27G, of the laws of North 
Carolina of 1675, I read all that has any bearing on this question: 

The ballots shall be ou white paper and may be printed or written or partly printed and partly writ- 
ten, and shall be without device. 

The question is whether printing on the face of the ticket at its head in ordinary 
type the words "Republican ticket" constitutes a device. What is a device ? Let 
us take the definition as given by Webster, and see whether we find anything indi- 
cating that the sacred name " Republican," when it precedes the word "ticket," con- 
stitutes a " device." A late edition of Webster gtv.es this definition of device : 

That which is formed by design or invented; scheme; artifice; artificial contrivance; stratagem; 
project ; generally used in a bad sense. 

Worcester gives the same definition. It is a word which had a meaning in her- 
aldry, and it has a well-understood meaning in mechanics. It is a word used some- 
times in criminal law. It has no meaning difficult to understand when used in the con- 
nection here. It is anything connected with bad. Any scheme, any plan, anything 
that is intended to operate for evil on the minds of others, might be called a device. 

Here is the ordinary ticket such as we find everywhere, and there is nothing in the 
claim except as it existed in the minds of Martin and his willing tools, the judges 
down there — J. B. Martin, I mean. There is no decision of any of the courts of North 
Carolina showing that a heading when printed on the inside of a ticket is a device. 

To go into the history of this matter a little, there was a time when they had em- 
bellishment, distinguishing marks on the back, especially of tickets in States South, 
and some of them North, and the legislatures of those States struck at that sort of 
thing ; that is, the use of those emblems, those distinguishing thiugs, and which it was 
supposed were the means of intimidating voters. It was supposed they worked harm, 
aud I am told some Democrats went so far as to say it was a means by which unlettered 
whites and blacks were enabled to tell when they were voting tin- Republican ticket. 
They used to have large tickets with the face of General Grant iu every imaginable shape 
and form upon the back of them, so that if the voter saw any part of the ticket, if a 
colored man saw the face of that great war hero and statesman, he knew that he was 
voting the right ticket; he would know that he was voting the right ticket even if 
he could not read the face of it. Some of this legislation was on the theory that it 
was wise to prevent this sort of thing. The law may be all right, Mr. Speaker; I am 
not here quarrelling with it, but 1 am only referring to this to show this legislation 
was not intended or designed to be a blow at the ordinary ticket, such as is voted 
everywhere all over the country. 

I intended, Mr. Speaker, to give the use in which the word device appears in sev- 
eral places in the Holy Bible, aud as it lies before me, I believe I will do it now. Job r 
speaking of the powers of the Almighty, chapter v, verse 12, says : "He disappointed 
the devices of the crafty." David, in praisiug the goodness of God, says, Psalms 
xxxiii, verse 10 : "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to naught ; He mak- 
eth the devices of the people of none effect." Paul uses the same word in his second 
epistle to the Corinthians, chapter ii, verse 11: "Lest Satan should get an advan- 
tage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices." All connect with bad, with evil. 
Here it is used in the same sense, although used by legislators in the State of North 
Carolina. 

Now to the authorities for one moment. It is claimed on the part of gentlemen 
who make the majority report in this case that they were unable to find anything that 
was satisfactory to themselves except where they gleaned it from a private paper of 
some other gentleman. I have been a little curious to look at some of the authorities 
which are cited in that printed paper, and I assert — and I wish while gentlemen are 
correcting me they would go to this aud correct it — I assert that every authority cited 
in that report which the gentleman adopts aud takes home to himself — I assert, sir, 
that every authority cited on the subject of a device is exactly in the face of the con- 
clusion of this report. 

I willeiuvite your attention first to the Indiana case, a case in 35 Indiana, 275. 
Here Mr. Speaker, we get the precise question exactly, whore the words " Republi- 
can ticket" were printed on the head of the ballot on the same side where the names 



142 

of the candidates were printed. The statute of the State of Indiana was much more 
stringent and severe than the state of the State of North Carolina. But I will read 
an extract from it : 

Sec. 23. That all ballots which may be cast at any election hereafter held in this State shall he writ" 
ten or printed on plain white paper.jwithout any distinguishing marks or other embellishment thereon, 
except the name of the candidates and the office for which they are voted for ; and inspectors of election 
shall refuse all ballots offered of any other description: Provided, Nothing herein shall disqualify the 
voter from writing his own name on the back thereof. 

Now, then, the case was exactly like this one. The court said that at the October 
election in 1870 there were ballots voted for the contestee with the words " Republican 
ticket" printed at the head and on the same side the names of the candidates were 
printed. That is exactly our case. Then the court goes on to say that " the only 
question before us is, Was this such a distinguish ing mark or embellishment as to re- 
quire the inspectors to refuse the ballots when offered ? This questiou u as directly 
before this court in a former case and was answered in the negative." They say in 
that decision they fully indorse the case in "29 Indiana, 308. That decision I have be- 
fore me; aud these two cases, I beg you, Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of this House 
to note, are cited in the report of the majority as sustaining their claim that if there 
be printed on the face of the tickets the words " Republican ticket" it is a device. 
Neither of tbem sustain the conclusion of the report of the committee, and it looks to 
me as if somebody might have been intending to perpetrate a stupendous joke on the 
majority of the committee. 

But there is another authority cited. Section 401, McCrary on the Law of Elections, 
has been quoted, and we ought to look at that and see how far it supports the claim 
of gentlemen upon this question. I will read the section referred to : 

It has been also held that where the statute provided that all ballots should be written or printed 
upon white paper without any marks or figures thereon, to distinguish one from another, ballots upon 
paper tinged with blue, and which had ruled lines, were legal ballots within the meaning of the act. 

This case was decided in 15 Illinois, 492 : 

This ruling, however, went upon the ground that the ruled paper was not used with any intent to 
violate the statute. 

Certainly J. J. Martin did not intend to violate the statute of the State of North 
Carolina, even though J. B. Martin, counsel of Yates in this case, did intend to commit 
an outrage upon Mr. J. J. Martin by attempting to unseat him ; and the voters of that 
State did not intend to violate the law. 

But I continue reading from McCrary : 

It is quite clear that when the statute distinctly declares that ballots having distinguishing marks 
npon them shall not be received, or shall be rejected, it should be construed as mandatory and not sim- 
ply directory. 

And so it was held by the supreme court of Pennsylvania under a statute of this character, that bal- 
lots having an eagle printed thereon were in violation of the law and should be rejected. 

Now, then, the American eagle was considered in the Pennsylvania case in reference 
to whether it constitutes an embellishment or not. We might draw a tine distinction 
even about this. We find this cited as authority here, and as conclusive ill principle 
agaiust the voice of the majority, as cited in their report. 

Then we are also referred to section 403 of McCrary (and I believe it is the last) 
which refers to the California cases. This section is as follows: 

The supreme court of California has very recently had occasion to consider the force and effect of a 
statute regulating the size and form of ballots, the kind of paper to be used, the kind of type to be 
used in printing them, Sic. The court held, and we think upon the soundest reason, that as to those 
things over whieh the voter has control the law is mandatory, and that as to such things as are not under 
his control it should be held to be directory only. * * The conclusion of the court was that the pur. 

pose and object of the statute was to secure the freedom and purity of elections and to place the elector 
above and beyond the reach of improper influences or restraint in casting his ballot, and that it should 
have such reasonable construction as would tend to secure these important results. And so constru- 
ing the statute, the court conclude that a ballot cast by an elector in good faith should not he rejected 
for failure to comply with the law in matters over which the elector has no control, such as the exact 
s ize of the ticket, the precise kind of paper, or the particular character of type or heading used, &c. 

These references are put into the report and they might mislead; not purposely ; 
hut unintentionally put in to make gentlemen believe that there was some authority 
somewhere that would hold that such a ticket as was rejected in this Merry Hill 
precinct in Bertie County, North Carolina, was a "device," aud that such ticket was 
cast in violation of the law; whereas every authority upon the subject, including 
especially those cited by the majority of the committee in their report, supports the 
contrary doctrine. 

I will not pursue this subject further. There is but one other precinct that I need 
refer to. The contestee claims that there were 139 voters who would have voted for 
him in Goose Nest precinct of Hamilton County, North Carolina, if they had been per- 
mitted to do so in a just and fair election. I believe that the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Field] who has given the most attention to the testimony in this case, 
and given the contestant the advantage of any doubt, cuts this number down to 120. 



143 

These 120 persona were refused their ballots in this precinct because they were not 
registered there. Now, if they were not registered there there was no person regis- 
tered there, unless perhaps there may have been a few, three or four, or as high as a 
dozen; but. there was no registration of 132 Democrats that voted in that precinct 
although the majority of the committee do not find any difficulty in counting them, 
while the votes (if these 120 or 139, as the case may be, who were not registered were not 
received. The si atutes of North Carolina, as lias been fully and elaborately explained 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Field], that is the statute on the subject 
of registration of voters in cases where they have removed from the places where they 
have been properly registered, is clear and plain in the light of that explanation. 

But not one of these voters did remove; not a single one of the 120 removed from 
the place where they had been living and were at the time of the election, and where 
they lived when they voted or tried to vote. Hamilton precinct was divided and Goose 
Nest precinct was cut off from it, and these names were transferred to the new precinct 
rolls. There was no case of removal; they were transferred on the books simply. 
The judges of election, however, refused to allow the Republicans to vote. A Demo- 
crat went the night before the election, and, in violation of the law, as admitted, I 
believe, by everybody who has examined it, succeeded in getting certificates of trans- 
fer for the* Democrats from the Democratic registrar of Hamilton precinct on which 
judges of election in Goose Nest precinct permitted Democrats to vote. But the next 
day it was " unlawful" for the Republicans to attempt to vote, and certificates were 
refused to them by the very same persons who gave the certificates to the Democrats. 
They could not find any authority for giving them to the Republicans. 

I put this case on the ground that no action was required on the part of any of these 
voters ; it was not a case of removal: they were simply voting where they weie by law 
placed— in a new precinct— and if we turn to the statute on the subject that will be 
made quite plain. Section 7 of the law relating to registrars of North Carolina, says: 

No elector shall be entitled to register or vote in any other precinct or township than the one in which 
he is an actual and bona fide resident on the day of election, and no certificate of registration shall be 
given. 

Now, section 12 of the same act contains the words which I will ask the clerk to 
read, down to where provision is made for the form of the oath. 
The Clerk read as follows: 

And if an elector has previously been admitted to registration in any ward, township, or precinct in 
the county in which he resides, he shall not be allowed to register again in another ward, precinct or]^ 
township in the same county, until he produces a certificate of the registrar of the former township 
ward, or precinct, that said elector has removed from said township, ward, or precinct, and that his 
name has been erased from the registration books of the ward, township, or precinct from which he 
has removed ; and the identity of auv person claiming the right to be registered in any precinct of 
the same county, by virtue of such certificate, with the person named therein, shall be proved by the 
oath of the claimant, and when required by the registrar, by the oath of at least one other elector. 

Mr. KEIFER. That is as far as the clerk needs to read. The balance of the section 
gives the form of the oath. 

Now, it will be noted that that section refers to cases of removal. Only when a man 
removes from one voting precinct to another is it necessary for him to apply in person 
and have his name erased from the books of the place where he had been registered, 
and then get a certificate so that he may register in another place. But these voters 
that tendered their votes in this Goose Nest precinct did not remove The precinct 
was established around them. 

I come now to the further point that I suggested; the one hundred and thirty-two 
Democrats who voted in this precinct on certificates that were issued on the appli- 
cation of one person, voted illegally, if it was necessary for this twelfth section of the 
statutes relating to registers iu that State to be complied with. Why? Because 
each one of them would have had personally to apply and take an oath himself as to 
his removing, aud, if required by the registrar, furnish other evidence of the fact of 
his removal. So that all the certificates that were used — and this is a fact not dis 
pitted in the case — all the certificates that were used by Democrats were certificates 
that were illegally issued. And although the judges of election were notified of that 
fact they received the Democratic votes here and refused the Republican voters who 
offered their votes ; and the Hamilton precinct registrar refused to give certificates 
on the day of election to these Republicans when they applied for them. 

In conclusion, I may add that this House is asked and expected to affirm and con- 
firm all these outrages upon the sitting member and vote .in the contestant. We are 
asked now to put our confirmation aud our sign of approval upon all these outrages 
on the people of the first district of North Caroliua, on the sittiug member, and on the 
country. 

We are asked by our vote here, to-day or to-morrow, whenever we reach it, to say 
it is all right for contrivances, schemes, acts of omission or acts of commission to be 
worked out to consummation by officers of election to defeat tiie voice of the people 
iu that district. We are asked to approve of the premeditated act and conduct of a 



144 

man who unblushlngly appears as an attorney in this case, and conies here swearing 
that he himself set up a scheme, or device, or plan by which he robbed one hundred 
and eight men in his own precinct of their elective franchise. And we in the House 
of Represent;! lives in the Congress of the United States are, by our votes, asked to 
say that this J. B. Martin did a nice, decent thing, because it only operates to ex- 
clude a Republican from his seat. We are asked then to say as to these illegal acts 
on the part of the judges of election in this precinct, in Hamilton and the Goose Nest 
precinct, in their refusal to allow these men to vote, they did right in allowing 
Democrats to vote who were exactly in the same position so far as the law was con- 
cerned. 

I may have been earnest, and if the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Manning] 
proposes to say that I have been passionate, I offer this single excuse, that I have been 
asked as a part of my duty, not alone as a member of a committee, but as a member 
of this House, by my act and vote to approve of this sort of thing. My voice and 
vote shall be against such action. I warn gentlemen that whether the day is come 
now, or whether it is only near at hand, or whether it is still in the remote future — 
I warn gentlemen that the sooner they put the seal of infamy upon all such proceed- 
ings as this and upon all men who countenance them, who aid them, who are auxil- 
iaries to these grave crimes against the elective franchise, the better. I warn them 
that the day is coming wheu all such persons will be swept from the Halls of Con- 
gress, and forever. The American people South as well as North — 1 am happy to say 
I believe that the Southern people are equally ready to do so — will stamp down, in a 
political point of view, all those persons wh>> are willing to approve of such conduct 
as we, w ill here approve if we adopt the report of the majority. 

My conclusion is that Mr. Martiu is entitled to hold his seat, and I find his true 
majority to be 375. 



145 



APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 

February 3, 1881. On the bill for the apportionment of representation in Congress. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker. In the midst of this wild confusion I can hardly expect to speak 
calmly and moderately, as I always try to do, and yet entertain the distinguished 
gentlemen here. 

I shall vote for three hundred and nineteen members in this House for the coming 
decennial period. Having announced that, I want to go back and ascertain how far 
it would be just and equitable for us to accept the original bill introduced iuto this 
House by the distinguished chairman of the Census Committee [Mr. Cox], a bill which 
provides for three hundred and one members of this House. 

That gentleman told us yesterday that the number three hundred and one was more 
convenient and more fair than three hundred and eleven or three hundred and nine- 
teen ; that it would produce as little inequality as any other number that could be 
selected. Now, when we look at this matter on this side of the House in a partisan 
point of view, we are charged with doing something unfair. Yet examining that bill in 
that view, it will appear that the number three hundred anil one would give to the 
States which we now commonly denominate the Southern States, to distinguish them 
from the Northern and free States, an advantage of four members. 

Now, the majority of the Committee on the Census concluded that that was not 
enough advantage ; that it would be better to find the only number perhaps that would 
five to the Southern States the advantage of six members, while the number which I 
favor, and the number favored by the minority of the committee, three hundred and 
nineteen, would give to neither section of the country, North or South, any advantage 
at all. It is the only number, so far as I have seen the figures, that fixes the appor- 
tionment . oxactly on an equality between the two sections so far as gains and losses 
are concerned. This matter of looking carefully to the interests of the North and 
South is not an original question with this Congress. It was the first question upon 
which the first President of the United States took issue with Congress. Out of ap- 
portionment legislation grew the first veto message ever signed by a President of the 
United States, and it was ou the theory that the first apportionment bill submitted to 
him in 1793 was unfair to the South. 

If the Clerk will now read the first veto message of April 5, 1792, I will then call 
attention to the history aud the circumstances under which it came to be written and 
sent to the House. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

United States April 5, 1792. 
Gentlemen of the House of Eejiresentatives : 

I have maturely considered the art passed by the two Houses, entitled "An act for an apportionment 
of Representatives among the several States, according to the first enumeration;" anal return it to 
your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections : 

First. The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives .shall be apportioned among the several 
Stares according to their respective numbers ; and there is no one proportion or divisor which, applied 
to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives pro- 
posed bv the bill. 

Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed 
one for every thirty thousand ; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construc- 
tion, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers of the States, and the bill has allotted to eight 
of the States more than one for every thirty thousand. 

GEORGE WASHIKGTOST. 

Mr. KEIFER. It will be found that by taking the number three hundred and one as 
a basis for the future House of Representatives there is " no one proportion or divisor 
which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and 
allotment of Representatives i roposed by the bill," to use the exact language used by 
the President of the United States, George Washington. 

Before going into a demonstration of that statement, I ask the Clerk to read — and 
I beg the attention of members to it — what Thomas Jefferson says on the subject of 
the history of that veto message. He will read au extract from Elliot's Debates on 
the Federal Constitution, volume 4, page 624. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

The President called on me before breakfast, and first introduced some other matter, then fell on the 
representation bill, which he had now in his possession for the tenth day. I had before given him my 
opinion in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed 
that it was contrary to the common understanding of that instrument, and to what was under- 
stood at the time by the makers of it ; that yet it would bear the construction which the bill put ; and 
he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geographical — a Northern against a 
Southern vote — and he feared he should be thought to be taking side with a Southern party. I ad 
mitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers 

90 A— K 10 



146 

to which the scramble for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear 
that there would, erelong, be a separation of the Union ; that the public mind seemed dissatisfied, and 
tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the Attorney-General, desired him to get Mr. Madi- 
son immediately and come to me j and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the 
bill. He desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we draw up the installment for him to sign. 
They came ; our minds had been before made up ; we drew the instrument. Randolph carried it to him, 
and told him we all concurred in it. He walked with him to the door, and, as if.he still wished to gel 
off. he said, "And you say you approve of this yourself? " " Yes, sir,'' says Randolph, " I do, apon 
my honor." He sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the 
bill expressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors it gave pleasure to 
have at length an instance of the negative being exercised. 
Written this the 9th April. 

Mr. KEIFER. My time will not permit me to occupy the attention of the House 
any further with the history of that matter. It shows that early in the constitutional 
history of this country this matter of apportionment was regarded as a very grave 
and important one. It was then believed that it was right and proper to find some 
common divisor that would he equitable and just to each and all of the States. There 
was a jealous eye to the interest of Southern States in connection with that matter. 

I state this in support of my nou-partisan position on the subject of fixing a num- 
ber for the Representatives of coming Congresses that will give no advantage either 
to the North or to the South. 

If we look over this bill and make calculations upon it we will find some queer fig- 
ures, some queer results. I refer to the original bill upon the subject before this 
House. It will strike a mau as rather curious, if he were not to go to the very foun- 
dation of all these peculiar relations of numbers, how it could happen that Ohio, with 
an increased population from 1870 to 1880 of 532,979, should under that bill lose one 
member of Congress, while South Carolina, with an increased population of a little 
more than one-half of that number, that is, 290,016, should gain one member. 

The same thing may be said in reference to Mississippi. With an increased popu- 
lation from 1870 to 1880 of 203,670 that State gams one member under this bill, fix- 
ing the number at three hundred and one, while Ohio, with her gain of 533,000, loses 
one member. But this would lead us into some further explanation about the figures 
which I do not choose to go into. I simply state these mathematical curiosities in 
support of my claim that we ought to select a number that will be exactly fair. These 
singular results are not confined to a comparison of Ohio with other States. New 
York State, with an increased population from 1870 to 1880 of 701,051, under this bill 
loses two members, and Pennsylvania, with an increased population from 1870 to 1880, 
of 760,835, loses one member under the bill, while Mississippi with an increased popu- 
lation in the same time of only 203,670, and South Carolina with an increased popu- 
lation, also for the same time, of 290,016, each gain one member by the provisions of 
this bill. Other comparisons could be made with like results. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Has the gentleman made inquiry whether Ohio has 
not now more representation relatively to South Carolina than she ought to have! 

Mr. KEIFER. Oh, no; I have taken the figures of 1870 as a fair apportionment 
with the ratio then adopted ; then I take the ratio given now ; and taking the differ- 
ence between the census of 1870 as reported and the census of 1880 as reported, I find 
these singular results. The matter of fairness or unfairness in the taking of the cen- 
sus for either of the years 1870 or 1880 has nothing to do with the question. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia, rose. 

Mr. KEIFER. I cannot yield further ; I have not the time. 

Now, I am not quite satisfied with the position of the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Thompson] when he argues in favor of a large body of men as more likely to 
be a pure body. While I am not afraid of having the number increased, for other 
reasons which I will indicate I am not quite satisfied that the reason the gentleman 
gave— that a large body of men is always the safest— is the right one. I understood 
him to say that the rule is universal in relation to large bodies of men being safer than 
small ones. History will prove that to be absolutely untrue, if the gentleman takes 
into account the fact that in other countries the methods of choosing such bodies and 
the powers that choose them have not recognized the people as the governing power. 
I wish to say as I pass along that when we get a perfectly pure body of men in our 
Republic, large or small, it will be a body representing the people of the several dis- 
tricts of the country who have had a fair opportunity to cast their ballots without 
fraud or intimidation and to have those ballots honestly counted and fairly returned. 
When the time shall come that we have that in this country we may expect to have a 
good and pure House of Representatives. If it has happened in other countries that 
small bodies of men have been more tyrannical than large, it will be found to be be- 
cause some concentrated power other than the masses of the people has selected or 
chosen that, small body of men, and therefore directed and controlled them. 

I believe, however, in a reasonably large House of Representatives, in view of the 
■neat amount of w oik that we have to perform. The Constitution fixed 30.000 as the 
ratio of representation for the first apportionment. If was then supposed that one 
member for 3<>, OOO inhabitants was enough, and only enough. 



147 

Now with all the varied interests of this country, with all the subjects that our 
constituents are concerned about, with all the multiplication of duties growing out of 
our business here, it is proposed to adopt the ratio of 164,018 as the basis of represent- 
ation here. This number is the ratio on which the original bill fixing the number of 
members at three hundred and one is based. The bill reported by a majority of the 
Census Committee, fixing the number of members at three hundred and eleven, is based 
on a ratio of 158,745, and the bill of the minority of that committee, fixing the num- 
ber at three hundred and nineteen, is based on a ratio of 154,764. The ratio ten years 
ago was on 135,239, I believe. 

We are expected to perform all our many duties promptly and well, lhere comes 
requisition after requisition upon members of Congress. It may be that many of 
these demands upon us are for the performance of duties that do not properly belong 
to our position here; but custom has made it the duty of every member of Congress 
to run errands to the Departments— to be a sort of counselor or adviser between the 
people and the different Departments where the business of the people is pending. 
If the number of Representatives is to be cut down and our constituencies increased 
it will be impossible for us to perform the duties that these people expect of us. For 
that reason I am in favor of an increase on the basis of the figures I have named. 

Turning aside for one moment in this discussion, I will say that there are some 
other remarkable figures and facts worked out under this census. My own State will 
not suffer on a basis of voting population, if such a basis could be adopted (and I do 
not say it could) under the Constitution. Ohio, I am happy to say, has a people not 
only free to vote when election day comes, but a people educated to vote, and who do 
vote. Let me state a fact thai may not have been noted. At the election in Novem- 
ber last Ohio cast 103,046 more votes than were cast in the great State of Illinois, 
with substantially the same population, the population of Illinois being 3,078,769, as- 
against 3,198,239 in Ohio. Now, this larger vote in Ohio comes from the freedom of 
the people to vote and also (for they are free as in Illinois) from the education of the 
people in the matter of voting. We have first tried before the people of Ohio the 
great issue of this country. We have tried the great financial issues there in advance 
of the nation. First in 1875 we fought the battle, and we won the financial victorj 
as it has been won since bv the people of this whole country. 

The election returns coupled with the vote at the late election show some curious 
results in the North and West in the ability or willingness of the people to vote. 
Take the table of figures made up in round numbers, as follows: 



States. 



Illinois. 
Ohio . . . 
Indiana 
Iowa . . . 
Kansas 



Tote. 



622, 000 
725, 000 
575, 000 
523, 000 
201, 000 



Population. 



3, 100, 000 
3, 200, 000 
2, 200, 000 
1, 600, 000 
1, 000, 000 



Per cent^ 



1 in 5. 
1 in 4. 4 
1 in 3. 4 
1 in 5. 4 
1 in 5. © 



It will be seen that Indiana is a good voting State. The now good roads and ac- 
cessibility of voting places in Ohio and Indiana may have something to do with the 
voters getting to the polls in a larger per cent, than in some other States. 

The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horr] has given figures from the Southern 
States which in comparison to these would astonish the country if it was not already 
aware that something terrible was the matter with the voting population in those 
States. 

Before taking my seat I wish to say but one other thing in support of my propo- 
sition. Taking three hundred and one as the number, Ohio with nineteen members- 
(which would be her apportionment under that number) would have one member for 
every 168,328; ■ 
ber for every 16E 
ing the time to 

disadvantage of several thousand in population (to say nothing of votes) as against 
these States of the South. Therefore, I protest Mr. Speaker, against a bill such as 
the one originally offered by the gentleman from New York, audi still more protest 
against the bill reported by the Committee on the Census, because it is still more un- 
fair. I insist upon a fair number, one that will be just to each section. So far as I 
am concerned (I do not speak for those around me), I shall oppose, as does the gentle- 
man from Michigan [Mr. Horr], any number that is unfair, audi will do it by every 
means known to the rules of parliamentary law. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 



be her apportionment under ttiat niunDer; wouia nave one memuerior 

Mississippi one member for every 161,656 ; South Carolina one mem- 

65.937 ; Louisiana one member for every 156,683. Thus, without tak- 

> run through the list, it will be seen that my State is to be put at a 



148 



SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING BILL. 

March 1, 1881. Pending consideration of a supplementary funding bill in the House of Represeuta 
tives, the following colloquy took place : 

Mr. KEIFEE said : .,".,., 

This Congress first, met under most extraordinary circumstances— within less than 
three weeksof the time it was entitled to meet under any possibility provided by 
the Constitution— and we then knew that the Democratic party was in power in 
both branches of Congress, and we knew then as well as at any time since that a fund- 
in o- bill was important and of pressing necessty. The four months of the extra ses- 
sion passed. During that time the Committee on Ways and Means, distinguished 
because of the great men or the great Democrats upon it, were considering the fund- 
ing bill. «....« 

In the early days, if I recollect aright, of the first regular session of this Congress 
a bill was introduced providing for the funding of the national debt. Since that bill 
was printed and laid upon our tables we have had above ten months' continual ses- 
sion of this Congress. And now, within forty-eight hours of the time we are to close, 
this most memorable Congress, a bill of a more than doubtful character has, amid the 
wreck of hopes and fortunes in some cases, -passed, and instantly upon its being 
passed, before it could be engrossed or enrolled, and before the Speaker could sign 
his name to it, a distinguished Democratic member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means [Mr. Carlisle] arises in his place and introduces a bill which is from the first, 
letter to last a confession that the Democratic party, in above ten months' session 
and the consideration of a bill, could not pass one that was fit to go to the country. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] It confesses and admits that it is vile, that it is 
evil, that it will do wrong and injustice, and that the whole country is to be finan- 

ciallv ruined by it. 

I do not allow the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] to get the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Carlisle] off the track by talking about national banks. I do not be- 
lieve the national banks in the last week have acted with great prudence or with that 
courage which should have been displayed by their officers in meeting the great finan- 
cial problem so unnecessarily forced upon this but recently prosperous country by the 
Democratic party. I do not believe that at all. But it is not a question of national 
banks. It is a question of bread ; it is a question of labor ; it is a question of univer- 
sal prosperity in this land. That is the question. It is a question of cheap money- 
cheap a few days ago, dear now— because the Democratic party could not pass a law, 
as it now confesses through one of its distinguished leaders, but what would injure 
and ruin and unsettle all of the great financial interests of this country. It is a ques- 
tion of value of property ; it is a question of labor ; it is a question of keeping up and 
preserving our great and growing manufacturing interests of this country. 

We want it understood now that with all the effort and with all the labor of the 
Democratic majority of this Congress they must go out of it confessing that it is im- 
possible for that party to control and regulate the great affairs of this nation wisely. 
We have some things' to congratulate the country and the Democratic party upon. 
We have witnessed some things this session which are valuable to be recorded and 
remembered. We have witnessed with pleasure the Democratic party laydowu that 
spirit that I dare not characterize and bring in herefrom the Appropriations Com- 
mittee appropriation bills surrendering the things they said at one time they would 
have or they would have the nation's life. ["Oh!" "Oh!" from the Democratic 
side.] They do not even go to that bill to which they clung for so long— the Army 
appropriation bill ; they do not even go to that now. They even come here confess- 
in^ that they have been wrong on that as well as on all other things which they have 
been obliged to surrender. They used to put a section into that bill prohibiting the 
use of the money appropriated for paying, equipping, and transporting troops to be 
used for keeping peace at the polls on election days: and they have surrendered that 
and laid it down in the presence of the verdict of the American people. [Derisive 
cries and laughter from the Democratic side.] 

Mr TALBOTT. And still we had eight thousand majority on the popular vote. 
Mr KEIFEE. You are mistaken. Garfield received the popular vote. I expected 
to hear these "roans from the other side. I admit that they surrender and die hard, 
but the death°comes all the same. Now let me, in bidding farewell to this subject, 
sav that the Democratic party, above all other parties that ever existed, is, if possible, 
to'be congratulated more than the country for this verdict of the people. 

But I want simply to re-enforce what I said at the beginning of my remarks ; that 
is that we have this evening, in the closing hours of this Congress, had a proposition 
submitted to us boldlv and openly confessing that on that subject about which we 



149 

have been struggling and talking so long the Democratic party has been obliged to 
offer a new bill, giving construction to the one just passed, which uew bill is made up 
of amendments which were proposed to the original bill by the Republican members 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. This extraordinary thing is done to perfect, 
not a law, but to attempt to perfect that which is not, for want of the approval of the 
President, a law — which may never become a law. [Applause.] 



150 



(Forty-seventh Congress. ) 

ELECTED SPEAKER. 

Monday, December 5, 1881, Mr. Keifer was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. 
Randall and Mr. Hiscock conducted him to the chair, when he addressed the House as follows : 

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives : 

I thank you with a heart filled with gratitude for the distinguished honor conferred 
on me hy an election as your Speaker. I will assume the powers and duties of this 
high office with, I trust, a due share of diffidence and distrust of my own ahility to 
meet them acceptably to you and the country. I believe that you, as a body and in- 
dividually, will give "me hearty support in the discharge of all my duties. I promise 
to devote'myself faithfully and* assiduously to the work before me. I invoke your and 
the country's charitable judgment upon all my official acts. I will strive to be just 
to all, regardless of party or section. Where party principle is involved, I will be 
found to be a Kepublican, but in all other respects I hope to be able to act free from 
party bias. 

It is a singular fact that at this most prosperous time in our nation's history no party 
in either branch of Congress has an absolute majority over all other parties, and it is 
therefore peculiarly fortunate that at no other time since and for many years prior to 
the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the executive chair has there been so few un- 
settled vital questions of a national character in relation to which party lines have 
been closely drawn. 

The material prosperity of the people is iu advance of auy other period in the his- 
tory of our Government. The violence of party spirit has materially subsided, and in 
great measure because many of the reasons for its existence are gone. 
3 While the universal tendency of the people is to sustain and continue to build up 
an unparalleled prosperity, it should be our highest aim to so legislate as to perma- 
nently promote and not cripple it. This Congress should be, and I profoundly hope 
it will be, marked peculiarly as a business Congress. 

It may be true that additional laws are yet necessary to give to every citizen com- 
plete protection in the exercise of all political rights. With evenly balanced party 
power, with few grounds for party strife and bitterness, and with no impending Pres- 
idential election to distract us from purely legislative duties, I venture to suggest 
that the present is an auspicious time to enact laws to guard against the recurrence 
of dangers to our institutions and to insure tranquility at perilous times in the future. 

Again thanking you for the honor conferred, and again invoking your aid and gen- 
erous judgment, I am ready to take the oath prescribed by law and the Constitution 
and forthwith proceed, with my best ability, guided by a sincere and honest purpose, 
to discharge the duties belonging to the office with which you have clothed me. 

Mr. Kelley, having served longest continuously as a member of the House, admin- 
istered to the Speaker-elect the oath prescribed. 



I 



151 

VALEDICTORY. 

Sunday, March 4, 1883. 

VOTE OF THANKS TO SPEAKER. 

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the folio wiug resolution. 
The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this House are hereby tendered to the Hon. J. Warren Keifkli, the 
Speaker, for the ability and courtesy with which he has presided over the deliberation of the House 
during the Forty-seventh Congress. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. HISCOCK. The committee appointed on the part of the House to wait upon 
the President of the United States, in conjunction with the committee appointed on 
behalf of the Senate, have performed that duty, and report that the President has 
requested them to inform the two Houses of Congress that he has no further com- 
munication to make to them. 

VALEDICTORY OF THE SPEAKER. 

The SPEAKER. Gentlemen, the time has come when our official relations as 
Representatives in the Forty-seventh Congress are to be dissolved. In a moment 
more this House of Representatives will be known only in history. Its acts will 
stand, many of them, it is believed, through the future history of the Republic. 

On the opening day of this Congress I ventured the suggestion and the expressions 
of a hope that it should be marked "as peculiarly a business Congress." 

It has successfully grappled with more of the vital, material, and moral questions 
of the country than its predecessors. Many of these have been settled wisely and 
well by appropriate legislation. It would be quite impossible at this time to enu- 
merate the many important laws which have been enacted to foster and promote the 
substantial interests of the whole country. 

This Congress enacted into a law the first 3 per cent, funding bill known to this 
country, and under it a considerable portion of the Government debt has been re- 
funded at lower rates than ever before. 

It did not hesitate to take hold of the question of polygamy, and it is believed it 
has struck the first effective blow in the direction of destroying that greatest remain- 
ing public crime of the age. 

Laws have been passed to protect the immigrant on his way across the sea and 
upon his arrival in the ports of this country. 

Laws have also been passed to extend the charters of the banking institutions so 
that financial disorder cannot take place which would otherwise have come at the 
expiration of old bank charters. 

Many public acts will be found relating to the Indian policy and the land policy of 
this country which will prove to be wise. 

The post-office laws have been so changed as to reduce letter postage from 3 to 2 
cents, the lowest rate ever known in the Uuited States. 

No legislation of this Congress will be found upon the statute-books revolutionary 
iu character or which will oppress any section or individual in the laud. All legisla- 
tion has been in the direction of relief. 

Pension laws have been enacted which are deemed wise, and liberal appropriations 
have been made to pay the deserving and unfortunate pensioner. 

Internal-revenue taxes have been taken off and the tariff laws have been revised. 

Sectionalism has been unknown in the enactmeut of laws. 

In the main a fraternal spirit has prevailed among the members from all portions of 
the Union. What has been said in the heat of debate and under excitement and some- 
times with provocation is not to be regarded in determining the genuine feeling of 
concord existing between members. The high office I have filled through the sessions 
of this Congress has enabled me to judge better of the true spirit of the members that 
compose it than I could otherwise have done. 

It is common to say that the House of Representatives is a very turbulent and dis- 
orderly body of men. This is true more in appearance than iu reality. Those who look 
on and do not participate see more apparent confusion than exists in reality. The 
disorder that often appears upon the floor of the House grows out of an earnest, act- 
ive spirit possessed by members coming from all sections of the United States, and in- 
dicates iu a high degree their strong individuality and their great zeal in trying to 
secure recognition in the prompt discharge of their duty. No more conscientious body 



152 

of men than compose this House of Representatives, in my opinion, ever met. Parti- 
san zeal has in some instances led to fierce word-contests on the floor, but when the 
occasion which gave rise to it passed by party spirit went with it. 

I am very thankful for the considerate manner in which I have been treated by the 
House in its collective capacity. I am also very thankful to each individual member 
of this body for his personal treatment of me. I shall lay down the gavel and the 
high office you clothed me with filled with good feeling toward each member of this 
House. I have been at times impatient and sometimes severe with members, but I 
have never purposely harshly treated any member. I have become warmly attached 
to and possessed of a' high admiration not only for the high character of this House as 
a parliamentary body, but for all its individual members. I heartily thank the House 
for its vote of thanks. 

The duties of a Speaker are of the most delicate and critical kind. His decisions 
are in the main made without time for deliberation, and are often very far-reaching 
and controlling in the legislation of the country on important matters, and they call 
out the severest criticism. 

The rules of this House, which leave to the Speaker the onerous duty and delicate 
task of recognizing individuals to present their matters for legislation, render the of- 
fice in that respect an exceedingly unpleasant one. No member should have the leg- 
islation he desires depend upon the individual recognition of the Speaker, and no 
Speaker should be compelled to decide between members having matters of possibly 
equal importance or of equal right to his recognition. 

I suggest here that the time will soon come when another mode will have to be 
adopted which will relieve both the Speaker and individual members from this exceed- 
ingly embarrassing if not dangerous power. 

During my administration in the chair very many importaut questions have been 
decided by me. and I do not flatter myself that I have in the hurry of these decisions 
made no mistakes. But I do take great pride in being able to say that no parliament- 
ary decision of mine has been overruled by the judgment of this almost evenly polit- 
ically balanced house, although many appeals have been taken. 

I congratulate each member of this House upon what has been accomplished by him 
in the discharge of the important duties of a Representative, and with the sincerest 
hope that all may return safely to their homes, and wishing each a successful aud happy 
future during life, I now exercise my last official duty as presiding officer of this House 
by declaring the term of this House under the Constitution of the United States at an 
end, and that it shall stand adjourned sine die. [Hearty and continued applause.] 



CEKTAIN QUESTIONS OP OKDEK 

DECIDED BY 

HOIST. J. WARREN KEIFER, 

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FORTY-SEVENTH 

CONGRESS. 



December 5, 1881. 

Mr. Haskell submitted the following resolutions, and demanded the previous 
question thereon, viz: 

Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the Forty-sixth Congress shall he the 
rules of the present House until otherwise ordered ; and 

Resolved further, That the Committee on Rules, when appointed, shall have leave to report at any 
time all such amendments or revisions of said rules as they may deem proper. 

Mr. Randall made the point of order that the said resolutions were not now in or- 
der for action under clause 1 of Rule XXVIII; when, on motion of Mr. Ryan, at 5 
o'clock and 25 minutes p. m., the House adjourned. 

December 6, 1881. 

Mr. Haskell called up the resolutions submitted by him on yesterday and pending 
when the House adjourned, on which the demand for the previous question was- 
pending, and renewed said demand. 

Mr. Randall made the point of order that under the law other business of higher 
privilege took precedence, viz, the swearing in of the Delegates, as provided by sec- 
tion 30 of the Revised Statutes. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, and directed the Clerk to call the 
names of the Delegates from the Territories of Arizona, Dakota, Idaho, Montana, 
New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming. ■ 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded to call the names of the Delegates from the said 
Territories in the foregoing order. 

******* 

The House having resumed the consideration of the question as to the Delegate 
from Utah, Mr. Haskell submitted the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved. That Allen G. Camphell, Delegate-elect from Utah Territory, is entitled to he sworn in as 
Delegate to this House on his prima facie case. 

Mr. Cox made the point of order that a roll of Members and Delegates elect had 
been prepared under the law, and that the Members and Delegates thereon Avere en- 
titled to be sworn in unless objection be made thereto. 

After debate, the Speaker overruled the said point of order on the ground that no 
law known to him required or authorized the Clerk of the outgoing House to make a 
roll of Delegates-elect of the incomiug House, and also upon the further ground 
that sections 31 and 38 of the Revised Statutes, relied upon to sustain the action of 
the Clerk of the last House in making a roll of the Delegates-elect, contained nothing 
in regard to the subject of filing and passing upon the merits of credentials of Dele- 
gates'-elect ; in which decision of the Chair the House acquiesced. 

December 16, 1881. 

Mr. W. E. Robinson proposed, as a question of privilege, to submit a resolution re- 
lating to an alleged usurpation of the privileges of the House by an officer of the 
Government connected with the State Department. 

153 



154 

The Speaker held the resolution not to be in order under Rule IX, and also to he 
in violation of the previous order of the House as to the order of business. 
So the said resolution was not received. 

January 10, 1882. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the consideration of 
the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Haskell ou the 6th ultimo, and made the 
special order for this day, viz : 

Resolved, That Allen G. Campbell, Delegate-elect from Utah Territory, is entitled to be sworn in as 
Delegate to this House on his prima facie case. 

Pending which Mr. Reed submitted the following resolution as a substitute there- 
for, viz : 

Resolved, That the papers in relation to the right to a seat as a Delegate from the Territory of Utah 
be referred to the Committee on Elections, with instructions to report at as early a day as practicable 
as to the prima facie right, or the final right, of claimants to the seat as the committee shall deem 
proper. 

After debate, Mr. Haskell demanded the previous question ou the resolution aud 
pending amendment. 

The previous question was thereupon ordered. 

The question being on agreeing to the said substitute ; pending which, Mr. Haskell 
submitted the following preamble and resolution, in the nature of instructions to the 
Committee on Elections, viz : 

Whereas polygamy has been for many years and is now practiced in some of the Territories o 
the United States, in contravention of the laws thereof [see section 5352 of the Revised Statutes] ; aud 

Whereas there has been admitted to former Congresses of the United States a Delegate from the 
Territory of Utah, who has served in the House of Representatives as such while sustaining polyga- 
mous marital relations — 

[See the following testimony in the contested election case of Cannon vs. Campbell, now of record in 
this House: 

In the matter of George Q. Cannon. Contest of Allen G. Campbell's right to a seat in the House of 
Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States as Delegate from the Territory 
of Utah. 

I, George Q. Cannon, contestant, protesting that the matter in this paper contained is not relevant 
to the issue, do admit that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, com- 
monly called Mormons ; that in accordance with the tenets of said church I have taken plural wives, 
who now live with me, and have so lived with me for a number of years, and borne me children. I also 
admit that in my public addresses as a teacher of my religion in Utah Territory I have defended said 
tenet of said church as being, in my belief, a revelation from God. 

GEORGE Q. CANNON.] 

Now, therefore, 

Be it resolved, as the fixed and final determination of this House of Representatives of the Forty- 
seventh Congress, That no person guilty of living in polygamous marital relations, or guilty of teach- 
ing or inciting others so to do, is entitled to be admitted to this House of Representatives as a Delegate 
from any Territory of the United States. 

Mr. Randall made the point of order that the said preamble and resolution were 
not in order, not being germane to the pending proposition. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, on the ground that said preamble 
and resolution did not come within the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XVII. 

Under the operation of the previous question the said substitute was agreed to, 
and the original resolution as amended Avas agreed to. 

January 20, 1882. 

Mr. Candler, from the Committee on Accounts, reported the following resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved, That the committees of this House designated in the foregoing report as entitled to clerks 
under the legislative, executive, aud judicial appropriation bill making appropriations for the year 
endincc June 30, 1882, be, and they are hereby, authorized to employ clerks during the session within 
the present fiscal year, and any excess of clerks therein authorized over the number provided for by 
existing law shall', under the direction of the Committee on Accounts, be paid out of the contingent 
fund of the House. 

The House having proceeded to its consideration, Mr. Candler demanded the pre- 
vious question. 

Mr. Converse made the point of order that under clause 2 of Rule XVIII the said 
report, not being printed as therein required, was not in order for present considera- 
tion. 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, ou the ground that the clause of the rule 
referred to applied only to bills and propositions referred to one of the calendars. 



155 



January 26, 1832. 



The House having under consideration the report of the Committee on Accounts 

authorizing 

t ut< submitted by Mr. Camp, when Mr. Calkins made the point ot order that the mo- 
tion ?osSe out that which had just been inseited by the House was not in order. 

Tli « Snp-ikpr sustained the said point of order. 

The HouYe then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consider- 
atujn o7?he fo lowKig resolution, reported by Mr. Orth from the Committee on For- 
e TAffi irs, ou the 23d instant, and pending when the House adjourned on that day, 



viz 



relating to any existing arrest and imprisonment ot citizens as atoresam. 
After debate, Mr. Otth demanded the previous question. 
Pending which, Mr. W. E. Robinson proposed to submit an amendment to the said 

r TheSpeaker ruled the amendment out of order, on the ground that it could not be 
offered while the demand for the previous question was pending, under Kuk XV 11 

"AST KSft&JE ofTheChair Mr. Robinson appealed. And the question being 
put, viz, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House I it was 
decided in the affirmative. 
So the ruling of the Chair was sustained. 

January 31, 1882. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consider- 
ation ofX joint resolution of the House (H. Res. 91) to declare certain lands hereto- 
fore graced to railroad companies forfeited to the United States and tc .restore .the 
same to the public domain and to open the same to settlers, introduced by Mr ROBE- 
SON on the 11th instant, the pending question being on the reterence of said lesolu- 
tiou : when Mr. Robeson modified the same. 

Mr. Hubbell and Mr. Hooker made the point of order that the modification pro- 
nosed was not in order, being in effect a new proposition. 

P After debate on said point of order the Speaker overruled the same on the ground 
that Mr. Robeson originally obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution tor reter- 
ence to the Committee on the Public Lands, on which question a motion to refer 
with instructions was not in order, and that before '-decision or amendment was 
made on the said motion it was in order to modify the said proposition. 

February 7, 1882. 

Mr Chalmers moved that the House proceed to the consideration of business on 
the Speaker's table ; pending which, Mr. Page moved that the House proceed to the 
special order for to-day, viz, the bill of the House (H. R. 3540) to regulate limit and 
Spend the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States ; pending which, 
Mr P PRESCOTT, as'a privileged question, moved that the House proceed to the con- 
sideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 3550) making an apportionment ot Representa- 
tives in Congress among the several States under the Tenth Census. 

Mr. Anderson made the point of order that the said motion ot Mr. Prescott was 

n lfte P r r dVbate e ^)uThepSint of order, by unanimous consent, the Speater overruled 
the said point of order on the ground that clause 1 of section 2, article 14, ot the 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States made it the imperative duty ot 
this Congress to pass an apportionment bill fixing the number of ^V™^™*™™? 
next Congress, and for this reason, and also in view ot the fact that under the past 
practice of the House the question had been treated as one °J a highly privileged 
character, the Chair felt bound to hold that it was a question of high constitutional 
privilege. 

February 13, 1882. 

The House thereupon proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the considera- 
tion of the bill of the House (H. R. 3550) making an apportionment of Representa- 
tives in Congress among the several States under the tenth census. 



156 

Mr. Page moved that all debate on the pending bill terminate at 3 o'clock and 30 
minutes p. m. to-morrow ; pending which, Mr. Knott made the point of order that 
debate on a proposition could not be limited by a motion, and that under the rules 
and practice of the House debate could only be closed by the previous question. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky makes the point of order that debate 
cannot be limited by a motion in the House. The Chair is inclined to think that unless 
the motion to limit debate be adopted by unanimous consent, the point of order is 
well taken. 

February 14, 1882. 

Mr. Orth also, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported adversely the fol- 
lowing resolution, viz : 

Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incompatible with the public service, bo 
requested to communicate to this House all correspondence with the British Government on file iu the 
State Department with reference to the case of D. H. O'Connor, a citizen of the United States, now 
imprisoned in Ireland. 

Mr. Orth, under instructions from said committee, moved to lay the said resolution 
on the table; which said motion was disagreed to. 
The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of the said resolution. 
Mr. S. S. Cox submitted the following amendment, viz: 
Strike out all after the word " Resolved," and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

That the President be, andhe is hereby, requested to obtain for D. H. O'Connor and other American 
citizens now imprisoned under a suspension of the habeas corpus by the British Government in Ire- 
land, without trial, conviction, or sentence, a speedy and fair trial or a prompt release. 

Pending which, Mr. Pound made the point of order that said amendment was not 
in order, not being germane to the subject-matter of said resolution. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order on the ground stated, and also on 
the further ground that it changed a resolution of inquiry into a resolution directing 
or instructing the President in a respect which it was not competent for the House 
to do. 

Mr. S. S. Cox appealed from the decision of the Chair; when, on motion of Mr. 
Pound, the said appeal was laid on the table. 

February 16, 1882. 

Mr. Springer moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment submitted 
by Mr. Colerick was disagreed to; pending which, Mr. Butterworth moved to lay 
the said motion on the table. 

Mr. Springer demanded the yeas and nays ; and, one-fifth of the members present 
voting iu favor thereof, the same were ordered. 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded to call the name of Mr. Aiken. 

Mr. Springer asked that the amendment submitted by Mr. Coeerick be read. 

The Speaker held that the roll-call having been commenced it was not in order to 
interrupt it to have said amendmeut read, except by unanimous consent; and objec- 
tion being made, the Speaker directed the roll-call to proceed. 

February 21, 1882. 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded to call the roll of members, and called the first two 
names thereon ; when Mr. Robeson moved that the House adjourn. 

The Speaker held the motion to be not in order, on the ground that it was not in 
order to interrupt the call. 

The Clerk thereupon resumed the call of the roll and completed the same. 

February 25, 1882. 

Mr. Reed, from the Committee on Rules, as a privileged question, reported the fol- 
lowing resolution, viz : 

Resolved, That a select committee of nine members be appointed to whom shall be referred all peti- 
tions, bills, and resolves asking for the extension of suffrage to women or the removal of their legal 
disabilities. 

Mr. McMillin made the point of order that under clause 1, Rule XXVIII, the said 
report must lie over one day. 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground that the pending resolu- 
tion did not change or rescind any standing rule or order of the House. 

Mr. Springee made the point of order that the resolution changed Rule X by in- 
creasing the number of committees therein named. 

The Speaker overruled the point, of order, on the ground that the resolution pro- 
vided only for the appointment of a select committee and did not increase or decrease 
the number of standing committees provided for in Rule X. 



157 



March 8, 1882. 



Mr. Haskell moved that the House proceed to business on the Speaker's table. 
Aud the question being put, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 111, nays 86, 



not voting 95. 



So the motion to proceed to business on the Speaker's table was agreed to. 

The Speaker thereupon laid before the House the bill of the Senate (S. 109*0 au - 
thorizing and directing the purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the public 
rise, of the property known as the Freedman's Bank, and the real estate and parcels of 
ground adjacent thereto, belonging to the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, 
and located on Pennsylvania avenue, between Fifteenth and Fifteenth-and-a-half 
streets, Washington, D. C, as the unfinished business on the Speaker's table, and stated 
the pending question to be on the third reading of the bill. 

Mr. Springer made the point of order that the said bill must receive its first con- 
sideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of ihe Union. 

After debate on the said point of order, tbe Speaker overruled the same, on the 
ground that when tbe pending bill was reached on the Speaker's table, on the 28th 
ultimo, the bill was taken up, read a first and second time, ordered to be read a third 
time, and was read the third time. Thereupon Mr. Springer moved to reconsider the 
vote by which it was ordered to be read a third time. Pending that motion, motions 
to adjourn and to lay the bill on the table were successively negatived. The vote by 
which the bill was ordered to its third reading was then reconsidered, when the ques- 
tion recurred on orderiug the bill to be read a third time. Pending which, motions to 
refer the said bill to the Committees on Public Buildings and Grounds and Banking 
and Currency were successively negatived, when the question again recurred on order- 
ing the bill to its third reading. For these reasons the Chair hold that the House 
Lad entered upon the consideration of the bill, and the point of order was therefore 
overruled. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Springer appealed. 

When, on motion of Mr. Wasiihurn, the said appeal was laid on the table. 

March 13, 1882. 

The Speaker thereupon announced as the regular order of business the bill of the 
Senate (S. 353) to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in 
reference to bigamy, aud for other purposes, reached in order when the House was 
comiderin<>- business on the Speaker's table on the 8th instant, the pending question 
being the point of order made by Mr. Converse that the said bill, under clause 3, 
Rule XXIII, must receive its first consideration in the Committee of the Whole. 

After debate on the said point of order. The Speaker said: The Chair has found 
some difficulty in reaching a satisfactory conclusion upon this question. The discus- 
sion upou the point of order has ranged over a very wide field. The point of order 
made bv the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Converse] is that under paragraph 3 of 
Rule XXIII this bill must be first considered in Committee of the Whole. The Chan- 
directs the Clerk to read that paragraph. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

?,. All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the people ; all proceedings touching 
appropriations of money, or bills making appropriations of money or property, or requiring such ap- 
propriation to he made, or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or releasing 
any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first considered in a Committee ot 
the Whole ; and a point of order under this rule shall be good at any time before the consideration of a 
bill has commenced. 

The Speaker. The bill under consideration in section 9 makes provision for a 
board of five officers to discharge certain election duties, and provides that the mem- 
bers of this board shall be paid a salary of $3,000 a year. The Clerk will read that 
portion of section 9 which relates to these officers and in part to their duties. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Sec. 9. That all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah 
are hereby declared vacant; and each and every duty relating to the registration ot voters, the con- 
duct of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the canvassing and returning of the same, 
and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election, in said Territory, shall, until other provis- 
ion be made by the Legislative Assembly of said Territory as is hereinafter by this section provided, 
be performed, 'under the existing laws of the United States and of said Territory, by proper persons 
-who shall be appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a board of five persons to be 
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than three ot 
whom shall 'be members of one political party, and a majority of whom shall be a quorum. Ihe mem- 
bers of said board so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at the rate of $3,000 per 
annum, and shall continue in office until the Legislative Assembly of said Territory shall make provis- 
ion for filling said offices as herein authorized. 

The Speaker. It should be conceded that this proposition does not, within the 
meaning of the rule, involve " a tax or charge upon the people ; " that it is not a 



158 



" proceeding touching au appropriation of money ; " that it does not " make an ap- 
propriation of money or property;" that it docs not "authorize a. payment out of the 
appropriations already made;" that it does not "release any liability to the United 
States for money or property.' 7 

But it is contended that this bill, if it should become a law, would require an ap- 
propriation to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. The tax or charge 
referred to in the rule, as the Chair thinks, relates to a direct tax or charge on the 
people, and has no reference to an appropriation of money from the United States 
Treasury. 

The rive members of the board proposed to be created by this bill are to be paid a 
salary at the rate of $3,000 per annum. The claim is that an appropriation of money 
would have to be made to pay the members of that board ; or, in other words, that 
the bill, if it should become a law, would require an appropriation of money to be 
made to execute it. 

It is perhaps clear under the rule that if this bill does require an appropriation of 
money out of the Treasury of the United States to pay the salaries of the officers 
mentioned, it must be first considered in Committee of the Whole. A very strict con- 
struction of thisTule would justify the Chair in holding that a bill must by its terms 
require au appropriation of money to make it liable to a point of order. The Chair, 
however, is not now disposed to give such a construction to the rule, but is strongly 
inclined to hold that in case a bill provides for new officers and fixes their salaries, 
which salaries must of necessity be paid out of the United States Treasury and from 
money to be appropriated, such bill may be said to require an appropriation of money 
within the meaning of the rule. 

The Chair does not intend to intimate that a bill which if enacted into law would 
incidentally iuvolve expense to execute it would therefore be subject to the point of 
order that it should be first considered in Committee of the Whole, unless the bill 
directly required an appropriation of money to pay such expense. The rule relates 
to bills " requiring," not ' ' involving," an appropriation of money. Within the construc- 
tion of the rule indicated, does this bill require an appropriation of money? If the 
five members of the board provided for iu the bill must of necessity be paid their 
salaries out of money to be appropriated from the Uuited States Treasury then the 
bill would require au appropriation of money. 

To determine the last proposition we must look to the laws iu force especially relat- 
ing to the Territory of Utah, and to the general laws of the United States relating to 
the organization of all the Territories. 

By reference to the charter act of Utah and to the general laws of the United 
States relating to the organization of Territories it will be found that in the organi- 
zation of the Territory of Utah Congress provided for a governor, a secretary, a Ter- 
ritorial assembly, justices of courts, an attorney, and a marshal, and their assistants 
and deputies, and perhaps some other officers for the government of the Territory. 
The salaries of those officers, including the pay of the members of the Legislative 
Assembly, are fixed and authorized to be paid out of the Treasury of the United 
States. A fixed sum is established for the contingent expenses of the governor in 
each year, and a sufficient sum is authorized to defray the expenses of the Legislative 
Assembly, including printing and incidental expenses, to be paid out of the Treasury 
of the United States. All other expenses necessary to carry on the Territorial gov- 
ernment not otherwise provided for in the laws of the United States are required to 
be paid out of a fund to be raised by a tax imposed on property owners in the Terri- 
tory. By the express terms of the Territorial laws the election officers are required 
to be so paid. 

This bill proposes to depose certain election officers and to provide temporarily a 
board of officers for the conduct of elections and to execute the election laws of the 
Territory of Utah. The legislative assembly may again, as provided in the bill, fill 
the offices declared by this bill to be vacant, and the functions of the board proposed 
by the bill will then cease. 

Such board becomes a part of the election system for the time being of the Territory 
of Utah ; and it may be held that their salaries will be payable out of the treasury 
of the Territory, either by virtue of existing laws or by laws, either Territorial or 
Federal, which may hereafter be enacted. If this be true, then it follows that the 
bill does not require an appropriation of money out of the Treasury of the United 
States to pay the officers created by it. 

The Chair will here observe, with reference to a decision said to have been made 
by Speaker Blaine, that upon an examination of the then pending bill it seems quite 
clear that his decision was properly made, and is within the views of the present oc- 
cupant of the chair. The class of officers that was proposed to be constituted by 
the bill then under consideration were assistants of the United States attorney and 
deputy marshals. Those officers by the very terms of the then existing laws would 
have to be paid out of the Treasury of the Uuited States. They did not belong to 
any Territorial system, and it could not possibly have been then held that under any 



159 

state of the law, in the absence of legislation directly upon the subject, any other 
treasury was to be drawn on for the payment of these assistant attorneys and deputy 
marshals than the Treasury of the United States. 

The Chair cannot agree that any bill which might, if amended, require an appro- 
priation of money from the Treasury of the United states must be first considered in 
Committee of the Whole. There are a vast number of bills pending that are under 
our rules and practice not referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consid- 
ertion which might be amended under the rules BO as to finally involve an appropria- 
tion of money to execute the laws created should such bills pass. 

The Chair is not disposed to hold that if a bill might by possibility require an ap- 
propriation of money it must first be considered in Committee of the Whole. The 
Chair thinks it goes far enough when it holds that a bill must on its face require an 
appropriation of money to carry it out or to pay the salaries of the officers created 

It is not necessary to decide that the officers proposed to be created by this bill are 
or are not United 'States officers. They may be both United States and Territorial 
officers. The Chair lias nothing to do with the question of the power or right of 
Congress to enactsuch a law as this bill proposes. The Chair is bound to assume that 
tin' pronosed legislation is within the constitutional power of Congress. 

It may be, perhaps, proper to remark that all the laws of the Territory of Utah 
enacted by its assembly are by the terms of the original act for the organization of 
that Territory subject "to be annulled by the mere disapproval of Congress. Enter- 
taining these views, the Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. CONVERSE. Inasmuch as the decision of the Chair involves a rule of the House 
of so much importance to the House itself and the entire country, I desire respect- 
fully to make an appeal. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Ohio takes an appeal. The question is, Shall 
the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House S 

Mr. Haskell. I move that the appeal be laid on the table. 

Mr. Converse. In view of the importance of the question to be determined by the. 
House, I demand the yeas and nays on this proposition. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and there were— yeas 119, nays HO, not voting 93. 

So the appeal was laid on the table, 

March 20, 1882. 

Mr. Reed, under instructions from the Committee on the Judiciary, moved that the 
rules be suspended so as to enable him to report from the committee on the Judiciary 
and the House to agree to the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved That the House bill 4197, re-establishing the Conrt of Commissioners of Alabama Claims » 
for the distribution of tbe unappropriated moneys of the Geneva award, be taken from the Commit- 
tee of the Whole and be considered in the House as in committee on tbe fourth Tuesday of March, 
and then from day to day until finally disposed of, not to interfere with the revenue and general ap- 
propriation bills. 

Pending which, Mr. SPRINGER moved that the House adjourn ; and the question be- 
ing put, it was decided in the negative. 

Mr. Bragg moved that the House adjourn. 

The Sneaker held the motion to be not in order, on the ground that under clause s 
of Rule XVI but one motion to adjourn was in order pending a motion to suspend the 
rules, which motion (to adjourn) had been made and negatived. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. House appealed; [tending which, Mr. Camp 
moved to lay the said appeal on the table ; and the question being put, there ap- 
peared—yeas 79, nays 42, not voting 171. 

No quorum voted. 

A call of the House was thereupon ordered and had. 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded to call the names of absentees for excuses ; pending 
which, Mr. Bragg moved that the House adjourn, the Speaker having entertained the 
said motion on the ground that on a call of the House less than a quorum had an- 
swered to their names; pending which motion to adjourn, on motion of Mr. Reed, by 
unanimous consent — 

Ordered, That the House now adjourn, and that to-morrow, after the reading of the Journal, the mo • 
tion to suspend tbe rules and adopt tbe resolution as modified shall be voted on, the same as on a Mon 
day's session. 

March 28, 1882. 

Mr. Calkins, as a question of privilege, proposed to call up the report of the Com- 
mittee on Elections in the case of the claim of M. D. Ball to a seat in this House as 
Delegate from the Territorv of Alaska. 



1G0 

Mr. Knott made the point of order that the said report and subject was not a ques- 
tion of privilege, there being no law authorizing Alaska to send a Delegate to Con- 
gress, or authorizing an election for that purpose to be held in said Territory. 
° After debate on said point of order, the Speaker sustained the same, on the ground 
that said report, with an accompanying resolution providing that M. D. Ball be not 
admitted to a seat in the Forty-seventh Congress as a Delegate from the Territory of 
Alaska until the Committee on the Territories shall report thereon, was referred to 
the Committee on the Territories, which committee had not reported thereon. 

April 21, 1S82. 

Mr. Bowman moved that the consideration of private business for to-day be dis- ' 
pensed with, and that the House proceed to the consideration of the special order, . 
the bill of the House (H. R. 684) to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the 
Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Gov- 
ernment. 

After debate thereon, by unanimous consent, Mr. Bowman withdrew the said mo- , 
tion, and made the point of order that the regular order of business was the bill of 
the House (H. R. 684) to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive 
Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government, 
under the order of the House of February 20, ultimo. 

After debate on said point of order, by unanimous consent, the Speaker sustained 
the said point of order, on the ground that the said bill was made a " special order " 
for the 7th of March, after the morning hour, and from day to day thereafter until 
disposed of, with certain restrictious, "without excepting Friday, and also on the 
further ground that the said "special order" w*s made under a suspension of rules, 
which of necessity suspended all rules in conflict with the terms of said order. 

April 25, 1882. 

Mr. William E. Rodinson then called up, as a privileged question, the following 
preamble and resolution, submitted by him on yesterday, viz : 

"Whereas on the 23d day of January, 1882, a resolution of inquiry was introduced in this House and 
was on that day referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs ; and 

Whereas afterwards, on the 14th day February, 1882, the same resolution, having been reported 
back, was recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions, all of which will more 
fully appear by reference to the said resolution and instructions hereto appended and the record of 
the proceedings of those days ; and 

Whereas by clause 2 of Rule XXIV every such resolution is required to be reported back to the 
committee to' which it has been referred within one week of such reference; and 

Whereas more than one week, to wit, ten weeks, have elapsed since the reference or recommitment 
of said resolution to said committee, and no repoit has been made thereon by said committee : There- 
fore, 

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be, and they hereby are, discharged from the 
further consideration of said resolution, and that the same be now brought before the House for im- 
mediate consideration. 

Mr. Orth withdrew the point of order made by him on yesterday, that the said 
preamble and resolution did not present a question of privilege ; when Mr. Kasson 
renewed the same. 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground that the last paragraph of 
clause 1 of Rule XXIV required committees to report resolutions of inquiry within one 
week after their reference, and that as this was a matter affecting the order of busi- 
ness of the House, it had a right to direct and control the action of the committee 
with respect to the said resolution. 

May 18. 1832. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consid- 
eration of the bill of the House (H. R. 4167) to enable national banking associations 
to extend their corporate existence, the pending question being on the amendment 
submitted by Mr. Buckner, to strike out in line 16 of section 1 the word " twenty" 
and insert in lieu thereof the word "ten," pending when the House adjourned on yester- 
day, on which amendment the yeas and nays were then ordered. 

Mr. Bland moved to amend the said substitute by adding thereto the following 

words, viz : 

Provided further, That said associations are hereby prohibited from issuing circulating notes; and 
hereafter no nf tioual banking association shall increase its circulation or be organized with authority 
to issue notes to circulate as money. 

Mr. Dingley made the point of order that the said amendment was not in order at 
this time. 



161 

The Speaker sustained the poini of order, on the ground that under the terms of 
the resolution making the pending bill a special order certain specified amendments 
wi'we made in order, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Bland not being so named, 
it was subject to the provisions of the rule regulating amendments, and not being 
germane to the pending question was not in order as an amendment thereto or a sub- 
stitute therefor. 

May ID, U 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consid- 
eration of the bil] of the House (H. R. 4167) to enable national banking associations 
to extend their corporate existence 

******* 

The question recurring on the amendment submitted by Mr. Randall, pending 
which Mr. CANNON moved to amend said amendment by striking out the following 
■words, viz, "bu1 when bonds are called for redemption, the banks holding such 
called bonds shall surrender them within thirty days after the maturity of their 
call ;" which said amendment was disagreed to. 

The question again recurring on the amendment submitted by Mr. Randall, pend- 
ing which Mr. BAYNE submitted the following amendment thereto, viz: 

Provided, however, That said banks may withhold such bonds, in whole or in part, for one year, 
upon notifying the Secretary of the Treasury of their intention so to do in which event such bonds 
shall not be redeemable until the expiration of the year, nm- shall they bear interest. 

Mr. Randall made the point of order that said amendment was not in order, be- 
ing substantially the proposition .just voted on and rejected. 

The Speaker overruled the said point of order, on the -round that the vote re- 
ferred to was to strike out a portion of a proposed section on which an affirmative 
vote bad not yei been taken, and that while it might be inconsistent with the vote 
last taken, it was for the House to pass upon thai question. 

And the question being put, it was decided in the negative. 

The question again recurring on the amendment submitted by Mr. Randall, pend- 
ing which Mr. Springer moved to amend the same by striking out the words "ninety 
days" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "six months;" which amendment was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. Bland moved to amend the pending amendment by adding the following 
words, viz : 

Provided further. That there shall be coined monthly in the mints of the United States standard 
silver dollars to the maximum amount now authorized to be coined bylaw, and the same, or certifi- 
cates therefor, shall !><• paid out in sufficient quantities to replace the bank notes that may he retired 
under this act or existing law. And if such quantity is net sufficient for such purpose, then the Sec- 
retary is authorized and hereby required to cause to be coined an amount of standard silver dollars 
sufficient for tie' purposes aforesaid : Provided, That nothing herein shall he construed to limit in any 
manner the amount of such dollars now authorized and required to be coined. 

Mr. Dingley made the poinl of order that the said amendment was not in order, 
not being germane to the pending amendment. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, on the ground that the proposed 
amendment was not only not germane to the pending amendment, but was not ger- 
mane to the subject-matter of the p. nding bill, which related to the extension of the 
corporate existence of national banks. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Bland appealed; pending which Mr. Bayne 
moved that the said appeal be laid on the table, when Mr. BLAND withdrew the said 
appeal. 

Mr. Randall moved to amend by insetting the following words as a new section, 
viz: 

Sec. 11. That from and after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby author- 
ized and required to receive deposits of gold coin and bullion with the Treasurer or any assistant treas- 
urer of the United States, in sums of not less than $20. and to issue certificates therefor, in denomina- 
tions of not less than $20 each, corresponding with the denominations of the United States notes. The 
coin and bullion deposited for or representing the certificates of deposit shall be retained in the Treas- 
ury for the payment of the sum on demand. 

Mr. Crapo made the point of order that said amendment was not in order, not being 
germane t the pending bill. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, on the ground that the proposed 
amendment had no relation to the subject-matter of the pending bill, which related 
exclusively to the extension of the corporate existence of national banks. 

May 24, 1882. 

Mr. Calkins, as a question of privilege, sent to the Clerk's desk an extract from a 
newspaper, relating to the contested-election case of Mackey vs. O'Connor. 
Mr. Randall reserved all points of order as to the said extract. 

90 A— K 11 



I- 

: 



162 

After debate on the point of order that the said extract did not present a questioi 
of privilege, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground that the extract rea< 
alleged fraudulent transactions as to the taking of testimony in said case by the Com- 
mittee on Elections, and as that charge was made by a member of the House, it pre- 
sented under Eule IX a question of privilege. 

May 26, 1882. 

Mr. Calkins, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee onj 
Elections in the contested-election case of Mackey vs. O'Connor. 

* # # # * # # 

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Carlisle that the House adjourn, on 
which motion the yeas and nays were ordered, Mr. Hatch asked to be excused frond 
voting on the said question. 

Mr. Calkixs made the point of order that the said request was not in order under 
the rules and practice of the House. 

After debate, by unanimous consent, on the said point of order, the Speaker sua 
taiued the same, on the ground that previous rulings of Speakers had established th 
practice as to requests of this character, and that under the terms of clause 1 of Rul 
VIII, which was identical with Rule XXXI, under which said rulings had been made 
it was not in order to entertain and submit the said request. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Blackburn appealed. 

Mr. Calkins moved to lay the said appeal on the table ; and the question being 
put, it was decided in the affimative — yeas 147, nays 1, not voting 143. 

May 27, 1882. 

Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
following report, viz : 
Amend paragraph 8 of Rule XVI so as to read as follows : 

Pending a motion to suspend the rules, or on any question of consideration which may arise on 
case involving the constitutional light to a seat, and pending the motion for the previous question, o: 
after it shall have been ordered on any such case, the Speaker may entertain <me motion to adjourn 
hut after the result thereon is announced he shall not entertain any other motion till the vote is take] 
on the pending question ; and pending the, consideration of such case a motion to adjourn or to take i 
recess (but not both in succession) shall he in order, and such motions shall not be repeated without 
further intervening consideration of the case for at least one hour. 

Pending its submission, Mr. Kex t na moved that the House take a recess until 
o'clock p.ni. ; which motion the Speaker declined to entertain and submit, durimj 
the reading of the said report. 

From which decision Mr. Kenna appealed ; which appeal the Speaker also declinec 
to entertain during the reading of said report. 

Ordered, That said report lie over for the present. 

May 29, 1882. 

Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on Rules 
made on Saturday last; when Mr. Randall raised the question of consideration;! 
pending which, Mr. Kenna moved that the House adjourn ; pending which, Mr 
Blackburn moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next; 
and the question being put thereon, it was decided in the negative — yeas 2, nays, 146, 
not voting 14o. 

******* 

So the House refused to adjourn over to Wednesday next. 

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Kenna that the House adjourn ; pend- 
ing which, Mr. Randall moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thurs- 
day next. 

Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said motion was not in order at this time, 
on the ground that pending a proposition to chauge the rules of the House, dilatory 
motions cannot be entertained by the Chair. 

After debate on the said point of order, 

The Speaker. The Chair is ready to announce his decision upon this question. 

Mr. Springer. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair hear me for a moment ? 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that sufficient time has been given for this discus 
sion. The Chair has allowed already more than four hours of debate, considerably 
more than half of which has been given to the gentleman's side. 

Mr. Springer. I hope I will not be cut off from the opportunity of being heard 
[Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!" and " Question !" ] 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that sufficient time has been given. 



163 

Mr. Springer. I desire to remind the Chair that in the fir.st session of the Forty- 
sixth Congress a point of order was made in the Committee of the Whole on the Army 
bill; and that point of order, by the indulgence of the majority, was discussed for one 
week, and there was no effort to limit debate upon it. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the debate has not been limited ; debate has been 
liberally allowed. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I bad the honor to occupy the chair at that time, and hope that the 
same courtesy will be extended to me. 

The Speaker. The question for the Cbair to decide is briefly this: the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Reed] has called up for present consideration the report of the Com- 
mittee on Rules made on the 27th instant, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Randall] raised, as he might under the practice and the rules of the House, the ques- 
tion of consideration. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Kenna] then moved 
that the House adjourn, and" the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Blackburn] moved 
that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next, which last motion was 
voted down ; and thereupon the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] moved 
that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday next. The gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Rked] then raised the point of order that such motions are mere dilatory 
mo+ions, and therefore, as against the right of the House to consider a proposition to 
amend the rules, not in order. 

It cannot be disputed that the Committee on Rules have the right to report at any 
time such changes in the rules as it may decide to be wise. The right of that com- 
mittee to report at any time may be, under the practice, a question of privilege; but 
if it is not, resolution's of this House, adopted December 19, 1881, expressly give that 
right. 

The Clerk will read the resolutions. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the Forty-sixth Congress shall he the 
rules of the present House until otherwise ordered : and 

Besolved further, That the Committee on Rules when appointed shall have the right to report at any 
time all such amendments or revisions of said rules as tiny may deem proper. 

The Speaker. It will be seen that these resolutions not only give the right to that 
committee to report at any time, but the committee is authorized to report any change, 
&c, in the rules. The right given to report at any time carries with it the right to 
have the proposition reported considered without laying over. The resolutions are 
the ones adopting the present standing rules of the House for its government ; and it 
will be observed that they were only conditionally adopted ; and the right was ex- 
pressly reserved to the House to order them to be set aside. Paragraph 1 of Rule 
XXVIII provides that— 

No standing rule of the House shall he rescinded or changed without one day's notice of the motion 
in writing. 

This clause of the rule, if applicable at all, may fairly be construed to make it iu 
order under the standing rules of the House to consider any motion to rescind or 
change the rules after one day's notice. 

But the question for the Chair to decide is this: Are the rules of this House to be 
so construed as to give to the minority of the House the absolute right to prevent the 
majority or a quorum of the House from making any new rule for its government ; 
or in the absence of anything in the rules providing for any mode of proceeding in the 
matter of consideration, when the question of changing the rules is before the House, 
shall the rules be so construed as to virtually prevent their change should one-fifth of 
the House oppose it ? It may be well to keep in mind that paragraph 2 of section 5 
of article 1 of the Constitution says that — 

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. 

The same section of the Constitution provides that — 
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. 

The right given to the House to determine the rules of its proceedings is never ex- 
hausted, but is at all times a continuing right, and in the opinion of the Chair gives 
a right to make or alter rules independent of any rules it may adopt. Dilatory motions 
to prevent the- consideration of business are comparatively recent expedients, and 
should not be favored in any case save where absolutely required by some clear rule 
of established practice. 

Iu any case it is a severe strain upon common sense to construe the rules so as to 
prevent a quorum of the House from taking any proceedings at all required by the 
Constitution ; and it is still uiore difficult to find any justification for holding that the 
special resolutions of this House adopted December 19 last, or the standing rules even 
of the House, were intended to prevent the House, if a majority so desired, from alter- 
ing or abrogating the present rules of the House. 

There seems to be abundant precedent for the view the Chair takes. The Clerk 
will read from the Record of the Forty-third Congress, page — , an opinion expressed 



164 

by the distinguished Speaker, Mr. Blaine, which has been repeatedly alluded to to- 
day. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could 
not be, entertained, and for this reason he lias several times ruled that the right of each Souse to deter- 
mine what shall be its rules is an organic right expressly given by the Constitution of the United Stales. 
The rules are the creature of that power and of course they cannot he used to destroy the power. 
The House is incapable by any form of rules of divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to 
exercise its function to determine its own rules. Therefore the Chair has always announced upon! 
proposition to change the rules of the House he would never entertain a dilatory motion. 

The Speaker. It -will be observed that the then Speaker says he has frequently 
held that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could not be en- 
tertained. The precedents for ruling out dilatory motions where an amendment of 
of the rules is under consideration are many. 

During the electoral count my immediate predecessor [Mr. Randall] decided, in 
principle, the point involved here. On February 24, 1877, after an obstructive motion 
had been made, the following language was used, as found in the RECORD of the Forty- 
fourth Congress, page 1906: 

The Speaker. The Chair is unable to recognize this in any other light than a dilatory motion. 

The mover then denied that he made the motion as such. 

The Speaker. The Chair is unable to classify it in any other way. Therefore he rules that when 
the Constitution of the United State-, directs anything to be done, or when the law under the Consti- 
tution of the United States enacted in obedience thereto directs any act of this House, it is not i 
order to make any motion to obstruct or impede the execution of that injunction of the Constitutio: 
and laws. 

While this decision is not on the precise point, it clearly covers the principles in- 
volved in the case with which we are now dealing. 

The Chair thinksthe Constitution and the laws are higher than any rules, and when 
they conflict with the rules the hitter must give way. There is not one word in the 
present rules, however, which prescribes the mode of proceeding in changing the 
standing rules except as to the reference of propositions to change the rules, with the 
further exception that — 

No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice. 

But it will be observed that there is an entire absence from all these standing rules of 
anything that looks to giving directions as to t he procedure when the rule is under con- 
sideration by the House. This only refers to the time of considering motions to rescind 
or change a standing rule to the reference of propositions submitted by members, and 
to the time and manner of bringing them before the House for consideration, and not 
to the method of considering them when brought before the House. 

It seems to purposely avoid saying one word as to the forms of proceeding while 
considering such motions. This is highly significant. 

There is nothing revolutionary in holding that purely dilatory motions cannot be j 
entertained to prevent consideration or action on a proposition to amend the rules of 
the House, as this right to make or amend the rules is an organic one essential to be 
exercised preliminary to the orderly transaction of business by the House. It would 
be more than absurd to hold otherwise 

Rule XL undertakes to fasten our present standing rules on the present and all suc- 
ceeding Congresses. It reads as follows : 

These rules shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of the present and succeeding Cou- 
gresses, unless otherwise ordered. 

If this rule is of binding force on succeeding Congresses, and the rules apply and 
can be invoked to give power to a minority in the House to prevent their abrogation 
or alteration, they Would be made perpetually if only one-fifth of the members of the 
House so decreed. 

The fallacy of holding that the standing rules can be held to apply in proceedings 
to amend, &c, the rules will more sharply appear when we look to the case in hand. 
The proposition is to so amend the rules in coutested-electiou cases as to take away 
the right to make and repeat dilatory motions, to prevent consideration, &c. And 
the same obstructive right is appealed to prevent its consideration. To allow this 
would be to hold the rules superior not only to the House that made them but to the 
Constitution of the United States. 

The wise remarks quoted in debate made long since by the distinguished speaker, 
Mr. Onslow of the House of Commons about the wisdom of adhering to fixed rules 
in legislative proceedings were made with no reference to the application of rules 
which it was claimed were made to prevent any proceedings at all by the body acting 
uuder them. 

The present occupant of the chair has tried, and will try, to give full effect to all 
rules whereve applicable, and especially to protect the rights of the minority to the 
utmost extent the rules will justify. 



165 

The Chair is not called upon to hold that any of the standing rules of the House are 
in confl cl w iih the Constitution, as it is not necessary to do so. It only holds that 
there is nothing in the rules which gives them application pending proceedings to 
amend and rescind them. It also holds that under the first of the resolutions adopted 
by the House on December 19, L881, the right was reserved to order the standing rules 
sei aside at any lime this House so decided, and without regard to dilatory forms of 
proceedings provided for in them. The Chair does not hold that pending the question 
If consideration no morion shall he in order. It is disposed to treat one motion to 
adjourn as proper a! this time, as it is a well-known parliamentary motion, and that 
such motion may he liable at some stage of the proceedings to be repeated if made 
for a proper and not a dilatory purpose. 

The Chair feels better satisfied with its ruling in this case, because the rule proposed 
to he adopted is one which looks to an orderly proceeding in the matter of taking 
up and disposing of contestet -election cases, a duty cast directly on the House by the 
ponstitution of the baited States, and an essential one to be performed before it is 
completely organized. 

The Chair is unable to find in the whole history of the Government that any dila- 
tory motions have ever been made or entertained to prevent the consideration or dis- 
i I ion of a contested-election case until this Congress. The point of order has not 
yet been made against obstructive motions to prevent the consideration of a eontested- 
llection ease, and the Chair is not now called on to decide whether such motions are 
in order or not wher they would prevent a complete organization of the House. The 
principle hen involvedwill suffice to indicate the opinion of the Chair on that question. 

The question here decided the Chair understands to lie an important one, because 
it comprehend s^ihe complete organization of the House to do business, but it feels 
that on principle and sound precedents the. point of order made by the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Reed] must be sustained to the extent of holding that the motion 
made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall], which is in effect a dila- 
tory motion, is not at this time in order. 

It has been in debate claimed that on Jauuary 11. ISS'2, the present occupant of the 
chair made a different holding. The question then made and decided arose on a matter 
of reference of a proposition to amend the rules to an appropriate committee as pro- 
vided for under the rules, and not on the consideration of a report when properly 
brought before the House for its action. The two things are so plainly distinguishable 
as to require nothing further to be said about them. 

Mr. Randall. From your decision, Mr. Speaker, just announced, I appeal to the 
House, whose officer you are. 

Mr. Reed. I move to lay the appeal on the table. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] appeals from the 
decision of the Chair, and the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] moves that the ap- 
peal be laid upon the table. 

Mr. Springer. Before that question is taken 

The Speaker. The motion is not debatable. 

Mr. Springer. I rise to a question of privilege, not to debate anything. The gen- 
tleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] has moved to lay the appeal on the table, and I ask 
to be excused from voting on that motion. 

Mr. Reed. I make the point that that is not in order. 

The Speaker. That is not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

The Speaker. The Chair will not entertain the appeal. The question is upon laying 
on the table the appeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Blackburn and others called for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Springer. I want a ruling upon the question I have raised. 

The Speaker. The Chair has ruled upon it. 

Mr. Springer. 1 want to know whether the Chair holds that I have not the right 
before this question is put to ask to be excused from voting on it? 

The Speaker. The Chair so holds. 

Mr. Springer. I appeal from that decision. 

The Speaker. The Chair cannot entertain two appeals at the same time. The ques- 
tion is upon the motion of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] to lay upon the 
table the appeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] from the de- 
cision of the Chair. Upon that motion the yeas and nays have been ordered; and 
the Clerk will call the roll. 

The question was taken; and there were — yeas 150, nays 0, not voting 141. 

So the appeal was laid on the table. 

* #*#■*** 

The names of those voting were read, after which the result was anuounced as 
above stated. 

The Speaker. The question now recurs ou the motion 



166 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I rise, with all respect to the Chair, upon a question of 
privilege on behalf of one hundred members on this side of the House. I desire to 
make the paper which I hold in my hand a part of my statement of the question of 
privilege, and wish to have it read from the Clerk's desk. 

Mr. Reed and others objected. 

Mr. Kasson. On this paper, which is understood to be a protest, I make a point of 
order, saving rights in that respect. 

Mr. Cox, of New York I make it a part of my remarks. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from New York states that he rises to a question of 
privilege. The Chair wishes to say that while he does not know there is anything in 
the Constitution or the rules providing for making a protest a part of the proceedings, 
the Chair, so far as he is concerned (and he is assured the protest is in respectful lan- 
guage), is willing that it should be received and go upon the records. 

Mr. Reed. Let us not waste time by reading it. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I have a right to have it read. 

The Speaker. The Chair does not think the reading is a matter of right, except so 
far as it may present a question of privilege ; and the Chair does not understand that 
a mere protest is a question of privilege. 

Mr. Reed. I have no objection to its going into the Record. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I want it read. 

The Speaker. It may be read so far as the Chair is concerned. [Cries of "Read!" 
"Read!"] 

Mr. Kasson. I wish to save all rights. 

The Speaker. Undoubtedly; all rights will be reserved. 

Mr. Burrows, of Michigan. I suppose it is understood that this is to be read not 
because it is a question of privilege, but by unanimous consent. 

Mr. (.'ox, of New York. Well, let it be read. 

The Speaker. The Chair does not object. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I Jo not wish to take any advantage of gentlemen on the 
other side. Let the paper be read. 

Mr. Van Vorhis. I object. [Cries of "Don't object ! "] 

The Speaker. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] has informed the Chair 
that this is a protest. The Chair is quite willing that it should be read and go upon 
the records. [Cries of "Read!" " Read!"] 

Mr. Kasson. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word upon the point of order. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I distinctly stated that I made this paper apart of my re- 
marks on the question of privilege. Whatever it may turn out to be hereafter, it is a 
part of my remarks, and I have the right, which the Chair has conceded, to have it 
read. 

Mr. Reed. There is no question of privilege that can interrupt the present business 
of the House. 

Mr. Kasson. What I wish to call the attention of the Speaker to is on page :$33 of 
the Manual, where it is stated that it has been ruled 

The Speaker. The Chair is quite willing that the body of this paper should be 
read. 

Mr. Wilson and others. Let it be read. [Cries of "Read!" "Read!"] 

Mr. Cox, of New York. It is a respectful paper, coming from over a hundred mem- 
bers. 

The Speaker. The House will come to order. The paper will be read, points of 
order being reserved. 

The paper is as follows : 

* * # •* # # * 

During the reading, when the Clerk had read the words "because a proper hear- 
ing has not been granted to the contestee by the Committee on Elections as to the 
allegations of forgery and fraud," 

Mr. Hawk said: I ""object." 

The Speaker. The House will be in order. The protest will be read to the end. 

The Clerk concluded the reading of the body of the paper, and was proceeding to 
read the signatures when 

The Speaker said: The names need not be read. 

Mr. Kasson. I insist on my point of order and ask to state the reasons for it. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. Before that is done I desire to say 

Mr. Kasson. I am on the floor. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] makes a point of order, and 
is entitled to the floor on that point. * 

Mr. Kasson. I do not wish to prevent the gentleman from New York from answer- 
ing my point, but I think I ought first to state it before he replies. 

# # # * * # # 

Mr. Reed. I now ask the previous question upon the report. 

The Speaker. The Chair thiuks that this is not a question of privilege, but one 



167 

which should not he ruled out hy the Chair. The Chair thinks, although he has no 
more interest in it Thau any other member, as so many gentlemen have signed it and 
desired it go into the record, that it should go. 

Mr. Reed. Let it go to the record. 

The Speaker. Names and all. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. Certainly, names and all. 

The Speaker. It will then be printed in the Record. 

Mr. Reed. I now call the previous question. 

Mr. Blackburn. I rise to a parlimentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Blackburn. I wish to know whether under the ruling of the Speaker, which 
seems to have been supported by the House, without regard to parties 

Mr. Reed. Unanimously by the House. 

Mr. Blackburn. Unanimously; whether any member of the House chooses to sign 
that protest, whose name is not now on it, shall not have the privilege of doing so at 
any time hereafter ? 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that at any time during this afternoon, if any gen- 
tleman desires to sign the protest, he should be allowed to do so. 

Mr. Hazelton. Certainly, let it be done. 

The Speaker. There will be no objection if any gentlemen desire to append their 
names to it. 

The gentleman from Maine now demands the previous question. The Chair will 
now, however, submit the motion made by the gentleman from West Virginia that 
the House adjourn, and which motion was pending. That motion was entertained 
this morning, and was entertained on the ground, as stated by the Chair, that it was 
an ordinary parliamentary motion, and was not ruled out under the decision of the 
Chair. 

Mr. Kenna. I rise to make a privileged motion. It is now five o'clock. I do not un- 
derstand 

The Speaker. The gentleman can have his motion which was pending under the 
rule submitted to the House ; ,that is, the motion to adjourn. 

Mr. Kenna. Does the Chair hold that the motion that the House shall adjourn 
over to-morrow cannot be entertained? 

The Speaker. The motion to adjourn will now be submitted. 

Mr. KENNA. I move that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday. 

The Speaker. The Chair has just ruled, and the House has sustained the ruling of 
the Chair, that that motion would not now be in order, and therefore cannot be en- 
tertained. The motion that the gentleman formerly made, that the House do now 
adjourn, being in order, will of eourse be submitted to the House. 

Mr. Kenna! On that motion I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 6, nays 152, not voting 133. 

So the motion was uot agreed to. 

Mr. Camp. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be dispensed 
with. 

Mr, Springer. I object. 

The names of members voting were read, and the result of the vote was then an- 
nounced as above stated. 

Mr. Reed. I now call the previous question upon the adoption of the report made 
by the Committee on Rules. 

Mr. Springer. I move to lay the report on the table. 

The Speaker. That motion is not entertained. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I move to lay (he report of the Committee on Rules on the table. 

Mr. Converse. I ask the gentleman from Maine permission to make a motion to 
amend the report so far as it relates to suspending the rules, so that it shall apply 
only to cases of election contests. 

Mr. Robeson. That is in the rule now. This incorporates the existing rule, so far 
as that is concerned. 

Mr. Springer. I move to lay the report on the table. 

The Speaker. The motion is not entertained. The gentleman from Illinois is not 
recognized to make it. 

Mr. Springer. I have a right to make it under the rules. Does the Chair refuse to 
entertain a motion to lay on the table? 

The Speaker. The Chair entertains the motion of the gentleman from Maine, which 
is a demand for the previous question. 

Mr. Springer. I rise to a question of order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Maine demands the previous question. 

Mr. Springer. liaise the ques iou of order that the motion to lay on the table 
takes precedence of the motion for the previous question. 

Mr. Camp. There is no such motion before the House. 



168 

The Speaker. The ruling of the Chair was sufficiently broad to cover all these ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Springer. The Chair has not ruled a motion to lay on the table is out of order. 

The Speaker. The Chair lias ruled that dilatory motions are not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I deny that this is a dilatory motion, and the Chair has no right to 
saj I am making a dilatory motion. I am making a motion that is always recognized 
as in order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois is not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I am in order; and I appeal from the decision of the Chair and de- 
sire to state the reasons for that appeal. 

The Speaker. Tlie Chair declines to entertain the appeal. 

Mr. Springer. I desire the Chair to hear me. 

Mr. ':■ UCKER. Does the Chair hold the motion to lay on the tahle is out of order! 

The Speaker. The Chair holds that the motion is not in order on the question of 
the adoption of this proposed rule. 

Mr. Tucker. Ami does the Chair refuse to entertain an appeal from its decision? 

The Speaker. Unquestionably. 

Mr. Springer. I call the attention of the Chair 

The Speaker proceeded to put the question on Mr. Reed's motion for the previous 
question. 

Mr. Springer. I call the attention of the Chair 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois is not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I desire to state the question 

The Speaker rapped to order and said: The Chair has heard the question and over- 
rules it. 

Mr. Springer. I rise to a question of privilege. 

The Speaker. The Chair cannot entertain it now. The Chair is very indulgent to 
the gentleman from Illinois, and has heard him on his application, hut the gentleman 
must now desist from further insisting on this matter. 

Mr. Springer. I have raised a privileged question, and desire the Chair to rale 
on it. 

The Speaker. The Chair has ruled on it. 

Mr. Springer. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

The Speaker The Chair declines to entertain that appeal, 

Several Members (to Mr. Springer). Sit down. 

Mr. Springer. I will not sit down, but will stand up aud will protest against suoh 
ruling as long as I am a member. 

The Speaker. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. 
Reed], who demands the previous question on agreeing to the report of the Commit- 
tee on Rules. 

Several members called for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Kenna. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Kenna. I desire to ask whether under the present ruling and conduct of tho 
Chair it is of any use to amend the rules as suggested by the report of the commit- 
tee ; if the Chair is not doing under the present rules what is sought to he accom- 
plished hy the amended rule ? 

The Speaker. That is a question to address to the gentleman having the report in 
charge. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 151, nays 3, not voting 137. 

So the previous question was ordered. 

Mr. Reed. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names he dispensed with. 

Mr. Randall. I have no objection to that, but we desire the yeas and nays on the 
adoption of the new rule. 

Mr. Reed. That is all right. 

Mr. Springer. If I may he permitted, I object to dispensing with the reading of the 
names. 

The Speaker. Objection is made, and the names will he read. 

The names of those voting were read, after which the result was announced as above 
stated. 

Mr. Springer. I now rise to a privileged motion, wdiich is to commit this report 
with instructions which I send to the Clerk's desk. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair holds that the motion is not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I call the attention of the Chair to the language of Rule XYII. 

The Speaker. The Chair remembers the rule very well. 

Mr. Camp. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. Springer. I ask that the rule be read. It shows that " it shall be in order, 
pending the motion for or after the previous question shall have been ordered on 
its passage." 



169 

The Speaker. On the passage of a bill. . 

Mr. Springer. On the passage of any motion— "for the Speaker to entertain one 
motion to commit, with or without instructions" I submit that motion under the 
rule and ask that the instructions may be read. , , . 

The Speaker. The Chair has heard the gentleman's statement, and rules his motion 
out of order. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The Chair cannot rule upon it until it is read. 

The Speaker. The ('hair has heard the gentleman's statement, and it was quite in- 
telligible. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Springer. Will the Chair allow the motion to be read? 
The Speaker. The Chair will not. 

Mr. Springer. Then I move that this report be recommitted with instructions to 
the committee to report the same back with an amendment so that it shall be in order 
pending a contested-election ease to move to amend, to recommit, or to lay the subject 
on the Table. . 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that the motion to recommit a contested-election 
case would be in order under the rules. 

Mr. Springer. That is what 1 desire to have incorporated in the new rules. 
The Speaker. -The gentleman's motion is not in order. The question is upon the 
adoption of the report from the Committee onRuh 

Mr. Randall. And on that 1 call for the yeas and nays. 
Mr. SPRINGER. J appeal from the decision of the Chair. 
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not entertain the appeal. 
Mr. SPRINGER. The Chair does not '. 
The Speaker. The Chair does not. 

Mr. Springer. Then the Chair [cries of "Order!"] is violating the plainest rules 
of the House, and ought to be deposed. 

Tin- Si EAKER. The Chair can only say to the gentleman that his motions nave been 
clearly out of order, even under tiie rules, if they were applicable at all. Dut the Chan- 
has made a ruling which has been affirmed in the most extraordinary manner by the 
House, and the Chair will certainly be bound to stand by that affirmation of its own 
ruling. 
Mr. Springer. If we have no rules the Speaker is right. 

The SPEAKER. The question is upon ordering the yeas and nays upon agreeing to 
the report of the Committee on Rules. 
The veas and nays were ordered. 
The Clerk began the calling of the roll, when 
Mr. Hooker said: I rise to a point of order. 
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Hooker. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] has sub- 
mitted a proposition to the House. Now, I demand under the rules that that propo- 
sition be reduced to writing. 

The Speaker. The Chair has ruled on that point. The Clerk will proceed with the 
roll-call. 

Mr. Hooker. Waitamoment. I wantto understand, and I will understand, whether 
the Speaker means to rule that the proposition of the gentleman from Illinois shall 
not be reduced to writing. 
The Speaker. The Chair has ruled upon all those questions. 

Mr. Hooker. And the Chair will not allow 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois was not recognized to make any such 
proposition. The Clerk will proceed with the call of the roll. 

The question was taken ; and there wen — yeas 150, nays 2, not voting 139. 
So the report of the Committee on Rules was adopted. 

Mr. Calkins. I now desire to call up the contested-election case of Mackey vs. 

Dibble. , . , . . 

Mr. Randall. If I correctly understood the Chair a moment ago, he stated he had 

not yet decided that a motion to recommit this case with instructions would be out 

of order under the rule just adopted. 

The Speaker. The Chair incidentally stated it had not held that the rule proposed 
to be adopted would exclude at the proper time a motion to recommit an election 
case. 

Mr. RANDALL. I desire at the proper time to submit the following resolution 

Mr. Calkins. Until the question of consideration is determined by the House I ob- 
ject to that proposition being considered. Whenever the House has agreed to con- 
sider the case, of course I have no objection to having the motion voted upon. 
The Speaker. Is the question of consideration raised ? 
Mr. Blackburn. I raise the question of consideration. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky raises the question of consideration 
as against the contested-election case. 

Mr. Springer. I move that the House now adjourn. 



170 

Mr. Calkins. Before any action is taken it is desirable that the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Atherton] and myself should reach some agreement about this matter, 
which I trust will be satisfactory on both sides. 

Mr. Hooker I call for the regular order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] moves that the House 
adjourn. 

Mr. Blackburn. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 2, nays 149, not voting 140. 

So the motion to adjourn was not agreed to. 

Mr. Calkins. I now call up the contested-election case of Mackey vs. Dibble ; and 
I desire to say 

The Speaker. On this case the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Blackburn] has 
raised the question of consideration. The question recurs, Will the House proceed to 
consider the contested-election case named by the gentleman from Indiana? 

Mr. Blackburn. On that I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and there were — yeas 150, nay 1, not voting 140. 

So the House determined to consider the contested-election case. 

Mr. Bandall. I would like now to have read for information the resolution which 
I send to the desk, which I x>ropose to offer at the proper time. 

The Speaker. The Chair will cause it to be read for information. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the report in the case pending he recommitted to the Committee on Elections, with in- 
structions to inquire into the authenticity and integrity of all depositions, returns, and evidence of 
whatever character produced in the case of Mackey vs. O'Connor, anrl inquire into all alterations, de- 
struction, loss, or mutilations of the original notes of the same, or of any transcript of such notes ; and 
■when, where, or by whom such alterations, destructions, loss, or mutilations were made or caused 
to he made. 

Resolved, That said committee shall have authority to visit such places and compel the production of 
such persons an<l papers as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of their appointment, and may 
sit during the sessions of the House. 

Mr. Calkins. I yield of course, Mr. Speaker, to have this read for information. I 
now desire that the House give unanimous consent to adjourn over until the day after 
to-morrow. 

Mr. Blackburn. That is right. 

Mr. Calkins. I ask this for the reason that is known to every gentleman here ; and 
I desire further to supplement the proposition with the request that the previous 
question in this case may be called on Thursday afternoon, without fixing the hour. 

Mr. Kenna. We would rather that the gentleman would not designate now the 
time when he will call the previous question. 

Mr. Reed. It an arrangement can be made by which the previous question can be 
ordered or considered as ordered at a specified time, I hope the House will adjourn 
over to-morrow. 

Mr. Randall. We had better consider that hereafter. 

Mr. Reed. I want to be very frank with gentlemen on the other side of the House, 
and I want them to understand what difficulties there are upon our side, and the im- 
position which we are necessarily forced to make upon some of our members by re- 
quiring a quorum to be present here during the whole time, if this debate shall be 
prolonged. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. Yon can agree to adjourn over. 

Mr. Reed. That is not the difficulty. We have not many more than a quorum, and 
if we are compelled to keep that quorum present all the time during the considera- 
tion of this case until the previous question is ordered, of course it operates as an 
undue hardship upon some of our people. It is not fair to our sick members to allow 
a great length of time for discussion upon this subject if you force us to keep a quorum. 
I am talking now as a reasonable man. 

Mr. Randall. You had better keep your quorum. 

Mr. Reed. Very well : we will have, then, to pursue our own course in this matter. 

Mr. Calkins. Then I desire, Mr. Speaker, to yield the floor now to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Miller] to enter upon the debate on this election case, after 
which the gentleman will yield to me for a motion to adjourn. 

Mr. Miller took the floor. 

Mr. Calkins. If the gentleman will yield now I will make a morion that the House 
do now adjourn. 

Mr. Miller. I yield for that purpose. 

The Speaker. The Chair will entertain the motion to adjourn. 

June 3, 1882. 

The House proc led, as the regular order of business, to the further consideration 

of the report of the Committee on Elections in the contested-election case of Lowe 



171 

vs. Wheeler, from the eighth Congressional district of the State of Alabama, the pend- 
ing question being on the following resolutions, reported by said committee, viz: 

Resolved, That Joseph Wheeler is not entitled to a seat in this House as a Representative in the 
Forty-seventh Cougress from the eighth Congressional district of Alabama. 

Resolved, That "William M. Lowe is entitled to a seat in this House as a Representative in the Forty- 
seventh Congress from the eighth Congressional district of Alabama. 

After debate, * * * Mr. Hazelton demanded the previous question; pending 
which, Mr. Springer moved to recommit the pending report to the Committee on 
Elections, with instructions contained in a preamble and resolutions. 

Mr. Kassox made the point of order that the said preamble was not in order, being 
in the nature of argument or debate, which was not in order pending the motion for 
the previous question, and asked for an inspection of the paper by the Chair before 
being read to the House upon that point. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker sustained the same, on the ground 
that the motion to commit with instructions could not, either by the terms of the rule 
or by the practice of the House thereunder, be permitted to include either an arraign- 
ment of the committee or an argument as to the merit of the instructions proposed. 
For this reason the Chair held that the proposition as submitted by Mr. Springer 
was not in order under clause 1 of Rule XVII. 

Objection having been made to the reading of the proposition submitted by Mr. 
Springer, the same was suspended when partially read; when Mr. Kenna appealed 
from the foregoing decision of the Chair and demanded the reading of the paper in 
full. Whereupon the Clerk, under the direction of the Speaker, resumed and con- 
cluded the reading of said paper. 

Mr. Reed moved to lay the said appeal on the table ; which said motion was agreed 
to. 

So the decision of the Chair was sustained. 

June 6, 1882. 

Mr. White, as a question of privilege, called the attention of the Speaker to the 
fact that a resolution of inquiry submitted by hint on the 11th day of April last, and 
referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, had not been reported to the House 
until this morning, though clause 1 of Rule XXIV required a report to be made thereon 
within one week, and that, having been made, it was entitled to immediate considera- 
tion. 

Mr. Hiscock made the point of order that no question ofprivilege had been presented. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order on the ground that the said resolu- 
tion had been reported to the House, ordered printed, and laid over for the present, 
and was not now before the House. 

June 13, 1882. 

Mr. Brewer called up the report of the Select Committee on Ventilation and Acous- 
tics submitted on yesterday and laid over for the present. 

Mr. Cannon having objected to its consideration, the Speaker held the said report 
to be of a privileged character, on the ground that the committee had been specially 
directed to consider the subject-matter of the resolution submitted, and report their 
conclusions thereon to the House, and although authority had not been specifically 
given that committee to report at any time, it was still the duty of the committee to 
report at as early a day as practicable, and having so reported, the said report was 
properly before the House; and also on the further ground that the pending resolution 
related to the convenience of members and comfort of the employe's of the House. 

June 26, 1882. 

The Speaker having announced as the special order of business such business as- 
may be presented by the Committee on the District of Columbia, under the resolution 
of the 5th instant, Mr. Kelley having proposed to raise the question of consideration 
as against the consideration of business under the foregoing order, the Speaker held 
that this day being set apart for the consideration of such busiuess as might be pre- 
sented by tlie Committee on the District of Columbia, the question of consideration 
could not be raised against such special order, but could ouly be raised as against a 
particular bill or measure. The Speaker further held that a motion to postpone the 
said special order was not in order, and that the Committee on the District of Colum- 
bia could not be dispossessed of their rights under the terms of said special order so 
long as the committee had any busiuess to present, and claimed their rights under said 
order. 

In which decision of the Chair the House acquiesced. 



172 

On motion of Mr. HOGE, the bill of the Senate (S. 1158) to authorize the supreme 
court of the District of Columbia to appoint two additional criers was taken from the 
Speaker's table and read twice. 

Mr. Cannon made the point of order that under the terms of the special order it 
was not in order for the Committee on the District of Columbia to take business from 
the Speaker's table for present consideration. 

The Speaker overruled the said point of order, on the ground that the said special 
order in terms set aside this day " for the consideration of such business as may be 
presented by the Committee on the District of Columbia," and that committee having 
asked the consideration of the said bill, it was in order to proceed thereto. 

July 8,1882. 

Mr. Cbapo, as a privileged question, from the committee of conference on the dis- 
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the 
House (Tl. R. 4167) to enable national banking associations to extend their corporate 
existence, submitted a report. 

Mr. RANDALL made the point of order that the said report was not in order for pres- 
ent consideration, on the ground that no "detailed statement" accompanied s:iid re- 
port, as required by Rule XXIX. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order. 

The Speaker. The rule requires such a statement to he submitted with the report; 
and if objection is made the report cannot be received at this time. 

July 15, 1882. 

Mr. Cannon, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. R.6244) making 
appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, and for other purposes, reported that the com- 
mittee were unable to agree. 

After debate, by unanimous consent, Mr. Cannon moved that the House further in- 
sist on its disagreement to the said amendments of the Senate to the said bill, and ask 
a further conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
thereon. 

After debate thereon, Mr. Cannon moved the previous question ; which was ordered, 
and under the operation thereof the said motion of Mr. Cannon was agreed to. 

Ordered, That Mr. Cannon, Mr. Hiscock, and Mr. Atkins be the managers at the said conference on 
the part of the House of Representatives. 

Ordered, That the Clerk acquaint the Senate therewith. 

Mr. McCoid submitted the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved, That the committee on the part of the House is instructed to agree to such modification of 
the hill as -will equalize the salaries of the Senate and House by an increase of the pay of House em- 
ployes if necessary. 

Mr. George D. Robinson made the point of order that the said resolution was not 
in order, for the reason that it proposed to instruct the conferees on the part of the 
House on a subject not submitted to them or in disagreement between the two Houses. 

The Speaker. The Chair is not at present prepared to hold that the House might 
not instruct the committee to recede or to insist upon some matter which was partic- 
ularly before it. But this resolution the Chair thinks goes further and proposes to in- 
struct the conference committee to take up a new matter not referred to it ; and there- 
fore it is not in order. 

July 19, 1882. 

Mr. Calkins, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on 
Elections in the contested-election case of Smalls ira. Tillman, from the fifth Congres- 
sional district of the State of South Carolina. 

The House having proceeded to its consideration, after debate, Mr. Calkins moved 

the previous question: which was ordered. 

* l * * * * * * 

The question recurring on the resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections; 
when Mr. Atherton demanded a division of the question. 

And the question being first on the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved That George D. Tillman was not elected as a Representative to the Forty-seventh Con- 
gress from the fifth Congressional district of South Carolina, and is not entitled to retain the seat 
which he now occupies in this Huuse — 

And being put, vi,z Will the House agree thereto? it was decided iu the affirma- 
tive—yeas 144, nays 1, not voting 146. 



173 

So the said resolution was agreed to. 

The question recurring on the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved, That "Robert Smalls was duly elected as a Representative from the fifth Congressional dis- 
trict of South Carolina in the Forty-seventh Congress, and is entitled to his seat as such— 

And being put, viz. Will the House agree thereto? it was decided in the affirma- 
tive — yeas 141, nays 5, not voting 145. 

So the said resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. Wait moved to reconsider the vote just taken, and also moved that the motion 
to reconsider he laid on the table ; which latter motion was agreed to. 

Thr Speaker stated that an error had been discovered iu the vote taken to-day 
on the fust branch of the resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections, and 
that instead of being yeas 115 and nay 1, as announced, the correct vote was yeas 
144, nay 1. The Speaker thereupon claimed and exercised his constitutional right to 
vote on* any question before the House, and directed his vote to be recorded in the 
affirmative on said resolution. 

Mr. Blackburn, having called for the reading of clause 1 of Rule XV, made the 
point of order that under said rule it was not in order for the Speaker to have his 
vote recorded after the completion of the roll-call and the announcement of the re- 
sult to the House. 

The Speakkr. The House will he in order. There is no complication about this 
proposition. The Chair understands that it has the right and is required under the 
rules to vote in order to make a quorum or to give a result when there is a tie vote. 

Mr. Randall. Does the Chair state that after the result has been announced and 
accepted by the House as the result of a yea-and-nay vote by the House the Chair can 
come in and change the result, as in this case presented? 

The Speaker. The vote of the Chair did not change the result. It simply makes 
a quorum ; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when Speaker, as the Chair is in- 
formed, exercised this right one day after the vote had been taken. 

Mr. Randall (amid great coufusion.) I never did, under such circumstances as 
here preseuted. 

The Speaker. It is stated here, and the record will show it. 

Mr. Randall. I ask the Chair to produce the full record. The Chair nowhere can 
find any such decision. There is no warrant for such construction or decision referred 
to, as I believe. 

Mr. Caswell rose. 

The Speaker. Gentlemen will come to order. 

Mr. ATHERTON. I rise to a question of order. 

The Speaker.. The gentleman will be heard later. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. Caswell. The gentleman from Pennsylvania cannot have forgotten the fact 
that in the Forty-fourth Congress he voted the next day to carry a measure. 

Mr. Randall. I never voted when there was objection, as there is here. The gen- 
tleman will produce the record. 

Mr. Blackburn. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. One at a time. Gentlemen will be heard patiently, but the House 
must come to order. 

Mr. Blackburn. I will abide the Chair's pleasure. 

Mr. Townsiiend, of Illinois. I desire to read Rule XV, which absolutely prohib- 
its it. 

Mr. Blackburn. Just wait a minnte. 

Mr. Townsiiend. of Illinois. It requires that every member shall answer to his 
name at the roll-call. 

The Speaker. The Chair will direct the Clerk to read certain paragraphs from the 

Digest. 

Mr. Kasson. I ask that gentlemen shall be seated, so members may hear what is 

going on. 
The Speaker. Members will resume their places. The Clerk will read from the 

Digest, page 354. 
The Clerk read as follows : 

On a very important question, taken December 9, 1803, on an amendment to the Constitution so as. 
to change the form of voting for President and Vice-President, which required a vote of two-thirds, 
there appeared 83 in the affirmative and 42 in the negative ; it wanted one vote in the affirmative to 
make the constitutional majority. The Speaker (Macon), notwithstanding a prohibition in the rule 
as it then existed, claimed and obtained his right to vote, and voted in the arhrmative ; and it was by 
that vote that the amendment to the Constitution was carried. The right of the Speaker, as a member 
of the House, to vote on all questions is secured by the Constitution. No act of the House can take it 
from hiui when he chooses to exercise it. 

(See latest instance by Mr. Speaker Randall— Journal, 2, 44, pages 23, 24.) 

The Speaker. The Clerk will now read from the Journal the case cited under Mr. 
Speaker Randall. 



174 



The Clerk read as follows : 



Pending which, Mr. Banks moved thai the Journal and Record be corrected so as to include the 
name of Mr. Plaisted in the negative on the vote on the adoption of the resolution submitted on yester- 
day by Mr. Abram S. Hewitt. 

After debate the Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from Maine to have his vote 
recorded upon the said resolution upon the statement made by Mr. Plaisted that he did vote in the 
negative when his name was called. 

Mr. Fuller asked that the Journal and Record might be further corrected so as to show that he 
voted in the affirmative upon the aforesaid resolution, stating that he was present and so voted when 
his name was called. 

The Speaker decided, as in the case of Mr. Plaisted, that the gentleman from Indiana was entitled 
to have his name recorded. 

And therefore the names of Mr. Plaisted and Mr. Fuller were recorded, the first in the negative and 
the last-named member in the affirmative, upon the adoption of the aforesaid resolution. 

The Spea i.< r I hereupon claimed and exercised his constitutional right to vote upon any question be- 
fore the House, and voted in the affirmative upon the said resolution. 

[Applause and laughter.] 

The Speaker. This right of the Speaker to vote was exercised the next day after 
a result had been announced. 

Mr. Randall. That was not a question of a quorum nor a majority. I believe it 
was done by consent of the House, while in this instance there is objection. 

Mr.. Hazelton. The question is of the right of the Speaker to vote. 

Mr. Randall. I had a right to vote as Speaker. Gentlemen's votes were added 
which changed the result, and the case is entirely dissimilar. 

The Speaker. The gentleman then Speaker claimed the right to vote and exercised 
it. It was not done by unanimous consent, or the Journal does not show it. 

Mr. Randall. Gentlemen's votes were added which changed the result, and there 
was no objection. 

Mr. Reed. Regular order ! 

Mr. Randall. The changes made in fact produced an even tally, and the Speaker 
had a right to and did vote. 

The Speaker. The principle is exactly the same in the present case. 

The Clerk will now read from what occurred Monday, January 8, 1849 (Mr. Win- 
throp, Speaker). 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Monday, January 8, 1849. 

As soon as the Journal of Saturday had been read, 

The Speaker said : The House will remember that the vote on the passage of the bill for the relief 
of the representatives of Antonio Paoheco was originally made up by the Clerk — ayes 90, noes 89 ; and 
this record having been handed to the Speaker and by him announced to the House, the Speaker pro- 
ceeded to make some remarks upon the bill preparatory to giving the vote contemplated in such cases 
by the rules of the House. While in the act of explanation, the Speaker was interrupted by the Clerk, 
■who stated that on a more careful count the vote was found to be— ayes 91, noes 89. The intervention 
of the Speaker was therefore no longer allowable ; and the bill was declared to have passed the House. 

The Chair takes the earliest opportunity to state to the House this morning that upon a re-examina- 
tion of the yeas and nays the Clerk has ascertained that an error existed in the announcement of the 
vote on Saturday. The vote actually stood — ayes 89, noes 89. The correction will now accordingly 
be made on the Journal ; and a case is immediately presented, agreeably to the twelfth rule of the 
House, for the interposition of the Speaker's vote. 

The Speaker. At this stage of the proceedings the Speaker was interrupted by Mr. 
Farrelly, who rose and called for a further correction of the Journal, stating that 
he voted in the negative on Saturday last, and his vote appeared not to have been re- 
corded . 

The Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to have his vote re 
corded if he voted on Saturday last ; and the correction was accordingly made. 
The vote was then finally announced — yeas 89, nays 90. 

Mr. Townshend. of Illinois. Rale XV determines that matter. 

Mr. Blackburn*. I ask the Speaker to have the rule indicated by the gentleman 
from Illinois read ; and I ask further that the Speaker will remember that not- 
withstanding he has been made Speaker and the presiding officer of this House by 
its votes, that still, even as presiding officer, under the law he is but a member of this 
House. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will allow the Chair to state that it has never 
been the rule or practice for the Speaker's name to be called in the regular roll-call ; 
and therefore the Speaker does not respond to the roll-call as other members do, nor 
does he come within the provision of the rule which i« applicable to other members 
whose names are upon the roll. The rule, paragraph 6, Rule I, provides when the 
Speaker shall vote. It is as follows: 

He shall not be required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except where his vote would be 
decisive or when the House is engaged in voting by ballot ; and in all cases of a tie vote the question 
shall be lost. 

Rule XV may be read, but it has no possible application. 

Mr. Blackburn. May I ask then, Mr. Speaker, another question as to the construc- 
tion given to this rule by the Chair on the subject of voting, or on the right to vote ? 



175 

Does that position elevate the Speaker of the House one inch above the plane occu- 
pied by other members of the House. 

The Speaker. The Chair does not disagree with the gentleman in that respect. 
The Chair claims no higher right or privilege than is accorded to other members, ex- 
cept in cases when by the rules, law, or Constitution other or higher rights are given 

it. 

Mr. Blackburn. Then would any other member of the House, after the ruling and 
the construction applied to this rule frequently by the present occupant of the Chair, 
have the right to rise in his place and ask even unanimous consent to have his name 
recorded after the second call of the roll has been completed ? 

The Speaker. Certainly not; the rule is very clear and prohibits that. 

Mr. Blackburn. Then by what authority does the Chair claim the right to vote! 

The Speaker. Under the rule applicable to the Chair. The rule which the gentle- 
man invokes has no sort of application to the Chair, but to the members whose names 
are called. 

Mr. Blackburn. Then maj 1 ask this further question : Is the Chair, the Speaker of 
this House, by his election to that position elevated above all rules, and does he know 
no rule ? 

The Speaker. The rules do not require the Speaker's name to be called, nor does 
his name appear upon the roll. That is the practice of the House, aud has been, as 
far as the present occupant of the chair knows, for all time. 

Mr. Blackburn. What rule does that ! 

The Speaker. The rule to which the gentleman refers. 

Mr. Blackburn. I ask to have that rule read. 

The Speaker. The rule is very clear. 

Mr. Blackburn. But after the Chair has announced the result of a vote, I ask if, 
under that rule, he has the right to vote ; and I ask to have the rule read. 

The Speaker. The rule is familiar to everybody; but the Chair will of course 
have the rule the gentleman refers to read if he so desires. It has no application to 
the Speaker. 

Mr. Robeson. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. The Chair can recognize but one. 

Mr. Hazelton. No Speaker's name has ever been called upou the roll. 

Mr. Blackburn. My friend will allow the rule to be read ? 

Mr. Robeson. I want to know whether the vote on the passage of the resolution to 
which reference is made was not 144 to 1 ; and whether that was not a majority ? 

Mr. Blackburn. It was not a quorum. 

Mr. Robeson. And whether the point of no quorum was made! Further, I wish to 
ask whether, that point not having been then made, it can be made now; and if the 
gentleman claims the right to make the point of no quorum now, because of the fact 
that the House was misinformed as to the vote, has not the Speaker the right to vote 
now to make a quorum ? 

The Speaker. It is not only his right, but he must exercise it under the rule. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois*. The rule is explicit that no member shall even be per- 
mitted to ask unanimous consent to record his vote after the announcement of the 
vote has been made. 

Mr. Atherton. The question is whether when a wrong has been done there is any 
way of righting it. [Cries of " Regular order! "] 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that there is no question before the House. No 
wrong was done to any one, but the vote was corrected at the earliest possible time. 

Mr. Reed. I demand the regular order. 

Mr. Hazelton. The only question before the House is the regular order. 

The Speaker. The regular order is the call of committees for reports. 

Mr. Blackburn. Does the Chair decline my request to have Rule XV read? 

The Speaker. The Chair has no objection to having the rule read. 

Mr. Blackburn. I ask to have it read. 

The Speaker. The Clerk will read Rule XV. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Upon every roll-call the names of the members shall be called alphabetically by surname, except 
where two or more have the same surname, then the whole name shall be called ; and. after the roll has 
been once called, the Clerk shall call in their alphabetical order the names of those not voting; and 
thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain a request to record a vote or announce a pair 

Mr. Blackburn. I thank the Chair for having the rule read. I only desire further 
to ask a question as to fact in the shape of a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Hiscock. I demand the regular order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky rises to make a parliamentary inquiry, 
which the Chair will hear. 

Mr. Blackburn. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Robeson] has said that 



176 

upon the reporl of the voting it stood 144 yeas and 1 nay. I now desire to know 
whether the clerks of tins House did not report 145 yeas instead of 144 ? 

The Speaker. Undoubtedly, and solely through a mistake. 

Mr. Wait. As a question of privilege I ask thai Mr. Smalls lie sworn in. 

Mr. Towxsiif.ni>, of Illinois. I rise to a question of order. 

[Cries of "Regular order!"] 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois will state his question of order. 

Mr. TowxsiiKND. of Illinois. I raise the point id' order that a quorum not having 
voted on the resolution unseating Mr. Tillman as a, Representative from South Caro- 
lina the present applicant to be 'sworn in has not been lawfully declared elected a 
member of this Ho; 

The SPEAKER. That vote has no reference to the one declaring Mr. Smalls elected. 
The point is overruled. 

Mr. TiAVxsiiF.M). of Illinois. I have not finished stating my point of order. M.\ 
point of order is that through the error of the Clerk in reporting that a quorum had 
voted when a quorum had not done so, the House was deceived into proceeding to the 
consideration of the second resolution, and that now. it having appeared that a quo- 
rum did not vote on the resolution unseating Mr. Tillman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina. Mr. Tillman, is still entitled to retain his seat. 

The Speaker. But the result of the vote had been announced, and there was no 
question about it. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. It was because the House was misled by the report 
made by the Clerk. 

The Speaker. That does not apply to the resolution declaring Mr. Smalls entitled 
to a seat. The Chair wishes to state again that it simply exercised, at the earliest 
time the case arose, what it believes to be a constitutional right, and it acted in ac- 
cordance with the rule in the light of various precedents, some only of which have 
been cited. 

Mr. Randall. I find the precedent, as far as I am concerned, is tint at all like the 
present ease. In the instance, which was cited, other gentlemen (Messrs. Plaisted, of 
Maine, and Fuller, of Indiana) whose, votes had not been recorded presented them- 
selves on the following day and said they had voted. Their votes were received, 
changing the result, and the Speaker under these circumstances had, as he had a right 
to do, then voted, making a two-third vote, and it was done without objection; in 
fact this controversy is finite different as I consider it. 

The Speaker. The principle is precisely the same, and both arose in consequence 
of unintentional mistakes or omissions of the Clerk. 

Mr. Smalls appeared, and qualified by taking the oath prescribed in section 1756 
of the Revised Statutes. 

July 22, 1882. 

On motion of Mr. BlNGHAM, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill of 
the House (H. R. 859) regulating rates of postage on second-class mail matter at let- 
ter-carrier offices. 

Mr. ToWNSHEND moved to amend by adding thereto the following as additional 

gections, viz : 

Sec. 6. Strike out the word "three " and insert " two " on the eighth line of section 3903 of the Re- 
vised Statutes. , , ., , . , , 

Sec. 7. Strike out sections 3905 and 3906 and insert ' ' that the postage on second-class mailable matter 
be, and the same is hereby, abolished, and that such mail matter shall be conveyed m the mails ot the 
United States free from postal charges." 

Mr. Peelle made the point of order that the said amendment was not in order, not 
being germane to the subject-matter of* the bill. 

Mr. Money made the further point of order that the said amendment, being the sub- 
stance of a bill referred to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, was not in 
order under clause 4 of Rule XXI. 

After debate on said points of order, 

The Speaker. The, Chair does not think it matters whether the proposition is one 
that is to be found in several bills pending before the House or in only a single bill. 
But let us look at the question a little closer. The bill before the House is a bill ^ to 
regulate the rates of postage on second-class mail matter at letter-carrier offices. The 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois is to reduce the rate of postage 
upon ordinary letters and newspapers. It undertakes to amend the statutes in an- 
other respect and entirely different from that proposed by the pending bill. The 
Chair is by no means satisfied that the amendment would be germane to this bill. 
This is not a general proposition to revise the postal laws of the United States; but 
if it be a fact that any portion of this amendment is, in substance, included in a peud- 
ing bill or bills, then that portion would clearly not be in order. But there being a 
portion of the amendment not in order, as must be conceded, it is perfectly clear that 



177 

the whole amendment must go out. If a portion of a proposition submitted is clearly 
not ill order, the whole must he rejected, for under no cover of including that which 
is not in order with that which is, could such an amendment be admitted. 

The Chair holds, therefore, the amendment is not in order uuder the point of order 
made against it. 

July 24, 1882. 

Mr. Paysox, under authority granted on the 6th ultimo, submitted the views of the 
minority of the Committee on the Judiciary, to accompauy the report (No. 1283) of 
said committee submitted on said date, in relation to laud grants to the Northern Pa- 
cific Railroad. 

Ordered, That said views of said minority be printed as part 2 of said report. 

Mr. Knott, under the same authority, submitted the views of a further minority of 
said committee on the same subject, accompanied by a proposed joint resolution' at- 
tached to said views. 

Mr. Knott moved that the said views of the said minority be referred to the House 
Calendar and printed. 

Mr. Caswell made the point of order that the said motion was not in order, for the 
reason that the views of a minority of a committee could only be submitted by 
unanimous consent, which was all that was granted the minority of the Committee 
on the Judiciary. 

After debate on the said point of order, 

The Speaker. The Chair is ready to rule upon the point of order. 

With the importance of this question the Chair has nothing whatever to do. The 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Knott] presented the views of certain members of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, not a majority of the committee, under permission 
granted when the report of the committee on this subject was presented, and moves 
to have a resolution accompanying the views placed upon the Calendar. Now, there 
is no doubt but this belongs to the minority of the committee as a matter of right if 
it is to be regarded as a report at all. Thisquestion has frequently been raised, where 
a minority of a committee proposed to make a report and claimed the right to bring 
a subject before the House ; but it has been always rejected aud treated as though no 
such right existed, the majority of the committee alone being competent to bring in a 
report and submit it to the House for its eousideratiou. 

There is no case known to the Chair, and certainly none has been cited in the dis- 
cussion of this point of order, to indicate that under auy circumstauces these views of 
the minority are to be regarded as a report. 

As Gushing says in his admirable work on parliamentary law, "these views are 
sometimes submitted under the somewhat incongruous uaiue of minority reports, wrfen 
they are in no sense .reports. 

Now, to go hack, at the time the report was made upon this subject the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Robinson] stated to the House that there were certain views 
of the minority which they might desire to present to the House, and asked on behalf 
of the minority that these should be printed, which request was granted. And it was 
then ordered, not that they should come in as a report, but that their views, dissent- 
ing from the report of the committee, should be received and printed, and, to use the 
exact language of the record, "the views will be received and be printed with the 
report of the majority." Consent was yiven for this and nothing more. 

Now, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Townshend] has cited Cushing's Manual of 
Parliamentary Law, and the Chair thinks it would be well enough to examine it 
further and have read a little more from the same paragraph aud sentence from which 
the gentleman has already quoted. The Clerk will read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

" * * They [minority views] are received by the courtesy of the House, expressed by the ordi- 
nary vote of a majority, aud usually receive the same destination with the report; that is, they are 
printed, postponed, and considered in the same manner. But they are not in any parliamentary sense 
reports, nor entitled to any privilege as such ; and their only effect is, in the first place, to operate upon 
the minds of members as arguments, and, secondly, to serve as the basis for amendments to be moved 
on the resolution or other conclusion of the report. If they contain or recommend a bill, it is read not 
as a bill, but as part of the report and for the iuformatiou of the House. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. Let the whole paragraph be read. 

The Speaker. That is the whole of this chapter. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. I desire to have read the first portion of the paragraph. 

The Speaker. The Chair will state that the portion of the paragraph just read 
which used the word "majority" has distinct reference to a majority of the House as 
a matter of courtesy having the right and power to allow the views of the minority 
to be presented, and had no reference to the disposition of them on the House Calen- 
dars. 

The Chair will cause the Clerk to read now from the House Journal proceedings in 

90 a— K 12 



178 

183o, where the question was made whether or riot the minority of a committee could 
make a report. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Mr. Hall, of Vermont, a member of the Committee on tbe Post-Office and Post-Roads, to which was 
referred so much of the message of the President of the United States, a1 the commencement of the 
session, ;is relates " to the report of the Postmaster-General, the condition and operations of the Post- 
Office Department, and everything connected therewith," offered to submit to the House a paper, in 
the form of a report, which he stated contained the views of the minority of the committee on that 
part of the said message which suggests " the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under 
severe peualties, the circulation in the Southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications, 
intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." 

The Speaker decided that, when reports from committees are called for, a re'porl cannot be made 
from a minority of a committee, as a minority is not a committee : thai the paper ottered was not a re- 
port authorized to lie made to the House by authority of the committee, and could not be received as. 
a report from the minority, and that consequently it was not in order to offer the same. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that under what seems to he the uniform practice 
all the Chair can do is to indicate that the action shall he taken which was directed 
to he taken on the 6th of June last when the majority report was introduced; and 
that is that the views of the minority shall be printed with the majority report. 

Mr. Knott. I desire To ask what is now the parliamentary status of the joint reso- 
lution pi est nted by the minority ! 

The Speaker. It has no possible parliamentary status except that when the ma- 
jority report shall come up for consideration it ought be referred to only as a matter 
of information to the House; and it might furnish a basis upon which amendments 
might lie ottered to the action of the majority, if action can ever he taken on that. 
It is now 011 the table and it seems to call for no action on the part of Congress. 

That report concludes as follows : 

"We can conceive of no legislation which would hasten the completion of the road, and therefore i ec- 
ommend none. 

Mr. Knott. It is then in no sense a pending proposition before the House ? 

The Speaker Independently of the majority report, it is nor, as the Chair appre- 
hends. 

Mr. Holjian. I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I desire to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. Reed. I move to lay that appeal on the table. 

Mr. Holman. My parliamentary inquiry is this: it is shown from the record that 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Knott] had the floor properly by consent of the 
House to submit this report. 

The Speaker. It is not a report. 
yMr. Holman. To submit whatever he has submitted. And having the floor, I claim 
he had a right to make, under that consent, the statement or report or whatever else 
it may be called — that having the floor rightfully he had the right to make whatever 
was the proper motion touching the subject-matter. Therefore he had a right, hav- 
ing the floor by consent, to move to refer that joint resolution to the Calendar. 

Mr. Pound. But the subject-matter is not before the House. 

The Speaker. The gentleman had only the right, except by unanimous consent, to 
have the resolution offered and printed. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] 
states that he appeals from the decision of the Chair, and the gentleman from Maine 
moves to lay that appeal on the table. 

Mr Caswell. I do not understand there is anything to appeal from. 

The Speaker. The Chair understands the gentleman from New York to appeal from 
the ruling of the Chair, in which the Chair holds a minority of the committee cannot 
make a report and have it referred to the Calendar. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. But the Chair goes further than that 

Mr. Robeson. Did not the Chair also decide that at this time, this not being a priv- 
ileged motion, and no unanimous couseut having been given for that motion, it is 
not in order if an objection be made ? 

The Speaker. The Chair does not hold the gentleman is out of order in presenting 
tbe views of the minority ; but the Chair holds the gentleman from Kentucky did not 
present any report in the proper sense of the word. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I make my appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which I 
understand to be this : that the Chair rules out of order the motion made by the gen- 
tleman from Kentucky to refer this joint resolution to the Calendar. From that de- 
cision of the Chair I respectfully appeal. 

The Speaker. And the yeutleman from Maine moves that the appeal be laid upon 
the table. 

Mr. Holman. I call for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Cannon. I wish to know whether the majority resolution accompanying the 
report of the majority of the committee is now on the Calendar. 

The Speaker. It is not. 



179 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. That is the trouble. We want to get something on the 
Calendar. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. And that is what they are dodging. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands if the report of the committee had been ac- 
companied by a bill or joint resolution, and bad gone t<> t >■ Calendar, then this mat- 
ter would have taken the same course, It would have bee i printed and would have 
accompanied the majority report. Wherever the majority report went, under the 
uniform practice the minority views must go also. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. 
Reed] moves to lav upon the table the appeal taken by the gentleman from New York 
from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. HOLMAN. And upon that I eall for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas ami nays were ordered. 

Mr. KaSS< »x. Is it in order now for me to ask to have a statement read from the Di- 
gest ? 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the question is not debatable now. 

The question being taken, there were — yeas 97, nays 70, not voting 123. 

So the said appeal was laid on the table. 

SAME DAY. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business under the resolution of 
the '^lsf instant, to the further consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 3902) 
permitting the use of domestic materials in the construction of steam and sail vessels 
for foreign account, the pending question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. 
Tucker to said bill, on which question the yeas and nays were ordered on yesterday. 

After debate, by unanimous consent, Mr. Kasson moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Tucker. I ask the Speaker this question : If the Speaker is right, as I think 
he is, that it is out of order for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] to 
make the motion to recommit to the Committee on Ways and Means, is it not equally 
out of order for the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] to move to reconsider the 
vote of the yeas and nays when we are acting under that order, and taking the yeas 
and nays on the amendment which I have moved ? Will not the Speaker see that if 
his present decision is right that the motion to reconsider is out of order and cannot 
be entertained. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that is not so. It gives the House a right to re- 
consider its action. 

Mr. KNOTT. The Speaker holds it is in order to entertain the motion to reconsider 
the call for the yeas and nays. Suppose that motion prevails, does not the question 
immediately recur on ordering the yeas and nays? 

The SPEAKER. Yes, when the question comes up on the amendment. Then any 
member can demand the yeas and nays, and on the order of one-tifth of those present 
the yeas and nays can be ordered. But if the gentleman has the right, as the Chair 
has indicated, to make the motion to refer, that would take precedence of the motion 
to amend, because paragraph 4 of Rule XVI provides expressly for it. 

Mr. Knott. With the permission of the Chair I wish to submit this point of order, 

Mr. Tucker. I raise the question of order on my friend from Iowa [Mr. Kasson}. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky has the floor. 

Mr. Tucker. I raise the question of order on the gentleman from Iowa r and that is 
whether he can move to reconsider the ordering of the yeas and nays when he did not 
vote on that question. 

Mr. KASSON. There was no record of the vote on that question, and it does not mat- 
ter how I voted. 

The Speaker. There has been no record on ordering the yeas and nays, and there- 
fore the point does not lie. But only one point of order can be pending at the same 
time. 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. There was a call of the yeas and nays, and on that call 
of the yeas and nays the gentleman from Iowa declined to vote. 

Mr. Aldrich. I move to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Knott. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. 

The Speaker. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Kentucky on the point 
of order. 

Mr. Aldrich. The yeas and nays were ordered and the yeas and nays were called, 
but there was no quorum. 

Mr. Knott. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States guarantees to one- 
fifth of the members of the House the right to demand and have put on record the 
yeas and nays on any proposition. That being so, no majority of this House, however 
large, unless by unanimous consent, can deprive that one-fifth of that constitutional 
right. That being so, a niotiou to deprive them of that right is in derogation of thfr 
Constitution, and is manifestlv out of order. 



180 

Now, let us look at this proposition ab inconrenienti. I moke a motion, for instance, 
for the yeas and nays, one-tilth of the members present second it, and the demand is 
sustained. A gentleman moves to reconsider the vote by which the yeas and nays 
were ordered, and a majority vote to sustain the demand for reconsideration. I call 
for the yeas and nays on that demand, and one-fifth of the members present order 
them. Another gentleman rises and moves to reconsider the vote by which that de- 
mand was sustained and it is carried, and one-fifth of those present again demand 
the yeas and nays upon that. 

Is it not evident that you can go on, sir, without limit, until the crack of doom, 
working in a complete circle, in a vain attempt to get a vote upon any question at all 
as long as one-tifth of the members present see proper to insist upon their constitu- 
tional right which neither you nor any majority of the House can deprive them of. 
I maintain that the very absurdity of the proposition is so patent that 1 cannot see 
how it can possibly be entertained at all. By what authority can a majority of the 
House say to one-tilth of those present, "You shall not exercise your constitutional 
right?" If they have no authority to do that, what authority have they or has the 
Speaker to submit a question to the House which contemplates depriving them of that 
right ? 

Mr. BuiiiiOWS, of Michigan. Will the gentleman from Kentucky allow me to send 
to the desk and have read a ruling bearing upon this point ? 

Mr. Knott. I have no objection. 

Mr. Atkins. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. Tht^ gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Atkins. What is the question before the House, and how did that question get 
before the House? Is not the .status quo of Saturday, when we adjourned on this ques- 
tion, the status quo of this moment, the unfinished business coming over and occupying 
the present consideration of the House ? If that be so we were dividing at that time, 
and a motion was made to reconsider another motion while we were dividing. 

The Speaker. The Chair will state ir answer to the gentleman from Tennessee that 
the yeas and nays were ordered. The roll-call is not going ou, and if it is in order to 
move to reconsider at any time it is in order now. 

Mr. Atkins. It is going on, I beg pardon of the Speaker; we are dividing. 

The Speaker. Does the gentleman hold that the roll-call is going on ? 

Mr. Atkins. Yes, sir. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks not. 

Mr. Atkins. It ought to be going on at this moment. 

The Speaker. As a matter of fact it is not going on, however. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Townsiiend, of Illinois. There was uo vote ordering the yeas aud nays on Sat- 
urday. There were some thirty-odd members of the House who constituted one-fifth 
of the members of the House and who demand their constitutional right to have the 
yeas and nays entered upon the Journal. There was no vote, however, upon it. There- 
fore my colleague who makes a motion now to reconsider that vote by which the yeas 
and nays were ordered has no right to make it. 

The, SPEAKER. There is no question about the fact that the yeas and nays were or- 
dered. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. But not by a vote of the House. 

Mr. Burrows, of Michigan. I ask now to have read, as bearing upon the point of 
order, what I send to the desk. 

The Speaker. The Clerk will read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Kellojzg moved that the order by the House of the yeas and nays be reconsidered. 

Mr. Pollock raised the question of "order that it required four-fifths to reconsider an order for the 
yeas and nays. 

The Speaker decided that according to the precedents a majority might reconsider the order, but 
that the question would immediately recur ou ordering the yeas and nays, when one-fifth would be suffi- 
cient for that purpose. (February 14, 1848.) 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that, following the precedents, it must entertain 
the motion. There seem to have been precedents during the entire history of the 
Congress of the United States in favor of entertaining the motion to reconsider a vote 
ordering the yeas and nays. The Chair might agree with the gentleman from Ken- 
tucky if this was an original question ; but the decisions are all one way. It is very 
true,' as has been stated, that alter such a vote is reconsidered one-fifth of those pres- 
ent would still have the constitutional right to again order the yeas aud nays on the 
same question. 

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

The Speaker. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] moves to reconsider the 
vote by which the yeas and nays were ordered, and the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Knott] calls for the yeas and nays oifthe motion to reconsider. 









181 

The yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider were ordered — 42 members voting 
therefor. 

Mr. Dunn. I move now to reconsider that vote by which the yeas and nays have 
been ordered on the motion to reconsider. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Arkansas can hardly be in 
earnest about that. 

Mr. DUNN. I want to run the rule to a ridiculous result. 

The Speaker. All parliamentary rules that are followed out improperly may run 
into absurdities. 

Mr. Dunn. The position I take is that this runs into an absurdity. 

Mr. Robeson. It cannot be in order to reconsider a vote to reconsider. 

Mr. Dunn. If any one makes the point of order on my motion let the Chair rule 
upon it. 

The Speaker. The Chair has simply ruled, following a line of precedents through 
the entire history of the House, that a motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
yeas and nays wnc ordered was in order. The Chair cannot entertain two motions 
of that kind at the same time. 

Mr. Dunn. But this was a vote, ordering the yeas and nays. Now, I move to re- 
consider that vote ; and if a point of order is made on my motion I ask the Chair to 
rule upon it. 

The Speaker. It is like making several appeals at the same time. The Chair can- 
not present any such absurdity under the rule. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. KENNA rose. 

The Clerk proceeded to call the roll, and called the first two names. 

Mr. Kexxa. I rose to a point of order before the call of the roll began. I ask the 
Chair to rule upon the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas. 

The Speaker. That motion would undoubtedly be in order, but the Chair cannot 
entertain two motions of the same kind at the same time. 

Mr. Kexxa. This motion does not apply to the same vote as the other. The one is 
to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays on the amendment of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Tucker]. This does not applj to the same vote at all. The mo- 
tion of the gentleman from Arkansas applies to the vote last taken. 

The Speaker. The Chair understands that perfectly well. But it is the same char- 
acter of motion. 

Mr. Kexxa. Does the Chair hold it out of order? 

The Speaker. The Chair does not hold it out of order. But the Chair holds it can- 
not entertain two motions of the same kind at the same time. 

Mr. Kenna. Does the Chair hold it to be in order ! 

The Speaker. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. Kenna. I ask the Chair to decide whether the motion of the gentleman from 
Arkansas is in order or is not in order. 

The Speaker. The Chair would hold it would be in order if the House was not pro- 
ceeding to vote on a similar motion. 

Mr. Kexxa. If the Chair holds the motion is out of order I desire to appeal from the 
decision of the Chair. 

Mr. Hiscock. I made the point of order that the Clerk had commenced the roll-call 
and that two names had been called. 

Mr. Kenxa. I rose before the Clerk began, and was recognized. 

Several members called for the regular order. 

The Speaker. The regular order is the call of the roll. 

Mr. Kexxa. Does the Chair entertain my appeal ? 

The Speaker. The Chair can submit no appeal pending the roll-call. 

Mr. Kexxa. I rose in my place and was recognized by the Chair. 

The Speaker. There need be no difficulty about this. The Chair followed the prec- 
edents in entertaining the motion of the gentleman from Iowa, in every session of 
Congress, so far as the Chair is able to learn, certainly in all the Chair is familiar 
with, the practice has been to allow a motion to reconsider a vo'e by which the yeas 
and nays have been ordered. If presented as an original question the Chair might 
hold otherwise. But when the yeas and nays have been ordered on a motion of that 
kind the Chair does not think it can entertain a similar motion aud sub nit the ques- 
tion on that, going on indefinitely. In this the Chair follows exactly the precedent 
that two appeals cannot be submitted at the same time. 

Mr. Kexxa. I only desired the Chair to pass on that because it is a new proposi- 
tion. 

The Speaker. The Chair would hold the proposition of the gentleman from Arkan- 
sas in order for the same reason that it, has entertained the other motion ; but it can- 
not entertain the two at the same time. 

Mr. Kexxa. And from the ruling of the Chair that the motion of the gentleman from 
Arkansas is out of order I desire to appeal, in order that there may be a decision of 
the House on this novel proposition. 



182 

The Speaker. The Chair did not so rule. The Clerk will proceed with the call of 
the roll. 

The Clerk resumed and concluded the call of the roll. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 94, nays 78, not voting 117. 

So the order for the yeas and nays was reconsidered. 

July 25, 1882. 

Mr. Miller, as a question of personal privilege, sent to the Clerk's desk and had 
read the remarks made in the Senate on the 21st instant by Mr. Butler, a Senator 
from the State of South Carolina. 

Mr. Bucknee and Mr. Carlisle made points of order that no question of personal 
privilege was involved in the publication read, and that controversies between Sena- 
tors and Representatives, of this character, were in gross violation of parliamentary law 
and propriety. 

The Speaker overruled the same, on the ground that the attack was made upon Mr. 
Miller in Loth his individual and representative capacity, and that he was entitled 
to make an explanation of the speech for which he had been criticised by Senator 
Butler. 

SAME DAY. 

The Speaker, ai 11 o'clock and 58 minutes a. in., announced the regular order of 
business to be, under the special order of the House adopted on the 21st instant, the 
further consideration of the bill of the House (H. R. 3902) permitting the use of do- 
mestic materials in the construction of steam and sail vessels for foreign account, the 
pending question being the motion of Mr. Kelley to refer the bill and pending amend- 
ment to the Committee on Ways and Means; pending which, Mr. Tucker moved to 
amend the said motion by adding thereto the following instructions, viz: 

With instructions to report a bill which shall allow, under proper regulations, a drawback or rebat 
equal to the whole amount of duties paid or chargeable thereon on any and all imported materials which 
shall be used in the construction and equipment of any steam or sail vessel constructed and equipped 
within the United States for any citizen of the United States or for any foreign citizen or subject: 
Provided, That the same shall not apply to any such vessel to be engaged in the coastwise commerce of 
the United States 

Mr. Haskell made the point of order that the said amendment submitted by Mr. 
Tucker was not in order. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the 
ground that the said motion was in order as an amendment of the motion to refer, 
under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the previous question not having been ordered or moved. 

In which decision the House acquiesced. 

SAME DAY. 

Mr. SPRINGER, from the same committee, reported without amendment the bill of 
the Senate (S. 329) to authorize the preparation and publication of a classified, an- 
alytical, and descriptive catalogue of all Government publications from July 4, 1776, 
to March 4, 1881. 

Mr. HOLMAN made the point of order that the said bill must receive its first consid- 
eration in the Committee of the Whole House. 

After debate on the point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground 
that as the Committee on Printing had the right to report at any time, it carried with 
it the right of present consideration in the House ; which was in harmony with the 
past practice oi the House, and with this view the Chair was inclined to adhere to 
that practice, and consequently overruled the said point of order. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Holman appealed; pending which, on motion 
of Mr. Van Voorhis, the said appeal was laid on the table. 

SAME DAY. 

Mr. Page, as a question of privilege, from the committee of conference on certain 
amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. R. 6242) making appropriations 
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, 
and for other purposes, submitted a report. 

Mr. Kasson moved to recommit the said bill to the committee of conference, with 
instructions to report the same with the following proviso at the end of the bill, viz: 

Provided, That the Secretary of War, with the approval of the President, may limit any espendi, 
tnre provided by this act to any less sum than that authorized therefor during the current tiscal ycar- 
in any case where in their opinion the public interest docs not require the entire expenditure. 



183 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks it would not be in order to so recommit the report 
to the conference committee. It is never in order to instruct the conference commit- 
tee to do that which it could not do under the reference made of the matter to the 
committee in the first instance. 

August 2, 1882. 

Mr. Page, as a privileged question, called up the message of the President return- 
ing the bill of the House (H. E. 6242) making appropriations for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for other pur- 
poses, without his signature and with his objections to its passage, and moved that 
the House proceed to reconsider the said bill, on which motion Mr. Page moved the 
previous question, 

Mr. Kasson moved to refer the said message and bill to the Committee on Com- 
merce, with instructions; which motion lie subsequently modified by withdrawing 
said instructions. 

Mr. Pagk made the point of order that the said motion was not now in order. 

The Speaker held that the motion to refer would be in order hut for the pendency 
of the motion for the previous question on the first motion submitted by Mr. Page. 

Mr. KASSON made the point of order that the motion to refer was in order, under 
the practice of the House, and particularly under clause 1 of Rule XVII, which per- 
mitted a motion to refer with or without instructions pending the demand for or 
after the previous question shall have been ordered. 

After debate on said point of order, 

The Speaker. The Chair is ready to dispose of this question. Since the inquiry 
was hist made whether it would he in order to move to refer, and since the motion 
which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] proposed to make was sent to the Clerk, 
the Chair understands the gentleman from Iowa to have withdrawn that part of his 
motion which included instructions to the committee. Clearly that would be out 
of order. The House could not instruct the committee to report the bill back with 
amendments, as it is a bill which the House itself could not amend when it was being 
considered. What the House cannot do itself it cannot instruct a committee to do. 

This bill conies back to the House by reason of the veto message of the President of 
the United States, and under the. Constitution, paragraph 2, section 7, article 2, the 
House must proceed to reconsider it. That does not necessarily mean that the House 
may debate it. Reconsidering may be voting on it : and perhaps t hat was all that was 
intended by the language of the Con-tituti mi. The Chair would not intimate that 
if the House desires it may not debate: but reconsideration might be had by simply 
voting on the bill. 

It is settled, the Chair thinks, by the practice, that a motion to refer— a simple 
motion to refer— to a committee may he entertained. But the Chair thinks that that 
motion to refer most come in at the proper time. It is the first duty of the House, 
underthe Constitution, as the Chair interprets its language, to reconsider and pro- 
ceed to vote upon the vetoed bill. If the House chooses, by ordering the previous 
question, to cut oft' debate upon this matter of reconsideration, that is within the 
power of the House. If the House does not order the previous question, the Chair 
would hold that a motion to refer would be in order. It is claimed that under Rule 
XVII of the House the motion to refer, being, as the Chair holds, equivalent to a 
motion to commit, is in order. The Chair does not think so. Rule XVII speaks 
entirely of the proceedings governing the ordinary passage of the bill. If the 
whole rule is read it will appear that a motion for the previous question is made, 
first, upon the engrossment and third reading of the bill. Then, that having ex- 
hausted itself upon the third reading of the bill, the second step is a motion for the 
previous question upon the passage of the same bill, such a bill as the House has 
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. This rule refers to the passage of a 
bill in the ordinary sense. The bill before us is at a different stage. It is a recon- 
sideration of a bill which the House and Senate have already passed, and for the 
purpose of determining whether the House will by a two-thirds vote pass the bill, 
notwithstanding the President's veto as provided by the Constitution. 

The Chair feels bound to hold that the demand ['or the previous question having 
been made first, must be first submitted to the House. If that be voted down, the 
Chair will entertain a motion to refer the bill. 

January 4, 1883. 

Mr. Kassox, as a privileged question, under the order of the House of the 30th of 
December last, from the Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, to which was re- 
ferred the bill of the Senate (S. 133) to regulate and improve the civil service of the 
United States, reported the same without amendment, for present consideration. 

Mr. Culberson made the point of order that under the special order of June 19 last, 



184 

the bill of the House (H. E. 3123) to amend sections 1,2,3, and 10 of an act to deter- 
mine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States and to regulate the re- 
moval of causes from State courts, and for oilier purposes, approved March::, 1875 
was the regular order of business and entitled to precedence. 

Afier debate on said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground 
that the said Senate bill was referred to the Committee on Reform in the Civil Serv- 
ice with leave to report Thereon at any time, and that under the uniform practice of 
the Hoirse the right of consideration followed when reported. 

Mr. Bland made the point of order that under clause 3 of Rule XXIII the said bill, 
must receive its first consideration in a Committee of the Whole House. 

The Speaker overruled the said point of order on the ground heretofore held, and, 
on appeal, sustained by the House, that where a bill has been made a special order 
the rule above cited was thereby waived. 

January 11, 1883. 

The House then proceeded, as ihe regular order of business, to the further consid- 
eration of the bill of the House (H. K. 7061) to remove certain burdens on the Ameri- 
can merchant marine, to encourage the American foreign carrying trade, and to amend 
the laws relating to the shipment and discharge of seamen, pending when the House 
adjourned on yesterday, the pending question being on the amendment submitted by 
Mr. Candler 'to the substitute submitted by Mr. Page for section 18 of the bill. 



The question recurring on the amendment submitted by Mr. Candler to the substi- 
tute submitted by Mr. Page, and being put, viz, Will the House agree thereto ? it was 
decided in the affirmative. 



The question recurring on the substitute submitted by Mr. Page, as amended; 
pending which, Mr. Robeson moved to amend the same by striking out the words 
" free of duty as to," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "upon payment of an im- 
port duty of "JO per cent, upon the value of." 

Mr. SPRINGES made the point of order that the said amendment was not in order, 
for the reason that it struck out of a proposition words to which the House has just 
agreed. 

After debate on said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground 
that the amendment submitted by Mr. Candler had not been finally adopted by the 
House but only as an amendment to a proposed substitute for a section of the pend- 
ing bill. 

January 12, 1883. 

Mr. S. S. Cox moved to recommit the said bill with instructions to report back to 
the House without delay a hill providing for the purchase, free admission, and regis- 
try of foreign-built vessels, and for the free admission of the material used in the con- 
struction and repair of vessels in American yards, to be used in the foreign and not 
in the coastwise trade of the United States. 

Mr. Cox having proposed to modify the said motion by adding the words "with 
leave to report at any time/' Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said modi- 
fication was not in order, for the reason that the House was dividing when the said 
modification was proposed, and also ou the further ground that leave to report at any 
time was a change of the rules 

The Speaker overruled the first point of order and sustained the second, and held 
the said modification to be out of order. 

January 13,1883. 

Mr. Forney moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering Ihe bill of the House 
No. 7191 (fortification appropriation bill); when Mr. White made the point of order 
that the regular order of business was the consideration of unfinished business. 

The Speaker held the motion of Mr. Forney to be of higher privilege, under clause 
9 of Rule XVI. 



185 

February 13,1883. 

Mr. R. W. Townshend, as a privileged question, submitted the following resolu- 
tion, to amend the rules. 

******* 

Mr. Mills made the point of order that the resolution was not in order except 
by unanimous consent. 

Tbe Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground that a motion to amend 
the rules could he made on one day's notice, as provided by clause 1 of Rule XVIII, 
but also held that it was in order to move to refer the resolution to the Committee on 
Rules. 

February 26, 1883. 

Mr Reed, as a privileged question, called up the following resolution reported by 
him on Saturday last from the Committee on Rules, viz: 

During the remainder of this session it shall be in order at any time to move to suspend the rules, 
-which motion shall he decided by a majority vote, to take from the Speaker's table House bill jNo. 
5538 with the Senate amendment thereto, entitled "A bill to reduce internal- revenue taxation, ana 
to declare a disagreement with the Senate amendment to the same, and to ask tor a committee ot .con- 
ference thereon, to be composed of live members on the part of the House. It such motion snail tail 
the bill shall remain upon the Speaker's table unaffected by the decision of the House upon said mo- 
tion. 

Mr. Blackbi-rx made the point of order that the said resolution was not a rule or 
an amendment to the rules of the House. 
After debate on said point of order, . 

The Speaker. The point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky the Chair 
would hold was made too late if it were not for the fact that the geutlemau would 
have the right to claim that lie reserved the right to make it before the question ol 
the consideration of that rule was submitted to the House, The Chair was not ad- 
vised of the nature of the point of order reserved by tbe gentleman; and the Chair is 
clearly of tbe opinion that it ought to have been stated before the House decided to 
go forward with the consideration of the resolution; for that is now the action ot the 
House, and the Chair dies not veiv well see how his decision now would affect that 
order or override the action of the House, even if it should be held that the point ot 

order was good. The Chair, however, will take no advantage 

Mr. Bragg. Let me inquire, Mr Speaker, if tbe Chair did not state to the gentle- 
man from Kentucky that the point ot order could he reserved .' 

The Speaker. The Chair does not intend or propose to take any advantage ot the 
condition in which this resolution has been placed by the action of the House. But 
at the time that this reservation of the point of order was made of course it could not 
be foreseen what action the House would take on the question of consideration. 

Mr. Bragg. But the Chair expressly stated that the reservation ot the point ot 
order would be observed. - 

The Speaker. The Chair repeats that it has no intention of taking advantage ot 
the situation, and remembers very well all that took place. 

It is proper for the Chair to sa'v that with the question of the constitutional pre- 
rogatives of the House, in the matter of originating revenue bills, the Chair now at 
least has nothiug to do. That question does not enter into tbe decision ot the point 
of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky. The gentleman from Kentucky 
makes the point of order and rests his point solely upon the claim that this resolution, 
if adopted, would not be a rule of the House. It would be rather early for the Chair 
to undertake to decide on that which is not before the House. It is reported as a rule 
from the Committee on Rules. 

But passing that, it is perfeetlv competent, as the Chair thinks, lor this House, 
when the subject is properly brought before it, to change every ruleot the House and 
all of the rules that have been adopted by the House. And early in this session a 
resolution of the House was adopted authorizing the Committee on Rules to report at 
anv time any change or modification of the rules or any new rules. That light of the 
committee lias been exercised perhaps in this case. But in this case the Committee 
on Rules has reported this rule as a substitute for various propositions ot a similar 
character that have been introduced in the House an. I referred to the committee. 
This comes from the committee as a substitute for them all. 

Its effect, if the Chair is to look to that, may be, in this exceptional case named, to 
put aside other rules which would prevent the motion that the rule proposes to al- 
low. But the greater certainly includes the lesser. It was in the power ot the com- 
mittee to report a rule to suspend the whole of Rule XX, which would require an 
amendment of the Senate, on the point of order being made, to go to the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union. It is in the power of the committee 
to report to the House a proposition to suspend the rule that authorizes the suspen- 
sion of the rules by a two-thirds vote. In other words, a rule might have been re- 



186 

ported from the committee, and properly, which would suspend or repeal or annul or 
set aside, every rule of" this House, standing or special ; and if the House so decided to 
affirm that report by a majority vote it could do so. In this case, though it may 
apply to a single great and important measure now pending before Congi-ess, it seems 
perfectly clear to the Chair that it would be a rule to the extent that it goes; and 
perhaps gentlemen, on consideration, may see that in this particular case it goes far 
enough. 

The Chair overrules the point of order. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. BLACKBURN appealed, pending which Mr. 
Reed moved that the said appeal be laid on the table; when, the hour of 5 o'clock 
and 30 minutes p. m. having arrived, the Speaker, iu accordance with the order of 
the House of February 7, instant, declared the House to be in recess until 7 o'clock 
and 30 minutes p. m. 

AFTER THE RECESS. 

(7 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.) 

******* 

The regular order being insisted on, the Speaker stated the same To be the motion 
to adjourn, on which tellers had been demanded, pending when the House took a re- 
cess. 

By unanimous consent the said motion was considered as withdrawn. 

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Reed to lay on the table the appeal 
taken by Mr. BLACKBURN from the decision of the Chair, and being put, it was de- 
cided in the affirmative. 

******* 

So the said appeal was laid on the table. 

The question recurring on the said resolution, when Mr. Reed moved the previous 
question : and the question being put, viz, Will the House order the previous ques- 
tion ? it was decided iu the affirmative. 

Mr. Carlisle submitted the following resolution, viz: 

Resolved, That the proposition now under consideration be recommitted to the Committee on Rules, 
■with instructions thai if the same shall he again reported it shall be so amended as to permit the 
House to vote upon a motion either to concur or to non-concur in the amendment of the Senate to the 
bill of the House ISo. 553s, entitled "An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation." 

Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said resolution was not in order under 
Rule XVII, for the reason that the motion to recommit therein authorized, with or 
without instructions, did not cover or include the pending proposition. 

After debate on said point of order, 

The Speaker. The Chair will state that thus far no precedent has been cited that 
sustains the right to recommit in the present instance. The Chair will state further, 
with reference to the case cited by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Carlisle"], 
that it turns out, on examination of that precedent, that it is not a precedent in 
♦support of the right to recommit, as cited here, for two reasons: First, that when 
that motion was made to recommit the previous question had not first been ordered. 

Mr. Carlisle. But, Mr. Speaker 

The Speaker. One moment, if the gentleman please. The motion to recommit was 
made on the 18th day of January, 1882, and, according to the Record, it appears that 
it was arranged between the gentleman from New Jersey on the one part and the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Joyce] that he should have that right after the time 
had arrived (January 19, 1882), when the previous question was ordered, as stated by 
the Chair at the time the motion was made. The Chair will quote the exact lan- 
guage used : 

The Speaker. Under the arrangement made between the gentleman from Vermont and the gentle- 
man from New Jersey there has been a motiou made to recommit. 

That was made upon the previous day. So that for that reason it is not a prece- 
dent. And for the furl her reason that the Chair would have entertained the motion 
to recommit now as it did then if no member had made the point of order. The lan- 
guage of Rule XVII was not called to the attention of the Chair, and no member 
made a point of order. For that reason the case cited is not a precedent. 

Now, the difficulty seems to be in there not being time to look up the precedents. 
The Chair feels quite certain that the motion was made by the gentleman from In- 
diana [Mr. Holman] to recommit a proposition that was presented here. The point 
was made and decided in this session or in this Congress — the Chair thinks in this 
session, but it may have been in the last. And there the Chair decided according to 
its then opinion of the fair reading of this rule. 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. Will the (hair permit me to suggest, as it is late, that 
he yield to a motion to adjourn and have the precedents to-morrow. It is now after 
9, and this is a very important matter. 



187 

The Speaker. The Chair understands its importance and does not desire to he 
hasty ahout it. If there he any general disposition on the part of the House to ad- 
journ the Chair will not proceed. [Cries of " No !" "No!"] 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. To test the sense of the House on that point I make 
the motion that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. Kasson. I make the point of order that while the Chair is addressing the 
House a motion to adjourn is not in order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia asked permission of the Chair to make 
the suggestion. But the Chair does not feel inclined to yield unless such is the gen- 
eral desire of the House. 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. I am sorry the Chair retracts its admission. How can 
we ascertain whether the sentiment be general or not unless by a vote? 

The Speaker. Gentlemen indicated what was the sense of the House hy cries of 
" No," &c. The Chair does not say the gentleman from Georgia interrupted the Chair 
improperly. 

The effect of the motion for the previous question is very clearly stated in the first 
paragraph of Rule XVII : 

There shall he a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered hy a majority of members 
present, if a quorum, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote 
upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked and ordered. 

There can be no doubt but what the previous question can be asked and ordered 
upon a single motion, whether in writing or orally, or upon a series of motions, or 
upon an amendment or amendments; and it may be made to embrace all authorized 
motions or amendments and include the bill to its engrossment and third reading. 

The principal purpose of the previous question is to bring the House to a direct 
vote upon the pending question, and if other things intervene to delay such vote it 
must be by virtue of a plain provision of the rule. 

And then — 

The rule goes on to say — 

on renewal and second of said motion — 

After the previous question has been ordered on a bill, before engrossment and after 
it has been engrossed and read a third time, which is only usual with hills or joint 
resolutions, which under the Constitution of the United States have the effect of bills 
and are treated as bills for all purposes of legislation — the rule then provides that — 

on renewal and second of said motion — 

The previous question on the passage, or rejection may be ordered. Now, the plain 
reading of this part of the rule is that it is dealing with the passage of a bill. Then 
the rule further provides: 

It shall be in order, pending the motion for or after the previous question shall have been ordered on 
its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions, 
to a standing or select committee. 

It would be wholly unnecessary to use any such language in a rule if it were not 
for the fact that a bill has several stages through which it must puss before it can be 
brought to its passage. This refers, in the opinion of the Chair, to the passage of a 
bill, and only a bill. 

Then the motion to commit with or without instructions, in the opinion of the 
Chair, can only be made pending or after the previous question has been ordered on 
the passage of' the bill, and it is only by virtue of the rule that that motion can be 
entertained. 

The latter clause of this same paragraph seems to make this perfectly clear. It 
states that — 

A motion to lay upon the table shall be in order on the second and third reading of a bill. 

The Chair is of the opinion that but for that clause, after the previous question was 
ordered a motion to lay upon the table would not be in order. It is only such mo- 
tions as are expressly authorized to be made by this rule after the previous question 
is ordered that can be made at all, and a motion to recommit a single proposition, a 
single verbal motion, or a written morion cannot be made, because in no stage of it 
can it be said, within the contemplation of the rule, to be on its passage. But on a 
bill which goes through its various stages to its final passage, the rule provides for a 
motion after the previous question has been ordered on its passage to recommit with 
or without instructions. 

In the opinion of the Chair the point of order made by the gentleman from Maiue 
[Mr. Reed] is well taken, and it is therefore sustained. 

Mr. Carlisle. I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. Reed. I move to lay that appeal on the table. 

The question was taken ; and there were— yeas 125, nays 102, not voting 64. 

So the appeal was laid on the table. 



188 

FEBRUARY 27, 1882. 

Mr. N. J. Hammond, asa question of privilege, submitted the following resolution, 
viz : 

Resolved, That the substitute of the Senate bill (H. R. r>. r i:i8) entitled "An act to reduce internal-rev- 
enue taxation, and for other purposes," under the form of an amendment to the bill of the House (H. 
R. 5538) entitled "An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation," containing a general revision and re- 
peal of laws imposing both import duties and internal taxes, is in conflict with the true intent and 
purposes of that clause id' the Constitution which requires "all bills forraising levenne shall originate 
in the House of Representatives : " and that therefore said bill so amended do lie upon the table. 

And be it further resulted. That the Clerk of the House be, and is hereby, directed to notify the Sen- 
ate of the passage of the foregoing resolution. 

Mr. Calkins made the point of order that the said resolution was not in order either 
to be offered or considered until the bill to which it refers was brought before the 
House for consideration. 

After debate on said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground 
that the resolution submitted was one relating to the constitutional privilege, of the 
House as to its sole right to originate revenue bills. The House had taken notice 
of the amendment of the Senate to said bill, and if the House were to proceed to its 
consideration it would then be too late to raise such question against the Senate 
amendment. 

The House having proceeded to its consideration, affer debate, Mr. KASSON sub- 
mitted the following substitute for the said resolution, viz: 

Resolved, That this House, insisting always upon its privilege under the Constitution to originate 
all bills for raising revenue, and waiving no right thereunder in respect to House bill 5538 with Senate 
amendments thereto, hereby declares a disagreement with the Senate amendments to the same, and 
asks for a committee of conference thereon, to be composed of five members on the part of the House. 

Mr. Carlisle made the point of order that the said resolution was not in order, 
fortlie reason that the said bill was not before the House for present consideration. 

Tlie Sneaker sustained the same, on the around that the proposition submitted by 
Mr. Hammond presented solely the question of the right of the House exclusively, 
under the Constitution, to originate revenue bills. The substitute offered by Mr. 
Kassox is a proposition to waive whatever rights the House possesses under the Con- 
stitution in reference to this particular bill, and embodies a proposition to declare at 
onee a disagreement with the Senate amendments with a view of immediately put- 
Ting the bill and amendments in conference. On the ground, therefore, thattheques- 
tion of constitutional privilege must be disposed of independently of any collateral or 
subsidiary questions, the Chair held the proposed substitute not in order. 

Mr. Haskell submitted the following preamble and resolution as a substitute for 
the said resolution, viz : 

"Whereas House bill 5538, entitled "An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation, and for other pur- 
poses," under the form of an amendment in the senate to title 3:: of the Revised Statutes, which pro- 
vides for duties on imports, has been so modified and changed by the introduction of new provisions, 
containing, among other things, a general revision of the statutes referred to. so as both to increase 
and reduce duties on imports, and in many instances to repeal and in others to amend the laws im- 
posing import d ties; and 

Whereas in the opinion of this House it is believed that such changes and alterations are in conflict 
with the true intent and purpose of the Constitution, which requires that all bills for raising revenue 
shall originate in the House of Representatives : Therefore, 

Resolved, That if this bill shall be referred to a committee of conference it shall be. the duty of the 
conferees on the part of the House on said committee to consider fully the constitutional objections to 
said bill as amended by the Senate and herein referred to. and to bring the same, together with the 
opinion of the House in regard thereto, before said committee of conference, and if necessary, in their 
opinion, after having conferred with the Senate conferees, said confi rees on said committee may make 
report to the House in regard to the objections to the said bill herein referred to. 

Mr. CARLISLE made the point of order that the said proposed substitute was not in 
order, for the reason that it not, only proposed to submit the question of constitu- 
tional privilege of the House to such conference, but also to consider the subject- 
matter of such Senate amendment. 

After debate on said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground 
that a fair reading and construction of the proposed substitute would show that it 
provided only for referring to a conference committee the constitutional objections 
to the bill such as grow out of the alleged violation of the Constitution by the Senate 
in passing tin impost bill as a portion of an amendment to an internal- revenue bill 
proposed by the Hoiee. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. X. J. Hammond appealed; pending which, on 
motion of Mr. Reed, the said appeal was laid on the table. 

March 2, 1—:; 

Mr. Btjtterworth, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of 
the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. R. 



189 

7077) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1884, and for other purposes, submitted the following report, viz : 

The accompanying statement having been read, Mr. BRAGG made the point of or- 
der that the statement accompanying the said report was not in order, for the reason 
that it was not in compliance or conformity with Rule XXIX, and also the further 
point of order that the report itself was not in compliance with the said rule. 

# # * * * * * 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground that it was not for the 
Chair to decide whether a conference report and accompanying statement was or was 
not in strict conformity with said rule, that being a question of fact. 

March 3, 1883. 

Mr. Kelley, as a privileged question, from the committee of conference on the dis- 
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill of the 
House (H. R. 5538) to reduce internal-revenue taxation, submitted the following re- 
port, viz: 

Mr. Bayne made the point of order that the said report was not in order for pres- 
ent consideration, on the ground that the detailed statement required by Rule XXIX 
did not accompany said report. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker sustained the same, on the 
ground that the paper submitted by Mr. Kelley, entitled " Index to changes pro- 
posed by the committee of conference," though signed by the majority of the confer- 
ees on the part of the House, was not in compliance with the last clause of Rule 
XXIX. 

Mr. Kelley thereupon submitted a detailed statement accompanying said confer- 
ence report, as required by said rule. 

Mr. Carlisle made the point of order that the said statement was not such a state- 
ment as is required by the rule, for the reason that it only states the effect of the 
amendment proposed by the Senate, whereas the rule requires a statement sufficiently 
•explanatory to show the effect of the propositions reported by the committee. 

The Speaker overruled the point of order. 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



Page . 

Apportionment of representation 145 

Appropriation bills, legislation in 10, 89 

Army ofthe United States 22, 52 

Army, civil appointments 11 

Army at the polls 61, 97, 103 

Bank reserves 85 

Chandler, Zachariah, on death of 87 

Cincinnati Representatives 60 

Contracts, Government 58 

Counting electoral vote 120 

Courts, appointments by 21 

Court of pensions 112 

Deputy marshals at the polls 90. 116 

Discharged soldiers, appointment of 30 

Distinguished ( Miioans 12 

Election cases, Wigginton vs. i'acheco 10 

Bradley vs. Slemons 94 

Bisbeews. Hull 134 

Yeates vs. Martin 136 

Election laws, repeal of 57, 66 

Examining surgeons, fees of 131 

Funding hill, supplemental 148 

Geneva award 43 

Inventors, taxing 17 

Letter carriers, pay of, &c -- 27, 77 

Mail matter, classification of 51 

Parliamentary decisions 153-188 

Patent extensions 93 

Paymasters, age of 

Peace at the polls 76 

Pension agents 15 

Politics in the jury box 80 

Public lands, proceeds of, for education 49 

Rule XXI 89 

Resumption of specie payments 

Soldiers' Home managers 113 

Speaker, election, address of 150 

vote of thanks, valedictory 151 

Surveys, coast and interior 56 

Spirits, unpaid tax on 25 

Trade-dollar 82 

War claims, Bartholomew Agricultural Society 14 

Richard Heater 18 

William and Mary College 34 

John T. Armstrong 53 

Southern, &c 47 > 63 

Yellow-fever epidemic 59 

191 



INDEX TO PARLIAMENTARY DECISIONS. 



Page 

ADJOURN— . . 

Rulingthat pending a motion to suspend rales but one motion to, was in order. lo9 

Alaska — 

Ruling that proposition to seat M. D. Ball as Delegate from, was not a privi- 
leged question 

Amendment — 

Ruling as to, being germane 1°4 

Ruling that, could not be offered while demand for previous question was 

pending 1°° 

Ruling that certain resolutions relating to "bill to reduce internal revenue 

taxation" was in order as, to rales 186 

Ruling that an. must conform to terms of special order 161 

Ruling that an, though inconsistent with last vote, was in order. 161 

Ruling that proposed, being substance of pending bill was not in order un- 
der clause 4, hole XXI 176 

Appeals— . 

Ruling that two, cannot be pending at the same time lotj 

Apportionment — 

Ruling that hill making, of Representatives under last census was a priv- 
ileged question 1°5 

Appropriation bill — 

Ruling that motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a gen- 
eral, was of higher privilege than untinished business 184 

Bigamy — 

Set Committee of the Whole.) 
(Set also Polygamy.) 
(See also Utah Territory.) 
Business — 

Ruling that when a day has been assigned a committee it may present such, 

as it deems proper 17- 

Clerk's roll (see also Roll of Clerk House of Representatives)— 

Ruling as to I 53 

Committee — 

Ruling that the report of a, instructed to consider a certain matter and re- 
port thereon, was properly before the House 171 

Committee of the Whole— 

Ruling that when House had entered on consideration of bill, a point of order 

requiring its consideration in, came too late 157 

Ruling that certain hill relating to bigamy was not subject to requirement of 

clause 3, Rule XXI; that it must deceive its first consideration in 158 

Ruling that motion to recommit report of. was not in order 182 

Conference — 

Ruling as to reference to committee of, question of Constitutional privilege. 188 
Conference committee — 

Ruling that, cannot be instructed on subject not in conference, or not in dis- 
pute between two Houses 1'- 

Conference report — 

Rulin<i that a detailed statement must accompany a 172 

Consideration — 

Ruling that question of, cannot be raised against assignment of a day to a com- 
mittee 7 — I'l 

Ruling that right of Committee on Printing to report at any time carried with 

it right of 10 ~ 

Constitutional privilege— 

Ruling as to question of 188 

192 



193 

Debate— Pa S* 

Ruling that, can be terminated only by ordering previous question 156 

JJEL. KG ATE — 

Ruling that proposition to seat M. D. Ball as, from Alaska, was not a privileged 

question r e 1RO 

Delegates — " u 

Ruling as to swearing in of _ _ ,,, 

Detailed statement — 

Ruling that a, must accompany a conference report _ _ 17? 

Rulings as to sufficiency of, required bv Rule XXIX ' iaq 

Dilatory motions — "" "" ' "" 

Ruling that, were not in order pending a proposition to change the rules of the 

House & lfi „ 

Germane — " """ " "^ 

Ruling as to amendment being, -| 5 4 

Rulings that an amendment was not, either to pendingVmmdment'oVsubiect- 

matter of pending bill _ Ifil 

House of Representatives — ~ " ~ " 

Ruling as to organization of j„ 

Ruling as to privileges of __ "" -.)-. 

Instructions — ' "" 

Ruling that certain, to committee not in order 156 

Ruling that, could not be given a conference committee" on'a'subieetfnot in 

conference 179 

Ruling that, were in order by way of amendment to motion to'ie'fer'under 

clause 4. Rule XVI . 1ftQ 

Inquiry — " " ie ~' 

Ruling as to resolution of -.r fi 

Ruling as to reporting resolution of, within one week aferrrference"" lfiO 
Leave TO REPORT AT ANY time— 

Ruling that, carried with it right of consideration when reported 184 

Minority — F °* 

Ruling that, of a committee could not propose legislation or submit views as 

matter of parliamentary right __ 177 

Modification — '" 

Ruling as to, of proposition 155 

Ruling that, of motion by adding "with le^ve "to" report" at'a^y "time" '*Vas 

not in order -. ft4 

Organization of House (see House of Representatives). 
Polygamy (see Bigamy and Committee of the Whole) 
Preamble — 

p EE R ° lillg that a certain > was not in order, being in the nature of debate 171 

Ruling that demand for, precludes amendment i<w 

Printing — xo ° 

Ruling as to, of reports j 54 

Ruling that right of Committee on, to report at any time" carried"w"itnYt right 

ot consideration when reported _ i so 

Privilege — oa 

Ruling as to question of, concerning H. of R _ 154 

Ruling that alleged fraudulent transactions in taking testimon v in contesVed- 

election case was a question of ' 16 o 

Ruling that a protest was not a question of_ '/_ " l 6 g 

Ruling as to question of personal _ ""__ 18 o 

Ruling that question of constitutional, must be disposed of independent o"f col- 
lateral or subsidiary questions _ jgg 

Ruling that certain resolution presented question of constitutional" 188 
Privileged question (see also Alaska)— 

Ruling that a bill making apportionment of Representatives under last census 

was a 1 __ 

Protest — '" " ~ "" ot> 

Ruling that a, does not present question of privilege ifi« 
Question of privilege (see Privileged question)— 

Ruling as to, presented by Mr. White 171 

Recess — " ltx 

Ruling that motion for a, not in order during reading of a report from Com- 
mittee on Rules ,Q^ 

90 a— k 13 



194 

Page. 

Recommit — 

Ruling that motion to, report of committee of conference was not in order.. 182 
Ruling that certain motion to, was not in order as it did not covei or include 

pending proposition 186 

Reconsider — 

Ruling that one motion to, vote by which yeas and nays were ordered was in 

order 179 

Refer — 

Ruling that motion to, was amendable by addition of instructions under clause 

4, Rule XVI 182 

Ruling that motion to, veto message was not in order pending demand for pre- 
vious question 183 

Reports — 

Ruling as to printing of 154 

Roll of Clerk House of Representatives (see Clerk's roll) — 

Ruling as to 153 

Roll call — 

Rulings that it was not in order to interrupt a 156 

Rules — 

Ruling that creation of a select committee was not a change of 159 

Ruling that pending motion for suspension of, but one motion to adjourn was 

in order 156 

Ruling that dilatory motions were not in orderpending a proposition to change, 

of the House 162-165 

Ruling that motion for "leave to report at any time" was a change of 184 

Ruling that resolution to amend was in order on one day's notice, and was 

subject to motion to refer to Committee on 185 

Ruling that certain resolution relating to ' ' bill to reduce internal revenue 

taxation" was a proper amendment to 185 

Speaker — 

Ruling as to right of, to vote 173 

Special order — 

Ruling as to priority of 160 

Ruling that when a bill has been made a, it operated as a waiver of clause 3, 

Rule XXIII 184 

Statement — 

Rulings as to sufficiency of detailed, required by Rule XXIX 189 

Strike out — 

Ruling that motion to, matter j ust inserted not in order 155 

Ruling that motion to, that which had just been inserted was in order being 

only an amendment to a proposed substitute to a pending section 184 

Substance — 

Ruling that proposed amendment being, of a bill pending was not in order 

under clause 4, Rule XXI 176 

Utah Territory — 

Ruling as to Delegate from 154 

Veto — 

Ruling that motion to refer, message was not in order pending demand for 

previous question 183 

Vote— 

Ruling as to right of Speaker to 173 

Voting — 

Ruling that request of member to be excused from, on motion to adjourn 

was not in order 162 

Yeas and nays— 

Ruling in order motion to reconsider vote by which, were ordered 179 






ADDENDA. 



QUESTIONS OF ORDER DECIDED BY SPEAKER KEIFER IN THE FORTY- 
SEVENTH CONGRESS. 

[Taken from Index to Congressional Record ; figures refer to page of Record.] 

First Session. 

Page. 

Adjournment — 

Rules that motion to adjourn over is not a motion to change rules 4163 

Rules that vote on motion to fix time to which adjourn is subject to motion 

for reconsideration 4218 

Rules that yeas and nays being ordered on a motion to adjourn that a motion 

to fix time to which adjourn is not in order 4218 

Rules that motion to excuse from voting on a motion for, is not in order; ap- 
peal from decision laid on table 4272 

Rules that he would not recognize the absence of a quorum on yea-and-nay 

vote for 4280 

Rules that motion is always entitled to recognition 4554 

Amendments — 

Ruled out of order motion to amend an amendment against which a point of 

order was pending 485 

The District of Columbia Committee being entitled to floor for consideration 
of business, ruled out of order an amendment not relating to business 
from that committee 3706 

Rules that in considering a bill by sections a section having been adopted is 

not open to amendment 4129 

Appeals — 

Rules that request to be excused from voting on a motion to lay an appeal on 

table is not in order 4325 

Rules that he cannot entertain two appeals at same time 4325 

Appropriation bills— 

Debate relative to preserving points of order on. 2466, 2467 

Rules that yeas and nays are not required on passage of an appropriation 

bill under suspension of rules 5097 

Business (See also Special orders. ) 

States order of calling committees for motions to suspend rules 437 

Rules on precedence of contested-election cases 3273, 3274, 3315, 3441, 4163 

Rules that demand for regular order can not be withdrawn conditionally 3512 

Rules that recess does not affect status of pending motion 4247 

Call of committees— 

Rules that under practice of House he cannot entertain a motion for consid- 
eration during 5139 

Call of House — 

Ruled that a committee having leave to sit during sessions of House could 
be compelled to attend by order of House and that motion to excuse at- 
tendance of committee pending call of the House not in order 4141 

Rules that no other business in order pending 4165, 4168 

Rules not in order to introduce a resolution for reference during 4142 

Call of States — 

Rules that resolution to discharge a committee is not in order under; appeal 

from decision laid on table 4530 

Rules that privileged questions take precedence of 417 

Commitment — 

States his opinion that Chair may correct improper reference of bills at time 

of introduction — ■-- 321 

States his opinion that change of reference of a bill is not a question of priv- 
ilege 322 

195 



196 

Page. 
Comm itment — Couti nued . 

Eules that bills cannot be divided for reference to different committees 366 

Debate on proper reference of matters relating to Indian depredation claims.484, 517 
Eules that bills for paying claims of Army officers should be referred to Com- 
mittee on War Claims 560, 729 

Rules that motion to commit with instructions is not in order on motion to 

refer a bill on its introduction 727 

Remarks on proper reference of matters relating to railroad land grants 726, 727 

Debate on proper reference of matters relative to treaties 735, 736 

Rules that motion to refer a bill to Committee of Whole is not in order pend- 
ing question on third reading 1723 

Committee of Whole — 

Rules that when House gives unanimous consent to consider a bill it suspends 

rule requiring first consideration in — 592 

Rules that House having decided to go into, that unanimous consent will not 

allow transaction of business in House 6060 

Rules that bills must make appropriation on their face to be subject to rule 

requiring first consideration in 1 853 

Committee reports — 

Rules that reading can be demanded 1220, 1221, 3317 

Rules that right to report at any time carries with it the right of considera- 
tion 2491, 6314 

Rules that views of minority are not parliamentary report of commit- 
tee 3317,6416-6419 

Rules that privileged report on which consideration refused may be called up 
at any time, or if recommitted does not lose its right to be reported back 

at any time 3551 

Rules that member being recognized to present a privileged report a motion 
made pending presentation of report is not in order, and that appeal from 

his decision is not in order 4278 

Rules motion to recommit a report to be in order pending demand for previous 

question or after previous question ordered 4395 

Committee service — 

States his opinions relative to practice in excusing from 248 

Conference committees — 

Rules that House cannot instruct on a matter on which no disagreement 6101 

Rules that, may be appointed before notifying Senate of disagreement 6114 

Conference reports — 

Rules that, cannot be recommitted or laid on table 5851 

Rules that motion to recede takes precedence of motion to insist 6095 

Rules that, cannot be amended 6101, 6981 

Congressional Record — 

Rules it to be question of privilege to correct 2302-2304 

Rules that remarks made out of order will not appear in 4397 

Contested-election cases — 

Rules on precedence of 3273,3274,3315,3441,4163 

Contingent fund — 

Rules that resolutions making appropriations to be paid out of contingent 
fund of House are not subject to rule requiring first consideration in Com- 
mittee of Whole 4852 

Control of measure — 

Decision, and debate relative to, after adverse action of House on original^ 

proposition 1132-1 142 

Debate — 

Decision, and debate relative to right of member to yield floor to another 

without limitation of purpose 1139-1142 

Remarks relative to control of debate, after adverse action of House on original 

proposition 11 39-1 142 

Rules it out of order for member to attack a member of Senate for words 

spoken in debate in that body 65 ^7 

Dilatory motions — 

Rules them out of order on a proposition to amend rules; appeal from de- 
cision laid on table 43^4 

protest against ruling ^325 

Rules motion to lay on table a proposition to amend the rules pending motion 
for previous question, and motion to commit pending previous question, 
to be dilatory motions and not in order, and refuses to entertain either 
the motions or appeals from his ruling 4327, 4328 



197 

Page. 

Journal — 

Rules that motions not entertained should not be entered on Journal unless 

House directs 4332,4333 

Rules that motion to amend Journal takes precedence of motion to approve-. 4333 
Laying on table — 

Rules that motion to lay on table is iu order after demand for yeas and nays 

before vote is taken 6042 

Leave of absence — 

Rules that application is entitled to be considered by House 4739 

Minority reports — 

Rules that they are not reports of committee 3317, 6416-6419 

Organization of House — 

Rulings on various points of order during 9-15, 35-39 

Personal explanations — 

Rules on cases presented as questions of privilege. 723-725, 4208, 4209, 6526-6529, 6889 

Previous question — 

Rules that motion to lay on table can be entertained after yeas and nays or- 
dered on ^58 

Rules that vote can be reconsidered ordering yeas and nays on 459 

Rules that, can be moved pending a motion to recommit 3241 

Rules that the one motion allowed pending, is not subject to amendment or 

substitute 3679 

Rules that after previous question is ordered without debate thirty minutes 

is allowed for debate before final vote 5450, 5505 

Rules that new motion cannot be offered after previous question ordered on 

pending motion 6100 

Private bill day — 

Rules that dispensing with morning hour would not affect consideration of 

private business on 3893 

Rules that a continuing special order takes precedence of private business on. - 3895 
Priviliged questions — 

Rules that, take precedence of call of States 417 

Protest — 
Rules that a protest is not a question of privilege, but that it should not be 

ruled out by Chair and should go on record 4326 

Questions of privilege — 

States his opinion that change of reference of a bill is not question of privilege - 322 

Rules correction of Record to be — 2302-2304 

Rules a resolution to discharge committee from consideration of a resolution 

of inquiry, not reported back in time required by rules, to be 3275 

Rules on points of order raised to limit debate growing out of 4208-4215 

Rules that resolutions condemning action of majority and of the Chair aire not 
questions of privilege, and that motion to lay them on the table is in or- 
der and not debatable 4398-4400 

Quorum — 

Rules that he would not recognize the absence of quorum on a yea-and-nay 
vote to adjourn, as such motion does not require vote of a quorum, and 
consequently that subsequent motion to consider business was in order. . 4280 

Rules that a vote being taken and declared and the yeas and nays then called 

for and refused, it is too late to raise point of order that no quorum voted. 4541 

Rules that point of no quorum does not hold against a vote on demand for 

yeas and nays 4553 

Recess — 

Rules that, does not affect status of pending motion 4247 

Rules that pending a motion to adjourn motion not in order for a recess or to 

vacate a previous order for a recess — 4273, 4277 

Recogniton — 

Rules that there is no appeal on question of 4554, 4555 

Recommitment — 

Rules that amendments may be offered to motion for 529 

Rules out of order motion to recommit with instructions to report back mat- 
ters not germane ; — 529 

Rules that a motion to recommit with instructions is not in order if it con- 
tains anything in itself or by way of preamble in the nature of debate .4503, 4504 

Rules that a motion to recommit pending the demand for previous question is 

not subject to amendment 5415 



198 

Page. 
Reconsideration — 

Rules that time for reconsideration having elapsed the House cannot rescind 
its action in passing a bill, or pass a substitute, except by unanimous con- 
sent 5404,5414 

Reprimand — 

Proceedings and debate relative to power of Speaker 1941-1943, 1967-1969 

Resolution of inquiry — 

Rules motion to discharge committee from consideration of, to be question of 

privilege 3275 

Rules that preamble is not part of, and cannot be read 4535 

Rules — 

[Rules that on a proposition to amend the rules dilatory motions are not in 

order; appeal from decision laid on table 4324 

protest against ruling . 4326 

Rules motion to lay on table a proposition to amend the rules pending motion 
for previous question, and motion to commit pending previous question, 
to be dilatory motions and not in order, and refuses to entertain either 

the motions or appeals from his ruling 4327, 4328 

States opinion that amendments may be considered on one day's notice with- 
out being referred to Committee on Rules 6175 

Rules that reference of an amendment to Committee on Rules is equivalent 
to one day's uotice, and that on being reported back is subject to con- 
sideration 6314 

Speaker's vote — 

Debate and remarks of Speaker relative to his right to vote 1 .6235-6237 

Special orders — 

Rules that special order made under suspension of rules has precedence of 

regular order fixed by rules 3146, 3895 

Rules that House may refuse to consider 3146, 3895 

Rules that unless continuing special order is called up, regular order of busi- 
ness is to be proceeded with 3947 

Rules that a special order for consideration of a bill reciting what amend- 
ments will be in order on consideration excludes pro forma amendments. 4085 
Rules that House having fixed a day to consider certain bills waives rule re- 
quiring first consideration in Committee of Whole 4799 

Rules that questions of privilege and privileged questions take precedence of. 5142 
Rules that question of consideration cannot be raised against a special order 

adopted under suspension of rules 5349 

Rules that business called up by a committee under a special order is not sub- 
ject to rule requiring first consideration in Committee of "Whole 5350 

Substitutes — 

Rules that original text must be perfected before substitute voted on 463, 467 

Rules out of order a substitute not germane 491 

Rules that substitute for matter pending before a committee cannot be offered 

for consideration 3292 

Rules that substitute for section of a bill is not in order pending an amend- 
ment to perfect original text 4087 

Suspension of rules — 

Remarks and ruling of the Speaker relative to order of calling committees for 

motions for 430, 431 

Rules that unless motion is seconded debate is out of order . 431 

Decides that second motion to adjourn pending motion to suspend rules is not 

in order unless call of House discloses that no quorum is present 2092 

on various points of order relative to debate under 431, 2966-2973 

Rules that he must accept statement of members whether they propose to 

speak for or against measure under 3477, 3478 

relative to motions in order pending motion for 3491 

Rules that under call of committees for motions to suspend rules, that motion 
being made to pass a bill exhausts control over bill, and that it cannot 

be modified or amended except by unanimous consent 3953, 3955 

Rules that time occupied in reading report is to be counted as part of time 

allowed for debate on motion for 3958 

Rules that member being recognized to make motion to suspend rules, that 
a motion to adjourn cannot be made between the time of his recognition 
and the stating of his motion 4554 



199 

Page. 
Suspensions of rules — 

Rules that a motion to adjourn having been made and voted down pending a 
motion to suspend rules, that another motion to adjourn is not in order 
until call of the House has disclosed lack of quorum 5122 

Rules that a motion to adjourn being made pending a motion to suspend rules, 

that a motion to fix time to which House adjourn is not in order 5616 

Veto — 

Rules that, may be referred to committee if motion made before demand for 

previous question • 6800-6803 

Voting — 

Rules that motion to excuse from voting on motion to adjourn is not in order; 

appeal from decision laid on table 4272 

Rules that request to be excused from voting on motion to lay an appeal on 

table is not in order 4325 

Rules that an objection does not prevent a member from withdrawing his 

vote 4445 

Yeas and nays — 

Rules that motion to lay on table can be entertained after yeas and nays or- 
dered on previous question ._ . 458 

Rules that yeas ;md nays being ordered on a motion to adjourn, that a motion 

to fix time to which adjourn is not in order 4218 

Rules that yeas and nays not required on passage of an appropriation bill un- 
der suspension of rules 5097 

Rules that demand for, vacates point of order that no quorum 5611 

Rules that motion to lay on table is in order before vote taken after demand 

for yeas and nays 6042 

Rules that majority can reconsider vote ordering 6420-6423 

Second Session. 
Adjournment — 

Rules that concurrent resolution for an adjournment for more than three days 

is a privileged question 439 

Amendment — 

Rules in order motion to strike out or amend an amendment to an amendment 

before original amendment perfected 1122, 1123 

Appropriation and revenue bills — 

Debate on point of order whether closing of debate can be applied to a pend- 
ing section or only to pending paragraph 2876-2884, 2995, 2996 

Committee on Ways and Means — 

Rules that their right to report at any time extends only to bills raising revenue 529 
Committees of the "Whole — 

Debate on methods of stopping debate in, and decision that motion to strike 

out enacting clause is debatable 61, 62 

Conference committee — 

Rules relative to referring constitutional objection to the tariff bill to 3344 

Conference reports — 

Rulings relative to nature of written report required by the rules 3709-3712 

Consideration — 

Rules that unanimous consent given to report back at any time carries with it 

right of consideration, but that question of consideration may be raised- 859 
Rules that member can raise question of consideration against a bill without 

reference to matter he proposes to call up if question carried 1582 

Enacting clause — 

Decision of Committee of Whole that motion to strike out is debatable 61, 62 

Chairman of Committee of Whole rules that motion to amend bill may be 
made pending the motion to strike out enacting clause, but that latter 

motion must be first voted on 65 

Engrossment — 

Rules that point of order that a lull has not actually been engrossed cannot 

be made after bill read a third time 186 

Leaves of absence — 

Rules that request for leave of absence is not subject to amendment 436 

Rules that House has right by maj ority vote to grant 438 

Rules that if more than fifteen members present it requires majority of those 

present to grant 437 

Rules that motion to adjourn would take precedence of submitting requests 
for leave of absence, but that motion for a recess to take effect at future 
time would not affect right of members to submit requests for 438 



200 

Page. 

Points of order — 

Rules that they must be raised before consideration of bill begins 3337 

Previous question — 

Rules that previous question having been ordered on bill and pending amend- 
ments prior to engrossment and third reading, that motion to recommit 

is not in order, but that motion to lay on table is in order 223 

Recess — 

Rules that concurrent resolution for an adjournment for more than three days 

is a privileged question 439 

Rules that a roll-call would be stopped if in progress at time fixed for a recess 3309 
Recommittal — 

Decides that the rule of House allowing motion to recommit after previous 

question ordered is applicable only to bills and joint resolutions 3314 

Reconsideration — 

Rules that motion to reconsider cannot be entertained pending the demand 

for previous question 186 

Rules — 

Rules that an amendment of which one day's notice has been given may be 

considered without being referred 1324 

Decides that introduction of resolution to amend rules is a privileged ques- 
tion . 2572 

Special orders — 

Rules that they can be antagonized by motions to consider other matters 285 

Rules that they suspend rule requiring first consideration of a bill to be in 

Committee of Whole 860 

Rules that question of consideration may be raised against 904 

Debate on decision of Speaker that special order suspends rule requiring first 

consideration in Committee of Whole 926-928 

Rules that consideration of a bill in the House as in Committee of Whole, 
under a special order, does not deprive House of power to close debate by 

ordering previous question 3260 

Striking out — 

Rules that House having adopted amendments to a substitute, that a motion 
to strike out the substitute does not carry with it the amendments 
adopted, and that it is in order to move to strike out any portion of a 

substitute as amended .. 1136 

Rules that if substitute to section of a bill be adopted it is not in order to 

move to strike out the section 1137 

Rules that a motion to strike out several sections of a bill is not divisible — 1147 
SlTvSPENSION OF RULES — 

Decides that committees can move to suspend rules on third Monday of month, 

and report for passage matters that have not been referred to them 2955 

Tariff-bill rule — 

Decides that the resolution to allow majority to suspend rules to take up 

the tariff bill is to be treated and considerered as a rule 3308 



H 33 89 f | 







v» A 

o V 



Jp"*k 






W 



,0* c°V % **b 



• ** *« flff > r / °^ --J, 



°o V> 






; - 



• ^ av *rOfA 



' o M o » ^ 

V 



^ 



JINK* ^ & * 






• • * 



X3 V 










"V * o H o 9 4 ^ 






« 



,0 






aP^ 



5 • ' 



aVA 



*• ** ** ^ 



**' 



*W 



°x> -ft? t \^> ^ 






ro ,**\;.^.\ /.^>>o /\^k,\ tf 




O 
*& ° 










• ' 









3 -A? 

*^s A*" *j£Mbl* 



a* *$> o 



HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 

#APR 89 
N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



H 



^ o 



1 v v "">-* 






/ .^ o ^ 



° Cj 



,