Skip to main content

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

See other formats






( IN PART ) 









18 7 7-1883 


DO A - K 










( Forty-fifth Cox< ; ress.) 


November 16. L877, the House having under consideration the l>ill ill. R. No. 805) to repeal the 
third section of the act entitled " An act for the resumption of specie payments"— 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker: I think at this late hour in the discussion of this most important oi 
all subjects to the American people I might well content myself with silence. 1 do not 
think any member can be converted now. I prefer, however, to go upon the record, so 
thai 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! '" 1 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 
COtmtrj was pledged to keep good that promise. I further believe that the act of March 
1-. 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 
tlie resumption act of January 14, 1875, was a like promise that these notes should not 
be dishonored. Of the wisdom' of these laws ] need not now speak. We deal with the 
question as we find it. < >n tic faith of the original sacred promise and these acts of L869 
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 
he bad faith to not pay them in coin. 

There is the same pledge given inthal act. with the additional one given by there- 
sumption act of 1-;;,. for the payment of the United States notes in coin. Mere let me 

say in passing that the public-credit act does not require the United States Treasury 

notes or other obligations to he paid in gold coin. but. in terms, they are to be paid in 
gold and silvt /-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 How from its becoming a 
law. if I believed that we were to have the present United States notes at one.' 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 apprecia+e them and bring them up 

abreast with coin. In answer to the member from North Carolina. [Mr. DAVIS, | 1 Saj 

the paper currency of this Governmenl is honest money, unless we dishonor it. I regret 

that the advocates of this bill seem dispose,! to st i ike down the resumption ad rather 

than favor its amendment 

There is a necessity for auxiliary Legislation to enable t lie ( Joverntnent to resume and 

to m ike definite and certain that which m i.\ be fiiiiv r >g irded as doubtful in the con- 
struction of the third section of thai act. 
My colleague [Mr. < ; \ici>.\'i:ii] from < >hio has by fair ami legitimate reasoning soughl 


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 .*;300, 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 me 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 be 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 Tinted 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. KEIFEK. 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. 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 man kind none has been more effect ua 1 
than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fer- 
tilize the rich man's field by tl" sweat of the l><»>r tnan'sbrow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excess- 
ive taxal ion, 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 for our instruction enough and more than enough of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, 

and tin- 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 

ami encourages propensities destructive toils happiness. Uwars agatnsi industry, frugality, and 
economy, and it fosters the evil spirit of extravagance and speculation. 

The effect of the unconditional repeal of the resumption act would he 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, 
1 2 Wall.. r>7. - it seems to he conceded that a distinctively new issue of legal-tender 
notes cannot be authorized bj law. 

This being the case, 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 he affected 
by the repeal. 

I commend the advocates of repeal to the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Whicht] 
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: 

Sinii /in lit showing aggregate circulation of paper currency and circulation per capita for the 

yean tunned. 

* 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 u per capita " circulation of, 
paper currency during the years 1861 to 1877, inclusive : 

1 •■,— 1 
3 * ~ - 


— = - 


Z 2 ."* ^ 



'" .^ —* — 
© c ^ « 

+£ o3 o C 


' — — • 
it J.— >■ 

"5 a 

03 u 

v -~ g a 

r, ~, it ■% ~ 
it.i JCs 




it — >— <~ - 







*$202, 205, 000 







r> 31 


10 17 


8 ;i2 






11 74 






Is 09 






L9 95 






I'.i 1 1 







is 36 


17 92 


. u 

5 3 


u au 

4) C £ ~ 

d B ft* e ea u 32 


£ a g." 

1870 $083,.S7S,<KK> 

1871 721,582,000 

1872 731,355,000 

L873 740,799,000 

1st 1 777,538,000 

1875 : 71)9,840, 11!) 

1876 717,211. 912 

|s77 689,618,578 



1 1 . 7i 1 1 i 



- « 

a — 

S17 &3 
1 8 2 1 
is (II 
17 75- 
L8 II 
17 17 
L5 82 
II 79 

■ No fractional currency included. 

t Enumerated, all other years estimated. 

Bubbai "i Statistics, November 16, 1877. 

KDWAUD YOUNG, Chief of Bureau. 

The last statement does not inelude demand notes, and the Large pari of the apparent 

reduction from 1875 to 1-77 is caused by the substitution of subsidiary silver coin for 
fractional currency. 

It will lie observed thai in 1864, when the paper currency had reached the highest 
point during the war, there was $187,5 16,578 less than there is at present. 

It will be observed that the per capita of currency is now more than it was a1 any time 

during the war. and. as a lieai In stated, re than double as great as under t he ad in in is- 

trat ion of Buchanan. 

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


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 his 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 to want. 

# S: * * * * * 

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 the existing 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 tilling 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. Hut 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. 1 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, 'fhe 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 ion the suspension of specie payments in May. 1837) 
to meet September I, 1837, to consider the financial affairs of the country. In his spe- 
cial message of date of September 1. 1*:!7, he attributes all the business disasters of the 
country to an unsound and irredeemable paper currency, and asked Congress to Legislate 
lo contract such currency and to secure universal specie payments. 

The per 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. 

\u extracl or two from that message may he instructive. I read: 

The history of trade in the United States for the last three or four years alio ids the most convinc- 
ing evidence I bat our present condition is eh icily to be attributed to overact ion in all the depart- 
ments of business ; an overaction deriving, perhaps, its first impulses from antecedent causes, but 
st i m u la ti.l to it- destructive consequences bv excessive issues of bank paper and by other facilities 

for Hie 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 developments subsequently made 

and the actual condition of other commercial countries must, as it seems to me. dispel all remain- 
ing don I its upon (lie subject. It has since appeared that evils similar to those si i lie red by ourselves 

have been experienced in Great Britain, on tin- Continent, and indeed throughout the commercial 

world; and that in other countries, as well 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 1834, L835, 

and 1836 will show an augmentation of the paper currency there as much disproportioned to the 

real want- of trade as in the United States. With this redundancy of tin- paper currency there 

arose iii that country also a spirit of ad venturous speculation, embracing the whole range of human 


* * * * * * * 

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

vietion that the causes of the revulsion in hoth 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 lias only been that, with us, 
there has also occurred an extensive derangement in the fiscal affairs of the Federal and Stats gov- 
ernments, occasioned by the suspension of specie payments by the banks. 

After the suspension of spe -ie payments in May, 1837, the premium on American gold 
went up to 12 per cent. On the resumption of specie payments, May, lH'.S*, it went 
down to a half per cent. Tae Democratic remedy in 18 >7 ami 1857 was to contract or 
extinguish paper currency and to require specie payments by hanks and the Federal 

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 
will certainly produce. The facts relating to Great Britain, given us by the member 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kkllky] 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: 


Bank paper. 



$47, 727, 000 
33, 124,65s 




1 Great distress; county meetings call- 

j ing for relief. 








J- Great prosperity and speculation. 



M i . K El FER. 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 thatcountry floated a paper currency of $41,358,948, it suffered "dis- 
tress." but when one-fifth of that stun was cut off, it enjoyed u great prosperity. " 

Here, it seems, is a conundrum for the honorable member [Mr. KeLLEY] 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 was at its maximum, the per capita was 
only $2.30. The United states, with a present per capita oi currency of $1 \.lu. is said 

to be in meat 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. The re- 
sumption act was passed 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 thai part expressed since the war. The Republican party dis- 
covered in the Constitution the power ko issue the United States legal-tender notes; it 
created and wrote on them a promise to make them good, which should and must be 
kept, (iood faith should be the pole-star of a nation as well as of an individual. 

In 1864 Governor Seymour senl a message to the Legislature of the State of New York 
deprecating the consequences that would follow from the paj ment 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 conditi >f things in the country; we 

bad three greal parlies in the country, all of whom stood upon a specie-pay ment plat- 
form. The Liberal convention thai mel 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 payment-, is demanded alike i>y the highest considerations of com- 
mercial morality and honest government. 

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- 

In 187"> 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-hearer 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 a hinderance 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 
system 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 cm thelegalrtender notes of the United Slates. That would 
n< it onhi " restore tin public credit" <in<I *' maintain the national honor," but it icon Id " establish a sound 

currency" for tin 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 hits charge of this bill. 

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

1 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 
war, when people were just embarking in speculation on account ot 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 thedebtsofa bankrupt, nor start him again in 

He also states that in 1865 the circulation reached $2,200,000,000; thai 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 facts do not bear the gentle- 
man out. No such contraction has ever taken place in our currency proper, as 1 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 bj the 
Government, which never entered into the common currency of the country. We have 
still in this count iv a mountain of debt evidenced by bonds which represent in part the 
cu^t of a preserved Union. lint it is said that bonds have been sold in foreign countries. 


Grant it. This was b •<• tuse 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 memberalso 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 

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 enjo}' the earnings of 
the sweat of his own face. 

Mr. Speaker, to the resumption act all financial 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 $1.5:2 in currency. On July 11, 18«4, 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 $1.02|. 
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 millionsof 
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- 

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 till 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 lias not yet had time to recover from the devastation of civil war. The purchas- 
ing power of our currency is now :;:'> 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 conic: to all 

those w ho are opposed to repudiation of the nation's sacred debt ; to all 1 1 lose w ho a re in 
favor Of a sound and stable currency for the poor as well as the rich; to all those who 

have the truest and besl interests of all classes of persons at heart. I appeal and implore 

then i to stand firm and hold t lie ground gained, and unite in legislation which \\ ill 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 How cil 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; lei us do nothing to reopen the breach. If in the future it 
should seem that the date for resumption i» fixed too soon. I will vote to postpone that 
date to a more opportune time, but let us here do our duty by fust perfecting the exist- 
ing law. 



On February 6, 187H, 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 justifies 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 — 

Mi. KEIFER said : 

I rise for the purpose of disclaiming any purpose to l>e 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 evidence that should apply in this case. 

There area contestant and a contestee in tins 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. 1 quote from the report of the committee: 

A person cannot be compelled to stale for whom lie voted ; and the Supreme Court of the United 

States has expressly decided that when a witness cannot l>e compelled to answer he need not be 
called. (6 Peter's Rep., 352, 367.) Hut .Mr. Pacheco might have called the voter, and if he had not 

claimed his privilege lie could have made it elear for whom In- did vote. .Mr. I'acheco not having 

done so, we may inter that Gilbert, if produced, would have corroborated tin' 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 rejeel Mr. Gilbert's vote and deduct one vote from t he 
number counted for. Mr. I'acheco. 

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 I'acheco did not 
call the witness to prove that In- 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 genl leman who presents this report t hat t he testimony is not competent to prove 
lot whom lie \oted; but because I'acheco did not call him to prove that he had voted for 
him he 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. 
Bui the committee proceeded on the idea that Mr. I'acheco 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 1 intend to stop here. 

Mr. LEONARD. Suppose there is this ease 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 OUghl the House to do? 


Mr. KEIFER. I should say that in this case there was a prima facie ease for the con- 
testee. 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 scat? 

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


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 arc 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. FIXLEY. 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 lie 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 Wot 
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 lill 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 word "and" 
after the phrase "in time oi peace," so as to read: " In time of peace and when more 
vacancies exist in the Army," &c. This will limit the appointments to cases of actual 
vacancies. With the word "and " left out, there is no such limitation. 

Mr. DTK I l.\M. That is right. 

Mr. K VA FER. I have no objection to the modification, though 1 do not see its neces- 



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 only as a soldier but as a civilian ; and he has 
stood at the head of his profession as a journalist. 

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

Mr. KEIFER. I do not 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 Xoyes is also assailed as though he were distinguished for bat 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 RutherfordB. 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 
[uka, 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 city; 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 levilcrs to the contrary notwithstanding. He needs no defense; but when I 
hear him assailed on this floor by the member from Mississippi [Mr. Sinoi.eton], 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. 

* * * * * * * . 

lam 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 Houst — 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, 
lie 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 has a Genera] of the Army. 1 have 

heard SO much from that 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 General of the Army, but it was military service. There was com- 
petitive examination for that appointment. [Applause.] It was competitive examina- 
tion witli those who were in the Union and lighting for it ; it was competitive examina- 
tion with those who were trying to gel out of the Union and lighting against it which 



made Sherman, the son of Ohio, whom we are proud to honor, General of the Army. I 
may take another instance. We are told that we have a Lieutenant-General, (Sheridan.) 
I know he too was horn 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-General of the Army, a 
position which General Sheridan has well earned and fills 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 ( >hio, 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 question for me? 

Mr. KEIFEK. 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 bis 
duty in the field, 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. 



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

Mr. Speaker: I might auswer 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 lias 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. Fixlky] holds in his hand, will be able 
to see, on the most casual inspection of it, that the signatures, or at hast sonic of them, 
were written over that part which is claimed to have been interlined. It is char 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 
tlie 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 tiled its claim for the use and occupancy of it-; 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 thai 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 lor that time'.-' 

Mr. FINLEY. I desire to ask my colleague [Mr. Keifer] a question. Dues 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. KEIPER. I am informed in relation tothe'last question asked me. that tin-con- 
tract was sent out and the society surrendered their grounds to the United States, and 
the Governmenl 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 ( )hio [Mr. JONES] asked me a question w hich I will endeavor to answer. I 
was not a member of the subcommittee which examined 1 he 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 pari of the time which it is now proposed to pa\ for. 

The gentleman is perhaps partly righl when he says that some claims were presented 
and paid. Thai is true, and the committee have deducted that amount from the bill. 



April 11, 1S78. 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 tacts 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 he 
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 make, after he pays 
his clerks, his office rent, stationery, postage, and other expenses. $6,000 a year. I know 
that lie does not make that much. 1 had it from his own lips. The statement put in 
the Record by the member from Pennsylvania shows that theagent at Columbus receives 
o\er $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 spokea few moments ago about the pension agent in Ohio. That pension agent 
in Ohio extends facilities to the thousands of persons who have to be paid in Cincinnati, 
1 m t m\ colleague said that because he did not have sufficient information as to the pay 
ot 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 t hat he is receiving twenty odd 
thousand dollars a year when he is really expending a very huge portion of the amount 
in the interest of the pensioners who need their money and 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 Ml the pensioners throughout the country, because 
that would prevent them from receiving their pay as promptly as they now do. 

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

Mr. KEIFER. The (i. nun in the soldiers' homes do; hut if you require the Depart- 
ment to pay the •ioii.iiuu tin- 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-* reneral's < >fnce 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 
ami witnesses this delay, and ye1 it is proposed now to cast additional labor upon that 
I department. 



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 further than has 
been advocated by the distinguished mamber from the State of Pennsylvania, the 
Speaker of this House; I should like to see the time, and I trust I will sec 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 
buddings 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 
men 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.] 



An amendment was pending t<> require patentees to pay, in addition to the fees allowed by law, 
the actual cost ami 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 men, 
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 the $400,000 of surplus revenue which has arisen from the tax 
upon inventors has been used in erecting buildings for the Interior Department. There 
is 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. I 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 fact that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the patents 
coming out of that Patent Office for the last twenty years are absolutely void when they 
have passed through the crucible of the courts. The complaint comes to us from abroad 
that we are 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 to it. 

00 A— K 2 



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 of 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 tor 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 hy order of the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment, so as to charge the Government, would not the quartermaster have issued a vou- 
cher to the citi/ens from whom he took the property, so it could be presented to the 
proper Department and he paid? 

Mr KEIFER. The answer to that is, he would if he was prepared to do it, hut 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 
Quartermaster'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 
found 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 
in an 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. 
The commissioners of claims held that the property was taken in a loyal State and not 
in a disloyal State, and therefore they had no jurisdiction to grant relief, merely because 
the property was in the wrong State. In the first instance the man was in the wrong 
State, while in the last the property was in the wrong State, and there was no relief 
to he 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 
states the reason why he did not order it to he paid. It was because the man lived in 
an 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 thai Department never had the 
power nnderthe law and the construction given it by the Quartermaster-General to grant 

Mr. BRAGG. Does the gentleman say this claim was presented hefore 1864 ? 
Mr. KEIFER. Yes. sir. 
Mr. BRAGG. How early? 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not know that. I cannot give the precise date; but it \s as pre- 
sented iii due time and considered and rejected, because the Quartermaster's Department 
held it had no jurisdiction under the law to grant him relief, as he lived in an insur- 
rectionary State. Then Mr. Heater went hefore the commissioners of southern claims, 
there presented his claim, there look all the testimony, and had the case fully heard: 
lint the commissioners found, because the property was taken in a loyal state, notwith- 
standing Mr. Heater lived in an insurrectionary State, they could not grant relief. Their 
report lus here hefore me. 

Mr. BRAGG. What is the proof showing the amount of each kind of grain that was 
taken ? 

Mr. KEIFER. The proofs are all here and are ample to show the amount. And ii 
the gentleman will examine the report lie will see that the Committee on War Claims 


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 rale for cord-wood and not according to the real value of 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 curd 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 of claims and the Court 
of Claims. 

Now. let me say one thing further. This claim was kindred toother claims that have 
been presented to the Quartermaster and Commissary Departments and that bave come 
before t he commissioners of claims, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of claims like 
this have been paid: and this would have been paid but lor (he simple fact that neither 
the Quartermaster's Department nor the commissioners of claims had jurisdiction to 
allow and pay it. 

.Air. KDF.X. Did not the commissioners of claims find this claimant loyal ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. 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 
without 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 
his son tor 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. I have my own views about it. 1 believe in paying such claims as tins. I be- 
lieve in a liberal rule, and I do not care what the views of other gentlemen may be from 
a regard to political considerations. Whatever others may do, I believe I shall advocate 
on the tloor of this House as I have advocated in the committee, and gentlemen of 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 paying. And I desire — although I do not wish unneccessarily to take up the time of 
the House — to send to the Clerk's desk some paragraphs from a speech made some years 
ago 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 of claims of loyal 
citizens of the South. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

J'.ut. Mr. President, l<-t me take tin- case ofa Union man in the South who has borne the heat and 
burden of this civil war, who lias been persecuted, and who has sustained all those hardships that 
we know were incident to a Union man in the South during the war. To say that we will treat 
him as a public enemy, and that we will refuse t<> pay him for his property deliberately taken by 
the Government, where under (he same circumstances we would pay a man living in the North for 
his property taken by the Government, is revolting to the plainest principles of justice. I cannot 
subscribe to any such doctrine. W'ny, sir. I know- that where a camp was organized in the state of 
Indiana, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, lor tin- purpose of collecting ami preparing troops, the owner 
of the property was indemnified by the Government tor the damage done to it, or where forage 

and provisions were taken tor t he purpose of subsisting those troops the parties were indemnified 
for their properly. To say that we will not pay a Union man in tin- South where his property has 

been taken under the same circumstances is revolting to the common principles of justice. I would 

throw to the winds all these teehiiical rules by win ell the Union man of the South is to be treated 
as a public enemy ami by which we -hall rel'u-e to do him that just in- which we would do t nan 

in the North, of doubtful loyalty, who was living in peace, comfort, and safety. 

Mr. President, there was one authority referred to, I believe, by the Senatorfrom West Virginia 
[Mr. Willey] which perhaps might even cover all the cases, and I think that was in Vattel. tie can 
correct me if I state incorrectly. That authority was that even, for example, in a loyal state or in a 
part of the country where the insurrection did not prevail, it the Governmeni deliberately took 
property, as a house or a garden, to make a rampart or fortification, or it' it took forage or subsisl 
ence deliberately, tin- Government was bound to make payment. According to that authority, as 
I understand it. when General Lee invaded the state of Pennsylvania and the army of General 
Meade was falling back, it in the course ofa march or a battle they destroyed the property of loyal 
men, that would be an act ot war for which i in- Government would not be liable, even in a loyal 


And. sir, applying thai principle to the Southern States where < leneral Sherman on his march, or 

in thee -se ofa battle, paused over and destroyed the property of Union nun the Gover ent is 

not liable; but if General Meade in the course of expelling Lee deliberately destroyed property 
which became necessary tor a fortification, or seized the forage and provisions of loyal men around 

him t here, the parties won l«l be paid, and ler the same circumstances t hey should be paid in the 

South, always upon the condition that they arc true and loyal men. 

Then, does nol the rule reduce itself down to -imply this, that wherever a loyal man in the North 
would be paid for his property which was deliberately appropriated by the Government, a loyal 


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 for 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 
l In- same way. 

< an we afford to make any other ride on this subject '.' We might save some money by making 
another rule ; )>nt it would in the end he penny-wise and pound-foolish eeonomy. After having ex- 
pended some $5,000,000,000 to keep the South in the Union, and alter 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. — (\>iiinissiiintil 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. 1 never did. Everywhere and always 1 
contended that the Government ought to he 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 demagogery. He merely imagined we would do it. 

Let me say further that 1 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 8100,000,- 

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 abandoncd-and-captured-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 tip here and included in that statement, and 
undertakes to throw it in the face of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. THOBNBUBGH] 
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. McMAHON] 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 
Hall, or my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago, [Mr. Finley.] 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. 

I 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. McMAHON and Mr. Fix- 
LEY.] In vain have I listened to hear from them the announcement of some principle 
of law for excluding loyal men's claims tor 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 he said of the 
reconciliation of Southern men in giving in their adhesion to the Union in good faith, 
nothing can he said for some Northern Democrats. [Applause.] 

I know that many of these questions were presented here in \^~:l before a commission 
that was appointed partly by the United States and partly by Great Britain — appointed 
under what was called the Washington treaty, by the twelfth article of which the United 
States agreed to pay all legal claims of Her Britannic Majesty's subjects growing oul of 
the war. Count Louis Corti, of Italy, presided over thai commission ; .Judge .lames S. 
I'ra/.cr, of Indiana, formerly a justice of the supreme court of that State, was one of the 
members of thai commission; and the Right lion. Russell Gurney, of Her Britannic 
Majesty's privy council, I believe, represented Great Britain. That commission unani- 
mously found, w hen 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 legal 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 arc well settled in 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. 


appropriating it. using ii for the purposes of the Governmenl 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 thai 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 l>ill was voted down by the 
exact vote I stated a lew moments ago — yeas :!<>. nays 127, not voting 78 — ;i motion was 
made to reconsider, and that was laid on the table. Bui subsequently to that time, 
near the close of that session, a new hill was introduced which did pass. To that extent 
I was mistaken, lint the hill was voted down by the exact vote I stated in December, 
1872, and another hill was passed subsequent!} . 


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

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

How does the hill read ? , 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The hill 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 npon. 
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 :l 
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 ( longress 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. 

Xot in the judges of the courts, but in courts acting as courts; and I insist, so far as 
concerns this vesting oi appointment in the judges, this act would he 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 do confirmation isrequired. It looks 
to me as if there was a singling out of this office for some special reason. 

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

Mr. KEIFER. Lei me just add that I always find that where there is special legis- 
lation sougb.1 there is something wrong about it. It ma\ not crop out on the surface, 
but sooner or later you find there is an ulterior purpose in it. 



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

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I do not defend the Army of the United States and here speak kn- 
its preservation because I come from a region of country or State which hitherto has bad 
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 governorot 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 my 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- 
line myself to merely local considerations. 

The Committee on Appropriations have assumed to report a bill to this House lor 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 1 understood him. His speech is not in 
Hie 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 oi 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 Army 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 of 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 2!>, 1*77, (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- 
posed 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 of West Point and from late officers of the Union Army (or from civil life) without 
selecting from those who have served in some capacity in the Confederate military, naval, 

or civil service. , . , . e , • 

On January 28, 1878, the member from Ohio. [Mr. Baxxixg,] in his capacity ot chair- 
man of the Military Committee, introduced a bill to reorganize and reduce the Army, 
[t had many remarkable provisions. Section 12 of that hill provided for the repeal oi 
section 1104, which authorizes the enlistment of two cavalry regiments of colored men; 
of -eel ion 1108, which authorizes the enlistment of two infantry regiments of colored^ 
men; of section 1216, already referred to; of section 1258, which limited the number ot 
officers on the retired-list to three hundred: and of section 1316, which excluded from 
appointment as cadets at the Military and Naval Academies persons who had been in 

the Confederate sen ice. I will give these sections here: 

ski. i mi. The enlisted men of two regiments of eavalry shall he colored men. 
S|. ( tins The enlisted men of two regiments of infantry shall be eblored men. 

SEC I'ls No person who ha- Berved in any capacity in the military, naval. oreiVll service ol the 

so-calied Confederate states, or of either of the States in insurrection duringthe late rebellion, shall 
be appointed to any position in the Army of the United States. 


Sec 1258. The whole number of officers ol the Army on the retired-list shall not sit any time ex- 
ceed three hnndred, and any less number to be allowed thereon fixed by the President in 
his discretion. . . . 

SEC 1316 No person who has served in any capacity m the military or naval service ot the so- 
called ( 'unit-derate 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 1101. HON, 1218, 1258,and 1316 of the Revised Statutes, and all other acts and 
parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act. he, and they are hereby, repealed. 

[ I [ere the hammer fell.] 

Mr. McCOOK was recognized, and Yielded his time to Mr. KEIFER. 

.Mr. KEIFER. M.v time will not allow me to speculate on the motives lor, purposes 
and designs in. blessings intended by. or evils which arc expected to How from the repeal 
of these sections now or in lite 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 ( longress or any other parliamentary body in thecivilized world. I give the section 


SEC. II. That the troops herein provided for and all others authorized by existing law, including 
all officers of every grade and in every department of t lie Army, shall he retained in the service ol 
the Chitted States so Ion-- as Congress shall provide for their support, by specific appropriations 
therefor and 110 longer; and if Congress shall refuse or neglect to make the necessary appropria- 
tion-, for that purpose at or before the expiration of the last preceding fiscal year for which such 
appropriations have been so madc.sueh refusal or neglect shall he deemed equivalent to an express 
act lor the abolition of the military establishment, and the Army shall forthwith he 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- 
tile Army of the United States. Such is the design of the section, plainly appearing by 
ts language. 

This section proposes to legislate in reference to ourown violation of duty as members; 
to Legislate in view of a violation of our oaths and the Constitution of the United States. 
We :ne required by our constitutional duty to make appropriations to canyon 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 r,,>\ 
ernment. Nor is it the desire, aslthink, to relieve the people of the country from taxes, 
as some ol them say. It 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 
hill reported by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Hewitt,] the repealing clause of 
the hill, repeals by implication till the sections I have referred to and leaves the field 
open incase major-generals die or resign or vacancies happen for the appointment ol 
Others in their place without reference to whether they were in the Union Army or out 
of it. 

[Here tin- 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 foi 
promotions there is a proviso that second lieutenants shall he appointed from the gradu- 
ates :i t the Military Academy or non-commissioned officers in the Army; hut 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 thai till officers below the rank of colonel, before tlic\ 

shall l>e promoted to brigadier-general, shall first submit to an examination before a mil- 
itary hoard. There is no provision in the bill that a colonel or any other officer in the 
regular line shall lie promoted in the order of his rank to the position of a major-general 
or any other higher office in the Army. We can see underlying this that which more 
plainly crops out in the proposed legislation of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, 
the chain nan of the Committee on Military Affairs. 

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



May 21, 1878. On an amendment to the Army appropriation bill fixing the age at which persons 
shall be appointed paymasters- 
Mr. KEIFEE said: 

There is a great deal of fine 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 field 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. 1878 we find ourselves so dwindled 
down in manhood and strength that we arc afraid to trust a man over forty-five years of 
age to go to New 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 generally 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 but a short time siuce 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 far as I know, had discharged his duties pretty well. But 
when we come to provide for a mere paymaster in the Armyto, discharge ordinarily only 
clerical duties, we say that a man over forty-five years of age is utterly unfit to discharge 
such 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 fact 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. 



June 1. 1878. Bill to amend the internal-revenue laws — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

[ think the gentleman who lias just taken his scat [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 be competenl evidence tending to prove knowledge, 
and not alone a " reasonable ground to believe, " as the hill provides. The objection- 
able words which the member from Tennessee [Mr. RANDOLPH] proposes to havestruck 
out are these: " Or having reasonable grounds to believe." They appear in the clause 
of the hill 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- 
-onahle'urouiicU to believe that the tax on said spirits, required bylaw, has not been paid, -hall for 
every such offense be lined not less than $1,000 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 
tact 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 have 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 he 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 giounds 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 indictment we 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 he in- 
nocent' until proved guilty, and, second, that he must he 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 he proved. Under this bill, proof that the accused 
OUghl to have 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 he to offer proof to raise 
a presumption of reasonable grounds of knowledge as distinguished from knowledge. 

A single word as to tin- illustration used by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 11 ANNA] 
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 be put on trial, sufficient proof under the criminal 
law that he had know ledge the note or bill was counterfeit. Or take the ease of a man 
to whom spirits are offered at 20 cents a gallon, when, if the tax were paid on them, 
they would l>e worth, as everybody would know, a dollar or more per gallon. [fa man 
buys spirits under such circumstances, such proof, on his trial, might hesullicieiil ill 
law to raise a legal presumption that he knew the ta\ had never been paid. Any such 

evidence as that would be competent to gotoajurj 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 had reasonable grounds only to believe a thing and yet did not in fact 
believe it. If the bill does not mean this, it is simply nonsense. It makes it criminal 

to purchase, receive, or rectify spirits, knowing the tax thereon had not been paid. 

Mr. TICK ER. Will the gentleman allow me to put a question to him? 

Mi. KEIFER. Certainly. 

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

Mr. KEIFER. Well, for the purpose of the criminal law, if t he gent leinan state- a 
fact to me anil 1 go on ami ad without reference to it, not heliev Lng it, and I am after- 
ward arraigned for mj act. it is competenl to prove that the gentleman told me such was 
the fact, and to argue therefrom that I knew it. In such a case 1 act on my own re- 
sponsibility it I do not believe it. 

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


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 
this 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 
e\ idence 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 tool to believe what in their opinion he ought to have believed. 

June :i. 1878. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to amend the laws relating to in- 
terna] 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 
alter the word "made." and inserting "prior to January 1. 1*74:" 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, 1S74. 

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 1874 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 hack to January. 1874, only, the transaction is more recent and is more 
callable of explanation. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 wish to make a suggestion in answer to the gentleman from Virginia. 
[Mr. TlTKKR.] 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 app!} 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, 1*74, the right to recover it back ; but persons who 
paid such a tax before that time and who have never had a right to make a claim for its 
return, are to have their claims cut off by what the gentleman chooses to call a statute of 
limitations. Statutesof limitations are made to cut off rights or remedies where they exist. 
It isa 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 but of a more recent 
date should be paid or have the tax unjustly collected refunded. If it is right to pay 
am of this class of claims they should all he paid. Vou might very properly say to the 
persons who claim they have paid tax on account of whisky or spirits which th.\ nevei 
manufactured, that they must present their claims within a particular time to the Com- 
missioner of Internal Revenue or have them forever barred. 

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



June 7. 1878. The bill to fix the pay of letter-carriers being under consideration — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker: I am in favor of the bill reported by the ( lommittee on t be Post-< >ffice 
and Post-Roads to tix and regulate the pay of letter-carriers, It is not my design now 
to occupy the attention of the House by discussing in detail the several provisions of the 
bill; but I wish, in the first place, to call the attention of the committee reporting it to 
the fact that in the classification of letter-carriers in the second section of the bill they 
have made no provision for some offices which are at the present time free-delivery offices. 
The second section provides that in all cities containing a population of less than sev- 
enty-five thousand and not less than twenty thousand t here shall lie a class of letter- 
carriers whoare to receive a salary of $850 per annum. 

.Vow. 1 wish to call attention to the fact that there are quite a number of free-delivery 
offices in the United States where the population is less than twenty thousand. Thus 
it will he seen there is one class of letter-carriers not provided for. 

I desire to put upon record for the examination of members some of the facts relating 
to these important offices in the United States. It is a singular anomaly that to-daj 
under the laws of the United States there are free-delivery offices producing a jjros^ rev- 
enue of less than $16,000 per annum and in some eases as low as $4,000 net revenue per 
annum, while there are other offices producing as much as $56,000 of gross annual rev- 
enue which under the law have not been made free-delivery offices. This is wrong. I 
shall publish with my remarks a complete list of all the free-delivery offices in the 
United States — eighty-seven in number. This list shows for the fiscal year ending June 
:!(>. 1877, the gross revenue, office expenses, free-delivery expenses, as well as the net 
revenue of all these offices. 

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

Letter-carriers shall be employed for the free delivery of mail matter, as frequently as the public 

convenience may require, at every place containing a population of fifty thousand within the deliv- 
ery of its post-ollice. ami may he so employed at every place containing a population of not less 
tlian twenty thousand within its corporate limits, and at post-otliecs which produced a gross rev- 
enue for the preceding fiscal year. of not less than $20,000: Provided, This act shall not affect the 

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

Xow, 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 tin 
delivery of the office reached twenty thousand. Subsequently, by tin act passed in 
1876, the law was chanced 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 first place it is the business that ought to be the test in 

this matter of free delivery. Those who pay for the music oughl to enjoy it. That is 
my proposition; and perhaps it is righl to have this double test, population and revenue. 

To give a place lice deli\ cry of mail matter will add to the revenue in two ways at least : 
lirst 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 ot' letter-boxes at places remote from the post-ollicc. In this way 
employment will be given to mote worthy and needy men. and the people ">.n ill be glad 

to pay for it. The general net post-office receipts will not be materially affected by a 
proper increase of free-delivery offices. 
I suggest that we go back to a test which will allow towns or cities with a population 

of tweiit\ thousand within their corporate limits, or cities or towns that produce from 

their post-offices a gross revenue in excess of $20,000, to have the free-delivery system. 

I hold in my hand a list I furnished to me yesterday by the Sixth Auditor of the Treas 
ury i of post-offices 'exclusive of frec-deli\ ei y offices) where the gTOSS receipts for the 

fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, exceed $20,000. 1 find in this list Oakland. California. 
producing a ^ross revenue of over $20,000; Sacramento City,with a en, S s revenue of 
more than $33,000. 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 


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-o fficea [exclusive of free-delivery offices) where the gross receipts for the fiscal year 

ended June 30, i877, exceeded 820,000. 



Gross rev- 

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 

Bingham ton do 

Springfield Ohio 

Portland Oregon 

Austin Texas 

Dallas do 

Galveston do 

Houston do 

Madison Wisconsin 

J20.588 30 
33,756 47 
43, 825 55 

30, <isi; mi 
2( I, 886 25 
28,884 77 
26,290 17 
24, 864 58 
23,600 64 
22, 455 57 
21,840 92 
34, 970 51 
21,515 34 
28, 874 02 
24,262 03 
28, 355 90 
26,736 69 
25,184 84 
22, 860 29 
56,181 99 
23,647 93 
23,887 si 


$8, 679 87 

16, 1&5 30 

17, 266 09 

10,757 12 

8,292 06 

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 

8.074 77 

7,912 92 

9,083 34 

9,534 45 

10,819 Id 

16,595 26 

11,675 40 

7, 993 71 

Net rev- 

SI 1,908 43 
17.571 17 
26,559 46 
19,929 07 
12,594 19 
13.900 46 
16,750 02 
17,582 08 
13,429 99 
15, 100 02 
14,168 11 
26.212 56 
14, 675 59 
20,047 81 
16, 187 26 
20,442 98 
17,653 35 
15, 1550 39 
12,041 19 
39,586 73 
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 
$28,355.00, and a net revenue of $20,442.98, about five times as large as the net revenue of 
several free-delivery offices in the United States. Yet 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 I would like to ask him one ques- 
tion. I observe that this bill makes a distinction as to the pay of carriers. In cities 
ha villi;- a population of seventy-live thousand or less the highest salary allowed is $850. 

Now, I would like to know' why a letter-carrier in a city with seventy-five thousand 
or less population is not as justly entitled to a salary of $1,000 as a earlier in a city of 

larger population. 

Mr. KEIFER. I think there are perhaps reasons why there should be a discrimina- 
tion made. Bu1 1 am not the author of the hill nor a member of the committee which 
reported it. and 1 ask the gentleman, in order that we may gel 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 neglect their duty either by day or by night. They arc as hard- worked aclass 
of men as there is in the United States. They suffer great hardships, and 1 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 arc required to be 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 arc many thou- 
sands of petitioners appealing to Congress to increase the pay of the letter-carriers. This 
bill doi's not increase the pay very largely. 

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


letter-carrier system exists in any city or place in the country where the postal receipts 
do not exceed the postal expenditures? 

.Mr. KEIFER. [ 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 of 

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 lie published in my remarks. Hut I sub- 
mit. as I have already stated, that cannot be the test. 1 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 winch is not now a free-delivery office ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes, sir; I know of one. lacking only a few 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 he measured by the census of 1870. The law used to be 
twenty thousand within the delivery of the post-office. 

* * * * -x- * -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 influenced 
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, livingusually 
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. 



On June 10, 1878, at ah 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 17-vl of the Revised Statutes shall he 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 a 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. Every 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 ot 
disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty, and it leaves 
all the others out. 

The country is filled with thousands of men — officers, non-commissioned officers, and 
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 wounds 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 (laughters 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, all 
the soldiers' widows, all these worthy ladies are excluded. II" you. are to give this sec- 
tion a literal interpretation then the gentleman [Mr. BUTLEE] 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 comes 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 any other gentleman upon this floor toward appointing these 
wortliN 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. 

* -::• * * * -::• -x- 

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

Mr. BUTLER. Certainly I will, with pleasure. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 have given the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Butlee] a good 

opportunity to get in his speech on this bill. I will not lie SO unkind as to say that then- 
was any buncombe in it: I will not even insinuate that, although he is not so particular 
about imputing motivesto 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 1 made here was 
for the purpose of defeating his bill: he will not brook just criticism on bis handiwork. 
Emanating from his pen, it must be regarded as sacred indeed. 

And then be suggests that we ought to amend the bill. Why. sir. we men who are on 
the outside of his great 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. 



I 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 sec- 
tion here which covers the class of persons to which I refer, I will vote with him. 

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

Mr. KEIFER. Wait a moment, until I am through. The gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts is utterly mistaken when he undertakes to say that the ureal mass of the vete- 
rans of the Veteran Reserve Corps are included under this section. I know hundredsof 
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 sickness incurred in the line of duty."' They are ex- 
cluded under this hill, 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." 

1 will enter the lists at any time with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUT-]. 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, 1 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 end, 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 you 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 cases such as he states here, they are great 
wrongs.; and I am ready to join with him in endeavoring to have them redressed, lint 
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' widows, their daughters, and 
other worthy ladies who hold office under this Government. Such was never the inten- 
tion of the law. fhc 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 hill undertakes to affect the appointing power of the Chief Executive of 
the Government, I say with a knowledge 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 righl 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-Genera] Key. or Secretary Sherman, or perhaps 
the President of the United states has exercised arighl his discretion in reference to ap- 
pointments; in determining whether A B, who had hut one arm. possessed equal quali- 
fications with C I ». W ho had no disabilities. You propose to try the question of a proper 
exercise of t he discretion of t he appointing power; you are to determine hv the verdict of 

a jury w I ict her the officer invested with this discretion judged righl ly or wrongly, with- 
out reference even to his capacity to judge, lb- mighl not be so astute, so smart, so 
keen, so ready to discern the qualities thai go to make up a com pet cut clerk or other offi- 
cer, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, but a jury is tosit and take the gentleman'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 lie condemned and punished 

as felons or not . 1 1 looks to me as if t here was so i new here sonic hiincoinhe in 1 his mat- 
ter. [Laughter.] Yet I certainly disclaim ever charging upon the gentleman from 

Massachusetts any bunc he at all. [Laughter.] I would not do that. People know 

him, his habits and instincts, too well in this country forthat. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUTLER. 1 am utterly indifferent to the fate of this hill. I have 


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

Mr. KEIFER. Let me sav a word. 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot. ' 

Mr. KEIFER. I wish to sav one or two words in reply to the gentleman. 

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 lite. 

Mi\ KEIFER. I am sorry lie will not hear anything to qualify 

Mr. BUTLER. You cannot qualify. 

Mr. KEIFER. Allow me five minutes. 

Mr. BUTLER. I cannot. 

Mr. KEIFER. Allow me live 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 1751 of the Revised Statutes shall be 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 be 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 previous question. 

The House divided; and there were — ayes 61, noes 91. 

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. I 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 bill 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 I had heard his speech and heard the 
best reasons he possessed and could give in favor of this bill, I knew when I 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 
Che 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, did 
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, but I am no more ignorant, perhaps, of this 
measure than the man who will stand on the floor of this House and undertake to citeas 
an instance or example in favor of his proposed legislation that the Congress of the 
United States lias regulated the appointing power of the President in the past by prohibit- 
ing him by law from appointing a disabled man to "West Point. 

There is no such thing in the law and never was in the history of the country. The 
President docs not appoint persons to West Point cither; 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 arc 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 arc not appointed when they go there to any 
office under the United states, constitutional or otherwise. They are nominated only 
by the President or by members of Congress, as the case maybe. But the gentleman 
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, lar-fetehed, to 


try to get up an analogy to his proposed legislation, and 1 am sorry the gentleman could 
not have found something more and something stronger. As lie professes so much w r is- 
doni on his part, 1 am very 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 and 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 very 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 
and 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. 

Rut, 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 anil who were disabled, disabled in a material way, and yet they served until the last 
gun was tired, 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 lie has erred, I hope lie 
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 provision that perfects the law so as to include all this 
class ot persons. 

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

Mr. KEIFFK. 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 

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

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

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

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered: and under the 
operation thereof the amendment of Mr. Thornburgh 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 hill was passed; and also 

moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 
The latter motion was agreed to. 
ill) a — K 3 




December 13, 1878. Tin-House having under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the Pri- 
vate< alendar the hill ill. 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 hill 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 paymentof the claim of William and Mary College would make 
a large volume. The two eloquent appeals tor the passage of this hill made at the last 
session of this Congress bythe memberfrom Virginia [Mr. G-oode] andthe member from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Loring] were based chiefly upon sentiment. The same remark will 
apply to the speeches made in favor of similar hills in former Congresses. 

\s a matter of sentiment I too could vote for the bill if I did not take an entirely dif- 
ferent view of my duty. The public funds should only be 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 he 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 L693, (fourth year of the joint reign of William and Mary,) and it is said to 
have had an existence as far back as 1600. It was originally founded ami 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- 

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


Til.' same course that is taken in England out of towns; every man, according to his ability, in- 
- mi tinj; his children. 

We have forty-eight parishes, and our ministry are well paid, and by mv c '"- 'Ut sta >uld he bet- 
ter, if they would pray ofteuer and preach less, but of all Other commodities, so of this ; the worst 

are sent lis, and we had few thai we could boast of since the persecution in Cromwell's tyranny 

drove divers worthy men hither. But I thank <1> 1 there are no free sob »ols nor printing, and I 
ho pi- we shall not have these hundred year-: for teaming has brought disobedience and heresy and 

into the world, and printing has divulged i hem, ami Libels against the best government. < lod 

keep us from both. 

This royal governor may haveenterl lined the views, at least as applied to the com- 
mon people, expressed bythe poet Pope, that — 

A little learning is a dangerous thin:,'; 
Drink deep, or t iste not the Pierian spring : 
These bo illow draughts intoxicate the brain. 
And drinking Largely sobers us again. 

Tiii . e /lie ;e, s en what amply endowed, held its c > n--e in the heart of a State for two 
centurie3 w is schools ware unknown until since ths late war. It was regarded 

with favor in the South : was patronized by the South; propagated southern views ; was 
Inr lly op :i t > hi nV.i- p • >p'.\ ail h h a' ways exclu le 1 w >:n ■ l from it- b 'a 'tits. 


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. .1 quote from that report: 

Every civilized nation has its hallowed spots about which its patriotic memories fluster, 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 arc without any common 
object* 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 nie in looking more closely 
into the historj of this college. I do this in no spirit of recrimination. That this col- 
lege was Hie aim 1 1 muter of Jefferson and Marshall and a long lj s t 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 thai ''her 
list of names famous for conspicuous patriotic service" is large, how does the case stand 
when we look to the historj 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 Mary furnished more men than any other institution of learning in the land, who 
favored secession, rebellion, and war. 

Before we vote money to t his 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. Its 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 
Wish 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- 
ealled Confederate States, which contained a section as follows: 

No bill of attainder, or ex post 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 elf iced daring life, so a greal institution of learning impresses on its young and 

• ptible students its true character. If this were not so, then indeed is education in 


"I'is education form* the common mind : 
Just as the twig is bent the tree', inclined. 

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

I read a note from I hat hi»lory : 

All students who are known t<> have been in the Confederate army have the letters C. S. A., with 
known rank, al ich I I i their names. 8r>me, many in fact, are omitted, and .is it is the desire 
of the faculty to g< I a perfect war record of all students, additional information is solicited from all 
e. mcerned. 

> begin with the class of 1857 -'53— what wai "the p srfeel warr< cord of its students?' 
In the cla93 of 185" '53, the alumni were thirty-two in number; twenty -two of these 
went into tli ■ < Ion fed irate Si ttes army ; the other ten seem to hai e no history worth re- 


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— four 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 for 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. It', 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 which 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 appro] niation 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 bettej 
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 arc 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 as consider these grounds in their order. 

The hill 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 thai this property was destroyed by the wrongful and 
tortious act oi 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 tor 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 1868: 

The Government is not liable on an implied assumpsit for the torts of its officers committed while 
in its service, and apparently f<>r its benefit. 

['.. admit such liability would involve tin- Government in all its operations in embarrassments 
Losses, and difficulties subversive of the public interest. 8 WeMaa . 269. 

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

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



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 are in point. The eases 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 j u the discharge of official duties. 

It was sought in tin- case just cited to hold the Government liable to loyal parties be- 
cause of the tort of a quartermaster. The hooks abound incases to the same effect: 
United Slates vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720 ; Dox vs. Paymaster-General, 1 Peters, 318 ; 
Council vs. Voorhees, 13 Ohio. 523; Nichols vs. The United States, 7 Wall., 1±2: Flush- 
ing Ferry Co. case. 6 Ct. of CI. 1. 

If, for torts committed by high officers the (iovernment 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, 171)2, 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 its troops. 

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, memberof Parliament, memberof 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 ap- 
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 :!(». L873, 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. hihI 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 I 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. En the award made in favor of Mr. Barclay nothing was included forpropertj alleged 
to have been destroyed. 

Several claims were brought for properly 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 bis orders or with his consent and permission. A large amount of testimony was taken 
ii I tli is subject, including that of General I la nipt on and other ( 'on federate officers On the part of 

the claimants, and of Generals Sherman, Logan, Howard. Woods, and other Federal officers on the 
part of the United slates. 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 Stales were liable for the tortious acts oi their un- 
authorized agents, though conceded to be liable for the necessary destruction of property 
of British subjects as incident to the war 


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 
right to occupy it. It was in a hostile country that had to be held and occupied by Union 

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

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 as a 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 Filors case, 9 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 

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 eases cited in the report. It is said Washington made the 
trustees of Princeton College a present of fifty guineas as restitution lor damage it sus- 
tained from the lire 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 lire 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 admit ted 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 saj : 

In tin- bloodiest and angriest civil strifes England lias respected her schools and colleges. 

Chant this to he 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 (iovernment 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 ami variety. Prom 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- 

wanl a similar allowance to the academy at Wilmington, in Delaware, and also to the college in 

Rhode l-land. 1'bcsc latter were recommended by Mr. Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, 
as "affecting the interest, of literature." <>n 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. 1 do not deny but that it is a paramount duty of an 


army to protect colleges, school-house*, churches, works of art. <£c, belonging to the 
enemy. But it docs not follow that in case such property is destroyed or injured thai 
payment therefor must be made. 

There is probably no instance where such property held or owned by an enemy has 
ever been paid tor. 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 pay- 
ing tor 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. Bui no rule of international law ever required a nation 
to pay tor property of any kind belonging to the enemy taken or destroyed in violation 
of orders. 

The committee quote in its report parts of paragraphs ::i to :!<;. section •.'. of General 
Orders No. 1<»(). giving instructions to the armies of the United States in the held. 
(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 be taxed or used when the public serv- 
ice may require it. - ' # 

The last clause of paragraph :>7 (not quoted in the report I is as follows : 

This rule does not interfere with the right of tin' victorious invader to tax the people or their 
property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate properly, especially houses, hind. 
boats, or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses. 

Halleck on the laws of war says: 

War * * * makes legal enemies of all the individual members of the hostile states; 

it also extends to property, and gives'to one belligerent the ri^ht 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! \ to 
our civil war. 

I quote from the famous prize eases: 

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

See to same effect Alexandria cotton case, 2 Wall.. 104. 

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

In Jefferson's celebrated hit >r of May 12, 1792, to Minister Hammond, of Great Brit- 
ain, on the subject of the liability of a nation to pay for losses sustained bj the enemy 

in war. he gaj s: 

sine- it is a c mil it ion of war that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it is reasonable that 
c\ erything of an enemy's found among his enemies should change its owner, and go to the t reas- 

ury. It is. morever, usually directed in all declaration- of war thai the goodsof enemies, as well as 
those found among us as those taken in war. shall be Confiscated. [f we follow the mere right of 

war, even immovable property may i>e sold, and it- price carried into the tre isury, 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.) Qites. Jur. /'«'>.. I. I.e. 

This st itea a - >un 1 rule as t > tli ■ st itus of all prop it v of belligerents during a war. 
It is then perfectly eh-ar tlitt the occupancy of this property was not in anj sense 
w rongful. 

There was no attempt l>y its destruction to appropriate it to a public use. The < Irani 

ease, decided hv the Court of Claims. (1 Court of Claims Rep., p. 41, I now so much cele- 
brated and so often cited, doe- n it furnish a precedent for the payment of this claim. 

The court in that case found that a United St tics officer during the rebellion burned 

a mill 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 sol.- purpose of preventing it from falling into the hands of Con- 
federate forces and i icing used h\ them in aid of insurrection, &c, On this state of facts 
the court found, as a m it t cr of law . the destruction was an appropriation to a public use 

and the owner was entitled to lie paid for his mill. 

The facta of this college case are widely different from those in the Grant case Thi 
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. 


As has already been shown many losses occur 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 fired 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 early 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 immediatel^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 casi 
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 

Moses had written th.3 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 land of Goshen, in Egypt, with all the attendant burdens, sufferings, 
strip.-, te irs, 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. 

Thi-i exemplilies the vanity of trying to take an account of great national wrongs, &c. 
Tin 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: 

Tin- colleges of the period preceding the war of the Revolution were among the most potent forces 
in ace plishing our independence and founding our Constitution. 

And they say: 

Vmong them none can claim precedence over William and Mary. 

It is sufiicienl 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." 
'flic 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 

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


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 the Union need arins 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 


I hope no threat is to be implied from this language in ease we tail to pass tins bill. 
1 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. TUCKEB] 
from Virginia could hardly vote fortius bill, with his views of the constitutional powers 
of Congress, if it is not to be regarded as a "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, t he 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 committee's report deserves mention. I read from 

the report : 

We believe that to follow the example of Washington" of Louis XVI, of Judge < looke, of Tryoii- 
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 XV] 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 saving 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 < 'ongress 
for payment at different times since the late war. of which 1 give here only a partial list: 

Alabama University ^'JXS 

William and Mary College, Virginia ,,,.' 

Richmond Female Institute. Virginia ! *** 

East Tennessee University it'nm 

Jackson College, Tennessee I .III 

Alleghany College, West Virginia °> ""' 

Madison Female Academy. Richmond, Virginia "_ '■ ""' 

Male Academy, Athens, Georgia '■ . " 

Strawberry Plains High School, Tennessee .»n imh) 

Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia 7-',,«, 

Newberry College, South Carolina .V* ■ ." 

La Grange < 'ollege, Tennessee '-'ion 

Howard College, Alabama •' ■ "" 

Stewart College, Tennessee ! ..." 

Holstein College, Tennessee • ."• ~r 

Cane Hill College, Arkansas 

Total "»•"» 

Most of these claims are now pending in this Congress. I am informed thai members 

on this floor say they have been resisting the presentation of a il 1 of claims from then 

respective districts of kindred character to the above, which they will be no longer able 
to resist successfully if this bill passe-.. The Committee on Education and Labor of this 
House have already this Congress reported in favor of paying $85,000 of the above chums 
from Virginia alone, namely, the claims of William and Maty College and of the Protes 

Tant Episcopal Seminary. The claims in behalf of churches Sooth arc certainly more 


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 

I conclude that on neither of the grounds set forth by the Committee on Education 
and Labor in their report cau 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. 



December 17. 1878. The House having resumed the consideration of the l>ill (H. R. No. 4553) to pro 
vide for the further distribution <>f the moneys received under the < ieneva award 

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

Mr. Speaker: I can hardly hope to say. in the very few moments 1 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 
sin. ()(((). (Mill — involved in the issue of this hill demands of each member his best .judg- 
ment. The wide difference among the distinguished members of the Judiciarj 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 hills of the majority and minority of the Committee on tin 
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 ; tin- 
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 hill reported by the chairman, [Mr. 
KNOTT,] favors the granting to all claimants to any portion of the (Ieneva award fnijd 
or the interest thereon remaining undistributed a day in court, with a limitation of one 
year in which to tile the claims, with the right of appeal given to each claimant or the 
United States to the Supreme Court of the United States, these claims to lie. in tin- 
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 < treat 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 orprinciple of allowance, exclusion, inclusion, or distribution 
heretofore adopted by Congress, " or by the Alabama claims commissioners; all pay- 
ments hitlnrto 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 thej exceed tin- 
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 oi 
said moneys: and if any part of the' same shall still remain it shall be subject to tin- 
further act ion of < 'ongress. 

A minority of the committee (as sel 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 whom certain designated claimants shall be 
granted the right logo, within six months from theorganization 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 applj 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 


No general principle is to lie 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. fin i> 
is to i 1( - an utter disregard of tin- lights of all claimants whose claims were adjudged to 
be valid within the three rules laid down in article (i of the treaty of Washington Mav 

B, I 35 I i as interpreted by the distinguished members of the tribunal of arbitration at 
Geneva. By section l of the bill of the minority the claims suffered to be presented to 
such court of commissioners are divided into three classes, namely : 

First. Claims described in section II of tin- act of 1874 relating to the distribution of 

this rand so far as thev are not adjudicated, and. to quote from the bill — 

Claims directly resulting from damage d • on tin- high sens by • Confederate cruisers during the 

late rebellion, includingaressels and cargoes attacked ami taken on the high seas or pursued by 
them therefrom, although the loss or damage occurred within four mile- of the shore. 



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 
«) 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 per cent, additional 
interest from the time interest was allowed to the time of payment. 


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 
l>e 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 rota 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 IK, 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 purpose 
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 
< onsideration 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 be 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- 

The tribunal, through its president, Count Sclopis, (June 1!), 187:2,) in deciding against 
such claims, said: 

The arbitrators think it right t<> state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged 
..n the part of the Government ot 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 art icle 
(I of said treaty, and as also set forth in said article, "by such principles of international 
law not inconsistent therewith as tin- arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable 
to the case," in their linal award also found as follows: 

So far as it relates to particulars of indemnity claimed by the 1'nited 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 ot 
the opinion, by a majority of 8 to '1 votes, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States 
any Bum by way of indemnity under this head. 

\nd whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, mas-* 
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- 


ance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, it is preferable t<> adopt the form of ad- 
indication of a sum iti gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation tor further discussiou 

and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by article 111 of the said treaty. 

The tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by article 7 of the said treaty, by a 
majority of 4 voices to 1, awards to the United States the sum of $15,500,000 in gold us the indemnity 
to be paid by (Ireat 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'elaims 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 ot the said claims, whether the same may or 
may not have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall 
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 coming 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 
eiiot 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 wdiether 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 $ir>,r)00,000 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 arbitrator 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 Id of said treaty, it is conceded that only such claims as would have 
been valid under them wonld have been allowed. In a certain sense it is uudoubtedlj 
true, as shown by the award already quoted and as required by article 1 1 of said 
treaty, that all claims against Great Britain were finally settled by the award. That 

article is as follows : 

The liiiili contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the tribunal of 
arbitration of the board of assessors, should such I muni be appointed, as a lull, perfect, and Bnal settle 
meDt of all the claims hereinbefore referred to; ami further engage that every suoh claim, whether 
the same mayor may not have been presented to the notice of, made, perfected, or laid before, the 
tribunal or board, sliall. from ami after the conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal or board, be 
considered ami treated as finally settled, bai red. ami henceforth inadmissible. 

It will be observed that, if the tribunal had left to a board of assessors to make up 
an award on each valid claim in detail, all other claims would still have been dually 
settled. Bat it docs not follow that an award in gross was to lie held to be paid 

on account of invalid and anpresented claims, as well as on account of recognized and 
valid ones. The reasoning in favor of such a view ma\ 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 \ iew is to prevail, would ha\ e 

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 ow rj refutation. 

The bill, Mr. Speaker, of the minority <>f the committee has do 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 till those who had to pay war premiums bj reason of SUch etuis- 


ers, should be reimbursed, whether the loss resulted or paymeuts 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 by the enemy, whether on sea or on land. Untold millions of dollars' 
worth of property have been destroyed by the enemy on laud belouging 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 unpresented " Alabama claims." No 
prison 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 
<au be paid even where the parties are of undoubted loyalty and 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 confession 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 fund 
was awarded for all the claimants regardless of the merits of their claims, then all 
should be paid in full or suffer 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 tore- 
cover under said treatv and award according to the principles of justice, equity, and 
the law of nations." By the bill of the majority, all persons and corporations claim- 
ing on 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* been 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 uot decide ; nor have I decided it, The highest court in the laud 
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 bo 
bound to include ami pay them. 

If the award was made to pay all claims, why not use the fund to pay all ot them r 
The bill of the minority refuses' to do this, and 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. 

I islaiive 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 expedient. The insurance companies, who it is said may have some claims 
in equity ami justice, are so reviled and abused asto put some men in awe and cause 
them to'hesita'te to do their duty even here. 

It has been vehemently asserted that these companies will, under the billot 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 lie admitted to 
receive a portion of the fund. Is the invocation of the doctrine .if sub rogation (or 
substitution ) an appeal to the law's technicalities .' If so, then the terms ot the bill 
Of the majority will rule out these companies. Techuical rules are set aside by such 
bill But Bubrogation, if not a head in equity, is a rule of equity, and it has no con- 
nection with the law's arbitrary ami technical rules. Equity may be invoked where 
the law fails to do justice; it commences where the law leaves off. Subrogation as 
.1 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 .Indue Story, " in principles 
ot 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 ot this 

large sum ot money. . 

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


claims of parties who may have no higher rights, though sufferers, than thousands of 
others who were crushed under the car of Juggernaut, drawnalong by the cruelty and 
fanaticism of war. The eagernessand 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 ease. Though some of us may be lawyers, we are called <»n to do our duty as 
legislators. Lei us try to perform that duty impartially. 1 am led to the conclusion 
I have arrived at by my conviction of what is right in the tight of what I deem to bo 
the natural justice and equity of the whole question. 

In ((inclusion, 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 :>.) This judicial power extends to all cases in law and 
equity arising under t he Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties 
made tinder their authority. (Constitution, section 'J, article :*.) 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 those founded on the 
i(l and comprehensive basis— justice, equity, and the law of nations! 


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

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the distinguished gentleman from Xew York to have 
been in favor of a bill that would pay all these claims in some form or other through 
1 lie 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 lit* insists, but I do insist my statement is correct. He 
I-, 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 as under the omnibus 
bill ot the gentleman from Xew York, 'flic latter clause of this hill 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 
ise of the bill was intended to entirely free that court from any action of the com- 
mittee or Congress, ami it was put there for the purpose of guarding against the verj 
thing which t he gentlemau says we are in danger of doing. I am not satisfied by the 
(j parte testimony which was before the com mi t tee that these parties were loyal dur- 
ing the war. I am satisfied so far as there was any evidence, or what possibly in in lit 
be called evidence, before the com 111 i 1 1 ee. 1 1 1 a t it showed they were loyal, but I am 
not certain that it is true, and 1 will not accept it, it being 6£ parte testimony, as con- 
clusive of t hat question. It frequently tnrns 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 gentlem in ha 1 a claim be- 
fore the commissioners of claims 

Mr. BRAGG, tf this bill revives the law and the rule of eviden <■ established for 
the claims commission in this particular case, does il not in fact revive that Legisla- 
tion -and make it applicable to one case, w hereas all other cases will be excluded from 

benefit of it .' 

Mr. KEIFER. That is coming back to the same thing I understood my friend from 

York to favor; thai is, he would not pay one claim, howevei just, thai maj 

come within our consideration here because we could not pay them all. Lei me 9ay, 

Mr. Speaker, we have paid millions upon millions of dollars under the general law 


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 been 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 in 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 dollars 
for like property, even though the claimants happened to live in the South, if we 
find they 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 
claims commission. 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman states one of the troubles I have had some difficulty 
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 committee it thought, this 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 in the interest of peace. 

I know with what approval members upon this floor may receive remarks made 
against paying southern claims. The position takeu by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Potter] 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 pay meut for property taken from loyal person •» by the United States officers or 
furnished by such persons to the United States officers for the express use of 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 property there, and tendered it freely to the United States to aid 
in putting down the rebellion, and who were loyal throughout the entire war, " We 
will not pay you because you were so unfortunate as to live in a country that was dis- 
loyal." Many members fail to distinguish between claims of southern loyal men and 
what are generally called "rebel claims." 

[ stand upon the doctrine that- was long ago announced in the other end of 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 fail to 
do this we put the loyal men in disloyal 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. 

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

Rebel claims should never be paid. All claims arising out of the general ravages of 
war 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 1 trust it may ever 
continue to lie. 



January 23, L879. Pending consideration of the bill to apply the proceeds of the_public lands for 
educational purposes- 
Mr. KEIFEB said: 

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

I understood the distinguished gentleman Illinois [Mr. Harrison] tosay that 
it was the policy of the Democratic party to favor the 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 tin- veto of a homestead hill. 
He vetoed the hill 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 "ranted. 
He vetoed the hill 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 nationsof 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 he 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, Ld62, and under that law 
tlere have been 384,848 homestead entries made, covering a territory in extent, if you 
deduct Id 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 acresthe 
whole of the territory of the New England States. The area in acres of New England 
18 43,742,720; the area of laud taken up by actual set tiers under a Republican home- 
stead law, after making the deduction mentioned, is 55,418,112 acres. 

It exceeds re 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 Dolicy ofthe Republican party in relation to the public domain, and 
in spile 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 hill did any Republican Presi- 
dent ever veto granting mil lions upon millions of acres of the public lands to private 
corporations .' 

Mr. KEIFER. I am frank to Bay thai the greal champion of Democracy in the 
State of Illinois initated the policy of granting public la mis to railroad corporations. 
1 refer to Stephen Arnold Douglas, of Illinois. 

Mr. HARRISON. 1 would like to have the gentleman answer mj question. And 
then 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 thai the Democratic party has not been the one to set the example of 
gh i 1 1 ^ the public la mis to private corporations. 
Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman is entirely wrong in his statement. The land was 

granted to the Stale of Illinois in trusf for railroad purposes. 

.Mr. SPARKS. Still it was granted to the State and uol to a corporation. 
Mr. KEIFER. It was granted to the state of Illinois for the benefit ofthe Illinois 
Central Railroad; there is where it went. 
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
Mi. KEIFER. The following is the table to which I referred: 

90 A— K I 




























^ X 











1 w o h. to m m m © n a ^ -t cc t- hc to o a :i 1- i* >": t- ^ -f 

i <m©-8*' , *©<-i<m,-h;o;5i©cococ-j m t^ 01 o cc ^ o to ri i- m ^ to 

^ NOHH^COtS t- h o ^ m cc ic o ^ to to 3; r-> o * ^ •* H 


oTco* t-"oi-r-r 

« H H t- n f 1 ri" 51 H 

.-1 © CM CI iQ 

GO CO i-l SO 

CM O C^ CI iO CM tO CI IO f 1 W t- 55 -t to © art cq M fr- 

oc M Cft co r-i in h co <-> cc to 1- 01 cm 

It ' O <M CI 

W O L-0 QO rH 

CO -* m m 


cm m 01 to CO -* 01 CO ^ O CI iC CO o to c ^0-0 in r 

CO 00 CO "^ — *n — < Wl>MCmOO)OifflCOtO^Nt* 

UOUO fr- ■**.-< © W n LO t O) ^ -v CO 



© 1(5 m m h ^« in 
to cm co> 51 fr- m in 

CM O 51 CO in CO 

-rfrococom'OOi— tincotocMin 

H H H O T 53 T 1" JO 

I 55 H N W CO 
iX C "O t- CM 

to m o to 

4 to 00 -t< CO CO 
CM m CM fr- CO 

in co o -* 










t— I 


m O CO «5> 55 iC CO » to O CM CO co to CO ^* CO co m 50 51 O (M -n I— 51 51 
Ct CIO t)C) tO CC L- IC X 3 't M O CQ U"5 L". tO i- 1 55 CO O O CM 

m co t tp oo fr- i—* co m m fr- © m fr- m co fr- co 

r-**-1 CO" rH* CM*" <— T 1 i— I r-1 

CI W CI fr- CM I- ^ 

m fr- in in -^ m 

CO -+ in iH CO 51 51 
CM 00 CM to r-t if* 

fr- 5i in in co r^ 

ci m -^ CO CM CM CI 
in O O tT CM CM 

i- 7 1 51 CO © O 


t— CO C-l CI CM CO in © rj» fr- © 00 © CO CO CM 
'*rHfr-^*'unCMfr-^ »H -# CM X CO 

■ m ^H©-*m©©co© c-i© 5iCMOi©com- 

00 © oo m CI © CI C] r-l XI i-i © ■-* CO © CM i 

. «o Li oo 51 cj ci 0) m -<^ i— i m ■■# 

. fr-T r*cS m" i-T 

r-i © rH 55 © CM © © 00 CI -^ © X t f 51 m CO CO 

© © © © ■*■ © CI CI © CO i— I CO i— i i— I CM GO CO 

fr- x co tp ■** x © cm h fr-incom 

rH in rH t-Tt-Tco'" CO" iH 

o oo ** fr- m © © cj 

00 CO CI © © fr* 

O CM r-l © © 00 


© © 


fr- © 

i-( H^ 

© © 

fr- CI 

fr- oo 








Ci lO CD O 

CO -* io t~ 

to co i- o 
Tf co to 

O 00 IO — * 

m cm ci 

■w o e» X 

© © CD CM 
CO CI C4 00 

93 CM © 

to O © 


L0 ■* t3 

rr :~ : i 
t~ ■— I <— I 

a a S 

s 5 - 


~ — 

- o 

- 5J O * 

M- © m — ' fr- © m m c-i © i-H © tci co ci ci © oo 

tO 55 O X t- iO © 55 X t^ tO 'O H X ifl O 00 H 

CM" r-Tr-T C^—rTjTr-r CO T-T 

m l fr-©©©ClinO0©rH-^"O0©00COrtlCMCM 
O0XP5'tt»HHU5'*K555t- OC©*^Tf 

5i infr-oo-* , ©©CM uo ©cic-io 


CO X © CJ © t* t- -f CM i-t X © CO © © 

CM in fr- CM CI CI O ^H © Tf t- rf CO 

cm" c-f co' f-T co" i-T 

m co m m ci © © x —« x m in ci »h 

lf5 O O) "O H CO "i" V C-J H 55 i-t © 

CO © CI CO t' H 55 x in 


H - 

i- o -* to m CJ 

t* tD 1^ H ■- C 

r-i w oo r~ a: to 

T-T r-Ti-H M~rH" 

»ra • en i-i crs 

CS ■ CI 1ft CO 
•* • 00 Orl 

t* • to m to 

■^i CM in (M 

t> O CO t- 

• to ■* 

J CI ■»■ 

1-. to 



O x 

— a 


.3 B 
X c 
•- ■ r. 

a k 

oo to CI 
t~ f-l 

i-l IO 


, — — — —. — ^ 



x S 
X ss 

.a r 


CM t- 

tO i-l 

tO 00 rH 
t- CM 

« 85 



C-l t- 

-* CI 

o to 

•^i r* 

-* CI 

«o c> 

^ ^1 

CO l~ 



a . 
© J 


= .5 

CD © CPJ3 b-* - ^^^ 


ao o 

83 ' 



















January 23, 1879. Mr. Keifer offered the following proviso to the bill providing for the classifica- 
tion of mail matter : " Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to ad- 
mit to the second (lass regnlar publications specially designed for advertising purposes and not for 
dissemination to regular paving subscribers." 

Mi. KEIFER said: 

I do not wish to delay the progress of this bill, but it is perhaps proper that I should 
state very briefly why I offered this amendment. I believe it is reported that under 
a elause similar l o t hat contained in this section a man who was so unfortunate as to 
be at the same time the regular publisher of a paper and also the owner of a saw-mill 
in the same county, inserted in one corner of his paper a notice in regard to sawing 
loos at his saw-mill, whereupon the Post-Ofliee Department decided that his paper, 
although published regularly in all other respects, was primarily an advertising sheet 
ami therefore could not be circulated at the ordinary rates of second-class mail 

matter. . . . 

The object of my amendment is not to get into the law a provision which will allow 
any kind of publication merely for the purpose of advertising sent out under any 
guise whatever, to advertise tlie business or occupation of the men publishing it. I 
have drawn in v amendment to guard this from any evil of that kind. I know of many 
publications, and other members tell me the same thing, I know notably of one pub- 
lication, I have thecopy of the paper here before me, that hasover fifty thousand sub- 
scribers', 1 am told over two thousand in the State of Texas alone, which has very 
little advertising patronage, paid or unpaid, very little indeed as compared with 
another paper 1 have in my hand, and I am told the Department is disposed to rule 
this paper with regnlar subscribers does not come within the rule of second-class mail 
matter because it happens the publishers of the paper have another occupation if you 
please. They are manufacturers : but if you will read the paper you will hardly find 
I think— it is impossible to find a reference to their own manufacturing business in it 
anywhere, and there are ninth-tenths of the entire print of general news for the peo- 
ple. If they should happen to get in a reference to' the business of their own, accord- 
ing to the present law it will be held that it should be paid at the rate of third-class 
matter, as I read it. 

I hold in inv hand what I picked up this eveuing, what I would call an advertising 
sheet : it is called the New York Daily Commercial Bulletin. There are two or three 
columns that might be called general news matter; all the rest, with the exception 
of some little commercial quotations, is advertising matter. I have seen the Com- 
mercial Advertiser of New York with less than a column of general news iu it and all 
the rest paid matter that may go all over the country as second-class mail matter, 
while another paper is to be excluded on a simple technicality. The word " pri- 
marily" is in this bill, and I do not wish to mislead anybody, but I understand it 
is substantially the language of the present law which is unjustly applied to pub- 

Mr. WADDELL. If my friend will allow me to interrupt him I will call his atten- 
tion to the broad distinction between the paper from which he has read and a paper 
like Baldwin's Monthly, of New York. 

Mr. KEIFER. If this is published for the purpose of circulating with a regular list 
of subscribers tnv amendment excludes it. 

Mr. WADDELL. Baldwin's Monthly has a large amount of really interesting lit- 
era ry matter. 

Mr. KEIFER. If it is merely to cover up, if the gentleman will pardon me. gen- 
eral advertising business to he advertised by sending this out to persons not regular 
subscribers, then it is excluded in the mails as second-class matter under the amend- 
ment I propose. 

Mr. WADDELL. It is excluded under the amendment we propose. 

Mr. KEIFER. I want tostill exclude it. 

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

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



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

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman: I do not desire to interfere particularly with this family quarrel 

which has 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, 1 should he 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 W, 1877, the 
o-overnor (Mr. Carroll) of his own State appealed almost piteously 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 he 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 gentlemau 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 Graut in the Presidential chair with the tew troops gath- 
ered about the Capitol here, the decision of the Electoral Commission, approved and 
affirmed in this House ami 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, 1-77, in this country: 
and we should have had a man put in the Presidential chair who was elected not bj 
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 gentlemau 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 live 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. Coxl speaks of, we would 
have an arms 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 outbreak's of all kinds. Mexican marauding and Indian wars. The experiences of 
the summered' 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. E\ erywhere else than within the geographical limits of the United 
States our Government makes haste fco 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 Arm\ is needed ; but the ranks 
should be filled up. 

[Here the hammer fell. ] 

Mr. C<>\. of New York. I beg to correct the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifbr] 
in some respects. 1 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. Ewinc]. 1 spoke of the 8th of January speech. 

Mr. COX, ol 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. 



February 14, 187!». The lull for the relief of John T. Armstrong was under discussion. 

Mi. 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 thai ques- 
tion ; and it seems to me each succeeding day this question is up we gel some new views. 
In this we are either taking better <>r worse ground than we have h 'id to in fche past. 
But hi mi' say. if I understood the gentleman from Massachusetts rightly (and I tried 
to listen t<> him carefully) we an- to understand his position to in- tin- : that notwith- 
standing the fad a loyal claimant may come here from the South with a meritorious 
claim In' is not to he paid, and a disloyal claimant is also not to be paid : and that if 
we will enter into some soi I of arrangement of that kind, drawing no distinctions be- 
tween loyalty and disloyalty on this door, there may he such a change of sentiment in 
the North that before a great while the country will he prepared to pension the con- 
federate soldier. If that is the position ot the gentleman, and if it is not the gentle- 
man is certainly entitled to correct it now 

.Mr. BUTLER. [ never require, if my friend will allow me. necessity tor the correc- 
tion ot what I have said. I icpeat 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 Norl h 
will take careof the maimed men id' 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 he considered to he his duty, should not he pensioned than why a con- 
federate soldier who honestly believed he was doing his duty should he put into a Re- 
publican Cabinet. 

Mr. KEIFER. I invited the gentleman from Massachusetts, in order that there 
should hi> no mistake a bout his position, to restate his position ; and I was successful 
in getting him to restate it. We all understand him now. 1 invited the distinguished 
gentleman to restate his case, although in the first place il was very well stated. Now, 
as the gentleman from Massachusetts is in favorof pensioning the confederate soldier. 
he is therefore, according to his reasoning, taking the 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 favorof both, as he puts them exactly 
on a par: when he is in favor of one, he must he in favor of the ol her. 

Mr. BUTLER. No. sir. 

Mr. KEIFER. I should he, at hast if I were in favor of pensioning the rebel 

Mr. BUTLER. lint I have not said s,,. Will the gentleman allow me ! 

Mr. KEIFER. Oh, yes; 1 always try to he polite to the gentleman. 

Mr. BUTLER. I have not said I ai win favor of it, nor do I think the country 

has yet come up lo it ; hut when we have withdrawn all causes of difficulty, SO that 

nohods from the North will object to a confederate soldier being in t he Cabinet, then 
I say humanity will bring 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman has already stated his proposition. The gentleman 
undertakes by lair inference to say the present Administration is only a short step in 
advance of him ; he has not yel come to the time when he is in favor of putting con- 
federates into the < 'a hi net and pensioning confederate soldiers, hut he thinks he will 
soon reach a point where he will favor both. 

Mr. BUTLER. Neither one nor the other now. 

Mr. KEIFER. Not yel : hut In- thinks he is very nearly there : "almost persuaded. 

Now, Mr. Chairman. 1 do not want to misrepresent anybody: I have been one of 
those upon this floor from the beginning who have insisted steadily, persisteut ly. ami, 
as nearly as I could, consistently, upon making a distinction between loyal and dis- 

loyal claimants 80 far. ami SO far only, as loyal claimant s ha ve co here and prevented 

claims well proved for supplies furnished to the army and which were used !,y the 
army. All ot her classes of claims for damages growing out of tin- general ravages ot' 
war, and all other claims of a kindred character we alike strike down, whether pre- 
sented by the loyal or the disloyal n. I lot I want to enter m\ protest again here 

against tie- idea of voting money to rebuild, to reconstruct, and to carry on educa 
tional institutions where treason has been Bteadily fostered and where it may yel lie 
fostered in the future. The gentleman from Massachusetts favors the payment of such 
claims, I believe. 

Mr. A.IKEN. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupl him .' 

Mr. KEIFER. I will in a moment. I am opposed loan institution id learning, 

destroyed by the accidents ot' war, being rebuilt out ot' i he public Treasury in 


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

Mr. AIKEN. I would ask the gentleman this question : On his reasoning, if he is 
opposed to giving appropriations or help to institutions which have sent abroad men 
who favored the 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 refined one. If 
it happened in the past that students who came to the North from the South, where 
they had drunk in at the fountain-head and been taught in the cradle the doe- 
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 eases 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. But I do not object to thie 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. I 
want to call attention to the fact that the records of the War Department, and I say 
it to the credit of the Southern States, will show that above seventy thousand white 
men from the seceded States entered the Union Army. I here give them to you by- 
States. The number of men sent from those States is as follows: Virginia, 85; North 
Carolina, 3,575; Georgia, 152; Alabama, 2,471; Florida, 1,286 ; Mississippi, 681; 
Louisiana, 5.357; Texas, 2,444 ; Arkansas, 8,6*27; and Tennessee, 27,637, making a 
total of 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 not include several thousand whose actual presence swelled the ranks 
of the Army of the Republic but whose real numbers cannot be known. 

It is to be presumed that some of the loyal men South did not u» into the Union 
Army. I know instances of men from Mississippi, Georgia, and other Southern States. 
for I have had occasion to examine into their history, who stood out against their States 
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, aud right- 
fully perhaps, from coming hereof going to the courts and having their claims adjusted 
and paid because, they do not consist solely of claims for supplies. 

But I am not here to go into thatquestion. I have another purpose in view. When 
gentlemen have suddenly become converted to some new doctrine we are naturally 
suspicious and cast about for the reason why. I witnessed some of the same gentle- 
men seated here now, within the last ten days allowing a bill to go through this 
House by unanimous consent, reported by Hie gentleman from Illinois [Mr. EDEN], 
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 claim 
comes ii]), declaiming against. 

Mr. PINLEY. Why did not the gentleman object .' 

Mr. KEIFER. I did notobject because I believedit was right. Hut gentlemen who 
want to make cheap capital when they have a special ease to deal with, and a loyal 
man's case is up ami not the case of a disloyal man, did not rise to oppose that bill. 
Their object is to make capital be lore the country. I did not rise because it has been 
tin- policy of the Government to pay these claims, and it was right to pay them. I 
will state further thai within the next two weeks there will be another bill of the 

same character passed by tin' House appropriating over $200,000 for claims mostly 
from the State of Tennessee and Kentucky of loyal men for supplies furnished the 
Armyduriug the war. based on claims examined by the Quartermaster's Department 
aud the department of the Commissary of Subsistence, aud allowed by the proper ac- 
counting officers. It is said we have voted a way to this class of claimant s sll HI, UOH.IIHI I. 
Well, now, was that right ' It'it was not. then gentlemen took a long time iu learning 


whether it was right or not. It has been the polity of the Government for many 
years, if not from I lie beginning, and it is too lair to turn round upon it now. 

If we will go back a little further fco the time when the war raged, even to the pe- 
riod when the fust 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 many of tin' campaigns, for good reasons and wise purposes, per- 
haps, loyal and disloyal alike were paid for supplies for the Army. 

Bui when we go1 through tin' war, and when wehad come to the end of it, we es- 
tablisheda principle that cut off all disloyal persons' claims, even for supplies; hut we 
said that wo would pay loyal men for supplies, and we have continued to aet upon 
that principle up to the present time. And now let me say, as I conclude, that any 
loyal man \\ ho has noi been guilty of seme sort of laches in presenting his claim when 
the Court of Claims had jurisdiction I would still be in favor of paying ; all others 
I would reject. I am not prepared to say that the claim now under consideration 
should lie paid. . 

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

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



February IS, 1879. Pending consideration of the legislative, &;., appr>priafclon bill, viri m p • > > > 
tious regarding public surveys were discussed. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman : There is some difficulty in understanding clearly what is intended in 
this bill. 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 in con- 
flict with all our laws in 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 
be 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 
bad 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 bill has 
upon its face the'confession that the new system or any new system would he 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 hi II which we are about to pass to survey from the foot of the Rocky 
Mountains up to their top, and across them, ami 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%vill 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 
or two 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 viciousleg- 

islation. . . 

It is proposed to force upon a people who well know their wants and needs in 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 wesl 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 lie 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 tield of experiment. This I am opposed to. 

Sir, we cannot 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 contusion among the people familiar with the pres- 
ent system. Many of our laws would have to be materially (hanged, and especially 
Our pre-emption and homestead laws. (Some gentlemen say on this tloor there will be 
no material change. I do not choose to trust any one man or a board of men on so 
important a subject. 

I have said all I desire to sav, and I ask no man to vote for this part of this bill upon 
the idea or mistaken belief thai we have arrived at the point when we must from 
necessity change onr 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 laying them off under any system 
of survey into sections or other land divisions for any purpose in the world. 


February 19. 1879. The legislative, &c, appropriation bill was again under consideration, and ii was 
proposed to repeal tbe election laws. 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Chairman: During this entire Congress the majority <>n the floor of this House 

have not been IouikI in any single instance in favor of a law (hat 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 of i he I louse has soughl in any way to do auythiug to purify the ballot-box, hut 
all have favored free fraud in our elect ions. By a free elect ion 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 Const i tut ion and laws the right to exercise t he elective franchise. 

The gentleman who offered 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 he measured lure against fraud, violence, and murder. Anoi her 
gentleman, who represents t he State of Maryland [Mr. I Lknkle], 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 bo 
he forced upon the people of this country. At this very moment we are 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 raper of the ballotibox (Mr. 
Tilden) in 186d was indorsed in 1876 by the 1 (emocrai ic party. He was convicted in 
1868 by Horace Greeley as the head ami front of all the promoters of fraud upon the 
ballot-box in the stati' of New York; and a ft ei' his full conviction, and after the Dem- 
ocratic party indorsed Mr. Greeley in 1872, they then turned around, history repeating 
itself, ami 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 come again 
to \\ hat we have seen in i he past —red-handed war. 

I beg you. gentlemen on 1 he other side, to pause in your career before it is too late. 
And the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Hooker] to-day cries "unconstitutional" 
a- against these election laws. That is the cry raised by the Democrats when we 
SOUghl to put down the rebellion. Democrats said it was unconstitutional to save 
this fair Republic of ours, it has been the cry of the Democratic party ever since 1 
knew it. That party, through its leaders, said it was unconstitutional when war was 
waged against the Union to preserve any ('(institution at all. 

Now let me say in conclusion to t he I (emocrats North that all the recruil 9 they have 
which to-day make them strong on this floor come from the success of the Republican 
party in taking the bayonet, sword, ami musket from t he greal body of t he 1 democrats 
South and rehabilitating t hem again with the rights of the ha I lot. and the Republi- 
can party has never been thanked for all this. [Laughter and applause. ] 



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

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. ChairmAn: I do not rise to discuss this bill. The gentleman in charge of the bill, 
who is familiar with all the evidence, has stated all that is necessary to be stated in 
reference to it, except what the report shows. I do notrise to say that the authority 
read by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BRA.GG] is anything else than sound law. 
I want it distinctly understood, so far as the 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 case where a 
quartermaster made a contract for the use of a steamboat which was used for Govern- 
ment purposes. In that case, after affirming fully the doctrine of the case read by the 
gentleman, which is known commonly as theFilor 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. Will 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 plaintiff 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 not only 
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, 

The Clerk read as follows: 

W i' do not mean to say that wbere a parol contract has been wholly or partially executed or per " 
formed on one side tin- party performing will not be entitled to recover the fair value of his property 
or services. < >n the contrary . we think that he will be entitled to recover such value as upon an im- 
plied contract. In the present case the implied contract is such as arises from a simple bailment for 
hire; and the obligations of the parties are those which are incidental to such a bailment. The special 
contract being void, the claimant is thrown back upon the lights which result from the implied con- 
tract. This will cast the loss of the vessel upon him. A bailee for hire is only responsible for ordinary 
diligence and liable for ordinary negligence in the care of the property bailed. This is not only the 
common law but 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 course the Supreme Court declared 
there was no question id' negligence involved, aud the real owners of the vessel must 
suffer that loss ; but the court goes on to say that, notwithstanding the contract under 
which the vessel was taken was void, the Government of the United states had the 
use of ii and was hound to pay a Cull and fair equivalent for such use during the time 
the Government used it prior to its destruction. In other words, the Supreme Court 
of the United States recognized the principle that the Government of the United 
States has no higher rights as between itself and an individual than an individal 
would have as between himself and another individual. The Tutted States Govern- 
ment lias no right with reference to its own citizens to turn round and say. " We took 
your property ; we have used it; we have had t he benefit of it ; hut we did this through 
officers who technically did not make a good contract, and therefore we will not pay 
anything for the use or occupation of such property. In other words, we have had 
ami used the means that enabled us to gel the benefit of property without paying for 
it : and now before t he people of t his country ami before the world we will 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 ii^- 
volved in the case which I read.' Did it turn upon a single question 

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

Mr. BRAGG. No, sir. 


Mr. KEIFER. And the Supreme Court expressly affirm the doctrine of the lilor 
ease in saying thai the contracl was void, and on thai contract, as alleged inonecounl 
of the pleadings, there could be do recovery whatever; but upon the doctrine of the 
quantum meruit the court Bay thai the United States are liable for the useol the vessel 
during the time it was used l>y the Government. 

Mr. BRAGG. Now will the gentleman let me finish mj question .' 

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

Mr. BRAGG. You have only answered part of it. You put this on the question ol 
quantum meruit. The quesl ion 1 desired yen to answer w as whel her in the < Mark case 
it was the exercise of the sovereign power of the Government against the people \\ ho 
were in insurrection, where by the powers given the Government under the laws of 
nations they had the righl to seize and take, and did seizeand tak< — whether the Su- 
preme Courl of tin' United states said a quantum meruit would lie .' 

Mr. KEIFER. Now, Mi. Chairman, the United States in this casi — in tin- Clark 
eas< — assumed that a contract, where a vessel is in tin- Southern waters 

Mr. BRAGG. I want the facts. 

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

Mi-. 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 lull, but I had it read in answer to the argument of the 
gentleman, in which he claims that where technically a contract is void it isthedutj 
of members of Congress to stand up and say the United states shall not deal justly 
witli its own loyal citizens. That is the only question, 1 believe, that is left in this 


Some gentlemen have inquired where the ship was taken possession of. I think 
soniew here in the Gulf of Mexico ; I am not certain. But I remember another ques- 
tion spoken of in the chirk case. It was a vessel purchased by ('lark of the confed- 
eracy, and the question was raised whether (lark could recover on that account. 
The Supreme Court held that it was unimportant. As a matter of right (lark was 
entitled to recover, notwithstanding he hone hi the vessel originally from the Southern 

( 'ullfederacy. 

March 1. 1879. Pending consideration of bill to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases. 

Mr. KEIFER -aid: 

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

I have felt tli is afternoon and this evening as though this country, the people ol the 
North as well as of the Smith, would not excuse this House if we went home without 

passing a > thoroughlj efficient law looking to a prevention, as far as possible, oi 

this dread disease in our 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, [remem- 
ber that the disease invaded my Own State, and the most healthful portion of it. Mj 
colleague [ Mr. Ewtng] will remember that in portions of his districl the yellow fevei 
appeared and -wept off 1 the citizens without regard to their Btatio i in life. It was not 
confined to those wh«. live in hovels, but it attacked the very besl of our citizens. 

I here is another consideration. If this disease is not likely t<» reach tin- North at 
all. if it i> never to invade Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, or an> of the Northern 
state-, we should remember that when last \ ear it was spreading through the Southern 
States and depopulating towns and cities almost, we in the North heard the crj t"i 
relief, and there wa- hardly a villa-.-, city, or humid that did not pi.ur out from it- 
mean- what conld he spared tor the purpose of alleviating the Buffering people ol tie 

South, si Id that nine again cum', we iii the North will fed that weare interested 

in our fellow-citizens of the South, and will again assisl -" tar a- i- in our power. 

we ha\e already had to-day a vote upon the question whether we -hall injed into 

this i important national measure the question of Slate rights. I « ish there weie 

I,,, i bo man j patentsoi Constitution. We get on tone ever j tew days, rhis House 

ha- -poken' on i ha i question ami said that we will not legislate or attempt to earn 
this principle of 8tate rights into so important a question as this. Now let us go back 
upon our steps, and if possible get al the Senate bill and pa-- it. It there are an j 
amendment- needed to it. as suggested by the committee, lei ne make those amend 
ment- and then pa- the lull, so that when your gavel fall-. Mr. Speaker, at twelve 
o'clock on Tuesdaj next, we can saj that we have passed at least one law looking t<> 
the preveution of the plague in our counl iy. 


(Forty-sixth Congress.) 

March 18, 1879. On 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 he was presenting a petition from twenty- 
three citizens of Cincinnati—" prominent citizens," as he calls them— a petition af- 
fecting the seats of two members of this House uow sworn in. 

Now, I say that under the statute there could be 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, tben it ought to go to the petition box ; or the gentleman presenting 
it, if he desires it to be read and printed in the Record, should ask unanimous con- 
scut for that purpose. His object now, I suppose— I may be mistaken— is to have this 
paper read before the Congress of the United States and published in the Record to- 
morrow morning, and beyond that nothing; for nothing can come of it beyond the 
mere publication to the country. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Do I understand the gentleman to say that it is incompeteut 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 are 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 lit 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 beeu professingto proceed for 
a great many years, if not throughout the entire history of the Government. Now it 
is proposed, I suppose, if the gentlemin means anything by his question, to override 
the law and adopt, a new method without first providing a new law. 

The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Carlisle] and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mi. mI'M.vuox], my colleague, both seem to understand the, Constitution of the 
United Slates very well; but they seem to think, for the first time at least expressed 
upon this lloor, that the Constitution executes itself, and that a law which h is been 
passed to carry out that provision of the Constitution is utterly nugatory. I know 
the Constitution provides that this House shall be the judge of the qualification and 
election of its members. Suppose, it they carry that out, they should say this House 
has power to yote out any member sworn in and to vote in any person they find any- 
where ou 'side, as a mere matter of power. But the law undertakes to direct here what 
Ave shall do and how we shall proceed ; and it is a, nutter 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 RECORD, so far as w ■ 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 do it either under the 
law or Constitution ? 

I wish to state that this attack is the, only step which it is professed these men can 
take, and therefore they have no standing here except as mere petitioners, such as 
they may have under t lie Constitution, but not for the purpose of putting into the 
RECORD a long charge against a member; and I trust the Speaker will make himself 
quite familiar 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 pioper we shiiold know how they are doing it. 



Mar 28. 1-7'.). Pending the Army appropriation lull, 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] fco say in discuss- 
ing this point of order that we are now engaged simply in an efforl fco 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 wa- therefore germane to this hill to attach to it tin- class of legislation 
contained in section 6 of the hill. He also stated thai it might he or was in the in- 
terest of economy to repeal the sections of our statutes relating fco the use of the 
Army at the polls. 

I also understood the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reagan] to state 
thai because the bill under consideration related to the Army we had a particular 
righl 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 hill to put on any such legislation. Now 
I think both of those geutlemen have spoken inconsiderately and inadvertently, and 
that neither of them will upon due reflection undertake to stand upon their state- 

In the fust place, this is not a work of repeal which we are engaged in. It is a 
work of making that which was hitherto a duly, made so by law. a crime — a crime 
entirely new, wholly new. in connection with officers of the Army ami officers of the 
Navy and the civil officers of this Government. Never before, I believe, in 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 Stales or a deputy mar- 
shal of the United States to keep the peace. This proposed legislation is intended 
to do thai. Then I say to the gentleman from Texas, this is not legislation thai per- 
tains to the Army alone. It undertakes fco make it a high crime, punishable by 
tine 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. 
hut to go with an armed body of men to the polls to quell a riot. That will he the 
express effect of this proposed legislation. 

[t does not change the old section altogether, but it re-enacts the section in such 
form as to make for the iir>i 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 Stales and at com- 
mon law. it is made the imperative duty of marshals, deputy marshals, and all I he 
constabulary force of the United Stales to put down riots and to suppress all kinds 
of disorder everywhere in the United States within their respective districts when 
such riots ami disorders come under their observation and personal notice. This leg- 
islation undertakes to make it a crime for those officers to do this if they go with 
armed men to do it— not soldiers, hut armed men. They may go with feathers in their 
hands w n hon t violating the law ; hut when armed force is to he resisted, when it 
becomes neoessarj 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, musl go without any armed n with them: otherwise 

nnder this proposed legislation they will lie guilty (| i a high crime. 

Mr. KN< >TT. Will my friend allow me to call ins attention t" section 5528 .' 
Mr. KEIFER. Xes.sir; that i> one of the sections we arc' now dealing with, in 
which we propose t<> strike out the words "to keep the peace at the polls." Thai i- 
all we propose i " do, so as to make the penalties provided bj these sect ions when re- 
enacted apply lirst io militarj officers, second to naval officers, third t<> ci\ il offici re 
of the l nited Mates when they come with troops or armed men to suppress a riot oi 
an\ ot her kind of disorderly an. I illegal organization of men al the polls. Now . when 
the marshal or deputj marshal comes, as it is his duty to come, bo quell a riot, he has 

the right io summon the law-abiding citizens of the c inuuit\ fco obey his orders, to 

go if you please armed— to bee e his po88< < <>init<<ins in quelling such ilisturbau 

Bui t his proposed legislation takes away from the marshals and other civil officers of 
tie United states who are charged with similar duties i he power of putting down a 

riot on e|e, lion day at the polls and makes it a high crime punishable by line and im- 
prisonment if such an officer undertakes to do it. This does not relate to the Army 

ami Navj alone, hut fco the civil side of the Government. This is the work we an' 
engaged in. 

Hence I insist that this proposed legislation is not germane to the Axmj appro- 
prfttioti hill, li is not germane because ii affects officers of the Navj : and this is 

not a naval hill. It is noi germane because it affects civil officers of the Gover nt. 

It is not germane in anj sense, [f the legislation proposed as a whole includes any- 
thing not within the title it must all fall together. 


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 the peace? 

Mr. KEIFER. When the Government was organized, when we first had an army 
of the United States, it became the duty of that army under certain circumstances 
to quell riots, to put down men engaged iu 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. KEIFER. 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. Theu I ask the gentleman whether he does not know that this 
law was enacted in 1S65 for the first time? 

Mr. KEIFER. Ah, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman entirely misunderstands the leg- 
islation on this subject, although he is a very excellent lawyer. For the first time, 
in 1865. 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 
been the right and the duty of the officers of the Army and the Navy, as well as cer- 
tain civil officers of the United States, to keep the peace everywhere 

Mr. SPARKS. The gentlemau will allow me to ask him whether there is any stat- 
ute to that effect enacted prior to 18(55 ; and, if so, where is it? 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman from Illinois [.Mr. Sparks], as I understood him, 
asked 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 kuow, that there was any restraining statute upon our statute-books at all in 
relation to the use of troops at the polls or anywhere else in 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 to 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, naval, 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 be required to fold their arms 
and look on and witness riot, murder, intimidation, or anything else of an unlawful 
character going on before their eyes, or be subject to severe penalties. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
McLane] 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 frieud's statement that we had the power to regulate the President 
Of the Tinted States in his government of the Army. I understood the logic of that 
to be that it is the duty of Congress, and its right whenever we have a war, or that 
which is akin to it, insurrection, riots, or domestic violence, or whatever else arises in 
tin- 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 pari 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 Flirted 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 President is by the Constitution clothed with all the powers incident to a 
commander-in-chief, and such power cannot be taken away by law. We may pass 
laws for the government 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 
an\ other time when it is necessary to call that strong arm of the Government into 



April 15, 1379. Pending tlie consideration of the legislative, &c, appropriation bill, an amendment 

was oil'i'ivil tn repeal the law under which the Southern Claims Commission was organized. 

Mr. KEIFEE said: 

I had expected t<> hear some argument offered by the gentleman who submits this 
amendment for the repeal of the Law creating the Southern Claims Commission that 

went to the merits of the case. For a great many yens this House has been entirely 
silent on the subject of laying down rules of practice for this court. To-day, after 
this committee lias carefully prepared a rule to govern the 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 the court because it has had in the past some agents 
who are said to have acted under rules that some of us thought were unwise. 

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

The whole number of claims originally before the Commissioners was 22,298. Of 
these claims over fourteen thousand have been reported upon and finally disposed of, 
leaving ahout eight thousand unreported and now in the hands of the 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 taking their 
testimony under this law of Congress has averaged in each case about $30, making an 
outlay of .§00,000 at least for all these claimants, expended in getting their cases ready 
for decision by the Commissioners, who are now examining the claims and will he 
ready, as I am informed by one of the members of the Commission, to finally report 
the chums on the 10th day of March, 1880. 

Now let me say that there- are rive 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 toe last Congress, are absolutely barred unless we repeal these sections that 

the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BRAGG] proposes to repeal, and the effect of that 
repeal would he to revive five thousand claims now barred by the statute. They 
ought to he haired, ruder an amendment which was put on a hill of this House in 
the Senate in the lasl Congress, and adopted in this House, the Commission was re- 
quired to ifiiort to the next regular session of this Congress the names of all of these 
claimants with their claims, so that we will have a record here of live thousand of 
t hese haired 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 re\ Lve 
haried claims, barred by lapse of time. 

Mr. KEIFER. We do not propose to let the court live a single hour beyond the 
10th day of March. 1— II. 

Mr. BRAGG. Will not these claims revive then I 

Mr. KEIFER. These live thousand claims are absolutely haired unless we by legis- 
lation revive them and (lump them into this Congress. If we do that. Q0 less than 
five thousand claimant s would come with claims, and with some equity, telling as, 
"You passed a Law authorizing us to prepare and present our claims, ami we have 

spent thousands anil thousands of dollars in preparing our claims, and we have done 
it upon the faith of a law of the United States; we wire ready to submit them when 

t he court w as w iped out ." 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. HAWK obtained the floor and j ielded 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 I 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly: I shall he very glad to hear it. 

Mr. BRAGG. The repeal of ihe provisions of tlii' act which I propose to repeal 

would not repeal any statute of limitation al all. 
Mr. KEIFER. It would repeal all this legislation and the Legislation which would 


affect these claims. All I ilesire 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 this Commission ? It is no argument against this Commission to say 
that they have had at some time or other in t e past what the gentleman chooses to 
denominate "detectives." Whatever I may have said the other day— and the gentle- 
man admitted that he did not ijuote me correctly, and I will not stop to correct him— 
I 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 question 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 Conin 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 ■ — unless the Commissioners. were cheated, or some 
fraud was perpetrated upon it— was disloyal in any way during the entire war. 

Thi- law is not now and never has been so that these Commissioners could allow and 
pay for damages caused by the war lo 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 tor 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 issue. 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 usethe term, to now say to these claimants, after they 
have prepared their cases under a law that has been on the statute-book tor 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 be unjust; it would be inviting 
tkem lo a feast and then not giving it to them. 

In regard to the three thousand claimants whose claims are now ready to he adju- 
dicated 1 , in which cases by an absolute statute the testimony on behalf of the claim- 
ants Las been closed, if you wipe out this law those claimants will come here to Con- 
gress, foi it would be the only place where they could come, and they will come here 
with an equity a ml say to us that we passed a law which authorized them to prepare 
their cases anil 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 eud to all this matter ot 
Southern claims: but I do not believe in the Government being unjust and entrap- 
ping any claimant. 

(April 16, 1ST!).) 

Mr. KEIFEE said: . . ... 

Mr Chairman : We have presented hereunder a restriction as to del. ale one ot the 
most remarkable and atari ling propositions which has come before Congress since I 
have had iinv knowledge 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, loyal or disloyal, who may have a claim against 
the United States founded upon equity and justice, and not barred by any statntesot 
limitations, to go into the Court of Claims with hisclanuaml ha v.- 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 Claim, and prove tl i and have them adjudi- 
cated and paid .Tut 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 the Commissioners of Claims to consider claims for supplies, quar- 
termaster ami 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 oi 
the gentleman from Teuuessee [Mr. Atkins] and the gentleman from Illinois L .\ir. 

SPRINGER j 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. nol 
hitherto paid for to loyal oi disloyal persons. If we do t his let us do it withoureyefl 

m The°gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] stands up and delivers a Lecture to 
this Side of the House about war claims, while In- is accepting Iron, the hands ot the 
.rent leman from Tennessee [Mr. Atkins] a proposition to (.pen the Court ot Claims 


for the first time in the history of the country to all disloyal claimants, so thai 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. Docs the gentleman distrust the Courl 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, whethei 
they lived in the North or in 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 war. 

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 tothe 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 



Friday, April 25. 1879. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the bill (H. R. Ho. 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- 

Mr. KEIFERsaid: 

Mr. Chairman : The reapers over this broad field of debate have had no Boaz to 
command them to purposely let i'all handsful 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 uo 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 
necessary 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 
only 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 high 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 cannot 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 of the Constitution to prove that all leg- 
islative power is vested in Congress. To the astonishment ^i' many of us who know 
so well the legal attainments of two of my colleagues [Mr. McMahon and Mr. Ht'UD], 
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 tin eaten him and the country with the direst conse- 
quences if he does not lay atthefeet 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 <d' it. I do them ample justice when 1 Bay 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 lulls tor 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 bills there would be no uew revenue laws; but this does not 
prove that Congress alone can make a law or that this House can alone provide for 
raising revenue. In the cases given these bodies can alone prevent legislation but 
cannot alone create it. 

The President is given the sole appointing power under the Constitution (save as to 


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 thai 
it should advise and consent at Ins dictation. The Constitution is wisely made up of 
"checks and balances.'* We cannot too clearly understand the momentous question, 
the final issue of which now engages the anxious attention of above forty-five million 
of people, who are just emerging from an era of long snfferiDgand distress, connected 
with, growing <>ut of, and incident to our recent great and bloody war, and entering 
iilKU! 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 unpaid, unclothed, and unfed; and all this unless the minority in 
Cone icss and the chief executive head of the Government will assent to the repeal ot 
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 
louger carry on the Government. This is the issue and this is the stake. If that 
party cannot be allowed to hold and coutrol 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 frankness tells us Uis 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 hoth branches of this 
Legislature, and she proposes to signalize her return to power ; she proposes to celebrate her recovery 
ol net -long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading badges of servitude and destroying the ma- 
rline r\ ot ii (orrupt 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 1868, declared all 
tin- 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 Kent inky speaks. Their forced ret urn was welcomed with a patriotic joy un- 
speakable. At their cotnino tliere were bonliics, 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 i in In ce- 
ment to return was involuntary. The only condition of their return was that they 
should remain and be goud citizens. Southern Democrats were forced at cannon's 
month 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. ('. 

long steps toward giving the South a free ballot were taken. 

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

Paradoxical as it may seem, the Dei sratic party can now boast of nothing good 

in it (if it really possesses any merit | that it does not ow e to defeat in peace or war. 

The Republican parly blazed tin- way lor the Democratic party South to return to 
tin- 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 tacred shrine of constitutional libertj and worship at its 
purified altar, on which, for its preservation and perpetuation and I'm- the benefit and 
glory of all mankind, there was immolated half a million of patriots. 

It is my purpose and design to in -jeiiy discuss the nature of the legislation proposed 

to lie forced on this COUntry, but before proceeding to do so 1 desire lo notice the -" 
often cited supposed preceden t , drawn from English history, as a just ilieat ion ot' the 

revolutionary course now entered upon by the dominant party here. 

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


Bpeech has fully shown that in two hundred years of constitutional government no such 
attempt as this has been 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 1—1625 to 1639— through all the long, bloody, and angry civil strifes iu 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, aud 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 will 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- 
mand, 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. 


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 Revised Statutes of the United States. There is, I believe, a general 
acquiescence in the repeal of section H20, which makes acts of insurrection or rebellion 
causes of disqualification and challenge of jurors iu the United States courts. This 
section was, doubtless, wisely enacted, but its repeal can do no great harm at this 


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 affirm ation, discharge them from serving as jurors. 
There may still be cases where persons once engaged in rebellion should not sit til 
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 by law into 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 tin- 
court of tin; " 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 coarse, 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 
iu standing by their respective party friends. Verdicts would be in many eases, 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 <>f citizens of the United states. 

Greenl. ackers. Nationals, Socialists. Independents, and non-partisans are to have no 

officer to put them on juries; they are pracl ically denied, it not rendered ineligible i>y 
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 yon 
can digest. [Laughter. ] 

Mr. L< >WE. 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 toone 


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

the insult and outrage. 

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


This lull contains provisions for repealing all of substance of the present law author- 
izing chief supervisors and supervisors of elections chosen from different political 
parties to lie appointed by a United States court, to see thai 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 thai an honest, tree, 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 Tinted 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 (he statute providing a punishment for 
interfering with 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 bo 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/' 

It' this biil 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, and 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 hands 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 and 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 now 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 tin' peace and to pro- 
tect the supervisors of election in the discharge of t heir dul ies, and which authorizes 
all these officers to arrest at the polls, without warrant, persons w ho 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 sac ltd and flee from arrest lor against thelaWS 
of tin' I'n i ted States, although com in it ted 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 p088e COltlitatUB are to be taken away by the repeal of 
section 2024. 

[e I he power to make arrests without u arrant an extraordinary one .' 

My colleague [Mr. IltiMi] said these '"'supervising officers are armed with authority 
unknown in the history of the common law or state laws. Thej bave authority at 

the day of elect ion to make arrests without warrants," &.C. 

With due deference ] insist that heis grosslj in error both as to the <• monhvn and 

State laws. At common law, high sheriffs, constables, marshals, ami all other like 

officers arc authorized to make arrests on \ iew and hold the accused until a legal war 

rant can lie obtained. '1 his right is supposed t o belong to an> citizen. 

In my state (Ohio), where the Bhackles of the law m( oasj on the good citizens, all 
the constabulary lone of the State is required by statute to arresl and detain all 


persons "found violating any law of the State," &c, "until a legal warrant can be 
obtained." (Section 21, criminal code, lSGy. ) 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 tho section of the Ohio statute to which he 
refers ? 

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

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 you 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 will send 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 cannot 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 question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. GEDDES. Will the gentleman explain the meaning of that clause in section 
2022 of the supervisors act which provides that a Federal officer may arrest a parly 
who attempts or offers to commit one 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. Hurd] will allow me to do him an honor by saying that ho 
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 

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 linnament of the heavens ? 


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 
ami tair election .' No person favors the use ol the military or civil power to prevent 
a five, fair ballot, but the Democratic party Bays, 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 " are to be stricken out of sections 20(W and r>r>28 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 


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

Existinglaw 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, 5529-553*2. ) A violation of these sections subjects the guilty to a fine ofnol ex- 
ceeding So.OOO and imprisonment at hardlahornot more than live years, ami 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 thistloor 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 amend the 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 tie' will of the voters. 

In all this long debate not one word has escaped the lips of any Democrat in con- 
demnation of t lie bands of lawless persons who are to be permitted to invade the polls. 
Nothing has been brought to the notice of Congress or the country during this long 
debate which tends to prove that the officers of i he Government have ever prevented 
a single man from voting, and as he wished. The polls on election days should lie 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 Stales to suppress riots. &c, by 
the aid of an armed posse coviitatus at the polls. It is not the employment of troops 
alone that is to be prohibited at the polls, bul the civil power of the Government is 
to be suspended there. On -a former occasion I said the Democratic party favored 
free frauas at elections. From the legislation now proposed that conclusion is irre- 

By statute (Revised Statutes, section 78S) 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 wan ant 
could be obtained. Under t his legislation the functions of all this class of officers 
arc' 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 tailed to do their duty, or that they have pre- 
vented legal voters from voting, but that they have overawed, or are likely to over- 
awe, disturbers of the peace at the' polls who engage in pre*< enting. 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, hut they will meet it with patri- 
otism ami their sovereign power. 

Again and again dining this discussion of the Army hill has it been said these two 
sections arc unconstitutional. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. HURD] and my friend 

from Virginia [Mr. Tucker], both jnstly distinguished for their legal learning, reit- 
erate this view. I must he pardoned for differing with them. The sections, taken 
alone or separately, do not undertake to authorize auything to be done bj any per- 
sou : they are wholly prohibitory and restraining, not permissive, statutes; they 
make the u>e of troops or armed men at the polls a crime on the part of any United 
States military, naval, or civil officer; thej only limit a power which may exisi under 

the Constitution ami laws. As has been so often said, these sections are- not to he 

repealed, hut only re-enacted so as ti> make it a crime | hitherto unknown 1 1<> keep the 
peace at tin- polls. 

The- claim of gentlemen, then, is this: that il is unconstitutional not to make it a 

penal offense tec keep tin- peace where elections are being held. By necessarj impli- 
cation the proper officers should, as a matter of duty, keep the peace every where else. 

During this d. bate it has often been stated thai the legislation proposed on the 

Aimy bill is similar to English law. This 18 wholly untrue-. The I orablc geutle- 

menfrom Kentucky [Mr. Knott] ami from Mississippi [Mr. Muldrowj somewhat 
astonished us by the confident manner in which they read English statutes to justify 
this legislation. I need hardly <b> more than invite attention to the laws quoted by 
them to convince everj person that there is no possible similarity bet ween t In t wo. 


The English statutes read are mere police regulations for the government of soldiers 
(not officers) when not on duty ; no reference is even niude to the duty of officers or 
the powers of the Crown. The English statutes require soldiers quartered within 
two miles of election 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 Engli?h 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, but 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 one hundred years a de- 
fective law on the statute-books. 

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 was then and is stili a wise one, and would be utterly unobjectionable in this 

1 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 
takin" the poll for the election of a member or members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament 
no soldier within two miles of any city, borough, town, or place where such nomination or election 
shall be declared or poll token 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 Ins vote at such elec- 
tion- and that every soldier allowed to go out for any such purpose within the limits aforesaid shall 
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 London 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 beeu 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 riots 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 puuished 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.) 


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 ot the citizen 
at elections uninfluenced by troops or United States officers. \\ e 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 BUffice for the whole Southern vote where the same conditions exist. 

Iu 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 was9,993, and Republican 6,196 ; 
and in the eighth district the Democratic vote was 7,437, and the Republican 6,230. in 
187* the vote in the same Georgia districts was, second district (Mr. Looks), Demo- 
cratic 2,628, Republican 6; sixth district (Mr. Blount's), Democratic 3, 192, Republican 
18; and in the eighth district (Mr. Strphens's), Democratic 3,673, and the Repub- 

In these three districts of Georgia the aggregate vote on Congressmen in 1872 was, 
Democratic 26,960, and Republican 22,042, and with a Democratic "free election in 


1878 the total in the same districts was, Democratic 9,439, and Republican 78. The 

Democratic vote tell off from 1872 to 1878 over 60 per cent. (17,521) and the Repub- 
lican vote all vanished save ?-. 

The Mississippi election statistics are, if possible, more significant. The votegiven 
is on Congressmen. 

In i In' third Mississippi district in 1872 the vote was. Democratic 6,440, and the Re- 
publican 15.(147 ; in 1878 it was, 1 lemocratic (for Mr. Money) 4,025, and Republican 686. 

In the fourth district in 1872 the \ ote w as, Democratic 6,870, Republican 1 5.5 95 ; in 
1878 it was. Democratic (for Mr. Singleton ) 4,025, Republican 0. 

In the tit'tli district iii 1872 the vote was. Democratic 8,073 and Republican M.>17; 
in 1878 it was. Democratic (Mr. Hooker) 4,816and Republican 686. 

In the six tli 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. 

Tin- total vote on ( ongressmen 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- 

In 1872 the Republicans, by large majorities, carried each of these tour Mississippi 
districts, bul in 1878, when the Democratic vote had fallen off 33 per cent, (or 7,738 . 
Democrats were elected iii each nearly unanimously. The Republican vote went 
down from 60,560 in 1872 to 2,050 in IK78. The total vote fel off from 90,452 in 1872 
to 22,210 hi 1878. This is the fruit of a Democratic ••free " election in the South. 

The member from the third district of Mississippi in I87ri received 2,295 less votes 
than Mr. Chisholm received in 1876, when he was returned as beaten. The gallant 
( hi shot n i and his heroic son and daughter, with many of his political friends, had met 
violent deaths for their temerity in l v 7(i. 

I democrats boast that in the elections in Mississippi and other of the Southern states 
in 1-7- peace reigned; it was the peace and serenity which succeeds death. The 
work of the knklnx, 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 stru^- 
gle foi their rights against lawlessness, then Democrats cry " peace reigns." The Czar 
Nicholas of Russia, after exterminating all the inhabitants of certain districts in poor, 
unfortunate Poland and making a wilderness of tin' country, called it •■peace." By 
the pioposed legislation these lawless Democratic handsale in effect to he legalized. 
The figures given show that tin- colored men did not vote the Democratic ticket, hut 
did not vote at all. 

The honorable gentleman [Mr. Steele] of tin- sixth North Carolina district, who 
did me the honor in February last of answ ering 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 he 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. 1 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 ami ■J7.5:: , .l in 1876 to 5,328 in 1878; and lie did not 
stop to explain why the 1 democratic vote i as reported) went down from 17,256 in 1876 
to t.'.in- iii 1-7-, or why the Republican vote of 10.561 in 1872 and 10,282 in l-7t; all 
vanished in 1-7- hut -.'5- 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 \ i il u n t ari 1 y surrender this high privilege. 

I make no charge against the honorable gentleman, hut I assure him that the fig- 
ares make out a ease of wrong somen here. lie compared his district for fair lies-, in 
the election with my own (fourth l Ohio). My Democratic opponent received about 
the same number of votes in 1878 cast in the same year for the three 1 democrat ic mem- 
bers from the sixth [Mr. Steele's], the seventh [Mr. Uimfield's], and the eighth 
[Mr. Vance's] North Carolina districts, and he was still beaten by 5,100 votes in a 
district in-low the average of Ohio districts in population, and in which no suggestion 
of fraud was made by any person. My opponent received in 1878 about l,OO0 more 
votes than wen- cast m that year in tin- second, sixth, and eighth Georgia districts, 
and lie was overwhelmingly defeated, while the three honorable gentlemen from that 
Siate (Mr. Blount, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Strphi ws] are now chairmen of important 
committees of this Mouse. With more votes than u takes to elect three of tin most 

distinguished Southern Democratic members of this House, a >m-lr Northern 1 >< 

crat is left at home. Other examples equally strong could he given to show the result 

of such Democratic rule. 

It does not come with good grace fr gentlemen t" assail my party with tin' 

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 Armj under Republican rale from 
voting. The most thai can he said is that in some instances lawless Democratic 


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 in times past. Is legalized riots one of the methods 
by which " property, intelligence, and education will rule the land 1 " as says a dis- 
tinguished Senator [Mr. Thurman], Prior to the war, wheu 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 in 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 in 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 and the 80 per cent, of white people of the South, many of whom through 
the curse of slavery, socially and otherwise, were once worse off 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, in mockery cry out for liberty and the 
people's rights. 

That party precipitated this nation into a civil war in which blood flowed 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. 


It is also said that all these- election laws should be amended or repealed in the in- 
terests of conciliation. What is conciliation, so much talked about on 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 and their constituents in a state of 
hostility? We are told the war and tin-, rebellion have been at auend for above 
fourteen years, and yet daily and hourly here conciliation is demanded. 

This demand is sometimes made to ring in our ears coupled with a threat that; with- 
out it the nation is still imperiled. The thing demanded is concession (not concilia- 
tion) of the great fundamental principles of a free government, those for which the 
best blood of the land 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 anus should ask no 
conciliation and they need no forgiveness. Out of the goodness and 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 tree; 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, stand by the Republic 
now and for the future. 

When, unwillingly, the Siuth laid down its anus, the Republican party handed her 
hitherto rebellious people the ballot , granted them amnesty and pardon, rehabilitated 
them with full and complete citizenship, and without ample guarantees for the future 
made them the peers in polit ieal rights and privileges of those who, un ler God, saved 
through blood and tears, at the cost of untold millions, the Union. This was con- 
ciliation superadded t<> 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 <d' it. But if concessions' of cardinal principles are still further' demanded, 
with no arrogance 1 hope, and without threat, speaking, as I believe, not only for my 
party but the truly patriotic people of this whole country, I warn those who make 
such demands that they will he successfully opposed not only in debate and by vote 
here and elsewhere, but should the final arbiter be appealed to, on the bloody theater 
of war. 


Mr. Chairman, many of us have been surprised to hear advocates of this legisla- 
tion against the purity of the ballot-box demand it in the name of 


In February last, Mr. Hewitt, of New York, made a Bpeecb here favoring this leg- 
islation and headed it "personal liberty of the citizen." Others have said they 
favored Buch legislation because they desired "the subordination of the military to 
the civil power." My colleague [Mr. Hurd] says be is filled with joy to recollect 
"that the party of the Army is not in power in this Congress." Has it come to pass 
thai the " personal liberty of the citizen " hangs on his power t<> perpetrate fraud and 
violence on election days! Does it not absolutelj depend on his amenity to law iu 
case lu> engages in either of those things .' Is the " subordination <>t' the military to 
the civil power" secured by protecting by law open violence at election polls .' Would 
this not l«e under sanction of law tin' subordination of both the military ami civil 
power to the licentious mob .' Would it not he tin' 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, in the 
future as in the past, invoke that stroii-;- arm of this Govern menl as a last resort to 
save endangered constitutional liberty. What is liberty, civil liberty .' The nature 
of true liberty ought in this country to he understood. Liberty and authority go hand 
in hand in 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 fly-wheel to the greal mechanism of constitutional 
liberty, it is our proudest boast to-day that events of the last score of years have 
demonstrated that our ( lovei nmeiit isstrong enough to maintain itself against foreign 
or domestic foes, yel Bhorn by its orgauic acl of all power to oppress or degrade its most 
hunihle citizen. None now are so high as to he above the law and none so low as to 
be beneath the protection of the law. Liberty teaches us to reverence ami support 
authority as well as to withstand tyranny. The love of liberty which does not pr<>-^ 
(luce these effects is as hollow and hypocritical as a religion which is productive ol 
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 "relic ion," as though 
i "Mat wrong could he sanctified by a name. 

In the language of the heroic Madame Roland, as she bowed reverently before a 
statue of liberty at her execution: "0 Liberty! what .rimes are committed in thy 
name I"' 

Secession, rebellion, and treason iuvoked the sacred name of llbertj to shield from 

tin- 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 ill its direst 
form was Ion- protected ami perpetuated. War was the only 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 hy the result attained. Let not licentiousness 

1m- mistaken for liberty. Licentiousness is a lawless power too often indulged in under 
a pretense of liberty. 

The poet Milton fitly characterized a .lass of persons, all of whom are not yet dead. 
He said they w ere t host — 

Thai bawl for freedom in their senseless moods, 
a i,.l still revolt, when trnth would ael them free; 
License thej mean whenthej cry— liberty. 

L.t u- cease this ckery in the name of liberty. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I bee to say this Government would rightfully Bpnng 

to arms to redress a w rong done to one of its citizens in a foreign land. Let it not he 

said that the broad shield of the Constitution and laws of the united states shall not 

he thrown over and around an American citizen at home. 

I hope the Stars ami stripes shall ever he an emhle f liberty and protection for 

all citizens of this Republic on land and Bea, at home as well as abroad. I Greal ap 
plause on the Republican side of tie- House, l 



June 11, 1879. Against the sixth section of the Array 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 five minutes. I simply wish to say that I am one of those who do not 
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 be heard. Gentlemen on this side of the House who favor 
the bill have all the time they desire. 

That is all I need say, except that I wish to emphasize what I have before stated 
here 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 hands 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 ku-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 voting 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 bandsof 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 elections. 

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 he 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 bands 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 
hands. I would only use United 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 

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 t<> be done 
which may be done under fcbe Constitution or existing laws, it, fairly construed, de- 
nies the right to use any of the money appropriated, 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 polU 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 tin 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 atrainst it. 



June 6, 1670. On a Post-Office appropriation bill, which contained ;i clause repealing a recent law to 
extend the letter-carrier system. 

Mr. KEIFEB said: 

Mr. Chairman : There ought t<> be no discussion relative to tin- merits of this hill, 
considering its origin. It ought to be borne in mind that the law which is sought t<> 
be repealed was passed after petitions bad come to this House from one hundred thou- 
sand persons. And in connection with that we must beariu mind this measure which 
we are now considering was reported from a committee which did not have a single 
petition before it ashing it to report any such proposition. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, 
the Committee on Appropriations never lias had up to the present moment, as I am 
informed, the subject referred to il 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 referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Mr. KEIFER. Nobody disputes that: all understand that; and it was the duty 01 
that committee to come forward and make the appropriation and not undertake to 
pass a new law ou the subject. 

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. This one huudred and twentieth rule not only permits 
but under the practice of the majority of this House commands legislation. 

Mr. KEIFEK. 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 conies 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 in the Senate, for the gentlemen who opposed it took 
the pains t<> 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 in 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 hill was never considered in a single instance. 

Mr KEIFEB. Now, Mr. Chairman, if that is all that is desired Twill call the gen- 
tleman's attention to the proceedings in this House on the 7th day of dune, 1*78, 
when speech after speech was made. I know a great many speeches on this subject 

were made, printed, ami circulated all over the country. I know my friends on my 
right made speeches and gentlemen all around me made speeches pro and con , and 

yet we are now told that the l.ill was not debated. If was debated on every hand, and 

ever] feature of the hill was debated, one feature was not in the bill as originally 
reported, and I took the pains from my place on this floor to have read as pari <>t 
my speech, as the Record of the 7th of June, 1878, will show, the section of the law 
which I proposed to bave the committee add and which it did add to the hill, and it 
is there in that speech exactly as it appears in the existing law. I took the pains in 
my speech then t<> 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 th in $12,000, anil 
tnanj having a uet revenue of less than $4,000, and ye1 there were cities in this conn 

tr\ under that law with a gross reve i of over $50,000 which could not have free 

delivery offices. M.\ own citj — and the gentleman thinks I oughl not to vote against 
his hill because of that fact— which had a gross revenue of $34,700, could not under 
the old law get a tire in.! 1 1 deln <-i \ , while other cities ol ten or eleven thousand gross 
revenue came in under the old law . Those wen- the subjects of discussion, and three 
fourths of the members nf the House, alter thej had been fnllj informed, voted to 
pass the law. So the objection <>f the gentleman falls that it never was discussed, for 
it did have discussion on every hand. 

Asa partial answer, Mr Chairman, to the gentleman's sweeping statement thai we 
arc liable to have a verj large number of i ities in t his conn t r,\ that will become free 
delivery offices I will saj that I hold in mj hand a statement made yesterday at the 
Posfc-Offlce Department, showing thirty-four cities thai would probably come under 
the present law and be >nade free-delivery offices. Ever] oue of them, fthev were 
made tree delivery offices, would have from $15,000 to $40,000 uel revenue to uo no 

where else to he expended alter having paid all then own expenses, and all the e\ 

penses of a free-deliverj office. Not on< of them would fall below from |13,000 to 


$15,000 of net revenue 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 ot $53,491. That is among the very highest. The city of Galves- 
ton, Texas, has a gross revenue of $54,077 and it 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 wlien he suggests 
that under the law which he proposes here today that city could be made a free-de- 
livery office. There are live 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 
be 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- 
priationsCommittee 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 in mind, however, as has been stated by my friend who 
has just taken his seat, that there are two causes that always increase the revenue 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 drop-letters there is paid double postage at free-deliv- 
ery offices, and 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 been self-supporting ou account of the increase of mail 
matter and also the increase of postage paid in consequence of it. What the last re- 
port may show upon this head I cauuot 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, and furnish a large net revenue in 
addition. I think in round numbers the net 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 in that little city toward carrying the mails aud 
toward keeping up the mail system in other places $-.28,000 annually. Is it unreason- 
able to ask to have extended to us the free-delivery system which will enable us to 
tarnish 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 want to spend more of our own money. That 
is the effect of the argument on the other side. My city is prosperous. We do a large 
amount of business there. I am proud to say that through manufacturing industries 
and oth rwisc we have built up a flourishing city. We now furnish and are willing 
to furnish much more than our own share Of the revenue to carry the mails. We arc 
quite willing to continue to do so. In my oit.v we make :;;; per cent, of all the reapers 
and mowers that are manufactured or used on the continent of America. We make. 
also, a large part of the machinery that plows np and cultivates your prairies of the 
Wesr. We cany on an extensive business of that kind. And we think while we pay 
a large sum of money for the conducting 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 


I am not making any argument tor my own city that I would not make tor any 
other similarly situated; but I am not ashamed to say one of the things that operates 
on my mind is the fact that 1 live in a city that would be entitled to have this in- 
crease of mail facilities. 


There is just one other city in the State of Ohio which nnderthe 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 < >hio [Mr. MonroeI, 
it is iu his district. There are also several cities in the State of Illinois, Rock ford I 
recoiled is one, that might be entitled to the free-delivery Bystem, 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, and that is the reason why they have such a large revenue. My understanding 
of the matter is. ami 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. You have in New York and in the principal distributing offices of the country 
a large increase in the number of clerks merely for tin- purpose of distributing the 
mails over the country. But that adds nothing to the revenue cf the office. The 
revenue of the office is derived principally from the sale of postage-stamps; and 
the fact of the office being a distributing office makes the expenditures far larger than 
they otherwise would he. 1 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 


Mr. KEIFER offered the following substitute for the bill : 

" A. bill makin^ additional appropriations for the services of the Post-Othce Department for the fisca 
~ years ending .tune 30, 1879. aud June 30, 1880. and for other purposes. 
•' Be it enacted' <&C . 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, 

" For payment to letter-carriers for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880. and to extend the service oi 

such carriers for said year under the provisions of the act approved February 21. 1879, entitled 

An act to fix the jiav of letter carriers,' in addition to the sum heretofore appropriated. $353,000. 

For payment of increased salary to letter carriers under provisions of existing law for the fiscal year 

ending Jane 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 iu this hill. 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 
haves out all the legislation contained in the [lending hill. Iu the estimate of the 
Postmaster-General he states that there will be required for the remainder of the 
fiscal year, L879, $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 tin' services in the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1879, f"i the reason that I am informed at the Post-Office Department that in the 
remainder of this year it will l.e impossible to extend the service, so that the 
$21,000 is omitted in the appropriation. 

The Pos'tmaster-General states that for the next fiscal year, that is. the year ending 
.lune 30, 1880, there will he required, in order to extend the service and for the in- 
creased pay of carriers, the sum of $353,000 in addition to the $>,000,000 already ap- 
propriated', if one-half id' the carriers in cities of the first-class are paid an annual 
salai v of $1,000 each, and $415, I 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 bu f $353,000 which, according to the estimate of the Postmaster-General, 

will enable him to pay only one-half of the carriers mi cities of the first class at the 

rate of $1,000 a year each. 

I understand that there are many members on tins floor who think we should make 
provision for the maximum number of two-thirds of the carriers at $1,000 a year each, 
a> provided for in section 1 of the act of February 21, 1879. Thai section provides 
thai at no time shall the number of carriers in the brst-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 service in the cities in which they are employed. For my part, 
I do not think these letter-carriers are overpaid. I would oot, personally, objeel to 

paying two-thirds of them al the rate of $1, pei annum. I have, however, offered 

m\ substitute so as "> provide for paying one half only at thai rate, and I tins! the 
suhst itut'- will lie adopted. 

Mr. BAKER. I rise to oppose the amendment. 

Mr. KEIFER. I nave not ye1 yielded the floor. I desire to say that the gentleman 

t i New York [ M,-. Cox] made a sujrgesl ion to me to change the sum appropriated 

h\ m\ substitute 1 1 < mi $453,000 to $415,000. Ii he desires to move such an amend- 
ment I will yield to him for that purpose. 

(Mr. Ki n kk's substitute was agreed t" 



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 iu 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 in 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 iu 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 iuto 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, tbe 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. Wheu this proposition was first made in the last Congress its 
real purpose was no secret. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. McMahox] 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 iu relation to that com- 
mission : A gentleman who was appointed by the Forty-fourth Congress on a commit- 
tee to investigate the elections in the State of South Carolina, to take testimony and 
report who carried that State in 1876, and whether the electors in 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 lie was put ou the 
Electoral Commission; and when he had no testimony before him lie voted in effect 
that the Tilden electors had carried the State of South Carolina and that tbe Hayes 
electors had not. 

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 sucli law, and there is no complaint. We do not 
legislate men into the jury-box with a view of their voting for their own party in ren- 
dering verdicts. We have not had any 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. I have stated them in a former speech 1 made on this 
floor, and 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 t heir part; 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 tunes in the history of our country and 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 
which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox I seems to be so much agitated about, 
as neither he uor I were prepared to go fully into all these reports. I stated the re- 
sult, I stated the fact, I stated the effect, and 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 


evade the point, and thru to beg me to withdraw niv statement in the face of the re- 
port, and I declined to di> so. 

I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, thai the great question before the Electorial Commis- 
sion at the time the case of the stale <>i' South Carolina was being considered, it' it 
was not in all cases, w as this : those claiming that Tilden was (dec ted, or that Til den 
electors were elected, claimed it on the ground that the ret urns showed the tact of 
their election on their face. 

Now I repeat here that Mr. Ahhott signed a report which contains a statement and 
summary id' 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 thai is what the Democrats stood on 
before the commission — " that the result by thus ascertaining the votes cast al the 
precincts and correcting the mistakes made by the managers in the returns i> .1- 
follows:"' and then follows a statement in summary. Then the report states ••this 
gives Howen. 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 £31." That was the report; and the question was what did the returns 
show, and the returns did show that the liases elector who received th« lowest vote- 
on his ticket had 631 more votes, according to Mr. Ahhott 's report, than the highest 
Tilden elector, and so they reported. I read further from the same report : 

Your committee believe tiny have obtained with substantial accuracy the number of votes cast, &c. 

So much fcr 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. Ahhott in effect voted that 
the Haves 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 tilings which gentlemen may speculate 
about outside of these figures, hut the substance is what I have given you here. It 
contains thai 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 187o\ and 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 G 



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 tore- 
coiu the trade-dollars into legal-tender or standard silver dollars and to stop the 
further coinage of trade-dollars. I understand the Committee ou Coinage, Weights, 
and Measures to recommend the passage of this bill. 

Mr. FISHER. Do not sa^y that the committee recommend this bill without amend- 

Mr. KEIFER. I understand them to report it back without amendment. 

Mr. WARNER. The majority of the committee are in favor of amending the bill. 

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 he 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, 187:5, and which 
it held until totally demonetized by the act of July 22, 1876. This latter act was 
passed rhiefly through the efforts of Democrats in- the Forty-fourth Congress and 
when this House was overwhelmingly Democratic. 

But for the demonetizing act of July 22, 187G, 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 right 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 187:5, which first authorized them, has 
been $35,959,360. 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 ($106,000 
have been melted at the mints), and making due allowance for those returned in 
various ways, there can hardly be found in this country live million of the trade- 

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 live and a quarter Trillions, and these 
were held principally by California banks. On the 13th of June, LB79, 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 
that 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 i hirty millions of 
the trade-dollars already absorbed in foreign commerce and not Deeded at home, and to 
take up and recoin at a loss to the United States of not less t ban 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 


interested in mineral districts nol to favor this measure, as it will onlj tend to depre- 
ciate our own silver bullion aud to widen the breach, at our present ratio, between 
the gold and the silver standard. It will also ho ruinous, for a time al least, to our 
Bilver-mining interests in this country. There is plenty of bullion without melting 
the trade-dollar to occupy our mints inderini ely to their fullest capacity. There is 
no legal or moral obligation resting on this Government to take up these trade-dol-i 
hi rs .it above their value as bullion. The Chinese Government has do mint and is 
not likely to have, and the trade dollar is constantly increasing in favor there, lience 
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 no>t of the oriental nations, and it will 
be largely to the interesl of this country, as far as possible, from its inexhaustible 
Silver mines to supply them with their coin or money. 

Dr. Lindcrman, 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, ii would not 
appear to be ;ul\ isable to repeal the law authorizing its coinage. 

No more trade-dollars will in any event he coined, unless ii is to t lie 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 lie coined into trade-dollars, 
unless it will h" more profitable than to sell it to the Government for coinage or to 
other parties. Why should this means of utilizing our silver productions he with- 
drawn, especially while silver bullion is so much depreciated in the markets of the 
world .' 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 onr country to go into ordinary use; and notwithstanding the fact that it 
contains 6f grains more pure or 7.1 grains more standard silver than tin' now legal- 
tender silver dollar, 1 would not give it a full legal-tender character. To do the lat- 
ter would destroy the original purposes of the act of 1873. 

The limited legal-tender character of that acl should, however, never have been 
taken away, ami should now he restored so as to protect all persons, Laborers, and 
others from inconvenience and loss on account of those now in 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 boh ling 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 ! 
propose. If employers should use them to pay their employes, the latter could buy 
without discount any of the necessaries of lite with them. To make them a legal 
tender for $5 will not injure tie- Govern meut to any extent, but it will prevent loss to 
that class of persons who cannot always protect themselves. The hill of the commit- 
tee is against tin- iuterests of the Gover enl and in the interest of the hanks and 

brokers who bave hoarded the trade-dollar. 

The bullion in all the trade-dollars could he purchased by the Government for 
7*25,017 at the present advanced privo of silver bullion, hut under this lull the 
Government warn hi he required to paj t3,"i34,343 more than t hey are worth as hull ion, 
thus opening a mean-, of speculation al i he expense of t he Government and ottering an 
i ml nee me nt to parlies to oat her up at home and abroad and sen I to the mints all the 
trade-dollars hitherto minted. This lull is in the interest of those who have already 
hoarded in large sums the trade-dollars, purchased at eighty-five 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 relict' to per- 
sons who bold trade-dollars in small quantities and who have received t hem for wages, 
produce, &c. It must he noted thai the passage of this bill will give no relief to 
holders of small Bums of trade-dollars. Such holders can only sell at a discount to 
speculators, to be sent off to the Treasury or Bubtreasuries ol the United States for 
exchange. To give Buch dollars a legal-tender quality only in sums not exceeding 

will necessarily force those now in our country abroad, and will cause them not to 
circulate at home generally. 

Lei us coi i r standard silver dollars to the extent of the capacity of our mints, 

if necessary ; hut out of fresh bullion, the product of our mines and the fruits < » t ihe 
toil and enterprise of our miners. 
1 am not speaking againsl the silver dollar or the silver standard, but I speak ii 

fa\ or of a silver dollar for our own home cireiila' ion which ma\ never be dinhonored, 

hut held up abreast, tor all purposes, of t be gold or now paper dollar of this Govern- 
ment, and also in favor of rinding an easj market ami g 1 price for a great a"' 

exhaustible proline, of our country. 

We have coined, prior to June I, 1879, under existing law, 33,40 s 
silver dollars, which are now ready for or in circulation. Wk 


lars ran get them in any sums desired. The per capita of silver dollars in this country 

is inncli greater than at any other time in its history. 

The Democratic party were the pioneers in the work of destroying the " monetary 
power" of silver in the United States. 

Fr<>m the organization of the United States Mint (1793) to June 30, 1873, the total 
silver coinage was as follows : 

Dollars •- $8,045,838 00 

Halt'dollars 99,845,215,50 

Quarter dollars 22, 001,218 50 

Dimes 9, (ItiO. 795 50 

Hal f dimes 4, 90l>, !>4C 90 

Three cents 1, 2*1, 850 26 

Total silver coinage prior to 1873 145, 141, 884 60 

On February 21, 1853, a Congress, Democratic in both branches by large majorities, 
by legal enactment took away the thitherto full legal-tender character of 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 were not melted up for various uses of 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 
small matter. A very 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 of the Revised Statutes of the 
United States), all silverdollars coined by authority of the United States were a legal 
tender, equal with gold coin. Section 3580 of said statutes demonetized all United 
States silver coinage, and made it a legal tender for only $5. 

The act of February \2, 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 of 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. 

Above all, let us not, under the pretense of legislating in the interest of more silver 
dollars, make a law to give banks, bankers, brokers, and speculators millions of dol- 
lars at the expense of the United Slates Treasury, and without giving relief to the 
only persons in this country who have suffered from a circulation of silver (trade) dol- 

By the adoption of my proposed substitute for this bill full relief will come to this 
last class of persons, and the Government and other parlies will suffer no less. 

No money or representative of money or obligation of any character which this Gov- 
ernment is or has been in any degree responsible for passing into common circulation 
among the people should be allowed to be made the instrument of injury or loss to 
any citizen. The remedy proposed, so far as the trade-dollar is concerned, is easy, 
simple, and efficient. 

June 111. 1K7!». Remarks on the adoption of the 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 for 
$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 trade-dollar, which 
only three years ago was supposed to be of a character that ought to pass for nothing 
in this country, must now be bought in at more than it is worth. The proposition is 
now that the trade-dollar is too good to circulate in this country, that it has too much 
bullion in it, and therefore the United States must pay nine cents on each dollar more 
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 on the Asiatic const and shipping these trade-dollars 
to New York City in order to speculate in view of the legislation proposed here to- 
day. 1 am opposed to such a policy as utterly unwise. Now, if you will simply make 
these trade-dollars legal tender in sums of $."> they will circulate everywhere. If we 
had not passed the act of 1^7I> 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 l-7ii was passed, and the trade-dollar will then cir- 
culate everywhere throughout the country. 

Mr. FORT. 1 would like to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 


Mr. FORT. Docs the gentleman think that making tin- trade-dollar a Legal tender 
will briny,' it up to par f 

Mr. KEIFER. Undoubtedly it will, as the subsidiary silver coins which the gen- 
tleman nses every day arc at par. 

Mr. FORT. Then why should there not be the same inducement to send the trade- 
dollars back here from China and put them iu circulation at par.' 

Mr. KEIFER. Because by this bill it is proposed to buy them np as bullion and 
pay nine cents on each dollar more than they are worth as bullion. 

Sir. 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 


January 22, 1880. On the Hill requiring reserve of national banks to be kept in gold and silver coins 
<>f the United States. — 

Mr. KEIFEB 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. Hut 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 hill first came before the House tor consideration the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Buckner] having charge of it in substance that 
the hill 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 w .is coin enough now in all the hanks of this country to meet the require- 
ments of this bill. We were then to he soothed with the idea that we were to make 
no draught upon the reserve coin in the Treasury excepl 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 he 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. Hut yesterday, to our surp ise, he told ns that he introduced 
this bill at the extra session, or one very similar to it. and he further said : 

Bat in\ purpose w as t.> onload the Treasury of a portion of its immense boards of gold and silver I'm 
the purpose of diffusing them among tie- banks ami the people. 

Hut. Mr. Speaker, when we read the hill, we find the sole effect of it is to put the 
padlock "f the law on $50,000,000 of the coin of the Uuited States, that the people 
cannot reach under anj process known to the country. The effect of the hill is to 
lock np, in round numbers, 150,000,000 oi coin that the people cannot reach under 
any circumstances. The coin reserve required to be kept in the sixteen principal 
cities «.f this eoiintry. where they are required to keep in "lawful money of the United 
sin />■•<" a sum equal to 25 per cent, of their circulation a d I >auk deposits, and in t he 
other banks of the country, in like lawful money, 15 per cent, of their outstanding 
circulation and deposits, which reserves aggregate, in round numbers, $100,000,000 — 
we are, t hen. Mr. speaker, by this bill to sa\ that one-half of t hat large aggregate is 
to be locked np in the hanks, where it is not to be reached at all. It is to be absolutely 
withdrawn from circnlat ion. 

Wean-, it is tin., lo turn out instead $50,000,000 of greenbacks. What for .' Do the 

people want them .' I venture to say there has not been a petit ion presented to this 

lions.- or to the Senate, asking that tbe-e greenbacks shall in- turned out ami taken 

from the reserves of the hanks —not a single one. 

We ate lure taking up tine in trying to legislate upon a subject that Is not de- 
manded by the wants of the country or by t he wishes of the count ry anywhere. And 

wl'at is the real design and purpose of t his hi 1 1 .' If not the design, what will he 

the real effeel of it .' Not to use np, as I understand it, lor 9 Ighl not to do that, 

the amount of coin that is now in the banks for t he use of the people whenevel thej 
go to the banks to gel ii : not to take up the coin in the poekets of the people, for 

tiny need that tor i heir ow n uses, and will be likely to hold on to il, I nit to eon i pel I he 
hanks to go to the Treasury of t he United States and to draw from the fund now I 

$50,000,000 of the coin reserve, to lock it np so that. il cannot be made available foi 
securing permanent or continning resumption. This is the whole scheme and design 

of 'his 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. [ also trust all those who 
believe resumption is right and will and should ue maintained, will vote agaiusl this 


bill. Not only do von take l>y tliia $50,000,000 in coin fiom the Treasury vaults of the 
United Slates and' lock it up', not permitting it to be used for the purposes of securing 
resumption— not only do you do that, but yon turn out $. r »0,00n,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 opponents of resumption for presentation for redemption. 

The bill enacted into' a law withdraws $50,000,000 ,,f coin necessary to be used for 
the purposes of resumption and substitutes th< refor $."0,000,000 of paper money to be 
presented everywhere and at any time for redemption. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not good financial policy m 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 has been the policy here when we acted wisely, and 
until very recently it has been 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 standatd-hearer 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-lender 
notes issued by the Government. I have here his exact language : 

The amount of the legal-tei.der notes of the United States now outstanding is less than $370,000,000, 
besides $lU,00o,(H>0 of fractional currency. How shall the Government make these notes at all time* 
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 rtservoir 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 tin- resumption law was to take effect The Republican party was satisfied to 
provide one only when it was needed. Let us not destroy it, 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 tune is too short. I be 
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, troin the 
distinguished gentleman who has charge of this bill, that it was so designed : lor 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 
np in the vaults of the several national banks 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 cut ire 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 ot 
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 then- 
reserves, and thus make available for business purposes a large amount of money as 
required now to be kept under the piesent law. 

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as the law now stands every bank, it 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 geld ami silver coin, United 
States Treasury notes, and demand Treasury notes for t he purpose ot t he 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 bo successfully maintained, namely, the policy of resumption of specie payment 

after it had been so long suspended. 
(The bill was lost.) 



January 28, 1880. A message from the Senate, by Mr. Bi Ri n, its Secretary, ( mnnicated the 1 1 -" 

lntinns of thai body upon the announcement of the death of 1 1 mi. Zachabi ah Chandler, lair a Si 
tor ot the Cnited States from the State of Michigan. 

Mr. CONGER offered the following resolutions: 

Resolved, '1'hat the House of Representatives has received with profound sorrow the announce- 
ment of the death of Hon. Zachakjah Chandler, late a United States Senator from the State of 

Reaohud, That business be now suspended to allow fitting tributes to be paid to bis public and 
private virtues; and that, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, the House at 
the close of such remarks shall adjourn. 

Mr. KEIFEH said: 

Mr. Speaker: If 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 
Dames of many historic souls familiar to the ears of the people of all lands, and not 
among the least of t hose would be found the name of him on whose account we meet 

here tO-day to pay a last tribute 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 lite. To those 
who knew him well and intimately during many years of his long, eventful, and 
useful life it must be 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 tar as his lite was exemplary and worthy of imitation ; 
in so far as he was a type of American manhood and an honor to his count ry and race, 
he belongs t«i history. 

While his life and public services may not have been singularly grand, they were 
transcend en tly gr» at. It has often been ■< .- 1 i » I with a view of detracting from indi- 
vidual greatness that men only become 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 greal men. It is also true that men who have high and responsi- 
ble public duties east on t hem as a rule meet and discharm' t hem often to the surprise 
of t heir 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 
Btrong men faltered, hesitated, and fell. 

The differences in men are rarely to be measured by their difference in natural and 
purely intellectual endowments ; they consist more commonly in the differences in zi al, 
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 do good. 

Senator Chandler possessed most if not all of these endowments, and more largely 
than most id' tin- greal and good men of the world. 

If I were compelled to name tin- one leading characteristic which he was en- 
dowed with in a higher degree than another, and which ruled him in private and 
public affairs throughout his aseful 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 ah 'He in t he 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." 
Hi- was not onlj of thai kind id' heroism denoting fearlessness of danger, passive 
courage, ability to bear up under trials amid dangers and sufferings; n or was it 
onl\ 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 thai intrepidity and courage which shrink not in the presence of 
appalling danger. Senator Chandler was unpretentious, and as a husband, father, 
and friend, was kind, patronizing, and gentle; but w hen stormy times came his l now 
seemed to da i ken, and that great body of bis, which appeared to t he beholder to be 
one of the motive forces of creation, strode fearlessly to the front, and there, by com- 
mon consent held swaj until all danger was passed. 

\lan\ courageous men. not truly heroic, falter and fail to enter the lists when a 
eon il ict is i mm incut. Not so the deceased Senator. He was a leader when the times 
or occasions demanded true valor. It is in the had where men fall or are sacrificed. 
The leaders in chargiug a foe are the mosl conspicuous mark-, and tlie\ ate the firsl 
to receive the manly lire of hold enemies and often ihe cowardlj arrow- of hiding 
foes iii the rear, not iinfreqiieutly springing fi the bow of envj or jealousy. 

He escaped iii a singular degree, and d led in old age With his armor on. In a BUO- 
i esstul civil as in a successful mil it a r\ life- ami in the eyes of an oil en umli-i i iminat - 
ilie; public success in either is the only tesl of true greatness n i^ easier to lie led |<> 
scenes where honor and glory are won than to In- one of the few who lead t here. 

In the bloody conflicts of war the percentage of those who cannot, it' well com 


mantled, meet the actual conflict of battle with a good show of courage is very small 
indeed ; yet the large mass of men are physical cowards. Mr. Chandler had no ele- 
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 on 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 iu its 
fiber, Senator Chandler 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 
miud 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 when peace no longer seemed possible. 
As early as 1860 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 balls of legislation he 
gave his voice and votes for its rigoious 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 warm 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 me 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 lor a eause in which bis heart and soul were enlisted, and in that cause he died. 
He bad then entered upon bis 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 (lew 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. We 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 be was to address the 
assembled multitudes in that magic, wondrous eitv 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 titling that here in 
these halls that knew him so long we should pay him a last tribute, and 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 links no treason, here on envy swells, 

Hera L'liif no damned grudgea, ben are no storms. 

No noise ; lint silence and eternal sleep. 


February 14, 1880. Ona rep >rt of the Committee, on Rules- 
Mr. KEIFEB said : 

This seems to be a good time. Mr. Chairman, while considering this subject, to ex- 
press urn- opinions generally «>n 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-Office appropriation bill from the Committee on Appropriations to the 
Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads; thai is, lam opposed to it provided 
Rule XXI shall be amended as I think it OUgb.1 to amended. I desire to say that in 
m> jndgmenl 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 yon transfer to the various committees of this House 
the duties of preparing the several appropriation hills 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 ami 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 iu- 
Bignincaul 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 trait. It has been claimed by our distinguished Speaker 
that it furnishes the great means of reducing appropriations and saving money to the 
people. Hut I have observed in tbis Congress, 1 observed in the last session, that the 
sole purpose of that clause was to enable the Committee on Appropriations to bang 
political legislation on appropriation hills. Under the guise of that clause of our 
rule we were hen' dnriiie 1 1 1 «* last session lor more than three months, standing lace 
to face and eye to eye, fighting over the question as to whether we should repeal our 
♦diction laws, ami 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 thine- as retrench- 
ment intended. All that was intended was to eoeiee the minority of this House and 
to coerce the Executive of this Government to submit legislation dictated by the ma- 
jority of this House on the other side. That is what is meant by this clause under the 
guise of retrenchment to force legislation upon appropriation bills. 

I. it me give you 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 ot' the Senate, regardless of part) . we passed what was known as the Letter-car- 
rier bill; yet when this same Appropriations Committee came to deal with that mat- 
ter the.\ said in substance that the 1 louse and the Senate had passed the letter-carrier 
bill and the Executive who approveil of it did not understand the subject. They said 
ties would cut that lull to piece-, or they would make no appropriations at all for the 
purpose. That committee came in here with an appropriation bill containing a verj 
small sum of n >y for the lei ter-carrier branch of t he service, and with new legisla- 
tion, proposing altogether to repeal and overthrow the action of the House and I he 
Senate. We fought that committee lure for a whole day to c pel it to make appro- 
priations in accordance with existing law . That committee did not report those pro- 
visions under any guise of retrenchment. 



March 18, 1880. To the deficiency appropriation bill an amendment was offered, p rovid ing : " That, 
hereafter special deputy marshals of elections and general deputy marshals, for performing any duties 
in reference to any election. .-hall receive the sum of $2 per day in fall for their compensation; and 
that all appointments of such special deputy marshals or of general deputy marshals having any duty 
to perforin in respect to any election shall be made hy the judge ot 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 anv voting precinct where such appointments are required to he made, and the persons 80 
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. KEIFERsaid: 

The points of order have been well stated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
HISCOCK]. 1 wish to call attention to a bill introduced by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Springer] and referred to the Committee on Elections, and I 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 he- 
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 be made, at least on this side of the House, to snch 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, lint, 
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 be 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 I 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 ot this 
( 'ongress. 

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 ou Elections; and secondly, that the subject-matter of it isbefore 
the Committee on Elections, and for that reason is not in order. 

Mr. KEIFER. The genth man will understand me: 1 say that it is not before the 
Coran itteeon Elections unless it getsthere by 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 word or two to what I have already staled. I am induced 
to do it by the intimation of the (hair that on one point 1 suggested the Chair dif- 
fered from me. As hjis already been said, I regard the ruling on this question as a 
very important one. not forto-dayorperhaps for thissession or for tins Congress, but 

for the future Congresses. 1 wish to state again what 1 tried to state in the first in- 
stance : that is, if tTie Committee on Elections had the subject-matter of tins amend- 
ment referred to it by reason of the reference of tbe 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 amendmem itself was in substance the same as the bill. 

I have invited the at tent ion of the Chair to the consideration ot the bill. The anal. 


ysisof the amendraenl will show that it pertains generally to an alteration of an 
existing law rehiring to the appointmenl of special deputy marshals, I- not thai 
the substance of the bill of the g. ntleman from Illinois I Mr. Springer | .' If it is 
not then the committee which tins morning undertook to instruct its chairman* to re- 
port an amendment to (his House was doing a vain thing ami one outside of its ju- 

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 Bubitance of the hill, then we ran come log- 
ically, I think, to the conclusion, that it is not in order nnder the fourth clause of 
Riil.' XXI, which prohibits the introduction by waj of amendment of" the substance ol 
any other hill, or resolution pending before the lions.-." 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 ha v.- 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 lad that I think we 
are again launching ourselves upon the issue which divided this House ami 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 trom Unio 
[Mr. GaRFIRLD] 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 tor 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. C<>\] un- 
dertook to set himself up against the Supreme Court ot the [Jutted States and at his 
undertaking, b.v his i/isr dixit, to say. that a solemn, well, and carefully considered de- 
cision of that mostangnst body of this country is wrong. I was not surprised to bear 
him s;iv that. Mr. Chairman, I wasnot surprised to hear the general applause coming 
from that side ot the House when they responded to that statement. The decision ol 
the Supreme Court remains, however, the supreme law of the land under the Consti- 

That Supreme Court of ours he says is partisan in its character : packed is the word 
he uses. Who packed that court f Turn to the character of those men: read it : 
read the record they have made in all their lifetime— each one of them— and you will 
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- 

1 de-ire. Mr. Chairman, to Bay one thing further, in reference to a remark made by m.\ 
colleague from Ohio [ Mr. McMahon] who has charge, of this bill on the floor. He un- 
dertook to slate 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 the law was 
:, good one. Of coin. se he made that statement without having read t he opinion ot 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 <t <tl.. in speaking of govern- 
mental pow er, that — 
In exeri bring the power, however, «•■ are bound to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious 

in. i • that it has endeavored to guard ;i- fai ;<* possible against anj unnecessarj interference with 

St;it. laws aud r latioon with the dutiea of State officers, er with local prejudices. It could net act 

I go aa to accomplish anj l iflcial object in preventing frauds and violence, and securing the 

faithful pei formance of dot} al the eli ctions, without providing for the presence ol officers and agents 
to carrj its regulations Into effect Ii is also difficult to Bee how it could attain these objeote w ithoul 
imposing proper sanctions an penalties against offenders. 

And in another place .1 n-t i<-<- Bradley, in the opinion, Bays : 

Without the c rarrenl hovereignty referred to, the National Government would !><■ nothing but an 

advisory Goven -m. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. 

Whj do we have marshals at .ill it they cannot phvsically laj their bnnds on persons aud things in 
the t>. : i Ibrmance of Heir proper duties I functions can they perform u thej cannot use t 

[n executing the process of the courts Bt they call on the nearest constable Fot protection; must 

the\ relj on him to use the requisite c puis nnd to keep the peai whil they are Bolicitiug and 

entreating the parties and b\stauders to allow the lav to take it Chia is the neci warj i "i. 

Be ince of I tie positions that are assumed. It we indulge In sucl prai tii ibli \ lew - i - tlies. , and 

keep on refining and rereflning we Bhall drive the National Govi rnment mil ol the I nited States and 
relegate it to the District of Columbia or perhaps to Nine foreign soil, we shall bring It oaok to .i 
condition of greatei helplessness than that of the old confederal ion. 

The argnmi ntis based on a Btrained and impracticable view ol the nature and powers ol the National 

Government If must execute its powers or it la lovernraent. It mua! execute them on the laud 

as well aa on the sea on things as well aa on persona, And to do this it mast no< osaarily 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 loug 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 we 
are met by the theory that the Government of the United States does not rest upon the soil and terri- 
tory 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 t- 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 at 
elections, if you 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 th<* 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 now on the statute-books on the subject of special deputy 
marshals, thai it necessarily provides a mode of executing itself. Ir 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 am thing into the law which can take 
the place of what is repealed. I think this House already understands my views on 
this subject <>f the right and duty and the constitutional power of this Government 
to execute all its laws and especially election laws. I intended 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. EwiNG], who spoke the other day after the pre- 
vious question bad 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 
thai he was recently the standard-bearer of the Democratic party in Ohio in the elec- 
tion tor governor. Now, in his defense, and I may add he can defend himself, I wish 
to say lie 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 any 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 all these 
things emblazoned on his banner, he went into that campaign under apparently favor- 
able circumstances ; but, Mr. Chairman, be and his party were damned at the polls 
by the patriotic people of Ohio because of the conduct of the Forty-sixth Congress in 

C J3 

the extra session, in which the Democratic party proclaimed that we had 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 iuto laws the must 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 Mood will be on the heads of their own political 

We are on the eve of the time when the national political ax will fall. 


March - J(i, ISeU I'endinn consideration of a bill to extend a patent. 

Mr. KETFEE said: 

I offer an amendment to the bill which 1 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 
seventeen years, as this patent has. It was originally patented in I863 ; to date from 
some period in 1862. 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 
been 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 thai 
we have passed a law simply for the purpose of benefiting those who control monop- 
olies and control patents — persons who are cut itled to no grace at our hands a1 all. 
I do m>t 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 lull. 



March 30, 1880. On this contested election case — 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker. I shall occupy but a few moments jn the consideration of this case. 
It was not my purpose to say a word upon it. With a great deal of relnctaneel came 
to the conclusion that the Bitting member, Mr. Slemons, upon the testimony found in 
the record, was entitled to hold his scat 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 iu 1878. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing is true— and upon that 
my distinguished friend from Iowa [Mr. Weavek] will agree with me— 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 thing 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 door of the 
House, for it simply suggests that there may be something in this case 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 in the district. 

Mr. Speaker, there is one question which may arise, and 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 tins majority 
2,000 voles were obtained through intimidation, fraud, or other improper means; sup- 
pose it appears that these 2,00U votes ought to be struck off of the contestee's major- 
ity, because the proof shows that he was guilty of fraud and violence; suppose Ins 
majority is thus reduced to about 800. Now, are we upon that sort of tindiug 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 he submits; 
yet in the case I put it leaves the contestee with a majority of 800 unattacked. Upon 
such a case arc 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 S00, therefore he is not elected at all. This is a propo- 
sition which the gentleman from Iowa does not meet, and cannot meet. In his report 
lie does not undertake to say that the majority of the contestee was overcome. He 
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 case, 
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 line 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 compares with the census or registry of voters! 

Mr.KEIFER. lam unable to answer that question; there may he 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 lions.-, properly exercised, to -ay to a man 
who has been guilty of fraud in the conduct of his elect ion which did not affect the 


nsult of the election, whether il is in the constitutional power of Congress to declare 
the election was void. I nudertake to say, Mi. Speaker, in theliundreil years of our 
constitutional history, you cannot fiud a case where thai position lias been taken. I 
have examined the strongest ease pointed oul in the history of the country, the case 
of Abbol i 08. Frost, which arose in i he siate of Massachnsel t s, on which t he commit- 
tee reported, and the House stood by the report, and held vt here the charge was one 
of hrihery by one of the parties, and they could purge and purify the ballot-box by 
throwiug out the bribed votes, thai it was the duty of the I louse to do it. We have 
the more recent ease of Platte against Goode, from Virginia, where the minority of 
the committee reported to the Forty-fourth Congress in favor of the Bitting member, 
and reported that there had been bribery al a certain place, I think in Norfolk, Va., 
and t lies held it was their duty to come forward and purge thai election of all bribery 
and count the unbribed vote". A different rule, Mr. Speaker, is claimed to exist in 

Mr. BAKER. 1 have some familiarity with the two cases alluded to bj the gentle- 
man from ( )hio. and I ask him to yield to me for a moment. 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly; hut 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 fact found by the commit tee thai 
connected the Bitting mem her, or the member who w as adjudged en1 it led to the seat, 
with the fraud which w as found to exist in the election ; and whether or not the gen- 
tleman can point (nit a ease where the party who claimed to he entitled to a seat 
upon the Boor of this House is connected with fraud, you ate to carefully tear off the 
fraud, so far as you can discover it, on the assumption he has done nothing hut what 
you have been aide to unearth? The rule is, where a man claims to he entitled to a 
seat on the floor of the House and has been connected with fraud, he is the man w ho 
is in come forward and show that all the votes he claims are fair and honest. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have no objection to a question, hut I do objed to a speech. I 
take it t he gentleman's position would he this, if he means to take any posit ion 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 Irhd 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, hut jjoin<; on to state the law, say that the votes are to he thrown out, not 
tiiat the Bitting mem her is to he 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 tin- votes cast by the 
honest, lice, and independent voter. To seat a member upon majorities obtained through such influ- 
ences is to defeat the propei object for which the statute was created. 

No, Mr. speaker, the language here is "to seat a member upon majorities obtained 
through sin h 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 1 understand t he proposition of t he ecu t let nan from Indiana, it is tu tin- ef- 
fect that where a man baa been guilty of bribery which does not affeel 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 an 
inquiring as to tin- facl of election, not the tituess of a member to his seat. 

'.Inst one w ord further. It may occur to gentlemen that t here would he some reined x 
for a case where a man has been guiltj of fraud or violeuce, intimidation, bribery, or 
whatever else you choose to call it, ami through that means does not secure his sea i , 
bul through that means taints himself and renders himself impure and unlit to hold 
a m at on this Boor. If a case can lie mull — and I am not required to find that for 
tin' presenl -if a ease is made againsl the sittine; member, and it is shown he was 
guilty of e^ross 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 tin- rule that white it is found a man has 

hi en guilty of bribery ill his elect ion to a scat ill the House of Commons t he elect ion 

must he declared void, although the bribery did not affeel the result, or, in other 
words, did not produce his majority. I do not think from an examination of parlia- 
mentary authorities that will he found to he true even in that counlrx : Init it it i-, 

it is a rule which has grown up there where t he\ ha \ e no xx i it ten constitution to guide 
them in such ease-. Then the rule raighl obtain in that country upon the theory thai 
the man was elected, bul still is unworthy to hold a seat. and. therefore, bj means 

of an election contest he should lie expelled. we deal xx i I h here is a pure 
matter of election contest, ami il i- unfair to the Bitting member to Ileal him as 
though In- were on trial, with a view to his expulsion, xx hen he should he entitled to 
a trial iii a wholly different wax for an offense which would justify liis expulsion. In 


such case before lie loses his seat here there must be a two-thirds vote against him, 
as provided iu the fifth section, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States. 

I do not find from the testimony in this case that Mr. Slemons has secured a ma- 
jority of the votes for him by any of the means it is said were resorted to by him and 
his friends; and I undertake to say that no member of the committee found any such 
thing. I do undertake to say, though, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the com- 
mittee — those that signed the report proper without any qualification— did give to the 
contestant all that he could claim under his testimony, and then they found that if 
they did give him all the votes whicli he claimed he would still be defeated by over 
800 majority. 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 reject that testimony, bat they considered it in cutting down the returned ma- 
jority from '2,800 votes to about H00. For my own part I wish to say that under all 
the circumstances I was in favor of considering that testimony, and it resulted in the 
entire testimony being considered by the. whole committee, as will appear by looking 
at page 17 of the report. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? I understand 
that his argument is based upon this proposition, and I wish to ask whether he is will- 
ing to state that this proposition is applicable to all such cases, namely : if there was 
intimidation and fraud in the election, it must nevertheless be shown affirmatively 
by competent evidence that enough votes were changed to affect the result. 

Mr. KEIFER. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. 

Mr. BOWMAN. But I wish to understand the gentleman's proposition. If I have 
understood his argument it is that no matter if there was intimidation and violence 
iu the election, that unless you can identify the votes cast under intimidation, and 
unless you prove that the result of the election was changed by these frauds, it must 
stand as a valid election. 

Mr. KEIFER. No, sir; I stated no such proposition. I submitted no general prop- 
osition of that kind. I did say that if the proof showed, after giving to the contest- 
ant everything he claimed on every hand and every vote he could claim was affected 
by his testimony, and then it appeared that the sitting member still had an untainted 
majority outside of that, it was not our duty — nay, our right — to vote the sitting mem- 
ber out of his seat. Now, if you undertake to infer a different proposition from what 
I have said, and state it as the distinguished gentleman has stated it, then I do not 
indorse it. I do not claim it is necessary to deal with anything beyond the testimony 
in this ease. If from all the testimony in this case it is clear that the sitting member 
had an untainted majority, it is not our duty to oust him from his seat. I do regard 
it as absurd in the highest degree to say that a man has a majority rejecting every- 
thing to which he is not entitled, aud yet at the same time resolve that that man was 
not elected. I say that is absurd. 

As my colleague [Mr. Camp] states here on my right, if he has committed that sort 
of flagrant crime which renders him unfit to hold a seat in this body, then tin' ques- 
tion may come up on a motion for expulsion under the Constitution of the United 
States. One gentleman asks if a man is responsible for the deeds of his party — dur- 
ing elections I suppose hi' means. To a certain extent he is : but if we are trying to 
see if he is guilty of the crimes which would render him unfit to hold a scat hen- as a 
member of this body, then we should have to go still further and prove by clear and 
satisfactory evidence that he was himself cognizant of the crimes which had been 
committed by his friends. Otherwise we cannot hold him responsible at all for it. 



April B, 1880. Pending the Armv appropriation bill, the following amendment was read bv the 

Sec. "J. Thai no money appropriated in this aci i> appropriated, or shall be paid, for the sub 
equipment, transportation, or compensation of anv portion of the Vrmy of the United States to be need 
as a police force to keep the peace at the polls at any election held within anj State. 

The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] 
rinses t he point of order. 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, I regard ihis point of order as of very greal impor- 
tance. While I will not occupy many moments in attempting to have tin- Chair un- 
derstand the precise questions of order which can or oughl to be made agaiusl this 
amendment, in my judgment, I shall have to ask tin- Chair to indulge me lor a little 
\\ hile. 

The proposed amendment lias just been read. I shall claim under the rule thai it 
is not in older because il, at least for the coming fiscal year, changes existing law. 
1 shall claim also it docs not retrench expenditure. I shall claim il was not reported 
at all. as a matter of fact, ami properly considered under our rules, from the Com- 
mittee ■ i! Military Affairs. I shall also claim, assuming I am wrong in that point, 
that the Committee on Military Affairs have no jurisdiction mi the subject-matter of 
this proposed amendment to the Armv appropriation lull. 

And now. sir, before I proceed to take these points up and discuss them in detail, 
in oider that 1 may demonstrate the tirst point if possible, I ask the Clerk to read 
section 2002 of the Revised Statutes. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Sbc. 2002. No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in I he civil, military, or naval service 
of tin- United States, shall order, bring, keep or have under his authoritj or control, any troops or 

armed men al the place when- an\ general or special election is held in any stat . unless it lie 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. 
'flic Clerk read as follow s : 

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 tei ritorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed lo vote a I all such elections, with- 
out distinction of race color, or previous condition of servitude ; any constitution, Law. custom, usa 
or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority to the contrary notwithstanding. 

2005. When, under the authority of tin- constitution or laws id' any State, or the laws of anv 

Territory, any act is required to lie done as a prerequisite or qualification for voting, and by such con 
stitution or law s persons or officers are charged with the duty of furnishing to citizens an opportunity 
to pel form such prerequisite, or to become qualified to vote, e\ cry such person and officer shall give 
to all citizens of the Cniteii stales tin- same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and 
to become qualifii d to \ ote. 

Mr. KEIFER. Let the Clerk read next sections 5298, 5299, and 5528. 
The < 'lerk read as follows : 

St i 5298. Whenever by tea- f unlaw ful 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, il" 
laws of tin- United states within an\ State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call 

forth the militia ..I am or all 1 he States, and to employ such parts Of the land ami naval forces el tin 

in i ted States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws ol i In United 
jucb rebellion, in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United 
Mati s may he fori Ibly opposed, or the execution the eof forcibly obstructed. 

!99. Whenever insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combiuations, or eons piracies in any 
obstructs or hinders the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, as to depi 
an\ portion or class of the people of such state of any of the rights, pri\ ileges, 01 immunities, or pro- 
tection, named in the Constitution and secured by the laws for the protection of such rights, privi- 
immuuities, and the constituted authorities of such State are unable to protect, or, from any 

Cause, tail in or 1 1 In..- protection of I he people in such rights, sued I fa els shall be deemed a denial by 
8U( Il Male ol t he i < protection of the law s to w ll il-ll the\ ale elll it led tinder I lie Constitution of lie 

United States ami m ad such cases, or whenever any such insurrection, violence, unlawful combina- 
tion, or conspiracy ..pp. .si , or obstructs the laws of the I aited Stat, s, or the dim execution then ..i 
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 militia or the land and naval 

forces Ol the United Stales, , ., ,,f either. Or bj other means, as he may de. i icessary, I'll I lie sup 

prcssiou of such insurrections, d -in violence, or combinal b. 

■ V| i 5528. K\ cry officer of the Armv or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service 

"I the I n it ed States, w ho orders. Urines, keeps, or lias under his a ill horil \ Or control, anj I loops m 

armed men at am place where a general or special election la held in anj state mil. js BUcb fori 

in i css.ii > iii repel armed eneniii a of tin- United states m- to keep the peace al the pells, (hall be lined 

""' mine than .,."> , mid suiter imp] isuniiien I al haul labor mil less than three Ills nor nunc than 

five \ . 

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, I have en used to In- read these sections of the I'm led 

States statutes which arc in force for the purpose of making clear this one point, 
to wit, that the proposed amendment would change e\istii|o law for and during Ihi' 
ensuing fiscal year. I may sav, Mr. Chairma n. t ha t I am not pupated to concede 

90 a— k 7 


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 I 
doubt further very seriously whether or not by any legislation which we may put 
upon the statute-books 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 oftiee 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 'it)02 of the Revised Statutes we find 
that the military, naval, and civil officers of the Government are 1o be punished if 
they, in auy 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 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will slate 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 captan- 
dum speech. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will confine himself to the point of order. 

Mr. KEIEER. 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 fie under the cen- 
sorship of a man who is used to making ad caplawdym 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 
he 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 reigns, 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 for 
the purpose of preserving ti e 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 uo 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 inhibit ion 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 biin a moment ". 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. FRYE. 1 wish to state that the gentleman has inadvertently said that if this 
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. Put I 

understand from a former statement that he means to say it is an at tempt to take 
away this power. 1 hope no Republican, at all events, will admit, even if this amend- 
ment does becomes a law. that it will takeaway from tin- President that power. 

Mr. McMILLIN. If the proposed amendment does not change existing law, then 
why does the gentleman make the point of order against it .' 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 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 hound here to treat 
the prop osed amendment as it that was its scope and design 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. It is evident that the 
gentleman from Ohio has prepared an elaborate speech upon this amendment 

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman is very much mistaken. 


Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. And I make the point of order that In- must con- 
tine himself to the point made against tin- proposed amendment, and not enter into a 
discussion of the merits of the amendment itself. 

Mr. KEIFER. I do nol ex peel to converl the gentleman. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois, [f the gentleman has any desire to print bis speech 
ou 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 
<-online his remarks to the point of order. There is a limitation mi the debate as to 
points of order. 

Mr. FRYE. The gentleman from Ohio ins not in the slightest degree transgressed 
that limitation. 

The CHAIRM \ V The gentleman fr Ohio will proceed in order. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. 1 ask the Chair to decide whether the gentleman 
from Ohio is confining himself to the point of order. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1 will be obliged to the gentleman from Illinois if he will not listen 
to my Brjjnme.n1 to keep still. 

Mr. I' >W N8HEND, of Illinois, rose. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is a matter for the Chair to deride. It is s e times very 

hard to prescribe the precise limits to be observed in an argument ol I bis 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 thai this amendment was designed to take from the President all his power in 
t In- coming fiscal year to use the troops at the polls to keep the peace. It will hardly 
in- claimed on the other side that the President could use the troops at the polls 
to keep tin- peace when In- was forbidden by this proposed new section to feed them 
w hile 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 an 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 I he merits of the proposi t ion , if we should he so u n fort una te as 
ever to do so, then I may perhaps have something further to say. I now submit 1 hat 
tin- amendment is not in order under paragraph :'> of Rule XXI, a part of which I de- 
sire now to read. Perhaps I might as well read it all: 

:. No appropriation Bball in- reported in any genera] appropriation bill, or In- m order aa an amend- 
ment thereto, for an j expenditure not previously authorized bj law unless in continuation of appro- 
priations foi Buch public works and. objects as an- already in progress. Not shall any provision in 
-in- 1 1 Uill hi amendment thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as, being germane in 
the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures bj tne reduction of the number ami salarj 

nl' i In- officers nf i In- United States, i>> tin- redaction of the c pensation of anj person paid out of the 

-in;, ni' tin- Uuited States, oi bj i In- redaction of amounts of m\ covered by the bill: Provided, 

That it shall be in order farther i" amend such bill upon the report nf tin- committee lia\ ing jurisdic- 
tion of the subject-mattei of sach amendment, which amendment, being germane to the subject-matter 
<'t tin- bill, -hall retrench expenditures. 

It already appears the amendment will change existing law. It is clear the 

proposed amendment doe-, not retrench expenditures. All t he i ej . Mr. Chairman — 

and I beg your careful attention to I his — .ill the money appropriated by this hill w ill be 
appropriated a in I expended whether the ameudmeni becomes a pari of i In- lull or not. proposition is disputed 1 slum Id in- very glad to yield to some gentleman who 
would he able to enlighten me or the ('hair on thai subject. Tin- amendment does 
not propose in an\ lea tun- of it in cut down tin- expenditures of t In- (■' ove nil i lent. 1 1 
leaves the appropriation complete in everj respect. It leaves the tej to be ex- 
pended, e\ ery din f it, all i In- same w hether this second section isadded to the hill or 

in it. So that w i- may sa \ w iih perfect safetj thai I he amendment doesuot, and w ill not, 
it it should become part of the law retrench expenditures. 

The amendment applies to tin- proposed appropriation for the Arm\ for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, I --I. The whole sum, I repeat, appropriated by the lull if it be- 
comes a law will be expended even though the a mend men i should become u pari of it . 
Tin- proposed new section does not reduce " the numbei and salary of the officers of 

the United States;" nor does it rednoe "the componsati f anj person paid out 

of the Treasury of the United States ;" nor does it reduce " the a ints of money cov- 
ered by the bill." This is necessary under the rule before the amendment (Jould be in 

in di-r. 

Nor i-. the a 1 1 eie l nun i in order under t he proviso ol the i In nl paragraph of the rule 
Just read [ call attention specially again to thai in order that the Chair inaj have 

it fresh iii his in i ml : 

/ wided. I hat ii ihall be in order furthei to amend such Mil anon thi report ol the committee 

having jurisdiction of the subject mattei "t snob amendment; which ai Inn m being germani to 

iln- inbject mattei "i the bill, shall retrem b i tpenditun 

Having al read j shown that i he a mend men t will not retrench expenditures if ruled 
In order, and if as a part of this bill ii is enacted into law, it is scarcely ternary for 


me 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- 

Then, if I am right, Mr. Chairinm, 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 In- " upon the report" — for that is the word — "the report of 
the committee having jurisdiction," &e. 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 whet her 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 
faet that every report to this House from any Committee must be in' writing under the 

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 
i are 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 you through : or do you just want me to answer a question ? 

Mr. KEIFER. I am not through. 

Mr. SPARK.S. I presumethe gentleman certainly understoodme to report this propo- 
sition from the Committee on Military Affairs. 1 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. Kkifer] I will ask the 
gentleuTan 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 thi' Committee on Military Affairs .' 

Mr. SPARKS. 1 have answered that by stating that to my knowledge it was not. 
I 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 Allans could gel jurisdiction of a subject which has not been committed to it by 

t he I louse :' 

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 t hat, 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 he the fact, but 1 am willing to assume that 
to lie the fact; I believe that to he so. I could learn, as a mat ter of course, by sending 

to my committee-room. 

Mr. KEIFER. One thing at least is made clear, if not everything that I have spoken 
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. 1 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 t his proposed amendment. 

Mr. SPARKS. I beg the gentleman's pardon ; he entirely misunderstands me. 

Mr. KEIFER. I put my own construction on tin' gentleman's language. 

Mi. SPARKS. The gentleman certainly will allow me to put him right. He does 
not want to misrepresent me, does he .' 

Mr. KEIFER. No. 


Mr. SPARKS. I will slate the fact thai the < lommittee on Military Affairs especially 
and positively instructed me to reporl this proposition to the House, and move it as 
an amendment ti> tliis appropriation bill. This identical amendmenl was acted upon 
|p\ the committee, and I am instructed to move it as an amendmenl to this bill. 

Mr. KEIFER. The geutlemau has repeated thai two or three times; bul he never 
undertakes to tell us where his reporl is, when he made it, under whal rule he made 
it to the ( 'on i nut tee of t lie Whole, or in what morning hour he made i1 to the House. 
lie leaves it perfectly clear, as I said before, that he never has made such a report. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Has the gentleman a copy of thai reporl ! 

Mr. KEIFER. I would lie glad to have it read. The gentleman stated yesterday 
what he has stated to day. I will red his language : 

Mr Sr irks. By instruction of the Committee on Military A il'.iii s I offer as an additional section tha' 
which I send to the Clerk's desk. 

That is. hi' was instructed by that committee, perhaps hyonlj a majority of the mem- 
bers of the committee, to inn pose an amendment here to t lie Army appropriation hill. 
But thai committee never authorized him to make a reporl to the House in favor of 
such an amendment, and the gentleman will not say so, for he never did in fact make 
Mich a report. 

Mr.SPARKS. The gentleman is technical, I think. What I stated is critically 

.Mr. KEIFER. Well, if it is "critically correct," I am satisfied with it if the gen- 

t leinan is. 

Mr. SPARKS. Thai is so. 

Mr KEIFER. That is, in some sort of way, formally or i nformally, he gol thecon- 
aent of a majority of the members of the Committee on Military Affairs to come in 
hen- and offer an amendmenl to the Army appropriation hill, not to make a report to 
enlighten this Mouse, not to make a reporl that would give us the reason for tacking 
such an important amendmenl on an appropriation hill. 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 ionics from a committee having jurisdiction of the subject- matter of the proposed 
amendment. Thai is a pari of t he requirements of the proviso of the third paragraph 
of Rule XXL I repeat that the* imittee did nol have jurisdiction of the subject- 
matter of this proposed amendment. 

Pray tell me how il 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 aol refer a 
hill of this character to that committee, a hill that was intended to limit the use of 
money in an appropriatien hill : that could nol well have gol before the Committee 
on Military Affairs. 

Now. Mr. Chairman, this section analyzed amounts to nothing more than a direc- 
tion a- to how money appropriated in this Army appropriation hill shall he used, li 
has no connection with military affairs at ali in that sense. Hut in other views it is 
perfectly clear that this committee conld nol have had jurisdiction of the subject-mat- 
ter of it. and that the Mouse, obeying its own rules, would never have dreamed of 
referring such an amendment to that committee. The subject-matter did not belong 

there, la what way diil the committee get jurisdiction of THiglllatiug, not military 
affairs, bul the powers of the Chief Executive of this nation in his constitutional 
duty to execute the laws of the United States.' I raigtit. stop here and read the last 
paragraph of section 3, article 2, of the Coustitution of the United States, which d<- 
fines the powers thai will be a fleeted by the adopt ion of this a me ml men t at least for 

the coming year. I call attention to tin-, in order, thai tubers generally as well as 

The Chair uiaj bear it in mind. In speaking of the powers of the Presiilenl the Con- 
si it ui ion declares : 

li. shall taki care that the laws be faithfully executed and ihall commission all the officers of the 
United St 

1 1 is oath of oil ice reqniref him to fait h fulls execute the laws. 

Mere is an attempt bj an amendmenl to take from the Presidenl his constitutional 
power to execute the laws. This committee had noi jurisdiction of a snbject-mattei 
of thai kind. When and in what manner was the Btihjed matter of this amendmenl 
referred T I have made thai point perfectly clear already. Under the new rules the 

subject matter of t he a mend men I could nol have been referred, afl I have slated, to 

the < 'inn n n i iee on Military Affairs. I read from Rule XI: 

All proposed legislation ihall be refi rred to the mitt< es m <l in the preceding rule n^ i"H" 

funnel) i Subjects relating — 


10. Tii the niiliiio v establishment and the public defense othei than the appropriations foi Us sup 
port: to the Committee on Military Affairs 


It is thus made clear under the rule that this committee had not jurisdiction of the 
subject-matter of this amendment, and the terras of the rule suggest an express excep- 
tion of such a measure, because this amendment refers to the mode of applying money 
already appropriated. 

In cod elusion, I wish to say that the amendment if adopted 

Mr. McLANE. Will the gentleman from Ohio allow me a moment ? 

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. 

Mr. McLANE. I ask pardon of ray friend from Illinois [Mr. Sparks] for offering 
what I conceive to be a conclusive answer to the question addressed by the gentleman 
from Ohio to the gentleman from Illinois. I understood the gentleman from Ohio to 
inquire whether the gentleman from Illinois had moved this amendment as a report 
from a committee. The reply of the gentleman from Illinois was to call attention to 
the amendment. It is urged that this amendment is no report from a committee in 
the sense of the rules. The rules require a written report to accompany any bill, reso- 
lution, or petition reported by a committee. But the gentleman from Illinois intro- 
duced no hill, resolution, or petition. He did what he was authorized to do by the 
twenty-first rule, which has no relation at all to the rule requiring a report in writing 
to accompany a bill, resolution, or petition reported from a committee. The new rules 
of the House, it is true, require that a committee reporting a bill, resolution, or peti- 
tion shall accompany it with a report in writing; but that requirement of the rules 
has no reference to an amendment which the twenty-first rule expressly authorizes a 
committee to move to an appropriation bill. There are two distinct rules — one re- 
quiring a report in writing to accompany a bill- 

Mr. SPARKS. I would understand that technically any action of a committee- 

Mr. KEIFER. I yielded to the gentleman from Maryland for a suggestion only. 

Mr. McLANE. I am addressing myself to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. SPARKS. But right here I would like to interject the remark, of course with 
the leave of the gentleman from Ohio 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to say to the gentleman from Ohio that he had 
ten minutes to explain his point of order, and he has taken forty. The Chair hasnot, 
however, interrupted him, but he desires to say that on a point of order in Committee 
of the Whole there should he a limitation upon discussion, and the limit, in the opinion 
of the Chair, ought to be five minutes. 

Mr. CONGER. Not by any rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has a discretion on the Rnbject. He has allowed the 
gentleman to speak forty minutes instead often. He will proceed. 

Mr. SPARKS. I hope the gentleman from Ohio will get through very soon. 

Mr. McLANE. My inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio is whether he recognizes 
the distinction I have pointed out. 

Mr. SPARKS. I will attend to that matter. Let the gentleman from Ohio finish. 

Mr. K PIKER. I am unable to understand the meaning of language if the twenty- 
first rule does not require a report. I read again: 

Provided, That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of the committee 
haviug jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment. 

That means a report because it says so. I cannot dwell longeron that, and will con- 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I beg your attention further to this : that the amendment if 
adopted would have the effect to regulate the subject-matter of elections as well as 
the matter of the Presidential power to enforce the laws and put down violence and 
disorder. Section 52002, already read, which is specially aimed at, is part of the crim- 
inal and not a part of the military laws of t he United States. It is the section making 
improper interference on the part of military, na\ al, or civil officers of the United States 
in elections a crime. It is the section of the Tinted States statutes which recognizes 
the right of the Pre-ident, Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, to 
keep the peace at the polls when there is a breach of it. This section is found in the 
statutes under the title " Tin elective franchise." It isthe first section under that title 
in the Revised Statutes. I si il mi it this amendment refers more to t he manner of regu- 
lating elections, mure to the manner of amending in some form or other, peculiar as 
it may lie, the criminal statutes of the United States. It refers also to the manner of 
using appropriated money. It docs not retrench expenditure. It could not come 
from the Committee on Military Affairs, because that committee has no jurisdiction 
overit. Indeed, in everj possible view, it must, or at least ought to be, ruled out of 


I need not say a word. Mr. Chairman, on the subject of the great impropriety and 
the very bad policy of this character of legislation. 
(The point of order was overruled.) 



A|>nli" 1880. The House having resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the Btati "i the 
Union, and having nnder consideration the l>ill ill. 1: \ iaking appropriations mi the support 

of the Aiiu> I'm i In' Bscal year ending June 30, 1881, and t"i other inn poses- 
Mr. KEIFER Baid : 

Mr. Chajrm w : I'h is Congress \\ ill be known in future bistorj as the one in which 
it w.-is proposed by tin- party in power to destroy the Government unless tin- rninoi 
ity of this House and the President of the United States wo'nld allov laws to be passed 
legalizing in effecl frand, violence, and crime ; ami it will he known as the first Con- 
gress in the his tor j of this country in which it was proposed in both branches to 
annul all the President's power to execute tin- laws of the United States authorizing 
tin' preservation of peace ami order at the polls on election day. 

In tin- course of the discussion of this question I propose \ ery briefly to review the 
historj of legislation in this Congress. 

First. 1 may Bay thai tin' Forty-fifth Congress adjourned wit linn t having performed 
its constitutional duty by appropriating the tm>m\ necessarj to carry on the legisla- 
tive, executive, ami judicial departments of tin- Government, ami also w ithoul pro- 
viding for tin' pay of the Army. The Democratic party then embarked upon the pol- 
icy of coercing the minoritj of the House of Representatives ami a Republican Senate 
ami tin- Presidenl in the matter of important legislation. I low far has it succeeded .' 
Tin- first dill of this Congress proposed to appropriate for the Army, onlj on condition 
that a sect ion in it sin m Id lie allowed to in ■con H- a law making i' a high crime to keep 
the peace at the polls on election day. That section was notice to the country that 
tin- Democratic party, in the future as in the past, proposed, when necessary to ac- 
complish its ends, to have riots ami other breaches of the peace on election days al 
tin- polls. This legislation was shipwrecked by the veto of the President 

Trie second lull 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 re I .el I ion 
epl on the motion firsl taken of the Mate authorities. This ale > signally failed. 
The third hill proposed to appropriate for the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches of the Government, only on condition of the repeal ot all United States elec- 
tion laws which secured tin- constitutional right through supervisors of elections, 
special depntj marshals, &c, to have free. fair, ami honesl elections of members of 
Congress. This Kill also was notice to the country that open fraud bj means of vio- 
lence, intimidation, repeating, tissue ballots, and other unlawful measures would be 
in the tut me as in the past the pernicious policy of i he I > imocratic party. It met at 
tin- hands of the Executive the fate of the other two hills. 

The," misforl lines, Mr. Chairman, nor.withst indin » the defianl boasts of certain 

locratic mbers, led the Demicratic parts to "dallj " ami "doubt" in t In' face 

of the rnthoritative statement [by Mr Blackburn] that " he who dallies is a das- 
tard, ami he who douhta i- damned." < M In r 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 dnsl i>.\ the never-failing action 
of time." But, Mr. Chairman, time, aided l>\ t he firm stand of the Republican part] 
hen- in Congress, ami t he vetoes of the President, acted with lingular rapidity on the 
mi ml- of Democrats ami on their unwise policy here 

It i- -aid that when disease seizes on the human body, it develops first in the weaker 

part-. Through the purse of \>> rats the weakness iii the first place cropped out. 

Tin' re d\ was applied. An old-fashioned appropriation hill. -horn of all extraneous 

matter or political legislation, was at tl xtrn session promptly prepared one on 

which all parties struck ha ml-, nl though it was ananomalj in form, omitting the usual 
appropriations tor the judicial branch of the Government. It was hast ilj pushed 
through without a rider, and it received the Executive approval. 

Tin pa> of mbers for the fiscal year endiug June 30, 1830, being made certain, 

tin- old policy of coei > of the Executive was promptly returned to; i m ■ \im\ 

appropriation hill was brought forward from tie- Democratic caucus which oontaiued 

ction restrict i ng the right to use any of the ■', up . d to clothe, equip, 

or t ra 1 1 -port hiij portion of t he Army to in- used a- a police force to keep the peace at 
tin- polls at an\ election. We have tin- same amendment now before as; ami I ask 
the Clerk to read it. 

The ( hi k road a- follow -: 

-i I no i y appropriated In this act is appropi '•■! fortln 

equipment, transportation "i compensation "t snj portion ol tie \ nnj ol the I mi. .1 States to be 
used a* a police force to keep th< peaci at the polls at an j election held within anj 81 

Mi. K I II I . I;. Mi. Chairman, this proposed amendmenl would, in mj opinion. If 
htei iii\ carried out. have the effect to annul th • appropriation for the Arm] to the 


extent that no part of it could 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 he used as an army, hut they are none the less used as a police force. Ths 
very language, Mr. Chairman, of the proposed amendment indicates that the sohliere 
axe 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 he 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 he established 
and maintained to lie 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 he turned into policemen, 
hut that our ships, properly manned, should patrol the seas "as a police force, 7 ' 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 qnestiou 
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 amendment 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, hint I will not dwell further on that 

Let us analyze this amendment. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it is exactly the 
sixth section of the Army appropriation hill which was passed at the extra session of 
this Congress, against which my friend here [Mr. Williams, of Wisconsin J and atVw 
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. 
it 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 he 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 he used to put down riots on election day. 

But let us analyze it a little further. Before troops could he used at the polls on 
election dav thev' must he stripped of their Union blue. They are not to be clothed 
if they go to the polls when an .lection is being held dnrii g 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 logo naked and hungry ami with- 
out arms to put down a riot if there he one at the polls on election day. That is w hat 
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 pr<>- 
hiliits 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 perform that most im- 
portant duty thev are to lie docked their pay. 

It is claimed they are only prohibited from acting "as a police force." I repeal 
they cannot act in aid of the civil authorities at all unless they act as a police tore... 
Some gentlemen claim that because men are soldiersthey cannotactas a police force. 
The very terms of the a ndment provide, no' that they shall he changed from sol- 
diers to police, hut as soldiers thev shall not act as police to keep tin' peace at tin- 
polls on election day. 

Passing from that, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, lias the merit of conveying to 
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 
], laces save at such times and places when and where an election is being held for 
Delegates and Representatives in Congress. 

Nothing short office fraud, free riot, and free crimes at el. ctions is to he regarded 

as constitutional, according to Dei iratic notions of constitutional law ! Now, I do 

not propose to he in isu mhrstood on this question. I have heard on both Bides oi this 
House the claim made that it was wrong to use the Hoops of the United States at the 
polls to regulate elections. I ha\e heard gentlemen on both sides talk about this 

character of legislation as though it was intended to prevenl interference in elections. 
on another occasion when I was permitted to have only about two minntes' time, 1 

undertook to draw a distinction, which I beg leave t<» 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- 


terfere with the election officers or with the voters iu tLe rightful exercise of their 
constitutional privilege. 

But, Mi. Chairman, 1 am in favor of the use of troops al the polls, or the use ol anj 
other force under the command of the Government, to Interfere with the bad men 
who arm themselves and go to the polls to get up riots anil interfere with the election 
officers in the Lioncsl discharge of their duties and to interfere with the righl ol the 
citizen to rasl his vote. Thai isthe extenl to which 1 would go in the useol physical 
force a 1 the polls. What this legislation is aimed a1 is not io protect the voters oi 
election officers oil the d ij of election from being interfered n ith bj the 1 nited Stati - 
Vrniy. I. in it is to prevetil Ku-klux bands, White-liners, and armed hands ol what- 
ever 'nalue, w ho propose to interfere w ith elections, from being interfered with by the 
fcnny when thej are too powerful to be <■ unrolled by the civ il authorities. '1 lie meu 
who engage in i'raud, in intimidation, in high crimes, and in the work ol driving the 
hun, si voter from the polls, are the on'y ones to be shielded bj the proposed law. 
Such i- its avowed purpose. A Republican Congress long Bince pu1 upon thestatute- 

1 ks ii law making it a crime for military, naval; or civil officers ol theGoverumi m 

to in any manner by the use of troops interfere with elections. (Revised Statutes, 

Bections'200-2 and 552S | The Democratic party now desire t ake it a crime for these 

officers i" interfere with those who do interfere with elections. 1 contend thai the 
Government should execute its laws on the Bulged of elections and thai it should 
have ample power to enable il to execute them We oughl no longer to hear doubts 
expressed abonl the constitutionality of laws designed to enable the I nited States 
anthorities to preserve the national authority at elections. A recenl decision <>t the 
Supreme Court of the United States has authoritatively settled tins constitutional 
question of governmental power in that regard. . 

I hope the House will pardon me while I read an extrad from the syllabi in the 
case of l.i' parte Seibold < / <il. 

I read : 

Che National Government lias the righl to use physical force in any part of the Cni ted States to 
compel obedience to its laws and to carrj into execution tli<- powers bonterred upon it by tue i onsti- 

"Tbe' concurrent jurisdiction of the National Government with thai ofthe States, which it basin the 
exercise of its powers of sovereignty in every pari of the rjnited States, is distinct from that exclu- 
sive jurisdiction which it has bj the Constitution in the Districl of Columbia, and in those pun i - 
acquired fur the erection of forts, magaziues, arsenals. &c. 

Ihe provisions adopted tbi loi Lling the State officers of election to observe the State laws n _ 

lating elections ol Representatives, not altered l,\ Congress, are within the supervisory powei 
Coueress over such elections. 'I be duties to be performed in this behalf are owed totbe I nited States 
as well .i~ to the State ; and their violation wan offeuse against the United States which ( ougrcss may 
rightfully inhibit and punish. This necessaril.x follows from the dhecl interest which the National 

Government has in tned lection of its Representatives and H the power which the < unstitutton 

gives to Congress over i liis particular subject. 

The righl to use physical force in any part ofthe United States to compel obedience 
to the laws is thus authoritatively settled. I his righl inusl uow be regarded as the 
fixed law of t he laud. 

From the exhaiibtive opinion of Justice Bradley, who Bpoke for the court, J read 
farther : 

The more general reason assigned, to wit, * I > .t the nature of sovereignty is snch as to pn • u the 
loint co-operation <,i two sovereigns even in ;i matter in which they are mutually concerned, la 

not In our judgment of snffieient lorce to prevent irrent and harmonious action on the pat 

the National and State Governments in the elect! f Renresenl itives. It is at stun argument aii 

I i,, r. is nothing in the Constitution to forbid Buch co-operal in this oase, un mi 

tran •'- alreadj said, we think it clear thai the clause of the Constitution relating totbe region 

iinn of siirii i lections contemplates such co-operation whenever Congress deems U expedient i" inte 
ferejnereh lo altei oi add to existing regulations ol the State. Il the two Governments had an eunn 
equality -I jurisdiction theie might bean Intrinsic difficulty in bucIi mi operation riienthe adop 

l.v the, eovernment of a sj stem ol regulations mighl exclude the actl I < ongresa By mat 

t.ikui" jurisdiction of the subject, Ihe State would acquire exclusive Jurisdiction In virtue ol ■> well- 
known principle applicable rts having c dinate jurisdicl vet the same matter, liut no 

such equalitv exists in the present caw Thepowerol Is paramount aud 

may be exercised at anv time, and to anv exteut which It deems expedient aud so fai as ill i 
cised and i irther, the n gul il ■ etfec led supi raede Ihoae ol the State whh Ii are Inc 

Ann gouetal rule il i- l..n 1 >t expedient and «i-<- thai the operations "i the State and Natio 

Governnu i,i - should, ..- rat us practli able be i ouducfc <l separately I lei (•• avoid u< due 

.,„. I in- aud conflicts of lion and powi . Uu1 there is no reus m laying ibis down as .< nil 

of universal application. Ii should never be made to override, the plain and i ' "' 

Constitution itself. Wee t vleld to snch a transcendental view ol State sovereignty i 

stitution and laws oi Ihe 1 nited'Statcs arc the supreme law of tin land and to tin " "' 

obedience whether in his individual oi official capacity. 

Ami quol mill inii her from tin- opinion : 

In exercising the power howevei wean bound to pre* > that Congress baa done so in ii 

, „;,„,„ , thai n h.'- ■ avored lo guatd as fai as poaslliu \n\ iiiincccs»nr.\ lutoili n in 

si,, i, laws and regulations with the duties ol Stati officers, oi with local prejndln 

at all so as to ac< umplish am Is n< Hi lal ohjei I In proveutloii frauds and vioh m nnd n 

. faithful perfonnance ofdut> al the i lei linns, wtihoul providing fot the pn 
to oarrj Its regulations Into'i ITeol U Is also difflcull to see how II could attain thi » ohjei Is wll 
Imposing propei nancl t and i" nal ffendi ra 


And in another place Justice Bradley, in the opinion, says : 

Without the concurrent sovereisnty referred to, the Vatioual Government would he nothing but an 
advisory government. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. 

In speaking of the fair and obvious interpretation of the Constitution and the mode 
of reaching it, the judge says: 

We sbnll not have far to seek. "\Ye 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^tate 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 everv American citizen as his State government is. Wluenever 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 denned, and its action within the scope of those powers 
is restrained by a sufficiently rigid bill of rights for the protcetion of its citizens from oppression. 
The true interest of the people of this country requires that both the National ami 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 endeavoiing to vindicate the 
one. we should not allow our zeal to nullify or impair the other. 

I ant 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- 
tided to the Government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. Here, again, we 
are met with tin- 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 pou ei s of that Government. We bold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the < io\ eminent 
of the United States may. by means of physical force exercised through its official agents, execute on 
every foot of American soil the powers anil 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 he 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 it they cannot use force . 
In executing the process of the courts must they call on the nearest constable tor protection J 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-retining, 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 veil as on tin- sea, on things as well as on persons. And to do this, it must necessarily have power 
to command obedience, p reserve order, and keep the peace : and no person or power in this land has 
the light 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- 
tionablj exists, take the very ease in baud. 

There ar-< other extracts which might be read to the same effect, but I will not stop 
to read I hem mow. 

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. 
^ Government witboul power to proteel all of its people from lawlessness and violence 
at all times and places is it ti worthy to exist, .and of all other times and places it should 
have and exercise the power of preserving the peace on elect ion 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 arc 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 B«d, the supreme law of t In- land; and when 
thev conflict with the laws of the States they ate of paramount authority and obligation I Ins 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 fabrio of our institutions, as it was contemplated by its founders, 
cannot stand. The questions involved havereroeot not more to the autonomy and existence of the 

States, than to the continued existence Of the United Stales as a I level imient to W huh every American 

citizen maj took for security and protection in every part of the laud. 

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 



creatures of the Constitution, and In all matters not reserved by the Constitution to 
the states they arc subordinate to the United states. Some of these States the United 
states bought and paid for with both treasure and blood. We bonghl from the first 
Napoleon the territory comprised in the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, &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 ow oer 
.,,„! cr eator The Republic of Texas, not quite able bo Btand alone, knocked at the 
door of the United states, and it was admitt d within the portals of the Union and 
habilitated with the garb of a state in the-Uniou with a Republican form of govern- 
ment ; and in a few years she, too, proposed to turn the I rnited States out and set up 
a new government on the same mistaken notion thai the created was superior to the 


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 i.e dear to the blindest of partisans, at hast, thai we have .-, 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 
pi ople of a una! nation to look on and seen, party which arrogates t<» 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 hound to judge the Dem- 
ocratic party for the future by its acts of preparation as well as its pasl 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 Tinted States, it is csseuti.ll to Democratic slle- 

a that no force possessed of the requisite power shall lie used to prevent the nse oi 
such violence as may be needed to secure Democratic success against the will oi the 
people when fairly and peaceably expressed. There will he no mistake made h\ the 
people in this matter. The Republican party, a party of law and order, of course can- 

DOt 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 he no necessity for strug- 
gling here from day to day and from month to month as we have been doiug 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 
t'a\ or 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 he valuable. I need hardly offsr an excuse lor review ing the past. I think 
it throws light on the present. We find her.' that party that started off so defiantly 
in the latter days of February ami the fust days of March, 1879, claiming that this 
Government should not live, should not have th,' necessary sustenance, unless these 
vicious measures were allowed to he adopted. We find to-day in the presence of 
debate and in tin- presence of a shocked people the members of thai party hesitating 
and sitting mute in their seats. They were warned before we entered upon this gen- 
eral debate— perhaps in pleasantry, hut certainly none the less a w amine — thai ifanj 
one indulged in debate on that side of the House hi' should be shot. Their tongues 
cleave to the roofs of their i the in the.presence of this combat. Why are they 

silenl .' Let it be noted in this land that they sit silent in their seals, unable if not 
llll w HHng to meet t he contest . 

Mi . A I K INS. The gentleman 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 worths of the gentleman 
from Ohio to make use of that remark in the way he does in his speech. 

Ml KEIFER. [ said the remark might have been made in pleasantry, hut it was 

none tin- less a warning, as the gentleman from Tennessee would have underst I it 

he had been listening carefully. Bui if that remark was uttered in pleasantry, it had 
also a vvell-nnderstnod meaning. 

rlemen tried hard all through the extra session of Congress to com mce the peo 
pie of this count r\ that it was the right of the majority in Congress, naj thai it was 
patriotic to sit here and attempt to tear down the whole lain ic of this Government, 
unless the President of the I nited states would la\ at tin' feet of thai partj all his 
veto power ano allow i hem to pass just such legislation as the} deemed essential t.. 
their future success ; and when their proposed legislation was spread out before the 
nt i v. it wa> all found to he vicious and in opposition to g I order. 

Mr. CONGER. If the geutleman from Ohio will permit me I will call his attention 

to the fact that tin' gentleman IV Georgia who said everj one should hi' shot who 

spoke on this subject on tin- Dei iratic sole is nofl in his seat. 

Mr. KEIFER. [f the gentleman from Georgia desires to rise and deny thai state- 
ment, I will \ ield to him. 


Mr. COOK. I will say that I bad no thought of intimidating the gentlemen over 
there, not the least. 

Mr. KEIFER. No, sir ; the intimidation was meant for the gentlemen on the other 
side who thought they had not enough of idle debate. Tin- threat was not to shoot 
us down, hut 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 yon would like to see some of us shot. 

Mr. KEIFEE. And then, Mr. Chairman [Mr. SPKINGTCR in (he chair], I know you 
have been quite impartial to-day and willing to recognize gentlemen over then-. 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-live 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 tore- 
main so. 

I might say that some of the distinguished gentlemen who were in the lead, who 
were in the van, who were early in the battle and sounded the charge in the extra 
session, are now out of their seats; they are otherwise engaged. Why are they away .' 
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 Presidential 
election f [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 flats to that 
side of the House, might rise and say that they would take oft the gag ; but they are 
still silent. There are deeds so dark or so grave that they can only be done m 

I speak now for myself if not for my party. I have referred to the action of the 
Democratic patty to show that its members here do not desire to openly Legislate on 
the merits of a measure. During the extra session the Democratic party tried to men- 
ace the Executive into approval of appropriation bills containing vicious amend- 
ments, and when failure after failure, had cone 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 unfair to say that the Dem- 
ocrats of this Congress, who but a few months ago proposed to couple all kinds of 
extraneous Legislation with appropriation hills, discovered their lack of ability to col- 
lect into one hill 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 in this Congress and I hope 
throughout the country. 

At the revolutionary or extra session of this Congress the appropriations for the 
judicial department of this Government had to be dropped from what is known as the 
legislative appropriation hill. The appropriations for that department had to be 
segregated, seemingly to enable the Democratic mind to grasp and comprehend them. 
It was of course reasonable to suppose at the (dose of the extra session that with tin- 
aid of nnmerous deficiency bills to be passed at future sessions the several 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- 
pensation tor special deputy marshals provided for by statute, and whose duties are 
to aid supervisors of elections in the discharge of their duties under the United states 
election laws. We now know that these United States officers who performed their 
duties without pay are not to he paid unless the election laws of the United States 
are rendered wholly nugatory. 

Mr. Chairman, it is always dangerous to prophesy; but it is generally sate to 

prophesy Of the shortcomings of the Democratic party. In the face of the knowledge 
that the' so-called legislative appropriation bill, which became a law at the extra ses- 
sion, was not understood in its full scope by its authors or supporters in either House 
ofCongress — and I mean no reflection upon the capacity to understand of any Senator 
or member of this body, for the hill was simply i comprehensible — the Government 
would be under constant embarrassment until Congress should give construction to 
that measure. It was an anomaly in legislation. 

The marshals bill vetoed at the extra session contained, as printed, live line-, 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 finding .lime 30, 1880. The re- 
maining twenty-seven lines of the bill were devoted to vicious legislation, all of which 
has received the disapproval of the President. Some of thiB objectionable legislation 
is now abandoned in ihe face of the judgment of the people and the decision oi the 
Supreme ( lonrt. 

I have another purpose in view in speaking to-day, and I cannot review fully the 

10 J 

i of tli«' proposed legislation at the last session in relation to United States mar- 
shals. If the marshals bill had become a law, however, the effect of ii could have 
been summarized thus: First, no part of the ruonej could have been used t.. pay any 
compensation or fees or expenses of any kind <>r character incurred under title 2ti of 
the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to elections. Second, it whs pro- 
posed to make it unlawful for anj Department or officer of the Gover snt t<» incur 

anv liability for the paymenl of mouey under the provisions "I Baid t it le 26 until an 
appropriation had tirsl been made by law; notwithstanding tin' jno^ i-~i..n- ol the 
said title are a- imperative on tin' judges, superv isors, marshals, ami other offici i- 

as an\ law on tin- statute-book. 

< »n proper applicat on of u courl or judge, who i- sworn to obej the law s. In- must 
act aud appoint snperv isors ol election, ami thns necessarily incur a liability on the 
part of the United States for compensation, expenses, &c. That bill enacted into ;i 

[aw would have mad.- it unlawful for a judge or c t to obey an imperative .-.taint.-. 

Third, the penalty which would have been incurred b> a judge for acting in obe- 
dience to a mandatory law was Bubjectiou to a line of nol exceeding |f>,UU0, or by 
imprisonment foi nol exceeding five years, or bj both I'm.- and imprisonment, in the 
discretion of t he court. 

Gentlemen on the other side said at the last session of this Congress that the bo- 
called marshals' a ipropriatiou bill should typify the " last ditch," in guarding \\ hich 
they resolved to die. 1' was quite fitting. The purpose of the 1 lemocratic party, so 
easliv uuderetood from tin' beginning, was quite prominently shown in that bill. 
The countrj noted it, and we had its verdict. Ii was then and still i> proposed to 
withhold From the courts of the United States th ir sole executive arm in enforcing 
their judgments, orders, and decrees; it was proposed thai the marshals and their 

creneral deputies should go without payment of their lawful lees and tl xpenses 

uicideul to the performance ol' their duties unless tin- minority in this Congress and 
the President would yield assent to the virions legislation already referred to. The 
duties oi' marshals an. I their general deputies are manj and of the highesl impor- 
tance. I hej constitute tin- physical arm of th.' United States courts in the arrest ol 
all \ iolators of tin- law and in the execution >>f all processes. 

Mr. Chairman, I canuol retrain from occupying a few moments more, with the in- 
dulgence of the House, in making some observations suggested to mj mind in the 
course of the debate on the marshals appropriation bill at the close of the extra 
S( jsion. The member from New York [ Mr. Cox"l 1 hen took pains to have read an old 
resolution of hi- and the vote thereon relating to the issues settled by the late war. 
\| honorable friend from Michigan [Mr.CnNGi R] had read in replj a like resolution 

of In- ami tin- vote ther.-on. It seems to it is of more concern t<> know how 

members now stand on the issues made up and determiued by the war. A close 

observer of tin- debate between m,\ colleagues [Mr. Garfield and .Mr. Ih RD] at the 

last session, on tins 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 

ft nj number of States ever to destroy it. applause went up in response from this Bide 

of 'the House; I mi gentlemen on the other side sal as mule and dumb a- i hey do to- 

\\ hen ruj other colleague [ Mr. Hi'RD] declared hie belief in the superior sover- 

. i \ of a State under the Constitution, that heresy which brought this couutrj to 

th~ court of war, before which the Union shook from foundation to turret for more 

than foui \' and spontaneous cheer wenl up from the Democratic mem- 

. ,,t this House. Mj colleague [Mr. Ih rd] undertook then to expound to us some 

other supposed constitutional law loug Binoe exploded, lie then clai d that the 

Constitution ami the Union were " the creature of the States," to use his own lan- 
guage, and In- 1 hen i.a.l to u- the teuth amendment of the Constitution rhis amend- 
ment, Mr. < buirmau, was found u< to be adopted* loug after the Constitution 

w.nt into operal , for the purpose of granting to the States or to the n. mch 

powers as they could nol otherwise po ind which wore not expressly delegated 

to the United States l»\ the Constitution nor prohibited l>.\ it to the States. Had the 

itleman begun l»\ reading the preamble of the Constitution of the Uuite ho 

would have found out whose instr nl it was he was talking about so imonsider- 

ately. I quote that preamble aud commend it to the gentle u on the othei Bide: 

We tl.- people of the United 81 order to form a more perfwcl mil. 

domestic tnuimiillit\ provide foi tl I l.-t.-n — proi ■ tin 

.,,,,1 ,.,,, m i . -Miii. union roi in* 

You will note the oDening language, "We, the people of the Ui 

th-- judgment .>i the fri >rs of th- i onstitutiou, "the people of the I u 

ordained and established this instrument. It was not ordained bj the Suites. Phe 

fxamers oi the < onstitutiou uuderetood that the sovereignty ol the States 

m the federal Government uudei the Constitution. In the letter ol tin venl 


bearing date September 17, 1787, the day of the signing of the Constitution by its 
framers, George Washington, speaking for the convention as its president, uses this 
language : 

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of inde- 
pendent sovereignty to each, and yet 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 : 

In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the 
greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is iuvolved our 
prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. 

I have not time to follow my colleague through all his other propositions of bad 
constitutional law. He still reiterates in this session of Congress his old theory of the 
right 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 thoroughly exploded both by 
speeches and by the recent back-downs of Democrats in both ends of the Capitol, that 
I need hardly comment on it now. When the cool judgments of men of both parties 
gain full sway, there will oe no person found bold enough to announce the dread doc- 
trine that it is the constitutional duty of this House of Representatives to destroy this 
nation's life by withholding needed appropriations, unless the party in 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 
nation which its members were sworn to support, unless some other branch of the 
o-overnment of the same nation would assent to its dictation. 

' My colleague still adheres with characteristic obstinacy to the view that the meas- 
ures' to which the Democratic party objected were unconstitutional. He still stands 
by 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 
for a civil, military, or naval officer of the United States to keep the peace at the 
polls. This was the doctrine announced by the gentleman in the extra session, and 
I understand him to adhere to it now as a constitutional proposition. Verily, 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 in terms 
make some act of the people a crime. 

A confident appeal was made to English statutes to show that in Great Britain 
troops were not permitted to keep the peace 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 this. History, however, reveals to us the tact that at no time up to the present has 
the Government of Great Britain failed to use its military power to put down riots 
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 angry debates dur- 
ing the extra session of Congress, Democrats have gone down before facts, principles, 
and arguments, until there may be some excuse for their present silence. 

I will notice another attempt at constitutional exposition by my colleague, [Mr. 
Htiti)]. I quote from a speech of his, made in the last expiring hours of the extra 
session : 

Strange to say the President and hie advisers and the gentlemen on the other side fo the House seem 
to have lost sight of the constitutional provision which gives the President the power to execute the 
laws The language of thai instrument is that the Presidenl of the United states may call upon the 
militia of the several States to execute the laws. There is the power given to linn tor the execution 
of the laws: not the Army, unless Congress say so. but the militia oi the states, because the < onsti 
tution so provides. 

Mr. Chairman, it must have distressed my friend's constituents when, after reading 
his speech I hey took down the old Cmst it ut ion and read it through, and found it con- 
tained no such language as he attributed to it. The Constitution nowhere, in terms, 
authorizes or empowers the Presidenl to call out the militia of the United states. 
Section B, article l, which gives Congress power to raise and support armies, grants 
fcO it power " to provide for Calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 1 nion, 
suppress insurrection, 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 oi the sev- 
eral States when called into actual service of the United states; and Congress lias 
the same power over the organization of the militia in actual service that it has over 
the creation of a regular Army, excepl the right is reserved by the Constitution to 
the States to appoint the officers and to raise and train the militia according 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 t he President his right to use the Army 
the duty still rests upon him to " take ear.- that the laws are faithfully executed ' as 
required by the Constitution and bis oath of office. 


The I H. U UMAX. The gentleman's t ime has expired. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, in order i" prt te tin- comfort of the gentle- 
man from Ohio [Mr. Keifer], and withoul the Blighesl fear of doing anydetrimenl 
t.) tree elections by the presence of troops at the polls, I move bis time be indefinitelj 


Mr. KEIFER. I am always thaukfnl t j friend for any favors. I Buggest, bow- 
ever, I only want a minute ami a hall. 

Mr. BLA< !K BURN. This side is more then \\ illiog to give him an bonr. 

Mr. KEIFER. I onlj ueed a minute and a half. 

Mr. TUCKER. I hope the gentleman's time will lie extended. 

The ell All; M \\. There being no objection the time of tin- gentleman from < »li i< > 
is i xtended. 

Mr. KEIFER. While I thank mj h< rable friend from Kentucky for his greal 

consideration forme, 1 feel very glad thai by anything I have said, whether ii has 
been pleasing to bis ears or otherwise, thai I least broughl him to his feet. 

Mr. BLACKB1 RN. Mr. Chairman, 1 mus1 be frank enough to state thai I have 
nol been induced t>> listen to what tin' gentleman from oh in has said; lam fortunate 
in having been absenl from the House. [Laughter. ] 

\ii. KEIFER. I have in the course of my remarks included the gentleman from 
Kentucky among those who were absent, and one ui those' who maj have been re- 
garded on the other Bide as unsafe t<> have present. 

Mi. BLACKBURN. The gentleman knew my good taste. 

Mr. KEIFER Ami your proneness to give utterance to your peculiar views. 

Mi. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mi-. KEIFER. I was referring when my time expired to some propositions which 
were maintained or insisted upon by mj colleague from Ohio [Mr. Ilrm>]. Lei me 
a.hl he, with others, still insists that if Congress does take from thePresidenl his 
righl to us.- the Army, the duty still rests upon him to see that the laws are faith- 
fully executed, as the executive power of the United Mates is by the Constitution of 

the I niteil States vested iii him. 

We are cautioned to remember that to take away the righl to use the Amu does 
not withdraw anj constitutional power or dut\ from the President. Granting this 
to !>,• trne, how will the Presidenl execute the law if the instrumentalities by which 
he may 'h. it are taken from him. as is proposed 1>.\ the presenl amondmenl .' It is 
proposed to strip the President of all means with which to enforce the laws, of the 
United States, and then in mockerj poinl out to him his duties under the Constitu- 
tion, Ik.' logic of the proposed amendment to this hill would require the Presidenl 
:,, go in person to execute the laws; require him to go on election day in person to 

up the peace at all polls where note raged or were threatened. We were told a1 
the oxtra w ssion that party issues were made up. I concur in this, and await com- 
placently the \. i di.t of the whole country. We have recently had the verdicl of the 
people iu my own State. Until tin- people have declared that civil liberty is en- 
dangered bj m.t allowing fraud, intimidation, ballot-box Btufflng, riots, and blood- 
shed at the'],,. IN, I shall have full faith iii them and in mj c inntry's future, 
plause. ] 



May 18, 1880. An amendment proposing to strike oul a clause providing that from and after the passage 
of tlii- act only pension cases certified by the court shall be passed upon by Congress was under dis- 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

In addition to the objections which have been assigned to this clause that is 
proposed t<> lie stricken out I wish first 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 lifih 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 theadoption 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 have 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 
thai we shall not have the power to perform our constitutional duties; in other words, 
to limit ourselves as to our future power. We caunot 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 
cannot 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. 1 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 gel their claims speedily acted upon : in other words, that will give them 
relief. But I am opposed to saj ing that they shall not conn- here to Congress for re- 
lief, and that is the purport of this section. 



Muv "J7. L880. The Souse lia\ mg under discussion the sundry civil appropriation bill, n point "i 01 
der was raised on the paragraph providing for the support of the National Home for Disabled Volun- 
teer Soldiers and the appointment of mauagers therofi)r. 

Mr. Kl'.in.l; said : 

Mr. Chairman : I bave to-day had the misfortune to hear points of order made from 
the other Bid • against the provisions ottered in the interesl of Bcience, .'111(1 tin- Cbair 
has been appealed to to apply the strictesl possible construction of the rule in order 
tn exclude provisions which we desired t" incorporate into this 1*111 ami which were 
entirely germane to it. But up to tin- present momenl I find tin- leaders of the other 
Bide and the men who have charge of this bill sitting silenl here and allowing uew 

legislation to be incorporated in this hill which has no sorl of relation t" or c< >c- 

tion with .in appropriation hill. 

\ml I learn asa mode of arguing before tin- House of Representatives, that it is 
sufficient in the estimation of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Bragg] to show 
that previous Congresses have violated the provisions of the charter under which 
this National Home was organized; and that is held up as a sufficient argument 
w h> ihe ( 'h.iii sin mid rule that this Congress shun hi again violate the law. He gave 
you nut unc but two ami three instances where the original law, which provided thai 
these men should be selected by joint resolution, had been disregarded. Heme In 
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, anddoea m>t 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 Bays that on a former occasion I made a point of order against ;t 
similar provision tothis, which it was proposed to incorporate in an appropriation 
hill, ami the point of order was ruled against me. Ami he now says thai you, Mr. 
Chairman, onght to rule the same way, notwithstanding thai the rule under which 
the point of onler is now raised was not in existence at all at that time. He waives 
that all aside ami says that the old ruling is sufficient for you. 

Mr. BRAGG. While yon are tryingto make a distinction between a law which i- 
a joint resolution ami 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 willsay, in the first place, that 
I bave mo yet undertaken to show any Buch 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 i 'der to exclude 

us iioiii doing the very thing which it is proposed to do here to-day. Ami although 
the gentleman Bays there is no distinction between a joint resolution ami an art ol 
Cong I ;ree with him that after they are passed they are in effect the sam< — 

there i 4 a vast distinction between a joint resolution ami an act when we come ti> 
deal with the snbject here in the form of legislation. 

Jfon cannot incorporate a joint resolntion in an appropriation hill as a rider, even 
with all our strauge rulings, up to this time. It is sufficient now to saj that under 
tie- thud clause of Rule XXI such a provision as i his i^ expressly excluded. That has 
been read ouce, hi it I beg t" rail the attention of the Chair to it again: 

(Tor shall an j provision in any such bill oi amendment thereto changing existing law be in ordei 
■ nnane to the Bubject mat in of the lull, shall retrem !i • xpeuditun 

■■ Retrench expendit mis " how .' 

Ii\ the reduction of the number a of the oil tin CTnitei bj ii" reduction ol 

compensation of anj person paid onl ot the Treasnrj of the I int. a or bj the reduction oi 

ami iu ii is i a mi mi j covered bj tin- lull. 

Is tins pi u\ jeion germane to ihe sundry civil appropriation bill f Gentlemen on 
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 tiny do not deign to read the present rule. 

Bui last uf all we gel tin- rnosl singular ami strange declaration that cornea from 
tin- examination by tin- gentleman from Wisconsin ( Mr. Bragg | of the joint resolution 
which was passed February 2b', 1875. Ih reads the whole of that joint resolution 
which a p point id three of these trustees, and says that, although the joint resolution 

i nothing about it, yet those three men were appointed for terms which i" 
Ion;; before the joint resolution was passed. Now I begof the gentlemen to point out 

where t lure i> a syllable in that joint resolnti f Februarj •.'•'•. l-7.">. which indii 

that the three pet sons there named, Martindale, Bond, and Woloott, were appointed 

'.hi a — K 8 


for terms of office which hegan at an earlier day than the one upon which tbat 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 fixed 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 t<> their six years' term) had expired some time before. But 
their lawful terms would coninue 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 verv proviso to shorten the term of Martindale, Bond, and Wolcott. 

'Mr. BE1GGS. 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 
tbat was used in the original act when the national home was incorporated. 

Now, to summarize my points briefly. This provision is uot 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 au appropriation bill to 
violate the terms of the original act and to appoint these persons. I have notclaimed 
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 joiut 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 

21, 18e0. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. Will the gentleman explain how lie reaches that conclusion. 

Mr. SPARKS. I will with the greatest pleasure. General John 11. 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 vears 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 w hich I read that General Martindale was appointed at the time 
I have mentioned to lill a full term of six years. I read from the joint resolution— 

That Erastus B. Wolcott, of Wisconsin, and John EL Martindale, of New York, lie, and arc 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 Mar\ land, lie and is hereby, appointed a manager to serve out the unexpired 
term of Horatio <;. Stebbins, of California, resinned. 

This act was approved March 12, 1868. You will perceive, Mr. Chairman, that the 
term c menced April 21, 1868. I have not the next acl appointing General Martin- 
dale : hut he could not have been appointed under any circumstances 80 that his t w o 

terms would extend bej ' twelve years. By the act I have read he was appointed 

for sis years; and I presume thai at the end of six years he was again appointed. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. That is where the gentleman makes his error. 

Mi. SPARKS. His second term must have expired on the 21s1 of April last. 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. Not at all. 

Mr. SPARKS. Why not .' 

Mr. VAN VOORHIS. His term began February 26 1875— hislasl 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, lie was appointed April '21, 1868, for six years, as the joint resolu- 
tion savs. 

Mr. KEIFER. When 1 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 Aral 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 hi' had not 
chosen to lecture me and till on this side of the House before he undertook to lay down 


his bI range i »< >-, i t ion of law , to sustain which he stopped by reading only a pari of a 

The law fixing the terms of managers of the .National Military Asylum Bays thai tin' 
term Bhall lie for six years and until a successor is elected. When the gentleman 
stopped after reading si tuphj tin- provision that the term should be for six years, of 
course we knew he was preparing to spring into some gTeal field of virtue. 

Excepl in case of death or resignation there cannol i»- a vacancj in the office of 
manager of the Soldiers' Home. I Bubmijb, Mr. Chairman, that when in your ruling 
you undertake \<> Bay that there are terms tor less than six years you do it bj inter- 
polating in thf law what is not there. All laws that provide tor filling vacancies, 
where vacancies can possibly occur, speak in terms of the unexpired term. But in all 
these laws — the original acl and all suhsequenl arts, whether in the form of joint res- 
olution or specific acta of Congrest — there is nol a word aboul the unexpired term. 
No man since the original appointments could be appointed for less than an entire 
term. . 

Now lei ns suppose thai < reneral Martindale, instead of being appointed (if he was 
bo appointed i as his own successor, had hern appointed as the successor of some other 
person who bad held the position for six years or longer. Do I understand the Chair 
to rule that this appointment, withoul anything said in the ad aboul the term, would 
ha M- been for a less period than six years .' < >f course thai is what the ( 'hair means 
to conclude, and thai is w hat my distinguished friend from Illinois claims is the law. 
Hut we have decision after decision arising under state orgauicacts in this country 
all of them holding, in the absence of pro\ ision for filling unexpired terms, thai the 
term means the time fixed in the organic act. And I venture hen- to saj to the law- 
yers on this door, at hast to t hose who are not tilled with parti sanism or with supreme 
virtue, they can not find a single law anywhere that has been construed otherwise, or 
a Bingle constitution. There is not one which can be pointed out. 

After appealing to my friends on t Ins side of t he I louse, simplj 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, l>ul to adopt and accept and 
cany out some of the plain virtue laid down by my distinguished friend from Massa- 
chusetts, who prefers some id' these men in this bill to some who are to be legislated 



June 11. 1880. Pending a l>ill 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 readsection 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 he chosen 
is held many city or town of twenty thousand inhabitants or upwards, the marshal foi tin- district in 
which the city or town is situated shall, on the amplication, 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%upervisora of election in 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 and where the registration may by law be 
scrutinized, and the nanus of registered voters be marked for challenge; and also to attend, at all 
times for holding elections, the polls in such district or precinct. 

Mr. KEIFEK. 1 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 £021. 
The Clerk read as follows. 

Sec. 2022. The marshal and his general deputies, and such special deputies, shall keep the peace, Jan d 
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, and 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 offers 
to commit, any of the acts or offenses prohibited herein, or who commits any offense againsl the laws 
of the TJmted States; but no person shall be arrested without process for any offense not committed 
in the presence of tin- marshal, or his general or special deputies, or either of 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 of the marshal's deputies, or if required to assist such 
deputies, have the same dllties 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 of registration. 

Mr. KE1FER. 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 lie in favor of something which would be 
efficient in the direction of enforcing law and order at the polls, with all these del. its 
in the bill, I consider it a matter of congratulation that we should now have it before 
us. The Democratic party is especially to he congratulated that to-day, in the ex- 
piring hours of the fust regular session of the Forty-sixth Congress, it should be 
pressing a bill which in name at least, if not in substance, recoguizes the constitu- 
tional power of the Flitted States to enforce its own laws and preserve order on elec- 
tion day at the polls wherever members of the House of Representatives ate to be 
chosen.' To this extent 1 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 statutesupon the subject of the use of special deputy marshals at the polls 

to aid The supervisors of elections in preserving peace and order when there is open 
disorder and 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 t he law , as defined in section 

2022 of the Revised Statutes, which duties relate to the conduct id' elections on elec- 
tion day when a Member of the I louse of Representatives or a Delegate is tobechosen. 

r.ut the bill proposes to create a distincl class called "ill-pun/ marshals for services in 
reference to any election" In the original draught of the bill as offered by the dis- 
tinguished .Senator from Delaware ( Mr. BayaSd] the word "special" preceded the 
wind "deputv. " and i< 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 w<iv appointed under section 2021 of the Revised statutes. It was thought 
w ise to strike out the word "special," and bodefine this class of deputies as "deputy 
marshals forservices 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 niav understand what this bill is, let us go through it and analyze 
it. The bill provides thai these deputy marshals for services in reference toahj elec- 
tion shall i.e appointed by the circuit court of the United Statesal the next term pre- 
ceding any election of Representatives or Delegates in Congress, and it further pro- 
vides if there Bhonld 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 ha\e a new .lass of deputy marshals appointed by the courts with- 


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 be dignified with the name 
of officers — in no event are these officers to be responsible to the executive power, thai 
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 State-. 

But if we l<»>k further we will Bee that under the very thinnest kind of gauze it is 
proposed to hide away the real purpose of the bill. 1 submit, Mr. speaker, it is im 
possible for any gentleman rouame a possible case where a districl court of the United 
States could appoint under this bill, if it should become :i law, a deputy marshal to 
Berve in reference t<» 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 a ppoi n t men t s we will have to discover a district in the United States 
wherein there never has been or will not he before the coming election a term of the 
circuit court of the I 'nited Stales. 

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that before a districl court can acquire jurisdiction under 
this lull to appoint a deputy marshal to serve at any election you must find a district 
w herein no circuit court has ever been held. If gentlemen on the other side desire to 
use anv portion of my time for the purpo e of telling me where and how a case can 
arise and the district court can ever make an appointment of any one of these depu- 
ties to serve at an election, I will yield with great pleasure. Mr. Speaker, 1 would 
like to know whether there is any gentleman here prepared to defend this scheme, if 
i maj be pardoned for using the expression, jjnder the terms of the bill it is impos- 
sible tor the district court to appoint one of these so-called officers in any place iu the 
I nited States. 

It that cannot be done, then w hat .' Unless it happens bet ween this and the com- 
ing election for members of tin' House of Representatives and Delegates to Congress 
that a circuit court is in session, and in such session that its power might be invoked 
for the purpose of making these appointments, then it will be impossible to base one 
of these deputy marshals a t the succeeding (lection. 

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 ,,f the act and before 
the election : but if there ever has been a circuit com t in session in any district, t hen 
the district coutt is not allowed to take jurisdiction for the purpose of making ap- 
pointments under this proposed law. So it will lie impossible, and I am quite war- 
ranted in Baying it will be impossible in most if not all the cases, to have this class 
of officers should this lull become the law. By the terms of the lull it is not made 
the righl or duty of any person to pray the court to appoint deputy marshals. The 
court must act. if at all. on its own motion. 

Tin time I >hall occupy will be im- the purpose of trying, in my way. to develop 
what tlnre i- and what there is not in this proposed legislation. A provision id' this 
bill is to the etiect that the officers appointed shall be in equal numbers from the dif- 
ferent political parties. Some persons misnamed this measure as non-partisan. Iain 
not qnite well enough advised to speak with confidence, but I believe that it is the 
only absolutely partisan measure pending before Congress. Under this lull everj 
non-partisan in the United States is rendered ineligible to lie appointed a tie] mix mar- 
shal to Berve at an election. Under ibis bill it is proposed to make special partisans 

id' the officers who execute t he most delicate law of t he land, lo wit. the election law. 

We He I., 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 -laud lace to face and eye lo e\e in opposition lo each olher on political 

grounds. They are to be specially chosen w ith reference to their partisan character, 
There may arise an emergency where one party, through its supporters, will try to 
overthrow the election officers, or maj try to compel them to do whal is not their duty 
under the law, or one part.\ may engage in an effort t<> prevent honest voters from 
exercising then righl of voting. In siu h an emergency then would be found a dep- 
uty marshal <m one side who would lie willing to see the law executed and the officers 
ami voters protected, but i he other deputy, deny iu^ the i 'in ht to interfere, stands lai e 
tn w ith In in, and says. " M j duty here, i- to Bee i hat you do not do your dm \ . I 
am appointed under the law ol 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 y lo not inter 

fere or perform your duty. I was appointed for that purpose. I was recoi 'iided 

to the judge of the court because I was a partisan, and I will do my duty lo my party." 
And tin- i- the kind of non-partisan legislation that you are proposing to write ii| 

our stal lite-books. 

[ might elaborate this, but it is sufficient to cite the provisions of the law which it 
is proposed toenail, for all here al least can comprehend them and their real design. 

In this con nc i ion, Mr. speaker, it uiu-i be remembered that these so-called officers 
arc in no sense responsible to the appointing power. No powei by the provision 


the bill can remove them. 'The judge that appointed them has no power to remove 
tliem. 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 
quality at all, even by tlietakingof an oath of office. No qualifications, no bond: and. 
nobody <j, i \ es 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 sonic 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 location of the polls he would be required to release 
him for wan t'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 agaiust 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 tin- United States for whom deputies shall be appointed by tin- court under this act 
shall not he liable tor any of the acts of such deputies. 

They are not to perforin 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 t hey may 
be intern d from the use of the language in the first section of the bill, to wit: 
Deputy marshals for services in reference to an J' 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 securing 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 be responsible 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, lie has no qualification under the law ; he has a naked ap- 
pointment, and is required to lii;ht an adversary who is to be chosen because he is 
able to compete with him, and peculiarly because he is a partisan. 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 defining the duties of 
special deputy marshals or general deputy marshals under our elect ion laws would 
apply to such officer al all. It is exceedingly doubtful whether they would apply to 
such deputies under any fair construction, ami the bill, if it becomes a law . is not to 
have a liberal constitution. When we are determining the powers of an officer who 
may arrest ;i man for crime we are not to construe his powers liberally but strictly as 
defined in the statutes. Strictly speaking, the statute laws of the Uuited 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 Ins 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 ma rshals for serv ices a t a ny election. Therefore, when yon strip this 
all down to the hare 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 he executed, and that great power, the power w Inch, wisely 

executed, preserves peace and order al the pedis, where of all places in this country 


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 perfeci law. 

This is the worsl of the legislation proposed in this Congress and in the closing 
- ssion of the Forty- fifth Congress. It was more manlj to stand up openly and say 
that you wanted to and would repeal all the laws of the United States thai gave ti> 
the Government of the United states the power to preserve peace at the polls on 
election day. The party thai took that position, as did the Democratic party a few 
months ago, once stood upon a more heroic plane than uow. 

It is of necessity grove.ling now, coming down to an attempl to enact a law thai is 
a mere pretense tor a law and to sa\ that by it the election laws of the United States 
to preserve peace at the polls are to lie enforced, hut really undertaking to put on t In 
statute books a law that cannot he executed at all. If this hill should hecoiiie a law- 
tile Democrats will at least he 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 getl ing through the Congress of the United States a hill 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 thai it is an honorable party. 
I'.v that I suppose I am to infer that be means that when the Democratic party is 
whipped and overthrown in a fair fight it will attempl to accomplish its purpose in 
some other way. 

We find that party here pressing for a vote on a hill entitled "An act regulating 
the pas and appointment of deputy marshals." A few months ago we were warned 
that we should have no appropriations to carry on this Government until we allowed 
till the laws relating to the appoint incut of deputy marshals and their use at t hi' polls 
to he absolutely repealed. In the ligbl of whal 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 t he broad glare of the lighl which comes to us from 
the Supreme Court of the United States through recent decisions, we are to-day wit- 

aessing the grand scei f that party bowing humbly to the powers that he and rec 

ognizing the Constitution of t ho United states as a Constitution conferring upon the 
Government of t he I'm ted States power to preserve itself and to enforce its own laws. 

Education comes slowly to that obstinate party. If I were to review its history I 
could find a vast number of things that it set out to oppose. Step l>\ step it opposed 
all the era ml measures that now st a n< I forth as (jreal monuments to the success of th< 
Republican party, the party of progress. 

When we proposed at the close of the war to amend the Constitution of the United 
States so far as to wipe oul human slavery, Democrats stood up in this Hall in the 
Congress of the United States, and said that it was unconstitutional to amend tin 
Constitution of the United States so far as human slavery was concerned. The I,'' 
publican party, by its might and power, recognizing the right to amend the Constitu- 
tion in every respect, wiped out human slavery bj the adoption of the thirteenth 
amendment to the Constitution, and the Democratic party, after the tact was accom- 
plished, in time bow ed and said. '• We, too, are i n favor of destroying human slavery." 

We tried them on the fourteenth amendment, that amendment which proposed to 
deti ne citizenship, and which contains various other wise provisions. We found the 

Dei ratic party steadily against it, not onlv in the Malls of Congress, hut in the 

halls of the State legislatures all over the country. By voice and vote thev were 
against it, but they were defeated. After being defeated, as time rolled on, thev 
again said. "We were wrong then, but now we are right." 

We said, •■ We will enfranchise all American citizens by the adoption of the fifteenth 
amendment oi the Constitution ; and every Democrat, I believe, voted against that 
measure, and so far as the members of thai party spoke thej spoke against it all ovei 
the country, in Congress and out of it. Bui the Republican party erected another 
monument to Ms glorj and adopted the fifteenth amendmei t. Then lagging along 

behind ca the Democratic party, cry iug out t hat they, too, were iu favor of the 

fifteenth amend men 1 . 

Everything that this partj bas learned in a score of years has been through its de- 
feats; ay, a large part of its members learned patriotism through defeat, not onlt at 
the polls, but upon the field of battle. I do not doubt their pal riot ism now; but I do 
know that 1 1 1 < > learned it, many of them, before t he mouths of camion and amid the 
clash of arms iu i he field. 1 glorj in I his, for this was an heroic vvaj of nt-quiring it 
when other methods failed. \\ bile speaking to this measure (and I do uol intend to 

occupy any i i time) I wish to Baj thai as we close this session we add one thing 

1 1 in re to the success of the Republican part) the education oi the Democratic partj 

up to the idea thai we have a Goveri >nl Btrong enough to dele ml itself from foi 

within or without, and yet shorn of all power to oppr< ss any "f us citizens. 



December 7, 1880. Against, the concurrent resolution of the Senate in reference to counting the 
electoral vote fo p President anil 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 
Uuited 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 couut is a question of privilege. Iu 
other words, in my opinion the Constitution of the United States, together with tin- 
laws on the statute-book, regulates the whole subject of counting the electoral vote. 
I deny also that it is a matterof proceeclingof 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 done 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 confened by this resolution on the two branches of Congress. 

But I did not rise to elaborately argue this question. I repeat what [ 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 
wats then, with great zeal, pressed to concur therein. Failing to force the resolution 
through the House before the last adj ■urnnient, it was made a special order for the 
opening day of thissession. 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 Congreps, with a 
Democratic majority in each House, would count in the Democratic candidates of 
18S0 for President and Vice-President of the United States. Leading Democrats out- 
side of Congress openly proclaimed to the country such a purpose. Hut 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 again plant ourselves on the plain pro- 
visions oft lie Constitution as interpreted in the light of the precedents of almost a 

In the consideration of this question partisan spirit should be forgotten. A re- 
membrance of the fact thai after the presidential election of 1876, ou account of a 
division of opinion on this question, not con lined to party, this nation was brought to 
the brink of anarchy and civil strife, business was paralyzed, and faith iu 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 ami events. 

I propose now to give some reasons why I am unalterably oppos d, not only to this 
proposed joint rule, but to legislation in every form which undertakes to withhold 
from the President of 1 he Senate his constitutional powers and vest them in Congress, 
orotic branch thereof, and which also proposes to provide a means by which the vote 
of the electors of a State may not lie 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, endea vnr I o show , as an excuse 
for my temerity, that t lie construction of the Constitution which] maintain is the one 
given it by the convention thai framed it, by individual members of that conven- 
tion after its adjournment, by the almost uniform course pursued under the Consti- 


tution, and by statesmen who figured prominently in the political arena in tl arly 

days of the Republic. 


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 I. 
."., and G relate to wholly immaterial matters, such as the preservation of order, ar- 
rangement of scats. Ac'., in joint session. The material parts of the resolution are 

these : 

Appointment of t< n< rs. 

- i 2. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the pari of the Senate and two on the pari ot 
the House of Represi ntatives, to record ana compute the votes pf electors. 

Openii g tlu list of votes and counting them. 

;s. 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 Stati s, be 
■■ ii-.nin"- «iili the lettet A. He shall open all the certified lista of votes of electors, (or papers pur- 
porting to be sm h certified list of rotes) of each State respectively, which shall have been delivered 
to him? in the order herein pr< scribed, and Bhall deliver them to the tellers, by whom they shall be read 
in the presence and hearing of the two Honses. 

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 h i- been opi ned, the President ol 
the Senate shall call for objections to receiving such certifii d 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. 

It objection is made torea i\ ing such certified list of the votes of electors or to the counting ol any 
vote therein certified, such objection or objections, if more than one objection is made, shall each be sub- 
mitted in writing and shall Btate the grounds of objei tion succinctly and without argument, and must 
be signed in duplicate byal east two Senators and three Members of the House ol Representatives; 
and one ol said dupl cates -hall be handed to the President of the Senate and the other to the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives; and the said objection shall he stated by the President of the - 
ate m the presence and hearing of the two Honses; whereupon he shall proceed to "pen another pack 
f there be an\ ether, puiporttng to contain a certified list of votesjof electors from said Mate. 
\"nd the same proceedings shall i c had. and in the same order, with reference to said list and anj other 
certified list of votes of elei tors from s lid State, or papers purporting to be such lists, in succession, 

if tWO Or n lore lists arc opened and lead in accordance with I his rule. 

It any list of voles „f electors from such State is BO opened and read, and no Objection IS made to 

receiving such list or to counting anv vote therein certified, it shall he received as the valid ami au- 
thentic list of votes of electors from such State, and the votes therein shall be counted, and the list 
or lists previously opened, read, and objected to shall in- rejected. 

If upon the reading of the certified list or lists ol votes of electors from any Mate no list baa been 

received without objection to the san r to any vote therein certified, the Senate Bhall withdraw to 

its Chamber and shall proceed to consider such objections as have been made as aforesaid. And there- 
upon the House ol Repres ml itn ss sh ill also proceed i<> c msi ler said objections 

Senators and Representatives in their respective Houses may each speak upon such objections ten 

minutes and not longer, 001 oil em r than once (except by n mini us consent >, and alter -hour s de 

hat. the objei tions the main question shall be put upon receiving each list of votes and counting 

the same. And when all objections so made are decided u| in either House, it shall communicate 

Its di cision lo the other lions : ami when both Houses have disposed of such objections, they shall 
immediately again assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives, and the President ol the 
Senate -hall Btate the decision of each House upon the qnestions so submitted to them. 

And all objections so made to the receiving or counting the votes ol electors from any State shall be 
disposed of before a list of votes of electors from an> other State is opened. 

It i, ,u one 1 1 -i of votes of electors from anj state ha- been bo submitted to each House for its di 

ion and it -hall appear thai the Houses have led concurred in rejecting said list, the -ami- shall b 

ceived. Hut If both Bouses 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 mote than one list of votes of electors ft any stale, or paper purporting to be audi list, lias 

been submitted to eai h Bouse roi its de< ision upon objections made thereto, ami it shall appear thai 
the Houses have not concurred in receiving either ol said lists as the authentic and lawful list, tliej 
shall cad, be declared by the President nfthe Si nate, in the presence ol the Senate and House ol Kep- 

ted; and no list of votes of electors so rejected -hall be afterward read In 
the presence of the two Houses except for informatii 

The votes having been ascertained and counted in the n ner pro\ Ided in this rule, the resull ol tiie 

same -hall be delivered by the tellers to the Presidentof the Si nate, who shall thereupon announce the 
gtate ol the vote ami the name- ,,! the persons, it any, elected, which announcement -hall he deemed 
h. ant di . 1. nation of the persons elected Pn -idem and \ ice Pn sidenl ol the I nited si .<. -. and 
together with n list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Hous 

An analysis of the proposed rule w ill slmw its atari ling charai ter. [1 is songhl bj 
a concurrent, not a joint resolntiou. to adopt a joint rule thai casts new and incoi 
imt duties mi the Presidenl of the Senate an officer * hose duties are defined hj the 
Constitution— by requiring him lo open '•paper* purporting to be certified lists 
whether they are such or not, and this in the face of the constitutional provision only 
requiring him to open actnal certificates of votes, all of which votes are required to 
be counted. [I is proposed to give Congress the righl uol onl> to count the elei I 
votes for Presideni and Vice President, bul also the power not to count them at all In 
do this, would, by a concurreui resolution, confer extraordinary unddaugerous powers 


ou the bodies passing it, and without a reasonable pretense of constitutional war- 

The last clause of section R, article 2 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to 
make all necessary laws to carry into execution certain enumerated powers, li aud all 
other poivers rested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any 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 hold scheme to enable Congress to select the President and Vice-President of the 
United States from the persons voted for, regardless id' 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 and 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 purpoiting 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 action 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 

The House cannot elect a President, or the Senate a Vice-President, except from 
persons 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 ; audi agree there is as much 
warrant in the Constitution for this as for the authority to give Congress such right, 
especially by a joint rule of the two Houses. 

The member from Indiana [.Mr. BlCKNELL] in charge of this measure was once in 
a speech here (June 10, 1H80, candid enough to say : 

In my [his] judgment no joint rule will meet the existing emergency. Where an obligation rests on 
Congress t<> provide the legislation necessary to carry into execution constitutional provisions, a 
joint rule is not legislation. A joint rule in such a case is a mere make-shift, a temporary expedient; 
it binds nobody. Either Souse adopting it 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 tn this language of the resolution : 

[f but imc list of votes of electors from any Slate lias been submitted to each House for its decision, 
anil it shall appear that the Houses have not concurred in rejecting said list, the same shall lie re 

In such rase who will count the electoral vote .' Will not the President of the Sen- 
ate count it .' 

Hut t he measure of this proposed usurpation of power is to he found in that clause 
of the resolution which gives to one branch only of Congress the power to t eject, with 
or without grounds, any and all electoral votes. 

Two sets of certificates can be furnished lor any State. Any person can make and 
return "papers purporting to he a <■< rtified list <</' voles," and then one Mouse 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, and another had 155, and 

two sets of certificates were placed in 1 he hands of the President of the Senate for each 

of these Slates. ( )n object ion I icing made, if one House should vote not to count the 
votes as shown by either of the certificates 64 (New York ::. r ). Pennsylvania 29) votes 

of the leading candidate would In- rejected, his remaining vote would I ily 150, and 

tin- candidate having L55 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 be made in the same way. 

Having indicated the design, scope, and workings of the proposed rule, and in some 
tneasuie shown the want of power to adopt it. let us take a broader view ami con- 
sider who has the right to appoint electors, determine the validity of their votes, and 
to count their votes. 


i in: ait. n\ ! \i i \ i OF ELI i 1 1 »BS 

is a 1 1 ii rely stair matter. The language of the Constitution is: 

Each State shall appoint, in such maimer as the legislature thereof may direct, a nam ber of electors 
equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to « (rich the State may be entitled in the 
Congress, &c. — Section 1. article 2, 

The same section of the Constitution provides that — 

The Congress may determine the time of cl sing the electors, ami the daj on which thej ~h.ill - i\ ■- 

their votes. 

Here the power of Congress in relation to the electors begins ami ends. Ii has 
nothing to do with the manner of appointing theni, and it follows that it has no right 
to establish a mode of determining when the legislature of tin- state has appointed 

tin 'in if it has acted at all. 

Nothing is clearer than tin- fact that it" electors have been chosen as the Constitu- 
tion provides, at the time ami in the manner ti\ed by law, and they have casl their 
\ ,,!,. mi t he day prescribed bylaw, that it must be counted as casl ; and .•very attempt 
to |ireveiit its being counted would he a hold effort to roll the people of this country, 
in migrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, of their choice forPresi- 
dent and Vice-President. 

The proposed joint rule can only he 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. [t proposes to vesl Congress, through the rejection of electo- 
ral votes, \\ it h the prerogath e of selectiug the two highest officers of the Government 
from the persons voted for, no matter how (dearly it may have been determined by 
State or other authority that i he 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 bf their armed servants and a hired ret in lie. pre- 
vent on an election day the choice ofa consul unfriendly to them. This at leasl had 
the merit of boldness coin pa red to a subtle method of depriving the electors of their 
votes after they were cast. The barbaric met hods of two thousand years ago have 
been adopted in elections in some places in our Republic : they now seem to he giving 

way to the more Id liess method ot not counting the votes cast. In these Halls we 

should give no countenance to cither method. 

Wild TO cot N'T Till'. VOTE. 

[f 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 
to] low that Congress can assume it. The debates on the adoption of the Constitution 
show that it was designed t" remove as far as possible the choice of Presidenl and 
Vice-President from the control of Congress. 

Charles Pinckney, id' South Carolina, a member of the constitutional convention. 
January •_':',. 1800, when speaking on the subjeel of the election of Presidenl <>i the 
I baited States, said : 

He remembered verj well that, in the Federal convention, great care was used to provide for the 
, lection of the Presidenl of the United Stab - independently of Congress, ami to take the business as 
far as possible, out of their hands. — Elliott's Debates, volume i. page 124. 

It may he observed here that it is quite immaterial who counts the electoral vote. 
The addition ofa few figures is an easy task for an \ person. It is purely a matter of 
computation. The privilege of connting the \ <>te, however, carries with ii no right 
to reject it. The uniform construction put upon the language <>f t he Constitution by 
it-* tranters when a. I opted and firsl put in practice justifies the claim that Congress 
no dui > to pei form in relation to counting i he elect oral vote other than to wituesd i s 

PR] ' l in \ l - INSTRUCT! ION. 

The Constitution was signed Septembet IT. 1787, and ou the same daj a resolution 
passed t he convention unanimously directing the mode of putting the constitutional 
eminent into operation : and on the matter of counting the electoral vote for the 
firsl President, it says : 

That the Senator* should couvene at the time ami place assigned : that the S. aators -I Id appoint 

.. President of the Si nan for the sole pur f 

Washington, the president of the convention, signed this resolution. 

Her.- was a clear construct ion 'of t lie Constitution, before the ink used in writing 
and signing ii was dry, and by the voice of all its Cramers, which should al.uu close 
the months of doubters ami i lern constitutional expounders. 

In accordance with t he resolution the first Senate chose John Langdon, oi it - 

number, Presidenl of the Senate ; ami. a-- ii> order declared — 

t • . i the sole purpose of opening the certificates ami counting the votes ol electors "i tin »evenr 
States in the choice of President and Vice President ol the I'uited St 


Accordingly, on April 6, 1789, John Langdon did open the certificates and count the 
electoral vote for President and Vice-President, and he then declared, and so certified, 
that George Washington and John Adams were elected, the former President and the 
latter Vice-President of the United States. 

The certificates were prepared by a committee of the Senate, and they recited 
that — 

The underwritten, appointed President of the Senate for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and 
counting the votes of the electors, did, in the presence of the said Senate and House of Representa- 
tives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the electors for a President and Vice-President, &c. 

An extract from the Journal of the House of the lust-named date also conclusively 
shows that the President of the Senate declared what votes should be counted by the 
tellers. Here it is: 

Mr. Parker and Mr. Heister [House tellers] then delivered in at the clerk's table a list of votes of the 
electors * * as the same were declared by the President of the Senate in the presence of the Sen- 
ate and this House. 

This is the highest evidence that the President of the Senate not only opened the 
certificates but declared'the electoral votes to be counted. 

In both branches of Congress there were then many members of the convention 
that had but recently framed the Constitution. None were found to protest against 
the action of the President of the Senate. 

Members of Congress of this day who deny the right of the President of the Senate 
to declare what votes are to be counted must occupy the unenviable position of be- 
lieving that the makers of the Constitution did not know the cunning of their own 
child ; ami, as we shall presently see, they must hold that Washington, John Adams, 
Jefferson, Madison, &c, were each declared elected President of the United States on 
a count of electoral votes made in violation of the Constitution. 
' While the champion of this resolution [Mr. Bi<?kxkll] admits that Mr. Langdon 
did the counting which made George Washington ami John Adams first President 
and first Vice President, the member from Virginia [Mr. HuxtonI, in the face of his- 
tory, denies that fact; yet they, by some sort of Democratic reasoning, bring them- 
selves into mutual embrace and agree that one branch of Congress alone may count 
or not count the electoral vote. After giving a construction to the Constitution in 
favor of the President of the Senate's right to count the electoral vote, Congress 
passed, March 1, 1792, a law regulating the election of President and Vice-President, 
and therein recognized such construction. The material part of a section relatingto 
the ascertainment of the vote is this: 

That Congress shall be in session the second "Wednesday in February succeeding every 

meeting of the electors, and the said certificates, or so many of them as shall have been received, shall 
then be opened, the votes counted, and the persons who shall till the offices of President and Vice- 
President ascertained and declared agreeably to the Constitution. 

In that act there is no intimation that Congress had any right to count or reject 
electoral votes. This law, hoary with age, but yet in force, it isnow proposed to annul 
by a simple concurrent resolution of Congress. Under it .John Adams opened fhecer- 
tilicates, counted the votes (February 5, 179:?), and declared Washington President, 
and himself Vice-President, to commence the 4th of March, 1791?. Again, in February, 
1797, John Adams discharged his duty as President of the Senale by opening the elec- 
toral certificates and counting the votes, at the conclusion of which lie pronounced 
himself elected President and Thomas Jefferson Vice-President, and thereupon deliv- 
ered himself of a beatitude, thus: 

And may the Sovereign of the universe, the ( lidainer of civil government on earth, for the preserva- 
tion of liberty, just-ice. and peace among men, enable both to discharge the duties of these offices i on- 
formal ily to the Constitution of the 1'niteil States with consciencious diligence, punctuality, and perse- 

.Mason of Virginia then reported from a committee of the Senate a resolution, which 
was adopted, requiring a notification of election to be sent to Mr. Jefferson, from 
which I read an extract : 

The underwritten, Vice-1'residcnt of the Untied States ami President of the Senate, did, in the pres- 
ence of the said Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates And count all the cotex of 

the electors for a President ami for a Vice-President. 

No clearer evidence could have been preserved, not only ofwhaf .John Adams did, 
but of the judgment of the then ( 'ongress as to the duty of the Vice-President to count 
the eletoral vote. In the fourth presidential election Jefferson (February, 1801) as 

Vice -President discharged his duty in relation to the electoral vote, and signed a cer- 
t ificate in compliance with an order of the Senate from which this is an extract : 

The underwritten, Vice-President of the United states and Piesident of the Senate, did. in the 
presence of the said Senate ami Bouse of Representatives, open all the certificates and count all the 
votes <f tin- electors ><■!■ President, w hereupon it appealed that Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, and Aaron 
Burr, of Ne'V York, had a majority Of votes as electors, and an equal number of votes. 

Here is the most conclusive evidence of Mr. .Jefferson's personal action under the 
Constitution. The distinguished member from Iowa [Mr. UPDEGRAFF], who in June 


last made an exhaustive argnmenl on this subject, has shown thai Mr. Jefferson was 
called ou lo connl the vote of Georgia for himself on a certificate (if it could be so 
called) which was more than technically defective, An account of bin conduct, show- 
ing that be directed withoul 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 '-'. 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 Coujrress, while in joiul session, exercising the 
righl i" settle bj a vote percapita all disputed votes, in a published article I Interna- 
tional Review, January and February, 1878 says Mr.Jefferson favored legislation by 
Congress to regulate the electoral count, and be quotes from whal is said to be Mr. 
Jeffersou's dr mghl of an aiueudmeul to a lull pending before the Senate while he was 
Vice-President. Ii i> fair to nay thai Mr. Jefferson's subsequent open public acl which 
resulted in making himself President of the United States is in opposition t<> Buch :i 
construction •>!' i In- Constitution. No public .-n't or Bpeecb of hi- supports this i".-t 
humous claim as to his views. It is quite certain thai after Mr. Jefferson bad written 
the paper referred t<> by the honorable gentleman hedid not think well enough of it 
to have it offered in tin- Senate or to otherwise give it publicity . and he entombed it 
bo thoroughly thai it- resurrection day did net come for Beventy-tive years and until 
grass bad grown over his grave above half a century. 

In tin' draught In- is made to say thai it is to be inferred from tin- wording of the 
Constitution that tin- members of the Senate and House <>f Representatives are to do 
the <oii n tin '4. and that they are brought together "for that office, nooihtr being assigned 


Tin- views of th.- gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] and those ol Mr. Jefter- 
Bon at<' in harmony on the question of the right of the two Houses in joint Bession to 
count the electoral vote, if this paper of Mr. Jefferson can be accepted as his Bettled 
views, and both are against the usurpation Boughl t<> be worked out through the 
pending resolul ion. 

It we take Mr. Jefferson's draughl as a whole, we will find that hedid not believi 
any authority could or should depriveany Stateof an electoral vote I quote from it : 

Thai whenever tin- voteof one or more of the electors of any State shall Eoi any cause whatever be 
adjudged Invalid it shall be law ful for the Senators and Representatives ol tho said State, either in the 
presence of the two Houses or separately ami withdrawn from them, to decide by their own votes t" 
which of the persons voted for by any of the electors of their State or to whal person] tin' invalid vote 

or votes Bhall !><• given, for which purpose they shall In- allowed a term of , i hour], ami no Ion; 

during which no certificate shall be opened "i proceeded on. 

This,however, s.. flatly contravenes tin- Constitution, which gives to States the righl 
to selecl tin- persons who shall cast the electoral votes, thai Mr. Jefferson on reflection 
may well have consigned this fugitive paper to supposed obln ion. 

Thos,. 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. 

M\ in. iid from Georgia, while he regards Mr. Jefferson as an apostle of Btricl con- 

iction to be followed in tin- matter of the authority of Congress to ascertain the vote 

to be counted, could nol hut repudiate his views sel forth in the quotation jnsl mad.-. 

He does not think Mr. Jefferson should he followed so far outside oi the pale of the 

Constitution as to favor the casting of rejected electoral votes bj members ol Congress 

tr stat.s having such votes. While some differences of opinion _ developed early, 

V1 .| they, on discussion, were dropped, and the uniform course obtained for the \ 

■ -id. m to count the vole, and this prevailed until modern expediency has found ii 
necessan to try to change it. 

I mi -lit take up, did time permit, each Presidential election succeeding those given, 
and show the method 1 now contend for was uniformly pursued. Apology maj !»■ 

-,.n\ for having gone into the details of history at all. I should not have done 

„, inn for tbefacl that at a recenl session a1 least one member [Mr. Hunton, ol Vir- 
ginia] confident I \ claimed that (with a BiUgle exception I " '/» '»'" HouSi - »i ' •••■ 

~, a , ed the power of counting the electoral vote." Ii is a misfortune thai we so often 

i. .,d hi-toi \ ;iw i \ . or that we do not read it at all. 


\ recurrence to th.- language of the Constitution on this subjeel and tin bistorj ol 
itsenactmenl will confirm us in the belief thai the earlj and uniform pra< 
have shown to have existed was in accordance with its lettei aud spun, i he lan- 
guage of that iiistru me nt i section I, Article II) is this: 

r ,,l OU 

nil n 

This same language ia found in the twelfth aroendmenl to the Constitution, which 
i- now in force. Thai amendment was proposed al 'he tint session of the Eighth 


Compress (December 12, 180:5), and it was adopted by the required number of States 
in 1804, after four Presidential elections bad 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 lias been claimed, there is a casus omissus in respect to the electoral 
count, "hose who set the Constitution in motion did not discern it. No amendment 
was deemed necessary to change the prevailing construction of the Constitution, of 
fco inaugurate a new uolicy in the matter of counting tin- 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 tins 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 home-bred, 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 davs later, when the report was under consideration, the convention added to 
this clause, after the word counted, the words in the presence of Ihe Smith- 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 was thought best, without any change of the sense, 
to transpose it and insert the words in the presence of the Senate and House of Represent- 
atives in lien 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 wasimproved. the 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 woids. 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 he counted. What votes are then to be counted ? Only 
the certified votes, and all these are absolutely required to be thm counted. If votes 
air 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 the mere ministe- 
rial act of counting the votes, as so evidenced, it might be conceded, as no possible 
harm could come from 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 thine is tile declaration of tiie vote l<> he counted, and this duty devolves on the 
President of the Senate. This resolution requires the tellers "to record and compute 
the votes 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 ami in certain cases one blanch 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 expresslv 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 it is dangerOUS for the power to count the vote to be vested solely 
m one man— the President of the Senate. Grant this; it is always dangerous to re- 
pose power anywhere. If such power must belong somewhere i I will be as safe with 
him as with Congress. In marly one hundred years of our constitutional existence 

no case of abuse of power (unless Mr. Jefferson's acts constitute one) can 1 r has 

i, ecu charged againsi a President of the Senate in respect to the counting of the elec- 
toral vote? We could noi hope for as bappy 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 mouarchs. The Roman senate in the last t wo 
centuries of republican Rome incited, countenanced, justified, and condoned more 

NN anton bl Ished than can be laid at the dOOT of individual monarchy for the same 

p< riod in the history of any so-called civilized nation. If we turn on the light of the 
present in our ownRepublic we are not reassured. We have recently seen, under 
the dictum of party caucus, crime, and fraud, in the presence of which civilized man 
stands appalled, justified— not only justified, hut soughl fco be legalized. We have 
witnessed legislative bodies abuse as well as usurp power. We have seen members 
of both "i'at parties al our recent Presidential electoral count united in a commis- 


siou berinaphroditically organized, partaking of law judges and Law makers, divide 
mi every material question — 8 to7 — according to party Mas. This was noi calculated 
to quiel the sensitive nerves of the Republic. The defeated party cried through the 
land thai the result was a larceny, grand larceny, Presidential larceny, and thai it 
won lil be vindicated. The vindication bas nol yel runic, it is true, and il i» imt likelj 
ever to come in thai case. A bad cause can have n<> vindication. 

It lias frequently occurred thai u Presidenl of the Senate has imtiinchingly di 
charged his duty under the Constitution, by counting the electoral vote and declar- 
ing elected a Presideul and Vice-Presidenl of the opposite political party. When 
the tires of <i\il war were already Lighting, in 1861, John ('. Breckinridsre (shortlj 
thereafter a Leader in rebellion), himself a Presidential candidate, then Vice-Presi- 
dent, opened the certificates aud counted (with the aid of the usual tellers), and bo 
certified, the electoral vote thai made the now immortal Lincoln Presidenl of the 
United States. 

li is conceded that the Presidenl of the Senate, and he only, has authority to " opt n 
all the certificates," showing the electoral votes. 'Phis is a more dangerous power 
than the riglil to count the votes thus shown. He is to judge of the genniueness of 
the certificates. Should be decide that a paper purporting to be a certificate of such 
votes was nol what it purported t<> be be need i » * > t present it. and there would then 
be no opporl unity to count the vote of a State. This has actually occurred. On Feb- 
ruary 8, 1865, Vice-Presidenl Hannibal Hamlin, of Maim', withheld certificates from 
the States of Louisiana and Tennessee; and when, during the joinl session of the 
Houses, he was called on to submit them, he refused, and tliey wen- never submitted, 
nor the votes counted. It is true be had the authority of a joinl resolul ion (approved 
bj the Presidenl |, \\ hich had the force of a law, for refusing " to rea ive or count " the 
votes of these or other states. I refer to the joint resolution President Lincoln ap- 
proved ( February 8, 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 \ ote. 

My friend from Virginia [Mr. Hunton], in a speech here, says Presidenl Lincoln 
approved the twenty-second joint rule, adopted in thai year. It was adopted bj a 
concurrenl resolution (February 6, IB65), and it was never submitted to him lor his 
action. Other members have fallen into the same error. I understood the honorable 
Speaker, to-day, to cite the message of Presidenl Lincoln on the "joint resolution de- 
claring certain Stales not entitled to representation in tin electoral college,'" in support of the 
power of Congress to count the vote. Errors of judgment track in tin- wake of errors 
of history. 

I do not justify the long-since abrogated twenty-second joint rule. 

The resolution w hich President Lincoln approved set forth in its preamble thai 
eleven Slates, and named them, were then in rebellion anil on that account declared 
that •■ noehcUrral voles shall l>< rea iced or counted from said Stales." This went to the root 
ot tin- ease, ami it was not a regulal ion of the conduct of t hi' count in joint conven- 
tion of tin- Houses. Then Democrats, Soutb, were absent, claiming these eleven States 
were out of the Union tor all purposes, and Democrats North were agreeing with them 
in tin- main : I mt some of them claimed they were still in the Union far enough to help 
• •lect a President of the United States, in that instance, if in no other, the Repub- 
lican party sided with I he Sou t hern Democrats, and accepted t heir vie w of t In- case, to 
a certain extent. 

I am aware that ni\ opinions are not parallel with any party lilies. 

iome members say, in the cases when- the Presidenl of the Senate bas counted the 

vim'. In- has done so under the authority of Congress. This ca it !>>• true. Con- 

-s cannot delegate the constitutional powers it possesses. John Langdon, the lirsl 
Presidenl of the Senate, had no authority of Congress to count the vote, yel he 
connted the vote w it 1 t objeel ion. 

'I he accotmtability to which a \ ice-Presidonl would lie held in case he should abuse 
bis official power or fail to faithfully perform his dntj isasnfflcient guarantee thai he 
will never attempt either — certainly not before his part] friends in Cougress would 
be i eady to do Likewise. 

It ma\ be going too far to hold that Congress has nol power to, in the ordinary waj . 
puss a law to guide the \ ii e Presidenl in opening and counting the electoral vote, bul 
any law or rule w hich would deprive him of the righl to do either would l>e uni 
st it utional. 

Tin- opinion entertained bj Mr. Jefferson, and winch iu> friend froi sorgia fol- 
lows, that whatever is done having relation to the c t muBl be while iu joint ■ 

\ en i ion, is undoubted! j sound. It harmonizes with the Constitution. The Constitu- 
tion absolute!] fixes two things: (l)the certificates shall be opened ; (2)thevotes 
shall then lie counted, and all in the presence of the two Houses. 

There can be m> counting or agreement to c t or uol count the vote in separati 


In the adoption of this resolution the texl and spirit of the Constitution is t«> be 


ignored, the truth of history is to lte denied, all good and sale precedents are to be 
disregarded, an i 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 docs 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 plain 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 ////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 members 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 count the vote or, what is worse, to throw out by its own fiat 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 find 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, article 2.) 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 ou 
States and their legislatures as much as upon Congress, and we 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 
many 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 sap- 
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 eases 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 in this regard, but tin power only is given to declare 
the result of the prior action of the electors in the several States. 

Neither the President of the Senate nor other authority can constitutionally dis- 
franchisc, in whole or in part, a state by rejecting certified electoral votes. There are 
persons who assume thai if Congress has not the right to count or reject the electoral 
votes, 1 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 arc 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 


declaration of the reenll need be made: the Constitution does not require it. [fa 
majority ol the votes are for one man his election follows ; if uo person baa such ma- 
jority then the House must immediately proceed i>> ••Net a Presidenl 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 resull in all cases of dispute. This 
necessity will exist ;is much in case the Congress counts the vote and in cases where 
thr House and Senate elect the President and Vice-President, where no election has 
taken place by the electors, as if the President <>t' the Senate counted it. 

With appropriate legislation the question might possibly be settled in tin- Supreme 
Court of the United States by proceedings in '/»<< warranto or by some other form T 
ci-ii test. 'In its final jndgmenl all patriotic people would bow in submission. We are 
forced by the very nature of our Government, free as il is, to have to submit a( last 
tu some final arbiter, and often Buffer injust ice if it is meted oul to us ; otherwise t he 
pillars of onr political structure would go down in the firsl storm. Tin- jndgmenl of 
a high court would be more freely acquiesced in than the action of a partisan Con- 

Let us abandon this attempt to exercise powers not granted in the Constitution ; 
let us cling firmly, persistently, and to the end to all our constitutionally grunted 
powers; le1 ns guarantee to all authorities or officers in the Union their properly 
granted powers, and no more; lei as encourage them to faithfullydischarge all their 
duties; let us cease to se1 bad precedents to others in the matter of usurping powi 
belonging elsewhere : lastly, if we have been so unfortunate as to find a weak place 
in the great charier of our national existence, let as gather around it and devote our- 
selves tu curing its w eakness : stand close about it and guard it from attack, si rain, or 
break, so that our Republic, which lias already, in, as we hope, the youth of its exist- 
ence, been compelled to withstand the shock of a political earthquake from which it 
barelj escaped being rent in twain, may never again be rocked in the cradle of civil 
b1 rife. 

Greater devotion to purifying the political morals and to the education, civilization, 
and Christianization of our people, and less to expedients under the pretense of pro- 
viding again si apprehended w rang, will be more fruil ful of happy results. If \\ e find 
our organic law is defective, lei us amend it agreeably to its <>\\ a provisions. Such 
a policy will avert any possible danger and transform all our fears to hope and confi- 

This ei inn try should now only be in the blossoming period of its growl b and great- 
ness. The possibilities of the future we do not yel hope to compass, bul 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 exisl generally through- 
out all the departments of our dual Government. 

Time would lie well spent here if Weile\oted ourselves to legislation that Would 

condemn electoral frauds in e\ ery part of t he Union, and se1 the seal of infamy upon 
all persons, whether in high or low places, who practiced, excused, or countenanced 
them, oi accepted the fruits of them. 

Political molality ingrained into our national existence will cn-ate strength us noth- 
ing else creati - it. Without an improvement in this respect and an abandonment of 
expedients by which one or another party hopes to gain, again si the expressed will 
of t In- people, Boine advantage overall others, tin- time niaj not he far distant when 
this American Republic, teeming as it already does with above fifty million- of the 
happiest ami freest people of the earth, ma\ he found readj for final judg ut. This 

particular epoch in our history i> an auspicious one to adjust persous and parties mi 
a 1 1 in- and patriotic basis ; and if it should lie found t hat any party ship has sailed 

so far out oi' a true course as in lie mi a pa id >of being in on- lii hack, ii should hi' scut- 
tled, abandoned, and consigned to a- deep-sea burial. This Government will roll on 
in safety upon t he old lines if those who control its destiny are con ten 1 to steer it b\ 
tin- landmarks of the Constitution planted by i he patriotic fathers who sel it in mo- 

Febmarj B 1881. On the resolution* providing for Msembling the two Houses in joint session to count 
tin- \ otee "i elei i "i foi I't i -ii lent am I Vice President 

Mr. KKll l.l; said : 

Mr. Spi \m:i:: pi i for the purpose of specially opposing these resolutions, 
Tin- firsi resolution is in the usual form, and it is wholly unobjectionable. The si 
ond resolution provides the alternative of nut counting the vote ut' auy State about 

which there may be a question. Ofc se thai is directed, in this particular case, 

agaiusl tie- State of Georgia. It i- seemingly an innocent expedient. It has pr< . 
dent for it : hut it is objectionable because it assumes a direction by Congress in the 

<■ ting of the electoral votes. Ii uudertake* to direct by a mere resolution of the 

t w ii Houses w hat tin- I 'resident of t he Senate shall do in t he performance of a con« 
tutional duly specially east on him. 

[ deny that any power, whether the Vice President or th I of the United 

90 A— K !» 


States, has the right to say the counting of the vote of any State shall uot take place, 
and I deny that there is any power anywhere to reject the vote of any State after it 
has been cast and properly certified and returned. I believe the election of President 
and Vice-President took place, in effect, :it 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 (d' 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 usurpatron 
in anv 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 npon 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 counting the vote of Georgia, because I believe the people voted 
in November for electors for President and Vice-President. They theu 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 ot the Presidential 
election, would you then vote for countiug it f 

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, auy 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. 



December 16, 1880. TheHousi in committee, had under consideration the pension appropriation bill ; 
the pending clause «as a pro^ ision fixing one dollar as the fi e for the examining Burgeon for ea< h 
amination of a pensioner, as provided bylaw, "except when the examination is made l'.\ .i board ol 
Burgeons, in which case the fees """ allowed by law shall be paid." 

Mr . Keiker moved to strike oul "one " and insert "two," making the fee two dollars, against which 
a point "i order was made. 

Mr. KEIFEB said: 

Mr. Chairman. It' I understood the honorable gentleman aright in his answer a fev» 
moments ago, when I railed his attention to this matter, be now makes a statement 
which is entirely the opposite of that. He then stated to us, and [thought be was 
right, that the law gave to eacb examining surgeou in i hese cases s-.»: bul thai under 
this new-fangled method— that is, the effeel of what be said— of Legislating upon ap- 
propriation bills, for a few years past, this lias been ingrafted <m the law and the fee 
thereby cut ih>\\ n to $1. 

Is it not true thai under existing law, without a provision in the appropriation bill 
and without a limiting clause in the bill, the allowance would be $21 From year to 
year tor a few years past we have been changing existing law on our appropriation 
bills, and in this ease we have cut down the sum allowed examining surgeons to $1. 
Now. it 1 understand the law aright, the amendment that I oiler is not only in exact 
accordance with the existing law. hut simplj proposes to restore the law to what it 
wa- 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 
appropriatiou bill. This provision in the hill, coming from this august Committee 
on Appropriations, is simply an undertaking to change existing law itself. My propo- 
sition is to restore t he 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 h.\ my motion at least to 
restore i lie law . 

The CHAIRMAN. The (hair presumes, and it will not he controverted, thai (lie 
appropriation made heretofore tor the purpose of providing i\-*-^ for surgeons in such 
Oases lias I. ecu at the rate of fl tor 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 pari icular hill and for that fiscal 
year only, hut it did not undertake to change exist inn laws permanently. 

The CHAIRMAN. He that as it may, the Chair is or opinion that the existing law 

provides thai the fee shall be $1. It will not he denied that for this year at leas I t In- 
law has been -I. Then, if you hold that you do not repeal the present law you w ill 
have the absurdity of two laws existing at tin- same time direct Is the reverse of eacb 
other, w inch is an impossibility. The Chair is of opinion that this is the existing law, 
ami therefore that the point of order Is well taken. 

Mr. KEIFER. Do] understand the Chair to say thai if the law was modified for 
hut one year, not bj repealing the act, bul modified simply for that year, that it 
would change il forever? I believe it is conceded thai recenl appropriation bills of 
like character to this have onlj undertaken t<> amend that law jtin t<iiiit> in this re- 
spect, and for the fiscal year appropriated tor only. I '-in in i he absence of anj other 

legislatioi the subject the old law would operate again. The existing law for the 

coming fiscal year, tor which we arc now appropriating, would be $2. 

Mr. HISCOCK. [believe it is entirely nghl the House should have had a chance 
to express an opini i this question. Therefore, 1 would Buggesl to the gentleman 

from Ohio I hat he i lifv his mot ion ami \ <■ to si r ike out tin' proviso. 

Mr. KEIFER Thai I intend in do. 

Tie- point of order "■>- sustained. 

Mi. KEIFER, I will not appeal from the decision of the Chair, although 1 am in- 
clined to think that m\ amendment does nol change existing law for the year for 
which this hill proposes to make appropriation. Bul the poinl of order having been 
lamed. I move to strike out the proviso beginning on line 29, as follows: 

Provided, That a fee of $1 .oul Don hal] be paid to the examining surgeon for each exam 

tionofapeu i provided by law, except when the examlnat madi B sons, 

in which case the fees now allowed bj law shall be paid. 

The ohjeet of my mot ion will be quite apparent to the committee. It is to g< t rid 
of t In- legislation proposed In this appropriation hill on the subjeel of regulating the 
fee to he paid bo an examining Burgeon for the examination of pensioners. I under- 


stand and I believe it to be conceded all around, that in the absence of such a limit- 
ation 'as is found in this bill the fee of an examining surgeon, under existing law, 
would be $2. The last clause in the proviso that is proposed to be stricken out is 
simply in the nature of au exception in favor of paying the sum of $2 when there is 
an examination made of a pensioner by a board of surgeons. The proviso says that 
in such a case the fees now allowed by law shall be paid. So that it the committee 
and the House should decide to strike out all that 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 examining 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 
the House, but to the country. We have to get along with these appropriation Wills 
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 the country. 
[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. SAPP obtained the floor, aud yield his time to Mr. Keiker. 
Mr KFIFER. I 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- 
thin- 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 be 
agreed that SI is too small a sum. For my part, I think the general judgment ot the 
country would say that $2 was too low alee for such a service. The corporations 
that are called upon to employ physicians to make examinations in reference to life- 
insurance 1 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 tit 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 feast 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 in some degree, however slight, will avert that great danger to which the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan says we arc constantly exposed in the matter 
of appropriations. I do not quite agree with that gentleman in the methodshe 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 ot 
the laud, 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 
passedupon this question deliberately, not in an appropriation lull, but m a law, 
and that re-enacted that law in the Revised Statutes of the United Stales, and pay 
at least something that approximates the real value of this important service to the 


Mr KOBINSON. I do not desire to speak upon the merits ot the pending proposi- 
tion but 1 wish to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KEIFER] thai 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 1 am inclined to think there 
is not, I am obliged to him, however, for making the suggestion. I think the clause 
he has read from tin- last pension appropriation bill has reference to the paj incuts 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 then- 
bill of last year ami came to the conclusion that in order to prevent the operation ot 
section 17?: Of the Revised Statutes, which allows the payment ofsj for each exami- 
nation, it was necessary to repeat this clause in this appropriation bill. If 1 am not 
mistaken, then under the law of last year, by a provision put into an appropriation 
bill—] 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, ami I do not think they did do it. I think it 
mv motion to strike out this pro\ iso shall prevail we will go hack to the general law 
found in section 4??? of the Ke\ ised Statins. 


Before I close I desire to say one word in response to t he argument, if I maj so call 

it, which came from the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Blount] in favor of ec< my. 

As I understood it. amid tin' confasion around me, the gentleman was nnder the im- 
pTessiou that distinguished physicians of the country oughl ti> perform this work for 
less than it was worth because i1 might be an advertisemenl for them. 

Now, I wonder if we here work on any such principle! I wonder if the gentleman 
himself takes his Beal in < longress, draws his pa\ of $5,000 a year, and his mileage for 
coming here and returning, on the theory that his services are worth a vast < 1 ■ ■: 1 1 more 
than that amount, but that the rest is paid him by a mere advertise nt to the peo- 
ple (>(' the country and to the world .' 

The humble physician in a remote \ illage, wherever he may be, is to be annoyed by 
pensioners and called upon to perform a meat and valuable service to the country merely 
as an advertisemenl ! Sir, the people in my portion of thecouutrydo not accept snch 
an advertisement. I am told bj gentlemen around me that in the principal towns 
on tin' frontiers of Kansas, Nebraska, and other states physicians cannot possiblj he 

found who will, lor the miserable sum of >1. make this examination ; and the) r 

pensioner is obliged in many instances to travel scores of miles to find some man who 
is willing to perform this service for the pitable sum of $1. 

Now, if we. me to protect the Government as we should protect it, we sh on Id em- 
ploy the best men for the purpose and pay them for their services; we should secure 
the best skill of the country ami pay for it as indi\ iduals are n illing 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. KEIl i i:l. 

Mr. SPARKS. Has not ,•, point of order been raised on that amendment .' 

the CHAIRMAN. No point oi order has been made upon it. 

Mr. KEIFER. None can he made. 

Mr. SPARKS. Of coins,- none can he made now. 

'the question being taken on agreeing t<> the amendment, there wire — ayes 62, 
not s 6*2. 

Mr. KEIFER. I call for tellers. 

No 1 1 iioru m ha vine.- voted, t id his were ordered : and Mr. Ki'.it'ii: and Mr. Hi r.r.i u. 
were appointed. 

The committee di\ ided : and the tellers reported— ayes 80, noes ; i. 

- i he amendment was agreed to. 



January 21, 1881. On this contested-election case of Bisbee against Hull- 
Mr. KEIFER said : 

Mr. Speaker : I propose to occupy the time of the Honse but a very few minutes. I 
was about saying, when interrupted, that the subcommittee of the Committee on 
Elections, 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. Tbere 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 lips 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 hi in 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 found thai at poll No. 4, the poll mi- 
retnrned to the canvassing hoard, 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 iis 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 county 
concedes openly and plainly in his brief that there was fraud in the Lon>: Swampor, 
Whiteville poll of that county— fraud committed by the judges of election, they tak- 
ing 93 votes from those actually cast for Horatio Bishee. 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 1 he State canvassing board, giv- 
ing to the sitting member in that precinct 134 votes and to the contestant 41, whereas 
it 18 admitted on all hands and abundantly proved that it should have been 1:54 votes 
for the contestant and 11 for the contestee. We have there a change of 186. 


We find thai in one precinct in Alachua County, Cow Creek poll, the vote was nol 
returned, and thai poll really gave to the sitting member 24 votes, and t" the con- 
testant 2 \ otes. 

The county of Brevard [have nol spoken of ; and thai is theonlj other part of the 
case to which I mean to refer. In thai comity the vote was returned in some form or 
other to the State canvassing hoard, bul the board unanimously rejected the entire 
vote of thai county — did nol canvass it — for whal particular reason we have been 
unable to ascertain. We do know from their return thai tbey thre^ the whole 
vote aside for some reason which they deemed sufficient. The contestant , M r. Bisbee, 
attacks the whole vote of this county. He thinks there were irregularities. It is 
shown iii the case, it is true, that in one precinct, in the absence of a ballot-bos such 
as is prescribed by the statute of the State o!' 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 thai 
in another case a cigar-box was used, and so on. Bu1 we examined all these thiugu 
carefully; and in view of an agreed statement of fact which we find in the case we 
have decided to count the vote of Brevard County, which gives to the contestee 11*> 
\ otes ami to the contestant , Mi". Bisbee, 41 votes. 

In view of e\er\ thing in the case we have concluded that it is i.ur duty to canvass 
this vote. Canvassing all the votes in the light of the returns, in the Lighl of agree- 
ments and everything that is before us, we find 350 majority for Horatio Bisbee, jr. 

This is subject to a very Blight deduction. The contestee objects to Is votes in certain 

enmities — Duval, Putnam, Baker, Columbia, and Suwannee. He claims that those 
votes were cast by non-resident s or non-registered voters. Without stating any rea- 
sons. I may say that the committee deduct 11 votes from the majority of 350, and find 
the majority of the contestant to he 339. Only IS 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 question ordered, the gentleman desires a portion of the time accorded to mo 
under the rules, I will he willing to yield it to him. 

(Mr. Bisbee was seated.) 



January 27, 1881. On the North Carolina contested-election case of Yeates against Martin — 

Mr. KEIFER said: 

Mr. Speaker. It lias seemed to some gentlemen on this floor, as they indicated a few- 
days ago, that we were considering two cases hoc as though cadi 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 that <• 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 this 
moment, although I think I have given d\w consideration to the report of the com- 
mittee, as well as to the argument <>t' tin- distinguished gentleman from Georgia — 
and I will say for him that it is the best argument I think that side of the question 
is susceptible of — I have learned of no higher or better reason than that for unseating 
Mr. Martin, and that in my judgment it is proposed here to commit a great outrage 
upon the gentleman from North Carolina. 1 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 ease 1 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 tix 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, L87S was an elec- 
tion lor 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 he chosen for Representative in Congress, and was not complicated hy any 
State, municipal, or township election. The returning hoard 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 tow nship the contestant received a majority of '.19 voles. 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 regis! rarof a voting precinct could not be chosen properly under 
the laws of the State of North Carolina to cany the returns to the county scat. 
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 ii regularities 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 ret in ns before us here which would indisputably show the real vote east, 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 case. So if is unnecessary to write long reports or to 
make long speeches to show that A. ought nor that P ought to have carried the 
returns, it ' w e have t he ret urns here. It is our duty, in fairness to the people and as 
an act of just Lee to the man elected, to give him the benefit of the votes cast. 

I agree that it was not right to reject t he vote of Providence Township, which gave 
to the contestant 39 majority, simply because the wrong man may have carried the 
ret urns 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 t he Bouse, 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 thai 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 righl man did not carry up the returns. Put it is argued all through the case, 
and the distinguished gentleman himself in preparing ami presenting his report to 
this House assumes that was the state of things, and says we ale not called on in this 
township to reject that voti — the vote of Salem Township — because he says it is al- 
ready rejected. And that is the minimum hoiutm of all his argument in the report 


against counting the vote in Salem Township, which was rejected on tin- gr <1 thai 

the right man did nol carry the returns t<> the county Beat. 

The difficulty about counting that precinct was that it gave a majority "I" L35 for 
Mr. Martin, the Bitting member. This was the trouble about its being counted 
There was no trouble aboul counting '■'>',) votes for the contestant : there was no dilli- 
culty, no legal trouble aboul that. 

But 1 admit, and 1 shall come to that :is I go along, that there is some question 
made on another ground as t<> counting the vote of Salem precinct. But 1 shall con- 
sider that when 1 consider the same question as applied ti» other precincts in other 
count ies. 

The contestant objects to counting the vote in several precincts because pulls were 
doI opened at the proper hour. This objection .- 1 ] > i » 1 i * -^ t < » precincts giving the con- 
testee the majorities following: Salem precinct, Pasquotank County, L35; South Mills 
precinct, Camden County,64; Vandemere precinct, Pamlico County, 10. The votes 
hi Smith Mills and Vandemere were canvassed bj the returning boards. The vote 
in Salem \\ as 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. ('. Holtou in Vandemere, were Democrats. I 
in. iv say as ;i matter of fad thai all the registrars in the State of North Carolina • 
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 
lui 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 audsenl Democrats through 
the township Baying thai they would not open the pulls, when in fact they <li<l open 
the polls after tin- time fixed by law. 

Mr. MANNING. Xou do not pretend to have any testimony for that .' 

Mr. KEIFER. Yes. sir; and it is Democratic testimony, too. 

Mr. MANNING. 1 give notice to the gentleman that I will assert and undertake 
to maintain thai there is not a syllable of proof to justifj the criticism he is now pro- 
nouncing. Ami 1 will show that the gentleman in the statements he is now mal 
is giving waj too much to his passion instead of manifesting that impartiality which 
•ughl to characterize the discussion of a ease like this. 

Mr. KEIFER. I will say to the gentleman from Mississippi that I am the mildest 
mannered man, I trust, and the besl tempered man in this House. [ Laughter. | 

Mr. MANNING. I hope when I take the door I will nol be so reckless of the testi- 
mony, as I understand it. as the gentleman from Ohio is now illustrating himself to 

Mr. KEIFER. That which hurts gentlemen always makes them squeal. 

Mr M INNING. I give you notice thai I will make good what 1 have just Btated. 

Mr. KEIFER. I have named the men who are the registrars. I am hardly re- 
quired, in onler to satisfy a gentleman who is possessed of an acute, reasoning, logical 
mind— 1 am bardlj required t>> go and get some man to -wear thai these Democratic 
istrars gol somebody else to perpetrate this outrage when it was their dntj to 
preveul its being done. Do you want me tn call a witness to swear that Holton did 
not manage Vandemere precinct, in PimHco County, so thai the polls were doI opened 
until alter seven o'clock .' Why, he Bwears he did it bimself, if you want that. The 
ilemaii from Mississippi wants the proof. The fact is admitted thai all these reg- 
istrars were Democrats. They did call on some men to Berve as inspectors, but took 
pains to call on men who would not serve when t hen- were plentv around who would 
serve. It is shown thai when Democrats ton ml the polls were nol opened at the hour 
fixed they scattered off like rats. That is not the language >d' the witnesses, '"it 
the effect of what some of them say. It Beems that the Democrats only ran on for 

fear the polls would be opened and they mighl bave a right to vote. Soi l" them 

hastened awaj . according t" the proof, »fter the polls were just aboul being opened 

Now, who is to blame thai these polls were not opened .' Not the contestee, but 
the friends of the contestant. It is proved, I think, to the satisfaction of evcrybodj 
that these precincts where they did nol Bncceed in getting the polls opened at precisely 
.seven o'clock in the morning wen- largely Republican precincts. No Demoi ratio pre 
cinct Buffered such a hardship. I >a\ that impassionately. 

Mi. MANNING. We pr< for, I think, to take the conclusion that Mr. Field reai bed. 
I -a\ thai in repl.v to all which the gentlemau state- so impassionately. 

Mi KEIFER. There were a few Republicans who went away ii >placewh< 

was publiclj stated thai the polls would nol be opened. I think gentlemen will want 

t<> i. I\ on - sthing more than Ml FIELD il'they OXpocl to viti-l\ the judgment of 

this House. Mr. Field reaches a conclusion fairly. I wish thej would take him in 

everything. Gentlemen imisl not asserl thai In- conclusion is in opposil to what 

1 am say inn on this question, for it is not. 

Mr. MANNING. I do asserl . t . and the testimony will show it. 

Mr. KEIFER. Does the gentleman say that these registrars were not Demoi i 


Mr. MANNING. That is begging the quesiion ; you must live up to your sweeping 

Mr. KEIFER. 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. KEIFER. I do not want to get into any colloquy about this matter of testi 
mouy. 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 not modify it. I say that the registrars who had the duty of 
opening 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. Tbe 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. In 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 where they 
say the polls were not opened in time. None is charged, none 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 hoard, 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 up 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 thro wing 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 sonic 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 auy 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 an important matter), to call attention to the testi- 
mony in 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 fust 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 left, which was in a few minutes. 

Q. What Mr. Martin did, was it done in tin- presence of the poll-holders I 

A. It was. 

Q. Did Mr. Martin act corruptly I 

A. Not that I know of. 

Now 1 read from the testimony of Jonathan (i. 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 Chech oil sum. of the registered names of voters as they voted ; and my impression is that at one 
time he came around the counter win ire the judges of election were, and while on tie- side of the 

counter where the judges of election were 1 think he (lid not (heck off any names while there ; and 
when lie cheeked oti' names he was on the side of the counter where the people came up to vote. 


I read farther from his cross-examination : 

Q. How many names did Mr. Martin check off the poll-1 k I 

A. I can't say positively, bnl I think he checked on some fortj 01 Bfty. 

(). Was the checking off done in the presence of the poll-holders I 

A. I think il was, or a majority of them. 

Q, Hid Mr. Mai i in ai i corruptly in checking off the names 1 

A. Not thai I know of 

Q. Who received the votes I 

A. \v. K. Gladson. 

(,». Was any man's name deposited in tin- box before his name was checked off of the poll-1 k ' 

A. None thai I know of. 

Q. Were you one of the judges at said election I 

\. I was acting as registrar for Mr. Justus Everitt, who was tin- legally appointed registrar. 

Q. Was the election conducted fairly I 

A. So far as I know. 

(The counsel for the contestant objects to the above upon the ground that it is going into now mat- 

What party do yon belong to I 
To the national Democratic party. 
Q. Who di<l you vote for 
a. C voted for Jesse J. Feates. 


That is till 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 ou this subject of the exclusion of votes because Democratic registrars 
did n«>t go to t he polls in due tunc. Let them reserve theii feeling for this aexl 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 he a distinguished lawyer of the State of North Carolina, 
named J. B. Martin — (please do not confound him with J. .). Martin) J. 15. Martin, 
a distinguished lawyer and the attorney in this case for Jesse .1. 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 tire not to he counted. J. B. 
Martin bad 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 he voted : and when he found they 
w ere being voted he went and appealed to the judges of election, a majority of t hem 
Democrats, to throw them out; and they did his bidding. 

As soon as this contest came up we find J. B. Martin appearing as the counsel'of 
Jesse J. Veates in this case; and the majority of the committee say that it would be 
a righteous thing to purge the ballot-bos in this precinct by not allowing these 
tickets to l.c counted for Mr. .1. .1. Martin. If anybody disputes the facts I will prove 
them from the record. The majority of the committee say that tin' purity of the bal- 
lot-box in North Carolina requires that these tickets with this wonderful ••device-" 
upon them should not lie counted. Perhaps it would he a good thing to put into the 
Record the testimony of this most unsavory gentleman. It would take too much of 
my time to read it, hut unless there is objection 1 will print as a pail of my remarks 
the testimony of Mr. .1. 15. Martin himself upon this point, and also the testimony of 
Mr. Bond : Mr. .1. I'.. Martin Initio; the man who had the tickets printed, who distrib- 
nted them, who then had them rejected, and Mr. Bond being the man who printed 
.them. Here is the testimony of .1. 1'.. Martin: 

Q. What is your age and occupation I 

A. James B.Martin; age thirty- five ; occupation attorney at law ; resident of Bertie County, 

i, 1 .1 net previous to the Congressional election in 1878 did you bave pi in led some tickets, as follows: 
1 Republican ticket For Congress, •(. •'. Martin ' " If so. who printed them, and how many of them 
were receh ed by j on I 

A. I did. I did' not receive to exceed one hundred and fifty, Wm.M Bond of Edenton, printed 

Q W'.ie those received by yon prior t<> tin' election ' 

a I i' h eived them oight bef< lection. 

<,». What did yon do with them I 

\ a pai t ot them were pat in an envelope and directed to Daniel Cooper, and deposited in Nicholls'a 
store, at Merry Hill precinct,- in a boi where the public got their mail. C think some of them were 
placed oeai the voting place in a box near tin- polls. 

I}. Who directed the envelope ' 

A I did 

Q. Who is Daniel ( 'ooper ' 
\. a negro politician ot' the Republican party. 
(^. Was he an active supporter o! Mi J. J. Martin at said election 1 
a I presume so, from tin- tact that he distributed those tit k< is eery rapldlj 

i,i Who dnl \ on BUppOl I ' 

A. Jesse •' \ eat 

Q Did yon and James B. Nicholls put up those ticket- in packages at the time and pine men. 
tioned I 
a \\'e put them up in one package nml directed them t,. Daniel Coopi i 
Q Who requested you to have those tickets print< d 
\ No one. 
Q. Is ( loopex an Ignoi ant man 


A. I judge he could read from the fact that he examined those tickets and compared them with 

Q. Was any representation made to Cooper that those tickets were sent hy 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. lam not positive as to the number. 

Q. Were the said tickets so voted refused to be counted for J. J. Martin, candidate for Congress, at 
said November election held at Merry Hill precinct, Bertie County, in said Congressional election and 
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. 

ii. 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 one 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. Nicholls, J. H. Brown. T. J. Webb, and James W. Smith were the 
judges ol' elect ion, all of whom were Democrats, and supported J.J. Veates for Congress. 

Q. Did you not advise the judges of election that these tickets were illegal and should not he 
counted I 

A. I did. 

Q Did vou send or give any tickets to D. C. Winston, in form " Republican ticket. For Congress, 
J. J. Martin f" 

A. I did. 

Q. About how many '. 

A. About twenty-four. 

Q. Is 1). C. Winston a resident of Windsor, Bertie County, a lawyer, and a strong supporter of Joseph 
J. Yeates 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_Fof 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. ('. Freeman, the registrar. My impression 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. 


Deposit Inn of William 21. 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, newspaper man. 

Q. In the fall of 1878 were you editor and manager of the Clio wan Gazette, a Democratic newspaper 
published in Edenton, North Carolina I 

A. I was. 

Q. Do you know James B. Martin of Merry Hill precinct, Bertie County, 

A. Yes. 

Q. Was be then and is he now a leading Democratic politician in said county .' 

A. Yes. He was an active Democratic politician of that county. 

<^. Did lie hold any otlieial position in Raid county at that time I 

A. I think he- was chief-justice of the infet ior court of that count v. 

Q. Was he, in the Congressional election in November, 1878, an active supporter of Jesse J. Yeates? 

A. I think be was. 

Q. Who were candidates for Congress in the first Congressional district of North* Sarolinain Novem- 
ber. 1878! 

A. I .1 Yeates, J.J.Martin, J. B. Kespass. and I. S. Chamberlain. 

(,). Were you, just previous to said election, requested by any one. and, if SO, b.\ whom, to print 
several hundred tickets, of which the one attached is a copy f Please state if the said tickets were 
printed and delivered or received by anyone: and, if so. by whom : and any other facts connected 

A. I w as requested by J. Ii. Martin to print said tickets for him, Of which the attached is one. I 
print' (1 several hundred of them, and sent them to Mr. J. B, Martin, and ho stated afterward that he 
received them. 

Q. Were they printed and received prior to the November election, 1878? 

A. They were. 

(( oiiteslant s counsel declines to cross-examine. t 

Further this deponent saith not. 

W. M. BOND. 

Witness: Wsi. P. GUBLKl ■ 


For Congress ■. 
J. J. Maktin. 


The question presented here is whether you shall nnseal J. J. Martin because the 
counsel for Jesse J. Yeates succeeded in getting these votes, which are called Fraudu- 
lent, casl for J. J. Martin. Thai is the proposition thai gentle n are invited to 

come up ii>. It is said thai these tickets were fraudulent because they had a "device" 

on them. Now was t line a "device" on these tickets! What was the fur f the 

ticket! It was a verj small ticket, having printed at the top of i I the words "Re 
publican ticket ;" then followed the word- " for Congress ;" then (olio wed the words 
•• .1. .1. Mai tin." The ticket was printed upon white paper, ami was in uverj respect 
in accordance with tin- law of the State of North Carolina. 'I' he re w as no "device" 

on it in the proper meaning ofthe term. It is clai <1 that tin- "device" consisted 

of the words " Republican ticket " on the face of the ticket and al the head of it. I 

refer to the hvw of North Carolina. IV section 1*, chapter 275, of the laws of North 

Carolina of 1875, I read all that has any bearing on this quesl ion : 

The li Jlota Bhall !»• mi whit, paper and maj be printed or written or partly printed and partlj \\ i it 
ten, and Bhall i» « ithoal device. 

The question is whether printing on the face of the ticket at its head in ordinary 
type the wordB "Republican ticket" constitutes a device. What is a device.' Let 
as take the definition as given by Webster, and see whether we find anything indi- 
cating that the sac red name " Republican, " when it precedes the w ord " ticket," con- 
stitutes a "device." A late edition of Webster gives this definition of device : 

That which is formed by design or invented; scheme; artifice; artificial contrivance; stratagem; 
project : generally used in a bad sens 

Worcester gives the same definition. It is a word which had a meaning in her- 
aldry, ami it has a well-nnderstoo 1 meaning in mechanics. Ii is a word used some- 
times in criminal law. It has no meaning difficult to understand when used in t he i on- 
nection here. It is auythiug connected with had. Any scheme, any plan, anything 
that is intended to operate tor e\ il on the minds of others, might be called ;i de\ ice. 

Here is the ordinary ticket such as we find e\ cry w here, and there is nothing in the 
claim except as it existed in the minds of Martin and his willing tools, the judges 
dow ii then — J. P.. Ma ft in, I mean. There is no decision of any of the courts of North 
< .it niu i,-i showing thai a heading when printed on the inside of a ticket is a device. 

To go into the hist or. \ of this matter a lit tie. t here was a time when thej had em- 
bellishment, distinguishing marks on the hack, especially of tickets in Male. South. 
and some of them North, and the legislatures of those States struck at that son of 
thing; that is, the use of those emblems, those distinguishing things, and which it was 
supposed wen- the means of intimidating voters. It was supposed thej worked harm, 
and | .nil told some Democrats wenl bo far as to say ii was a means by which unlettered 
w bites and blacks were enabled to tell when they were voting the Republican ticket. 
Thej used to have large tickets \n it h the face of General Granl iueverj imaginable shape 
and form upon the back of them, so that if the voter saw any part of tie- ticket, if a 
colored man Ban the face of thai great war hero and statesman, he knew that be was 
voting the righl ticket ; he would know that he was voting the right ticket eveu if 
In could not read the face of it. Some of this legislation was on the theory that it 
was wise io prevenl this sort of thing. The law may he all right, Mr. Speaker; I am 
no1 here quai rolling w it-fa it. bnl 1 am onlj referring to this to show this legislation 
was not intended or designed to he a blow at the ordinary ticket, such a- is voted 

e\ el\ W lhle all o\ el' tile eolllltlN . 

1 intended, Mr. Speaker, to give the use in which the word device appears in se\ - 
, ,., i places in th.- Hols r,i hie. and as ii lies before me, I believe I will do it now. Job, 
speaking of tbe powers of the Almighty, chapter \ . verse 12, Bays : "He disappointed 
the devices of the crafty." David, in praising the goodness of God, Bays, Psalms 
xwiii, verse I" : "The Lord bringeththe counsel of the heathen to uaught; Heuiak- 

etll the devices of the people of ■ effect." Paul uses I he s;illie wold 111 hi- second 

epistle to the Corinthians, chapter ii, verse II: "Leal Satan should gel an advan- 
tage of us, to i we are not ig ant of his devices." Ml connect with bad, with evil. 

Here ii is used in the same sense, although used bj legislators in the 8tate of North 


Now to the authorities for one moment. It is claimed on the part of gentle n 

who make the majority reporl in this case thai tiny were unable to find anything that 
was satisfactory to themselves except where thej gleaned it from a private papei ■•! 

s ot her gentleman. 1 have been a little curious to look at b i of the authorities 

which are cited in that printed paper, and 1 assert and I wish while gentlemen are 

<■ icting me thej would go to this and correel it I assert that everj anil tj . ited 

in thai reporl which tie- gentleman adopts and takes home to himself I assert, 
that even antic ritj cited on i In- Bnbjecl of a device is exactlj in tin- face of tin con- 
clusion or this repoi t . 

I willeinvite your attention first to tin' Indiana case, ■> case in '■'■■< Indi 
Ihie Mr. Speaker, we get the precise question exactly, where the words " Republi- 
can ticket" were printed on the head ofthe ballol on the same side where the na 


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 be writ' 
ten or printed on plain white paper, (without 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 
quesl ion before us is. Was this such a distinguishing mark or embellishment a's to re- 
quire the inspectors to refuse the ballots when offered .' This question was directly 
before this court in a former case and was answered in the negative." They say in 
that deci ion they fully indorse the ease in 29 Indiana, 308. That decision I have he- 
fore me; anil 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 them sustain the conclusion of the report of the committee, and it looks to 
me as it" somebody might have been intending to perpetrate a stupendous joke on the 
majority of the committee. 

But there is another authority cited. Section 401, McCrarvontheLawof 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 
upon 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 co sidered in the Pennsylvania case in reference 
to whether it constitutes an embellishment or not. We might draw a tine distinction 
even about this. We lind this cited as authority here, and as conclusive in principle 
against 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 t \ pe to be 
ased in printing them, &C The court held, and we think upon the soundest reason, that as to those 
things over which the voter has control the law is mandatory, and that as to such things as are not under 
bis control it should be held to be directory only. * * * The conclusion of the court was that the pur. 

pose ami object of the Statute was to secun the freedom and purity of elections and to place the elector 
above and beyond the reach of improper influences Or restraint ill 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 nol be rejected 

for failure to comply with the law in matters over which the elector has no control, such as the exact 
8 izo of the ticket, the precise kind of paper, or the particular character of type or heading used, <tc. 

These references tire put into the report and they might mislead; not purposely; 

but 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 " de\ ice," and thai such ticket was 
cist iii 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 -subjecl further. There is hul one other precinct that I need 
refer to. The contestee claims thai there were 139 voters who would have voted for 
bint in Goose Nest precinct of Hamilton County. North Carolina, if they had been per- 
mitted to do so in a just and lair 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. 


These 120 persons were refused their ballots in this pveoiucl because they were not 
registered thei"e. Now, if they were not registered there there was no person regis- 
tered there, unless perhaps there may have been a tew, three or four, <>r as high as a 
dozen; buttherewas no registration of 132 Democrats thai voted in that preciucl 

although the majority of the (-(.111111111 lo not fiud any difficulty in counting them, 

while the \ otes of 1 hese 1 Ji > or 139, as t he case may be, who w ere not registered wen- not 
received. The statutes of Nbrl h Carolina, as has been fully and elaborately explained 
li\ the geutleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Field], thai is the statute on the subject 
of registration of voters in eases where they have removed from the places where thej 
have^been properly registered, is clear and plain in the lighl of that explanation. 

Hut not one of these voters did remove; not a single one of the 120 removed from 
the place where thev had been liviug and were at the tune of the (diction, and where 
they lived when they voted or tried to vote. Hamilton precinct was divided and Coo.,. 
Nest precinct was cutoff from it, and these names were 1 ransferred to the new precinct 

rolls. There was no case of removal : they were transferred on the 1 ks simply. 

The judges of election, however, refused to allow the Republicans to vie. \ Demo- 
crat went tic nighl before the (dec t ion, and, in violation of the law. as admitted, 1 
believe, by everybody who has examined it, succeeded iu getting certificates of trans 
fcr for tin- Democrats from the Democratic registrar of Hamilton precinct on which 
judges of election in Goose Nest precinct permitted Democrats to vote. Hut the next 
day il was •• unlaw ful" for the Republicans to attempt to vote, and certificates were 
refused to them by the ^ cry same persons who gave the certificates to tic Democrats. 

Ihr\ could not find any authority for giving them to the Republicans. 

I put this case on the ground that no action wasrequired on the part of any of tic 
voters ; it was not a case of removal: they were simply voting where they were 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: 

N11 elector shall lie entitled to register or rote in any (it tier precinct or township than tin- one in whioh 
In- ^ an actual ami h,<it<i jUis resident on tin- day of election, and no certificate of registration shall be 

Now section 12 of the same act contains the words which [ will ask the clerk to 
read, down t<> where provision is made lor the form of the oath. 
The Clerk read as follows: 

\nd if an elector lias previously been admitted to registration in any waul, township, or precinct in, 
the conn ty in which he resides, he shall not lie allowed to register again in another ward, precinct or_ 
township in the same count v. until he produces a certificate of the registrar id' the former township 
ward, or precinct, that said' elector has removed from said township, waul or precinct, and that his 
name has been erased from the registration books of the ward, township, or precinct from which be 
has removed; and the identity of anv person claiming the right to be registered in anj precinct ol 
the same count v, bj virtue of such certificate, with the person named therein, shall be proved by tin- 
oath of the claimant, and when required bythe 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 t In- form ol' the oath. 

Now, it will he noted that that section refers to cases of remo\ al. 1 »nly w hen a 111:111 
removes from one voting precinct to another is it necessary for him to apply in person 
and have his name erased from tin- hooks of the place where he had been registered, 
and then gel a certificate so that he may register in another place. Toil these voters 
that tendered their votes in this Goose Nes1 precinct did not remove The precinct 
was established around them, 

I e c now lo the further point that I suggested; the one hundred and thirty-two 

Dm Tats 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 in that state to he complied with. Why' Because 
each one of them would have had personally to apply and take an oath himself as to 
his removing, and, if required by the registrar, furnish other e\ idence of tin- fact ol 
his removal. So that aU the certificates that were used— and this is a fad not 
puted in the case -all the certificates that were used by Democrats were certificates 
that were illegally issued. A.nd although the judges of election were notified ol that 
fad th.v received the Democratic votes here and refused the Republican voters who 
offered their votes ; ami the Hamilton precinct registrai refused to give certificates 
on t he dav of election to these Republicans when they applied for them 

In conclusion, I may add that this House is asked and expected t" affirm ami con- 
linn all these outrages ii] the sitting member and vote in the contestant, w • 

asked now to put our confirmation and oui sign of approval upon all these out 1 

on 1 he people of the first disi 11c 1 of North Carolina, on the sitting member, and on the 

count r\ . 

we are asked by our vote here, to-day or to morrow, whenever we lei. 1, it. 10 sa\ 
it [ 8 all right foi contrivances, schemes, acts of omission or acts ol commission u< be 

worked out to consummation bj officers of election to defeat tue voi f the people 

i,, thai district. We in- asked to approve of the premeditated ad and conduct ol > 


man who unblushingly appears as an attorney in this case, and conies here swearing 
that he himself set up a scheme, <>r 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 Representatives in the Congress of the United States are, by <>nr votes, asked to 
say that this J. B. Martin did a nice, decent tiling, 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 pari 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- 

I may have been earnest, and if the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Manning] 
proposes to say that I have been passionate, I oiler this single excuse, that I have been 
asked as a part of m\ duty, not alone as a member of a committee, but as a member 
of this House, by mj art 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 il is only near at hand, or whether it is still in the remote future — 
I warn gentlemen I hat 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 when all such persons will lie 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 an- equally ready to do so — will stamp down, in a 
political point of view, all those persons who are willing to approve of such conduct 
as we will here approve if we adopt the report of the majority. 

My conclusion is that Mr. Martin is entitled to hold his seat, and I find his true 
majority to be 375. 



February 3, 1881. On the bill for the apportionment of representation in Congn 

Mr. KEIFEE said : 

Mr. Speaker. Id the midst of this wild confusion I can hardly expeol 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 hack and ascertain how far 
it would be just and equitable for us to accepl the original bill introduced into 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 

. enient and more fair than three hundred and eleven or three hundred and nine- 
: that it would produce as little inequality as any other number that could lu- 
ted. Now, when we look at this matter OD this side of the House in a partisan 
point of view, we are charged with doing something unfair. \ el examining that hill in 
that view, it will appear that the number three hundred and 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 com hided that that was not 
enough advantage : that it would be better to find the only number perhaps that would 
give 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 lo-ses 
are concerned. This matter of Looking carefully to the interests of the North and 
South is not an original question with this Congress. Ii was the first question upon 
which the tirst President of the United states took issue with Congress. < tut of ap- 
portionment legislation grew the first veto message ever signed by a President of the 
United Mate-., and it was on the theory that the brat apportionment bill submitted to 
him in 1793 was unfair t<> the South. 

If the Clerk will now read the firsl veto message of April .">. 1792, I will then call 
attention to the history and the circumstances under which it came to he written and 
sent to the House. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

United Sta ii.s April 5, 1792 

' r 'l>, II Ivet : 

- •■ maturely considered tin- act passed by the tun Souses, entitled "An act for an apportionment 

of Representatives a ng the several States, according to the first enumeration;" and I return it t.. 

your House, wherein i( originated, « ith tin- following obji i tions : 

I irst. The Constitution has presi ribed that Representatives shall be apportioned among tie- several 

- according to their respective numbers : and there is i le proportion or di\ isor which app 

to tii. respi ol ive numbers oi the States, will field the numbei and allotment of Representatives pro 
pos< d by f Im- Will. 
Second. The Constitution provided thai the numbei <>t Representatives -hill net ex< 

. ery thirty thousand ; which restriction is, by the context, and hi fn i tnd obvious construi 
to be applied to the separate ami respi ctive numbers of the States and the lull bas allotted '■> eight 
of the state> more than one for every thirty thousand. 


Mr. KEIFER. It will Im- found that bj taking the number three hundred and on< 
a basis for t he future House of Representatives there is •■ no one proportion or di\ 
which, applied to the respective numbers of the Stan--,, will yield tflCbumber and 
allotment of Representat h es | reposed bj the hill," to use the exncl luugnugc used b\ 
the President or the United States, George Washington. 

Before going intoa dei istration of that statement, I ask the Clerk to read— and 

I beg the at tent ion of members to it — what Thou 'as Jefferson uaya on the subject of 
the history of thai veto message. He will read an extract from Elliot's Debutes on 
the Federal Constitution, volume 4, page 624. 

The Clerk lead a- follow- : 

Th' !'!• -I*]- tii called on mm- before break fast, and first introduced some othei mattei then nil on the 

repre-entation bill, which be had now in his | ession i"t the tenth day. I had In , i mj 

opinion in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution !l> sgn-eil 
thai it was contrary to the common understanding of thai Instrument and to what «,i-< undei 

id at the time bj the makeri of ll et it would beai the construction which the bill put and 

he observed that the vote foi and against the bill was perfi iirraphlca) — a Northern 

thern vote— and he feared he should bethought to be talcing side with a Southern pari 
mitted the motive oi delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong and urged tin 

90 A — K HI 


to which the scramble tor 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 Kandolph, the Attorney-General, desired him to get Mr. Madi- 
son immediately and come to me ; 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 1he instrument 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 get 
off. he said, "And you Bay .you approve of this yourself? " " Yes, sir. " says Kandolph, .".I do. upon 
my honor." He sent it" to the House of Representati ves'iirstantly. A few of the hottest fi iends 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 ihe 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 hud 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 non-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 upou 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 man 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 1*80 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 gains 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 n umber 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 Pennsyhania, 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 290,010, 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 
„ av( — that a large body of men is always the safest— is the ri<;ht 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 
great amount of work that we have to perform. The Constitution Wx^-d 30,1100 as the 
ratio of representation for the first apportionment. It was then supposed that one 
member for 30,000 inhabitants was enough, and only enough. 


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 oul of 
our business liere, it is proposed to ado] it 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 huildred and One is based. The bill repotted bj a majority of the 
Census Committee, fixing the number of members at three hundred and >le\ en, i> based 
<pi a ratio of I58,745j and the l>ill 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. There comes 
requisition after requisiti n upon members of Congress. It maybe that mam of 
these demands upon us are for the performance of duties that do not properly belong 
to our position lure ; but custom has made it the duty of every member of < longress 
jo run errands to the 1 lepartmeuta — 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 
ft 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 Slate will 
not sulfer on a basis of voting population, if such a basis could be adopted (and I do 
not say it could ) under the ('.institution. < >hio. I am happy to say. has a people not 
oiih tree to vote when election day comes, but a people educated to vote, and who do 
vote. Let me state a fact that 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 3,198,339 In Ohio. Mow. this larger vote in Ohio conies 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 victory 
as it has been won since by 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, 
lake the table of figures made up in round numbers, as follows: 

Stat' - 



Pel rent. 

622, 000 

72."., ooo 

575 Dl 
523, 000 

::, 100,000 
:i, 200,0(10 

1. I'M 10, 000 

1 in 5. 

1 in •:. 4 

1 in 3.4 

1 in .".. 4 

1 in 5. 

It will be seen that Indiana is a g 1 voting State. The now good road- 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 

Before taking my Beal I wish to say but one other thing in Bnpport of my propo- 
sition. Taking three hundred and one as the number, Ohio with i teen members 

i which would be her apportionment under i hat anrabei i would have one member for 
every 168,328; Mississippi one member for everj 161,656; South Carolina one mem- 
ber for every 165,937; Louisiana one member for everj 156,683. Thus, without i.k 
ing the time to run through the list, it will be Been that m> state is to be put at i 
disadvantage of several thousand in population (to say nothing of votes) as against 

these Stales ..f the South. Therefore. I protest \| | . 8 | II a I, , i . a -a i list a bill such as 

the one originally offered by the gentleman from New York, ami I Btillmore protest 
against the lull repotted bj the Committee on the Census, because it is still more un- 
fair. I insist upon a fair number, one that will he just to each section. So fai a- I 
am concerned I do not speafc for those around me), [shall oppose, as does the gentle 
man from Michigan ( Mr. Hokr |. auj number that is unfair, and I will do it h> everj 
means known to tin- rules of parliamentary law. 

[ Here I he 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < ■ I fell. ] 



March 1, 1881. Pending consideration of a supplementary funding bill in the House of Represent* 
Uvea, the following colloquy took place : 

Mr. KEIFER said : 

This Congress first met under most extraordinary circumstances— -within less than 
three weeks of 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- 
ing 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 ou 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, iu 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- 
cially 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 iu meetiugthe 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 iu 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 couutry. 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 upou. 
We have witnessed some things this session which are valuable to be recorded and 
remembered. We have witnessed with pleasure the Democratic party lay down 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 thev 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 tluTmoney 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 laughtei from the Democratic side.] 

Mr. TALBOTT. And still we had eight thousand majority on the popular vote. 
Mr. KEIFER. You are mistaken. Garfield received the popular vote. I expected 
to hear these groans 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, 
say that the Democratic party, above all other parties thai ever existed, is. if possible, 
to be congratulated more than the country for this verdict of tin' people, 

But I want simplv to re-enforce what I said at the beginning of my remarks ; that 
is, that we have this evening, in the dosing hours of this Congress, bad a proposition 
submitted to us boldly and openly confessing that on that subject about which we 


have been straggling and balking so long the Democratic party has heen obliged to 
offer a new bill, giving construction to the one just passed, which new bill is made up 
of amendments which were proposed to the original bill i>v 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 thai which is not. tup warn ofthe appro-v ;i! of the 
President, a law— which may uever become a law. [Applanse.] 


( Forty-seventh Congress. ) 

Monday, December 5. 1881, Mr. Keifer was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. 
Eandall .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 tilled 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 ability 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 n l )OU aU Ul . v 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 Republican, but in all other respects I hope to be able to act tree 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 closelv drawn. . 

The material prosperitv of the people is in advance of any other per.od 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. 
° 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. 



Sunday. March 4, 1883. 


Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following resolution. 

The Clerk read as follows: * 

Retolved, That the thanks of this House are hereby tendered to the Eon. J. Warbbn Ebipbb, the 

Speaker, for the ability and courtesy with which he has presided orci the deliberation of the House 
during the Forty-seventh I longress. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. HISCOCK. The committee appointed on the part of the Souse to wait ilpon 
the President of the United States, in conjunction with the committee appointed on 
behalf of th<' Senate, have performed that duty, and report that the President has 
requested them to inform the two Houses of Congress that ho has no further com- 
munication to make to them. 


Tho SPEAKER. Gentlemen, the time has come when our official relations as 
Representatives in the Forty-seventh Cougress are to be dissolved. In a moment 
more this House of Representatives will be known only in history. Its arts 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 Cougress." 

It has successfully grappled with more of the vital, material, and moral quest ions 
of the country than its predecessors. Many of these have been settled wisely ami 
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 romain 
iug 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 hanking institutions so 
that financial disorder cannot take place which would otherwise have come al the 
expiration of old bank charters. 

Many public acts will he found relating to the Indian policy and the land policy of 
this country which will prove to be wise, 

The post-ofllce laws have been so changed as to reduce letter postage from 3 to 'i 
cents, the lowest rate ever known in the United States. 

No legislation of this Congress will be found upon the statute-books revolutionarj 
in character or which will oppress any section or Lndi\ Ldual in the land. All Legisla- 
tion has been in the direction of relief. 

Pension laws have Keen enacted which are deemed wise, and liberal appropriations 
have been made to paj the desen ing and unfortunate pensioner. 

Internal-revenue taxes have been taken oil and the tariff laws have 1 n revised 

Sectionalism has been unknown in the enactmenl of laws. 

In the main a fraternal spirit has prevailed among the members from all portion 
the Union. What has been said in the heal ofdebateand under excite al and some- 
times with provocation is not to be regarded in determining the genuine feeling of 
concord existing be1 ween 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 otheiw i>c have done. 

It is common to saj that the House of Eepresentati i verj turbulent and dis 

order! v body of men. This is true more in appearam • thai in realitj . Those who look 
on and do not participate see more apparent confusion than exists in reality. I 
disorder that often appears upon the fioor of the House grows out 
ive spirit possessed by members coming from all sections of the United States, and in 
dicates in a high degree then strong individuality and theii gr< i a try inn to 

secure recognition in the prompt discharge of their dutj v - more const lentiousbody 


of men than compose this Houseof 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 important 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 th% 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 and 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.") 






December 5, 1881. 

Mr. Haskell submitted the following resolutions, and demanded the previous 
question thereon, viz: 

Resolved, That the rules of t ho House of Representatives of the Forty- sixth Coi ill he th< 

roles of the present House until otherwise ordered j 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 XX VIII : when, on motion of Mr. RYAN, at ."> 
o'clock and 25 minutes p. m., the House, adjourned. 

Decembku 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 pro* ided bj 
tion 30 of the Revised Statutes. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, and directed the Clerk t<> 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 -aid 
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. Campbell, Delegate -elect from Utah Territory, la entitled to be sworn li 
Delegate to this House on bis prima faeu • 

Mr. Cox made the point of order that a roll of Members and Delegates eleel had 
been prepared under the law, and thai the Members and Delegates ther were 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 uo 
law known tohim required or authorized the Clerk <d' the outgoing House to make a 

roll of Delegates-elccl of the incoming House, and also n] the furthei ground 

that sections 31 and 38 of the Revised Statutes, relied upon to sustain the acl t 

the clerk of the last lb. use in making a roll of the Delegates elect, conti d nothing 

in regard to the subject of filing and passing upon the merits of credentials ol I' 
gates-elect : in which decision of the < hair the House acquiesced. 

De< i MB] i: 16, 1881. 

Mr. \V. E.Robinson proposed, as a question of privilege, to submit a resolution re 
lating to an alleged usurpation of the privileges of the House bj an offlcei ol the 
Governmenl connected with the State Department. 


The Speaker held the resolution not to be in order under Rule IX, and also to be 
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 on 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. Rkkd 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 

After debate, Mr. Haskell demanded the previous question on the resolution and 
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] ; and 

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 0. 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. 


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 asa Delegate 
from any Territory of the United States. 

Mr. Randall made the point of order that the said preamble and resolution were 
nut 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 was agreed to. 

January 20, 1882. 

Mi. 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, and judicial appropriation hill making appropriations for the yen r 
ending June 30, 1882, be, and they an- hereby, authorized to employ clerks (luring the session within 
the present fiscal year, and any excess of clerks therein authorized over the Dumber provided for by 
existing law shall, under the direction of the Committee on Accounts, he paid out ol the contingent 
fund of the House. 

The House having proceeded to its consideration, Mr. CANDLES demanded the pre- 
vious question. 

Mr. CONVERSE made the point of order that under clause 2 of Rule XV r III the said 
report, not being printed as therein required, was not in order for present considera- 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground that the clause of the rule 
referred to applied only to bills and propositions referred to one of the calendars. 


January 26, 1882 

The House having under consideration the report of the Committee on Accounts 
authorizing the appointment of committee clerks, and the question being on the subst i 

tnte submitted by Mr. Camp, when Mr. Calkins made the poinl ol ordet thai the 

tion to strike out that which had just been inseited by the House was not in order. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consider 
ation of the following resolution, reported by Mr. Orth from the Committee on Poi 
eign Affairs, on the 23d instant, and pending when the House adjourned "ii thai "lay, 

Kesolved. That the President he requested to obtain from the British Government ■> list of all Anioi 
lean citizens, naturalized or native-born, under arrest or imprisonment by authority "i said Govern 
ment, w itli a statement of the cause or causes of such arrest and imprisonment and especially such of 
Maiil citizens as maj have been thus arrested and imprisoned under the suspension of thi pti* 

in Ireland: and if not incompatible with the public interest, that he commuuicate »ncli information, 
when received, to this House, together with all correspondence now on tile in the Departini at ol State 
relating to any existing arrest and impi isonment of citizens as aforesaid. 

Alter debate, Mr. Otth demanded the previous question. 

Pending which, Mr. W. E. Robinson proposed to submit an amendment to the said 


The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order, on the ground that it could not be 
offered while the demand for the previous question was pending, nndei Rule XVII 
and the practice of the House. 

From which decision of the ('hair Mr. ROBINSON appealed. And the question being 
put, viz. Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? it was 
decided in the affirmative. 

So the ruling of the Chair was sustained. 

January 31, 1882. 

The House then proceeded, as the regularorder of business, to the further consider- 
ation of the joint resolution of the House (H. Res. 91 1 to declare certain lands hereto- 
fore granted' to railroad companies forfeited to the United states, and to 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 reference of said resolu- 
tion ; when Mr. Robeson modified the same. 

Mr. Hubbeix and Mr. Hooker made the poinl of order that the modification pro- 
posed was not in order, being in effect a new proposition. 

After debate on said point of order the Speaker overruled the same, on tie ground 
that Mr. Robeson originally obtained leave to introduce a, joint resolution t 
enceto the Committee on the Public Lands, on which question a motion to^refei 
witli instructions was not in order, and thai before "decision or amendment ' was 
made on the said motion it was in order to modify the said proposition. 

February ?. 1 382. 

Mr Chalmers moved that the House proceed to the consideration of business on 
tin- Speaker's table ; pending which. Mr. Page moved thai the House proceed to the 
special orderfor to-day, viz, the hill ol the House i II. R. 3540 to regulate, limit, and 
suspend the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States ; pending which, 
Mr. Prescoti as a privileged question, moved that the House proceed to the con 

siderati f thebill of the House < H. i;.::.v nakinganapporti ntot Repn 

tives in Congress among the sevt ral States under the Tenth Census. 

Mr. Anderson made the point of order that the said motion ol Mi. Prescoti was 
not a privileged question. , . . . 

After debate on the point of ord.-r. by unanimous consent, the 8peaker overruled of order on the ground that clause i ol section 2 14, ol the 

amendments to the< onstitution of the United States made H the imperative dutj ol 
this Congress to pass an apportionment bill fixing the ntimberoi Representatives in 
next Congress, and fortius reason, and also in view ol the fad thai unilei tu 
practice of the Mouse the question had been treated as one of n highl> prii 
character, the chair felt bound to hold that it was u question o( high constitutional 

r. i-.i.-i \.n\ 13, 1882 

The House. hereupon proceeded. 88 the l-u!a.orde, of I,, 

ti .,i of the bill of the Hoi,-- II. R. 3550) making an apportiouuienl ol I 
fives in Congress among tin- several Mates uudei the tenth i ■ 


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 tothink 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, be- 
requested to communicate to this House all correspondence with the British Government on file in 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 lien thereof the following: 

That the President be, and he 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. Bctterworth moved to lay 
the said motion on the table. 

Mr. Springer demanded the yeas and nays: and, one-fifth of the members present 
voting in favor thereof, the same were ordered. 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded to call the name of Mr. Aikkn. 

Mr. Springer asked that the amendment submitted by Mr. Colerick be read. 

The Speaker held that the roll-call having been commenced it was not in order to 
interrupt it to have said amendment 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 


Mr. McMlLLIN 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 tin- House. 

Mr. 8PRINGEE made the point of order that the resolution changed Kule 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 decreu.M- 
the number of standing committees provided for in Rule X. 


March 8, 1882. 

Mr. Haskell moved that the House proceed to business on the Speaker's table. 
And the question being put, it was derided in the affirmative — yeas 111. nays 86, 

not voting 95. 

* * * * * * ♦ 

So the motion to proceed to business on the Speaker's table was agr< ed to 

The Speaker thereupon laid before the House the bill of the Senate (S. 109^) au- 
thorizing and directing the purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the public 
use. of the property known ;ts the Freedman's Hank, 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 hill. 

Mr. Springer made the point of order thai the said bill must receive its first eon 
gi deration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of ihe Union. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the 
ground that when the pending bill was reached on the Speaker"- table, on the '-'-Hi 
ultimo, the bill was taken up, read a lirst and second time, ordered to be read a third 
time, and was read the third time. Thereupon Mr. Springer moved to reconsiderthe 
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 thequi - 
tion recurred on orderingthe bill to he read a third time. Pending which, motions to 
refer the said hill to the Committees on Public Buildings and Grounds and Banking 

and Currency were successively negatived, when the question again recurred rder 

ing the hill to its third reading. For these reasons the Chair held that the House 
had entered upon the consideration of the bill, and the point of order was therefore 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. SPRINGER appealed. 

When, on motion of Mr. WASHBURN, 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, and for other purposes, reached in order when the House was 
con-idering business on the Speaker's table on the 8th instant, the pending question 
being th** point of order made by Mr. Converse that the said bill, under clause .'•. 
Rule XXIII, must receive its first consideration in the Committee ot the \\ ho 

After debate on the said point of order. The Speaker said: '1 he Chair has found 
some difficulty™ reaching a satisfactory conclusion upon this question. Ihe discus 
siou upon the' point of order has ranged over a very wide Held. 1 he point ol order 
marie hv the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Converse] is that under paragraph 3 ol 
Rule XXIII this hill must he first considered in Committee oi theWhole. lln-tnair 
directs the Clerk to read that paragraph. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

:;. All motions or pr Bitiona invoh ing a tax or charge upon the people all pi ''''f,"''",'"';; 

appropriationa of ney, or bills making appropriations oi ^oneyor property, o ,,,,,,.,:,-,., 

prSprfation to 1... made, or authorizing payments out ol appropriations a^X m ad< 
an/liability to the [Jnited for money or property, shall be flrsl considered ' ,.' 

the Whole j and a point of order nnder this i ale shall he R I al anj time before the . onsideration ol ■ 

bill has commenced. 

The Speaker. The bill under consideration in section 9 makes provision mi a 
board of live officers to discharge certain election duties, and provides that "»•"•"»; 

hes of this board shall be paid a salary of $3, a year, rhe Clerk will read that 

portion of section 9 which relates to these officers and in pan to their duties. 

The clerk read as follows: 

Sac 9 Th,. ,11 the reeistralion and election offices ol every description in the : 

nn'eh r.;'ei; ■ , ,.,! , : , il( : i ,M, 1 anHach and ev*y duty relating <" J 1 '' ' ' ,^a o'! ou^ -M h '' 

duel of elections, the receiving or rejecti I v-otw and he • .... ..--. u . ml » ' ■ - 

and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election, in said !■ ■ ry .- ■• ' < 

Ion be madebythe Legislative Assembly of said ' V'"" M " ',' ''; " , ; , ,'„ i,, ■ 

be performed, under the existing laws of the 1 nltedStatei ami .'..,,..' 

wh' shall be appointed to executl sucb ofl p< i form » u ;'y , »"' " . ', , ,.', ,„ ,?„ 

appointed b 3 the President, by and with the adviceand consent of • . "■■«" i . . 

whom shallU members of one political party .and a "fll^ ^ft^ ^ 

annum, and shall continue In office nntu tn< u giBinnvi 
ion for filling said offices as herein authorized. 


" proceeding touching an appropriation of money ; " that it does not " make an ap- 
propriation of money or property ;" i hat it does 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." 

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 

The five 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 hoard ; 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 au 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 this rule would justify the Chair in holding that a bill must by its terms 
require an 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 involve 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 in the bill must of necessity be paid their 
salaries out of money to be appropriated from the United States Treasury then the 
bill would require au appropriation of money. 

To determine the last proposition we must look to the laws in 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, aud 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, aud 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 uuder 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 United States. They did not belong to 
any Territorial system, and it could not possibly have been then held that under any 


state of the law, in the absence of legislation directly npon the subject, anj otber 
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 miul be rirsl considered in 
Committee of the Whole. There are a vast number of bills pending thai are under 
our rules and practice not referred to the Committee of the Whole House foi i onsid- 
ertion which might be amended under t he rules so as to finally involve an appropria 

tion of money to execute the laws created should such hills |iass. 

The Chair is not disposed to hold that if a hill mighl by possibility require an ap- 
propriation of money it must first be considered in Committee of the Whole. The 
Chair Chinks it goes far enough when it holds that a hill must on its lace require an 
appropriation 01 money to carry it out or to pay the salaries of the officers created 
by it. 

- It is not necessary to decide that the officers proposed to be created bj this bill are 
or are not United States officers. They may be both United States and Territorial 
officers. The Chair has nothing to do with the question of the power or righl of 
Congress to enact such a law as this bill proposes. Hie Chair is hound to assume that 
the proposed legislation is within the constitutional power of Congress. 

It may he. perhaps, proper to remark that all the laws of the Territory ol 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 .' 

Mr. Haskell. I move that the appeal he 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 ll'.t, nays HO, not voting 93. 

So the appeal was laid on the table. 

March 20, 1862. 

Mr. Reed, under instructions from the Committee on the Judiciary, moved that the 
rules he 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 Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims , 
for the distribution ol the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva award, be taken from the Commit 
tee of th<- Whole and. he considered in the House as in committee on the fourth Tueadaj ol March 
and then from day to day until finally disposed of, not to interfere with the revenue and genera] ap 
propriation hills. 

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 Speakei held the motion to be not in order, on the ground that under clause - 
of Rule XVI but one motion to adjourn was in order pending a motion to Buspend the 
rules, which motion (to adjourn) had been made and negatived. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. House appealed; pending which, Mr. Camp 
moved to lay the said appeal on the table; and the question being put, there ap 
peared— yeas 79, nays 42. nol voting 171. 

No quorum voted. 

A call of the House was thereupon ordered and had. 

The Clerk thereupon proceeded tocall the names of absentees foi ex< uses; pending 
which. Mr. Bragg moved that the Houseadjourn, the Speaker having entertained the 
said motion on the ground that on a .-all of the House leas than a quorum had an 

swered to their names; pending which motion to adjourn, oi -i t Mr. Ri i D, bj 

unanimous consent — 

Ordered, Thai the House do* adjourn ai at I rrow aftei the readlo 

tio„ to s„s|,e„d the rules and adopl the resolution at modified shall be votedon th« •',.,, 

daj s -■ 

Mm:« ii 28, 1882 

Mr. Calkins, as a questi f privilege, proposed tocall up the report of tl i 

mitteeon Eleotionsin the cased the claim of M. D. Ball to a Beal in this Hon* 
Delegate from the Territory of Alaska. 


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, tlie 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, 1882. 

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- 

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 restrictions, without excepting Friday, and also on the 
further ground that the said "special order" was 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. Robinson then called up, as a privileged question, the following 
preamble and resolution, submitted by him ou 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- 

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 aud 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 tlie 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 inline L6 of section 1 the word "twenty" 
ami 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, Tlurt said associations are hereby prohibited from issuing circulating notes, and 
hereafter no m tional banking association shall increase its circulation or be organized with authority 
to issue notes to circulate as money. 

Mr. DlNGLEY made the point of order that the said amendment was not in order at 
this time. 


The Speaker sustained the point of order, on the ground thai undei the terms of 
the' resolution making the pending hill a special order certain specified amendments 
were made in order, and the amendment proposed i>\ Mr, Bland uol being so named, 
it was subject to the provisions of tin- rule regulatiug amendments, and nol being 

germane to the pending question was not in order as an amendmenl therel a *\i\>- 

Ktitutf therefor. 

May 19, L882. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular on In- of business, to the further consid- 
eration of the lull of the House (II. R. 4l<>?) 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 ameudmenl by striking out the following 
words, viz, "but when bonds arc called for redemption, the banks holding Buch 
called bonds shall surrender them within thirty days after the maturity of their 
call:" which said amendment was disagreed to. 

The quest ion again recurring on the amendment submitted bj Mr. Randall, pend- 
ing which Mr. Bayne submitted the followiug amendment thereto, viz: 

Provided, however. That said hanks may withhold such bonds, in whole or in part, For fear, 

upon uotifying the Secretary "i the Treasury of their intention so in '1" in which event such bonds 
shall nut lie redeemable until the expiration of the year, nor sli.ill 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 ground that tie- vote re- 
ferred to was/o strike out a portion of a proposed section on which an affirmative 
vote had not yet been taken, and that while it might l>e 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. Randali . pend- 
ing which Mr. Springer moved to amend the same by striking out the words "ninety 
days" and inserting in lieu thereof the word- ••six months :" which ameudmenl was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. Bland moved to amend the pending amendment 1>\ adding tin- following 
words, viz : 

Provided further, That there shall 1m- coined monthly in tin- mints of tin- United States standard 
silver dollars to the maximum amount now authorized to be coiued by law, and the Bame oi certifi- 
cates therefor, shalt be paid nut in sufficient quantities to replace the bank notes that ma\ be retired 
under this act or existing law. And it' such quantity is nut sufficient for such p.irpose, then th< - 

rotary is authorized and herehj required to cause to he coi 1 an amount of standard silver dollars 

sufficient for the pu> poses aforesaid : Provided, Thai nothing herein shall be construed to limit in anj 
manner the amount id' such dollars now authorized and required to he coined. 

Mr. DlNGLEY made the point of or er that the said ameudmenl was not in order, 
not being germane to the pending amendment. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order, on the ground thai the proponed 
amendment was not only not germane to the pending amendment, but was nol ger- 
mane to tin- subject matter of the pending bill, which related to the extension ofthe 
corporate existence of national banks. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Bland appealed: pending which Mr. Bayni 
moved thai the said appeal be laid on the table, when Mr. Bi vm« withdrew the -.aid 

Mr. Randall moved to amend by inserting the followiug words as a new section, 
viz : 

Sec. 11. That from and after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treaaut \ is hereby authoi 
[zed ami required to receive deposited gold coin and bullion with the Troatrarei ot au.i ussisuuii I 
on i of the United states, in >uins of noi less than $20, aud to issui certificates ihcrefoi in dcnoi 
turns of not le>s than $20 each, corresponding w ith the denominations of the United States nol 

coin and bullion deposited for or representing the certificates ol deposit shall bereta I In tbe I 

nrv fur the payment of the sum on demand. 

Mr. CRAPO made the point of ordcrthat said : ■mluicnt was nut i In. Dot being 

germane !• tin- pending hill. 

The Speaker sustained the -aid point of order, on the ground thai th. proposed 
amendment had no relation to the subject-matter of the pendiug bill, v\ hi. h related 

exclusively t,, the extension of the corporate existence (if nallolial hank-. 

M n 24, I- 

Mr. Calkins, as a question of privilege, sent to the Clerk's desk .m . Ktrai I from a 
newspaper, relal ing to the contested-election case of Mack O't 'ounor. 

Mr. Randall reserved all points of order as to th.' said extra t. 

90 A— K 11 


After debate on the point of order that the said extract did not present a question 
of privilege, the Speaker overruled the same, on the ground that the extract read 
alleged fraudulent transactions as to the taking of testimony in said ease by the Com- 
mittee on Elect ions, and as that charge was made by a member of the House, it pre- 
sented under Rule IX a question of privilege. 

May 26, 1882. 

Mr. Calkins, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on 
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 he excused from 
voting on the said question. 

Mr. Calkins 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 sus- 
tained the same, on the ground that previous rulings of Speakers had established the 
practice as to requests of this character, and that under the terms of clause 1 of Rule 
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 afrhnative— 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 : 

Pendiii"- a motion to suspend the rules, or on any question of consideration which may arise on a 
base involving the constitutional right to a seat, and pending the motion for the previous question, or 
after it shall have hem ordered on any such case, the Speaker may entertain one motion to adjourn ; 
l,„t after the reaull thereon isannounced he shall not entertain any other motion till the vote is taken 
on the pending question : and pending the consideration of such ease a motion to adjourn or to take a 
recess (hat not both in succession) shall he in order, and such motions shall not be repeated without 
farther intervening consideration of the case for at least one hour. 

Tending its submission, Mr. Kenna moved that the House take -a recess until 8 
o'clock p.m.; which motion the Speaker declined to entertain and submit, during 
the reading of the said report. . 

From which decision Mr. Kexxa appealed ; which appeal the Speaker also declined 
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 oo Saturdav 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 negativ* — yeas 2, nays, 14b, 

not voting 14:'.. 


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 thai the said motion was not in order at this time, 
on the ground that pending a proposition bo change the rules of the House, dilatory 
motion- cannot be entertained by the Chair. 

After debate on the said point of order, 

The SPE \ki:k. The Chair is ready to announce his decision upon this question. 

Mi Springer. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair hear m< foramoment? 

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. [ hope 1 will not be ou1 off from the opportunity ol being heard. 
[Cries of" Vote!" -Vote!'" and "Question!"] 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks thai Buffieienl time has been given. 


Mr. Springer. I desire to remind the chair thai in the firs! Bession of the Forty- 
sixth Congress a point of order was made in the < lominittee of the Whole on the Army 

bill: and that point of order, by the indulgence of the majority, wasdiscussed fi le 

week, and there was no ctlort to limit debate upon it. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the debate lias nol been Limited : del. ate- has been 
liberally allowed. 

Mr. Springer. I had the honor to occupy the chair al thai time, and hope thai the 
same courtesy will be extended to me. 

The Speaker. The question for the Chair to decide is briefly this : the gentleman 
from Maine [ Mr. Reed] has called up tor present consideration the repoi t of tin < loni- 
mittee on Rules made on the 27th instant, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [ Mr. 
Randall] raised, as he mighl under the piactice and the rules «>t the House, tin- ques- 
tion of consideration. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Ki \w | then moved 
that the House adjourn, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. I'.i .\< iv r. i i:\ | moved 
that when the House adjourn it betomeel on Wednesday next, which lasl motion was 
voted down; and thereupon the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randali I 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 dilatoi \ 
mo+ions, and therefore, as againsl the righl of the lions,- to consider a proposition to 
amend the rules, not in order. 

It cannot he disputed that the Committee on Rules have the righl to report at any 
time snch changes in the rules as it may decide to he wise. The righl of that com- 
mittee to report at any time may he. under the practice, a question of privilege; but 
if it is not. resolutions of this House, adopted December 1'.'. 1881, expressly give thai 

The Clerk will read the resolutions. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the rules of the House of Kepresciitatives of the Forty-sixth Congress shall he the 
rules of the present House until others Lse ordered : ami 

Resolved further, That the Committee mi Rules when appointed shall have tin- i ighl to report at anj 
time all such amendments or revisions of said rules as they may ieeni proper. 

The SPEAKER. It will be seen that these resolutions no1 only give the righl to that 
committee to report at any time, but t he committee is authorized to report any chan 
Ac., in tin- rules. The right given to report at any time carries with it the righl to 
have the proposition reported considered without [aying over. The resolutions are 
the ones adopting the present standing rules of i he House for its government : and it 
will be observed that they were on!\ 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— 

Ni' standing rule of the House shall be rescinded or change! wit hout one day's not ice of the motion 
in writing. 

This clause of the rule, if applicable at all. may fairly he construed to make it in 
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 fhi8 House to be 
so construed as to give to the minority of the House t lie absolute righl to prevenl 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 
mattei of consideration, when the question of changing the rules is before the House, 
shall the rules be so eon si rued as to virtuallj prevenl their change should one-fifth of 
the House oppose it .' It may be well to keep in mind that paragraph "J of section 5 
of article 1 of the Const it ut ion says that — 

Each House may determine the roles of its proceedings. 

'fhe -a me section of the Const it ut ion provides t hat — 

A majority of each House shall constitute ;i quorum to do buaini 

Tin- righl given to the Honse to determine the rules of its proceedings is uevei ex- 
hausted, but is at all times a continuing right, and in the opinion of the Cha 

a rioht to niakeor alter rules independent of any rules it may adopt. Dilaton mol 
to prevenl the consideration of business are comparative!} recenl expedients, and 
Bhould not he favored in an\ case save where absolutely required bj some char rule 
Of established pfaet lee. 

Iii any case it is a severe strain upon common sense to construe Hie rules so as to 
prevent a quorum of the House from taking am proceedings al all required bj the 
Constitution : and it is si ill more difficult to find any justification for holding that the 
special resolutions of this House adopted Dec< mber 19 last, or the standing rules even 

of the II oiis,.. were intended to prevenl the House, if a majoritj so desired, f a 

Lng or abrogating the presenl rules of the Hon 

There seems to be abundanl piece, hut for the view the Cha Clerk 

will read from the Record of the Forty-third Congress, page — , an opinion exprcc 


by the distinguished Speaker, Mr. Blaine, which has been repeatedly alluded to to- 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could 
not he entertained, and for this reason he has several times ruled that the right of each House to deter- 
mine what shall he its rules is an organic right expressly given by the Constitution of the United States. 
The rules are the creature of that power and of course they'cannot be used to destroy the power. 
The House is incapahle 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 a 
proposition to change the rules of the Home 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. Raxdall] 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 The Chair is unable to classify it in any other way. Therefore he rules that when 
the Constitution of the United States directs anything to he 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 in 
order to make any motion to obstruct or impede the execution of that injunction of the Constitution 
and laws. 

While this decision is not on the precise poiut. it clearly covers the principles in- 
volved in the case with which we are now dealing. 

The Chair thinks the Constitution and the laws are higher than any rules, and when 
they conflict with the rules the latter 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 the 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 
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 he the rules of the House of Representatives of the present and succeeding Con- 
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 alt i rat ion, they would be made perpetually if only one-fifth of the members of the 
I louse so decreed. 

The fallacy of holding that the standing rules can be held to apply in proceedings 
lo amend, &C, the rules will more sharply appeal' when we look to the case in hand. 
The proposition is to so amend the rides in contested-election cases as to take away 
the right to make and repeat dilatory motions, to prevent consideration, Arc. 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 thai 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 
under 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. 


The Chair is not called upon to hold thai any of the standing rales of the House are 

in conflict with the Constitution, .-is it is not necessary to do so. It onlj Golds thai 
there is nothing in the rules which gives them application pending proceedings to 
amend and rescind them. It also huh Is thai under the firsl of the resolutions adopted 
by the House on December 19, 1881, the righl was reserved to order the standi ug rules 
Bel aside al any time this House so decided, and without regard t<> dilatory forma of 
proceedings provided for in t hem. The Chair does nol ho hi thai pending the question 
of consideration no motion shall be ir order. It is disposed to treal one motion go 
adjourn as proper at this time, as it is a well-known parliamentary inotiou, ami that 
such motion may bo 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 be adopted is one which Looks to an orderly proceeding in the matter of taking 
up and disposing of contested -election eases, a duty casl directly on the HouBe by the 
Constitution of the United States, and an essential one to be pert', lined before it i^ 
completely organized. 

The Chair is unable to find in tin' whole history of the Governmenl thai anj dila- 
tory motions have ever been made or entertained to prevenl the consideration or dis- 
position of a contested-election ease until this Congress. The point of order has not 
vet been made against obstruct ive motions to prevent tin 1 consideral ion of a contested- 
election ease, and the Chair is not now called on to decide whether such motions are 
in order or not where t hey would prevent a complete organization of i he I louse. The 
principle here involved will suffice to indicate the opinion of the Chair on that question. 

The question here decided the Chair understands to be an important one. because 
it comprehends the 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 effecl a dila- 
tory motion, is not at this time in order. 

It has been in debate claimed that on January 1 1. 1882, the present occupanl 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 tinder the rules, and not on the consideration of a report when properlj 
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 u r en- 
tleman from Maine [Mr. REED] has moved to lay the appeal on the table, and I ask 
to he 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 (ban. 

The Speaker. The (hair 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. I want to know whether the chair hold- I have nol the nghl 

before this question is put to ask to be excused from Voting on it .' 
The SPEAKER. The (hair so holds. 

Mr. Springer. I appeal from that decision. 

The Speaker. The Chair cannol entertain two appeals al the -a time. I be -pies 

Hon is u] the moth f the gentleman from Maine [ Mr. Rl l d] t" laj upon the 

table the appeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randali | n the de- 
cision Of the Chair. Upon that motion the yeas and nays have be. n old. nd: and 
the Clerk wi 1 call the roll. 

The . | nest ion was taken : ami there were yeas L50, Days 0, not voting Ml. 

So the appeal w as laid on t he table. 

» * » 

The names of those voting were read, after which the result was nnuounced 

above stated. 

The Speaker. The question now recurs on the motion 


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. Kassox. 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 l>y 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. 1 have no objection to its going iuto 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!" 

Mr. Kassox. 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. Cox, of New York. We 1, let it be read. 

The Speaker. The Chair does not object. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. I do not wish to take any advantage of gentlemen on the 
other side. Let the paper be read. 

Mr. Vax 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. Kassox. 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 iny 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 

Mr. Reed. There is no question of privilege that cau interrupt the present business 
of the House. 

Mr. Kassox. What I wish to call the attention of the Speaker to is on page :?33 ot 
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 

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- 

The Speaker. The House will come to order. The paper will be read, points ot 
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 Commit tee on Elections as to the 
allegations of forgery and fraud," 

Mr. Hawk said: I " ohject." 

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. Kassox. I insist on my point id' order and ask to state the reasons for it. 

Mr. Cox, of New York. Before that is done I desire to say 

Mr. Kassox. I am on the door. 

The SPEAKER. The gentlemau from Iowa [Mr. Kassox] makes a point of order, and 
is entit led to the floor on t hat point. 

Mr. KASSON. I do not wish to prevent (lie gentleman from New Y'ork from answer- 
ing mv point, but I think I OUghl lirst to state it before he replies. 

° • i # # # * * 

Mr. Reed. I now ask the previous question upon the report. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that this is not a question of privilege, but one 


which should nor be ruled ou1 by the Chair. The Chair thinks, although be baa m> 
more interest in it than any other member, a9 so many gentlemen bave sigued it and 
desired it u'o into the record, thai it should go. 

Mr. Reed. Let it go t<> the record. 

The Speaker. Names and all. 

Mr. COX, of New York. Certainly, names ami all. 

The Speaker. It will then be printed in t he 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. 1 wish to know whetherunder tin' ruling of the Speaker, which 
seems to have been supported by the 1 [onse, w it boul regard to pari Les 

Mr. Rekd. Unanimously by the House. 

Mr. Blackburn. Unanimously ; whether any member of the I Ions.- chooses t" sign 
that protest, whose name is not now on it. shall not h%ve the privilege of doing so at 
any time hereafter ' 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that at any time during this afternoon, if an\ gen- 
tleman desires to sign tin- protest, he should he allowed In do 90. 

Mr. Hazrlton. Certainly, let it lie done. 

The Speaker. There will be no objection if any gentlemen desire to append their 
names to it. 

The gentleman from Maine now demands i In- previous question. The Chair will 
now. how -ever, submit the motion made by the gentleman from Wesl Virginia that 
the House adjourn, and which motion was pending. Thai 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 ml ruled out under the decision of the 

Mr. Kenna. I rise to make a privileged motion. It is now fiveo'clock. I do no1 un- 

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. Hoes 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 meel on Thursday. 

The Speaker. The Chair has just ruled, and tin- House has sustained the ruling of 
the Chair, that that motion would not now be in order, and therefore cannol be en- 
tertained. The motion that the gentleman formerly made-, that the House do now 
adjourn, being in order, will of course 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 wen — yeas 6, nays 152, not voting 133. 

So the motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. Camp. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be dispensed 

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 ol the report made 
by the Committee on Rules. 

Mr. Springer. I move to lay the report on the table. 

The Speaker. Thai motion is no1 entertained. 

Mr. Springer. I move to lav the report of the Commute.' on Rules on the table. 

Mr. Converse. I ask the gentleman from Maine permission to make amotion to 
amend the report so far as it relates to suspending the rules, so thai it shall apply 
only to cases of election contests. . . 

Mr. Robeson. Thai is in the rule now. This incorporates the existing rule, so tar 
as t hat is concerned. 

Mr. Springer. I move to lay the reporl on the table. 

The Speaker. The motion is not entertained. The gentleman from Illinois ,. not 
recognized to make it. 

Mr. Springer. I have a righl to make n under the rules. Does the ( hau retUse to 
entertain a motion to lav on the table .' 

The siu ski r. The Chair entertains the nioti i the gentleman from Maine, n 

is a demand for the previous question. 

Mr. Springer. 1 rise to a question of order. 

The Speaki k The gentleman from Maine demand- the pre> loua question. 

Mr. Springer, [raise the ques ion of order thai the motion to lay on the 
takes precedence of the motion for the previous question. 

Mr. Camp There is no such motion before the Hon-.-. 


The Speaker. The ruling of the Chair was sufficiently broad to cover all these ques- 

Mr. Springer. The Chair has uot ruled a motion to lay on the table is out of order. 

The Speaker. The Chair has 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 
say 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. The Chair declines to entertain the appeal. 

Mr. Springer. I desire the Chair to hear me. 

Mr. 'J UOKER. Does the Chair hold the motion to lay on the table is out of order ? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair holds that the motion is not iu order on the question of 
the adoption of this proposed rule. 

Mr. TUCKER. And 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 

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 h>ard him on his application, but the gentleman 
must now desist from further insisting on this matter. 

Mr. Springer. I have raised a privileged question, and desire the Chair to rule 
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 entertaiu that appeal, 

Several Members (to Mr. Springer). Sit down. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I will not sit down, but will stand up and will protest against such 
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 questiou on agreciugto 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 the 
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 be accom- 
plished by the amended rule .' 

The Speaker. That is a question to address to the gentleman having the report iu 

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 be 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 be permitted, I object to dispensing with the reading of the 

The Speaker. Objection is made, and the names will be read. 

The names of those voting were read, after which the result was announced as above 

Mr. SPRINGER. I now rise to a privileged motion, which 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 XVII. 

The Speaker. The Chair remembers the ride very well. 

Mr. Camp. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask that the rule be read. It shows that •' it shall be iu order, 
pending the motion for or after the previous question shall have been ordered on 
its passage" 


The Speaker. On the passage <>t' a bill. 

Mr. Springer. On the passage of auy motion — " for the Speaker to entertaiu one 

motion t nnmit, with or without instructions" I submil that motion under the 

rule and ask tli.-it the instructions may be read. 

The Speaker. The Chair has heard the gentleman's statement, and rules his motion 
<mt of order. 

Mr. Springer. The Chair cannot rule upon ii until it is read. 

The Speaker. The (hair lias heard the gentleman's statement, and ii 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 hack wit h an amendment so that it shall be in ordei 
pending a contested-election case to move to amend, to recommit, or to Jay the subject 
on the table. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks thai the motion to recommit a coutested-election 
case would be in order under the rules. 

Mr. SPRINGER. That is what I desire to have incorporated in the new rules. 

The Speaker. The gentleman's motion is nol in order. The question is upon the 
adoption of the report from the Committee on Rules. 

Mr. RANDALL. And on that I call tor the yeas and nays. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I 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 rnlea 
of the House, and ought to he deposed. 

The Speaker. The Chair can only say to the gentleman that hi- motions have beeu 
clearly out of order, even under the rules, if they were applicable at all. Bin the Chair 
has made a ruling which has been affirmed in the moal extraordinary manner by the 
House, and the Chair will certainly he hound to stand by that affirmation of it- own 

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 yeas 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 Bab 
mitted a proposition to the House. Now. I demand under the rules that ili-it propo- 
sition he reduced to w lit ing. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has ruled on that point. The (hrk will proceed with the 

Mr. Hooker. Waita moment. 1 want to understand, and I will understand, whether 
the Speaker means to rule that the proposition of the gentleman from Illinois shall 
not he reduced to writing. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has ruled upon all those ciuestions. 

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, Days •-'. not voting 139. 

So the report of the Committee on Rule was adopted. 

Mr. Calkins. I now desire to call up the contested-election case ol Mackej << 

Dibble. , , , , 

Mr. Randall. If I correctly understood the Chair a moment ago, he stated \«- had 

not yet decided that a motion to \<r mil this ca86 with instructions would be OU* 

of order under the rule just adopted. 

TheSPEAKER. The Chair incidentally stated it had not held that the rule pro| 
to be adopted would exclude at the proper time a motion to recommit an election 

case. . ,, . , 

Mi. Randall. I desire al the proper time to Biibmil the following resolution 
M,- Calkins Until the question of consideration i- determined bj the House I oo 

ject to that proposition being considered. Whenever the House h i« I 

eider the case, of course I have i bjection to having the motion voted upon. 

The Speaker. Is the question of consideration raised ' 

Mr. Blackburn. I raise the question of consideral 

TheSPEAKER. The gentleman fr Kentuek; raises the question id i 'ti">. 

as against the contested-elect ion case. 

Mr. Springer. I move thai the Houbb now adjourn. 


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 

Mr. Black burn. 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. Oh 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. Randall. I would like now to have read for information the resolution which 
I send to the desk, which I propose to otter at the proper time. 

Thf Speaker. The Chair will cause it to be read for information. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the report iu the case pending be 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, and inquire into all alteratious, de- 
struction, loss, or mutilations of the original notes of the same, or of any transcript of such notes ; and 
when, where, or hy whom such alterations, destructions, loss, or mutilations were made or caused 
to be made. 

Resolved, That said committee shall have authority to visit such places and compel the production of 
such persons and papers as may he necessary to carry out the purpose of their appoiutment, 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 

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 
oyer 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 

Mr. TownsiikxI), 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 eourse 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. 

Mi . Mn i ik took the floor. 

Mr. CALKINS. If the gentleman will yield now I will make a motion 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. 1-82. 

The House proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consideration 
of the report of the Committee on Elections in the eoutested-clectiou case of Lowe 


vs. Wheeler, from the eighth Congressional districl of the State of Alabama, the pend- 
ing question being on. the following resolutions, reported bj said committee, \i/: 

Resolved, Thai Joseph Wheeleris Dot entitled to a seal in tliis Boose ;>^ ;i Represent the 

Forty -seventh Congress from the eighth Congressional ili>ti ■ i « - 1 of Alabama. 

/.'. solved, That William M. Lowe is entitled to a Beal in tins Bouse as a Represi atative in 1 1" I • •■ 
seventh Congress from the eighth Congressional districl "t Alabama. 

After debate, * * Mr. H.\/.i t.u>\ demanded the previous question ; pending 

which, Mr. Springer moved to recommit the pending report to the Committee on 
Elections, with instructions contained in ;i preamble and resolutions. 

Mr. Kassox made the point of order thai thesaid preamble was not in order, being 
in the nature of argumenl or debate, which was ool in order pending the motion f'oi 

the previous question, and :i^kt<l for an inspection of the paper bj the Chair bef 

being read to the House upou that point. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker sustained thesame, on the ground 
that the motion to commil wiih instructions could apt, either by the terms of the rule 
or by the pracl ice 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 thai the proposition as submitted bj Mi. Spkingek 
was not in order under clause 1 ol Rule XVII. 

Objection having been made to the reading of the proposition submitted bj Mr. 
Springer, thesame \\ as suspended when partially read: when Mr. Kt w\ 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. Rekd moved to lay the said appeal on the table : \\ hich said motion was agreed 

So the decision of the Chair was sustained. 

J ink 6, L882. 

Mr. White, as a question of privilege, called the attention of the Speaker to tin- 
fact that a resolution of inquiry submitted by him on the Nth day of April last, and 
referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, bad not been reported to the House 
until this morning, though clause 1 of Rule XX1Y required a reporl to he made thei 
within one week, and that, having been made, it was entitled to immediate considera- 

Mr. Hiscock made the point of order that noqnestion ofprivilege had been presented. 

The Sneaker 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. 

Jim: L3, L882. 

Mr. Brewer called up the report of the Select Committee on Ventilation and Acous- 
tics submitted on yesterday and laid over tor the present. 

Mr. Cannon having objected to its consideration, the Speaker held t he said report 

to he of a privileged character, on the ground that the <■ Ittee had been specially 

directed to consider the subject -mat ter of the resolution submitted, ami report their 
conclusions thereon to t he House, and although authority had not been specifically 
given that committee to report at any time, it was still the duty ol the committee to 
report at as" early a day as practicable, and having so reported, the Baid report was 
properly before the House: and also on the further-round that the pending resolution 
related to the convenience of members and coroforl of the employee ol the House. 

June 26, 1882. 

The Speaker having announced as the Bpecial order of business such business 

v be presented by the C itteeon the Districl of Columbia, under the resolution 

of the 5th instant. Mr. Kelley having proposed to raise the »tionol consideration 

asagainal the consideration of business under the foregoing order, the speukei lieu 

that this day beine sel apart for the considerate f such busineHS a- might be 

sented l.v the Co.nTiiitte, o„ the District of Columbia, the question ol coilHlderat 

could nol he raised againsi such special order, hut could oulj 

particular bill or measure. The Speaker further held tic a motion to | the 

said special order was not ,,, order, and that the C tteeon th< D 

bia could not be dispossessed of their rights nude- the terms of ial <»>\>i 

long as the committee had any business to present, aud i 1. d then right* undei 


In which decision of the Chairthe House acquiesced. 


On motion of Mr. HOGE, the bill of the Seriate (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. Ckapo, 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 (H. 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 said re- 
port, as required by Rule XXIX. 

The Speaker sustained the said point of order. 

The Speaker. The rule requires such a statement to be 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 J une :i0, 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 

After debate thereon, Mr. Cannon moved the previous quest ion ; 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 <>f tlie 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 bill us 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 ou 

Elections in the contested-election case of Smalls vh. Tillman, from the fifth Congres- 
sional district of the State of South Carolina. 
The House having proceeded to its consideration, after debute. Mr. moved 

the previous question ; which was ordered. 

V * - * * * * 

The question recurring on the resolutions reported by the Committee on Elections; 
when Mr. Atiikkton demanded a division of the question. 
And the question being first on the following resolution, viz : 

i; IK ,,irr,i. That George D. Tillman was nol 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 House — 

And being put, vi,z Will the House agree thereto >. it was decided in the affirma- 
tive — yeas 144, nays 1, not voting 14b\ 


So the said resolution was agreed to. 

The question recurring on the following resolution, \i/. : 

Resolved, That Robert Smalls wasdnl.v elected as a Representative from the fifth Congressional 'lis 
trict of South Carolina in the Forty-se'v enth Congress, and is entitled to his s>-at aa such — 

And being put, viz, Will the House agree thereto f it was decided in the affirma- 
tive — yeas 111. 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 tin' mot ion 
to reconsider be laid on t lie table ; which Latter motion was agreed to. 

The Speaker stated thai an error had been discovered in the vote taken to-daj 
on the tirst branch < f the resolutions reported i>\ the Committee on Elections, and 
thai instead id' being yeas 14."> and nay 1. as announced, the correct vote was yeas 
144, nay 1. The Speaker thereupon claimed and exercised his constitutional righl to 
vote ou any question before the House, and directed his vote to be recorded in tie 
affirmative on said resolution. 

Mr. Blackburn, having called tor the reading of clause 1 of Rule XV, made the 
point of order that under said rule n was not in order lor the Speaker to have bis 
vote recorded after the completion of the roll-call and the announcement of the re- 
sult to the House. 

The Speaker. The House will he in order. There is no complication abonl this 

proposition. The Chair understands that it has the righl and is required tinder 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 greal confusion.) I never did, under such circumstances as 
here presented. 

The SPEAKER. It is stated here, and the record will show it. 

Mr. RANDALL. 1 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 1 believe. 

Mr. Caswell rose. 

The Speaker. Gentlemen will come to order. 

Mr. Atherton. I rise to a question of order. 

The Spkakkr. The gentleman will he heard later. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. Caswell. The gentleman from Pennsylvania cannot have forgotten the tact 
that in the Forty-fourth Congress he voted the oexl daj to carry a measure. 

Mr. Randall. I never \ oted when there was objection, as there is here. I he gen- 
tleman will produce the record. 

Mr. Blackburn. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The Speaker. One at a time. Gentlemen will he heard patiently, but the House 

must come to order. 

Mr. Blackburn. I will abide the chair's pleasure. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. [ desire to read Rule XV, which absolutely prohib- 
its it. 

Mr. Blackburn, dust wait- a minute. 

Mr. Townshend, 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 tbe 

Digest. , , , , 

Mr. Kasson. I ask that gentlemen shall be seated, so members rnaj hear what is 

«<»i"^ on. , . .,, . , 

TheSPEAKER. Members will res • their place II,.- Clerk will read from tbe 

Digest, page 354. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

important questioD, taken Dei ember 9 180 I on an amend. t to the Constitution 

1 ' - t. 1 . . I \ >.......! u .1, , t.,rlll!.ll .1 \ nil II t\\ll III 


from him when he chooses to exercise it. 
(See latest instance bj Mr.Speaker Rani irnal, ! •• 

TheSPEAKER. The clerk will now read iron, the Journal t ase ,...•.! und, 

speaker Randall. 


The Clerk read as follows 

Pending which, Mr. Banks moved that the Journal and Record be corrected so as to include the 
name of Mr. I'l. listed in the negative on the vote on the adoption of the resolution submitted on yester- 
day by Mr. Aiskam S. Hewj i i. 

After debate the Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from Maine to have his vote 
recorded npon 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 Recoup 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 Speaker thereupon 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- 
thiop, 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 hill for the relief 
of the representatives of Antonio Pat'.' eco 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 hill preparatory to giving the vote contemplated in such eases 
by the rules of the House. While in the act of explanation, the Speaker was interrupted by the ( 'lerk, 
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 
In- 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- 

The Speaker decided that it was the right of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to have his vote re 
Corded it he voted on Saturday last : and the correction was accordingly made. 
The vote was then finally announced — yeas Si), nays 90. 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. Rale XV determines mutter. 

Mr. Blackburn. I ask the Speaker to have the role 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, nnder the law lie is but a member of this 


The Speaker. The gentleman will allow the Chair to state that it has never 
been the rule or practice for the Speaker's name t<> 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 rale which is applicable to other members 
whose names are upon toe roll. The rule, paragraph 6, Rale I, provides when the 
Speaker shall vote, it is as follows: 

Hi- shall not lie required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except where his vore would be 
decisive or when the House is engaged in voting bj ballot; and in all cases of a tie vote the question 

shall he lost. 

Rule XV may lie read, but it has no possible application. 

Mr. Blackburn. May I ask then. Mr. Speaker, another question as to the. construo- 
t ion given to this rule by the < hair on the subject of voting, oron the right to vote .' 


Does that position elevate the Speaker of tlie 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 thai respect. 
The Chair claims no higher right or privilege than is accorded to other members, i 
cept in cases when by the rules, law , or Constitution other or higher i i^lit a are given 

Mr. Blackburn. Then would any other member ofthe House, after the ruling and 
the const rue i inn applied t<> l liis rule frequenl Ly by the present occupant ol the Chair, 
have the right to rise in his place and ask even unanimous consenl to have hi-' name 
recorded alter the second call ofthe roll has been completed .' 

The SPEAKER. Certainly not ; the rule is very clear and prohibits that. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Then by what authority does the (hair claim the righl 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 (hair. i>ut to the members whose names 
are called. 

Mr. Blackburn. Then may I ask this further question : Is t he 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, and 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 SPEAKJSR. The rule is very (dear. 

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 t he rule read. 

The Speaker. The rule is familiar to everybody; hut 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 hut one. 

Mr. Hazelton. No Speaker's name has ever been called upon the roll. 

Mr. Blackburn. My friend will allow the rule to he read i 

Mr. Robeson. I want to know whether the vote on the passage ofthe resolution t" 
which reference is made was not 144 to 1 ; and whether that was noi ,-i majority .' 

Mr. Blackburn. It was not a quorum. 

Mr. Robeson. Aud whether the point of no quorum was made.' Further, I wish to 

ask whether, that point UOl having been then made, it can he made now; and if the 
gentleman claims the righl to make the point of no quorum now, because id' the fact 
that the House was misinformed as to the vote, has noi the Speaker the righl to vote 
now to make a quornm ' 

The Speaker. It is not only his right, hut he must exercise it under the rule. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, id' Illinois. The rule is e\ pi hit that i tember shall even be per- 
mitted to ask uuanil IS consenl to record his vote after the announcement id' tin- 
Note has been made. 

.Mr. Atherton. The question is whether when a wrong has been done t Inn is any 
way of righting it. [Cries of •■ Regular order! " j 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that there is no question before the House. No 
wrong was done to any one. hut the vote was corrected at tl arliest possible time 

Mr. Reed. 1 demand the regular order. 

Mr. Hazelton. The only question before tin- House is tin- regular order. 

The Speaker. The regular order is the call of committees I'm repoi i~. 

Mr. Blackburn. Does the Chair decline nij requesl to have Rule XA readt 

The si-i \ki k. 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 ( 'lerk read as follow s : 

Upon every roll-call the names of the members shall be called alphabetically \<- 
where two or more 1mm- the same surname, Hen tin- whole name shall be called . ami niti 
been once called, the Clerk -I. all cull in their alphabetical order the i 
thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain ;> requesl to reoord a • ••>• or a m< 

Mr. Blackburn. I thank tin- Chair for having the rnle read. I onl farther 

to ash a question as to tact in the shape of a pat liamentai \ iuqu 
The Speaker. The gentleman will state it. 
Mr. Hiscock. I demand t he regulai ordei . 
The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky lamentary inquiry, 

which the Chair will hear. 

Mr. Blackburn. The gentleman fr New Jeraej I Mi. Robeson] I thai 


upon the report of the voting it stood 144 yeas and 1 nay. I now desire to know 
whether the clerks of this 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 that Mr. Smalls be sworn in. 

Mr. Townshend, 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. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I raise the point of 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 House. 

The Speaker. That vote has no reference to the one declaring Mr. Smalls elected. 
The point is overruled. 

Mr. TOWNSHBHD, of Illinois. I have not finished stating my point of order. My 
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. Tillmau, 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 not at all like the 
present case. 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. Th^ir votes were received, 
changing the resulr, 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 quite 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. Smaixs appeared, and qualified by taking the oath prescribed in section 1756 
of the Revised Statutes. 

July 22. 1882: 

On motion of Mr. Bingham, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill ol 
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 

8 ections, viz : 

Sec.G. Strike out the word "three" and insert "two" on the eighth line of section 3903 of the Re- 
vised Statutes. _ 

Sec. 7. Strike onl Bections 3905 and nnuii 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 in the mails of the 

United States tree 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 t lie l'ost-Ol'lice and Post-Roads, was not in 
order under clause 4 of Rule XXI. 

After debate on said points of order, 

The Speaker. The Chair docs 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. 
Bui h't us look at tht! 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 dill'civnt 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, iu substance, included in a pend- 
ing bill or bills, then that portion would t dearly not be in order. But there being a 
portion of the amendment not in order, as must be conceded, it is perfectly clear that 


thr whole ameudmenl must go out. [fa portion of a proposition submitted is clearly 
not in order, the whole musl be rejected, for under uo cover of including thai \\ bich 
is not in order with thai which is, could such an amendment be admitted. 

Tin- Chair holds, therefore, the ameudmenl is no1 in order under t he point of order 
made agaiust it. 

.hi.Y 24, 1882. 

Mr. Payson, under authority granted ou the 6th ultimo, submitted the views of the 
minority of the Committee ou the Judiciary, to accompany the reporl (No. 1283 
said eci i mi it tee sul mi it ted on said date, iii relation to land grants t • > the Northern I 
citie Railroad. 

Ordered, Thai s:iiil views of said minority be printed as pari 2 of said report. 

Mr. Knott, under the same authority, submitted the views <>f a farther minority of 
said committee on the same subject, accompanied by a proposed joinl resolution at- 
tached ti> said views. 

Mr. Knott moved thai the said views of the said minority be referred to the House 
Calendar and printed. 

Mr. Caswi.i.i. made the point of order t hat t he said mo' ion was not in order, fur the 
reason that the views of a minority "fa committee could only he submitted bv 
unanimous consent, which was all that was -ranted the minority of the Committee 
ou 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 tliis subject was presented, and mo 
to have a resolm ion accompanying the views placed upon the Calendar. Now. there 
i.s 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. This question has frequently been ra ised, where 
a minority of a committee proposed to make a report and claimed the righl to bring 
a subject before the House; bur it has been always rejected and 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 consideration. 

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 any circumstances these vie v. 
tin- minority are to be regarded as a report. 

A.8 Cushing says in his admirable work on parliamentary law. "these views are 

sometimes submitted under the some what incongri s name of minority reports, when 

they an- in no sense reports. 

Now, to go back, at tin- time the reporl was made upon this subject the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Robinson] stated to the House that there w ere certain \ r i< 
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 «;h -ranted. And it \\ a> 
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 given tor this and nothing more. 

Now. the gentleman from Illinois | Mr. Townshend | has cited ( lushing's Manual of 
Parliamentary Law, and the Chair thinks it would be well enough to examine it 
further and have real a Little more from the same paragraph and 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 Eoua expressed <■■ 
narj vote of a majority and usually receive the same destination with the reporl 

printed, postponed, and c insidered in i be same m inner. Bui the) ar i in an) partial 

reports, nor entitled to any privilege as snch ; and their onl) • 
the minds of members as arguments, and, Becondlj 

on the resolution or other conclusion of the report, [f they contain oi i mend a bill 

as a bill, but as part of the reporl and for the infonnatiou "i the 11 

Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. Let tin- whole paragraph be Had. 

The Speaker. That is the whole of this chapter. 

Mi . Townshend, of Illinois. | desire to have read the first portion of tl i 

The Sri UCEK. The ('hair will state thai the porti f the pa ol 

which used the word - majority " has distinct reference to a m of the Hi 

a ma tier of court esv having the righl ami power to allow th< 

to be presented, and had no refi r iuce to the dispositi f them on the Hi 

The Chair will cause the chrk to read now from the Hou» Journal 

90 a— k L2 


183fi, where the question was made whether or not the minority of a committee could 
make a report. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Mr. Hall, of Vermont, a member of the Committee on the Post-Offlce and Post-Roads, to which was 
referred so much of the message of the President of the United states, at the commencement of the 
session, as relates '■ to the report of the Postmaster-General, the condition and operations of the Post- 
otliee 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 h law as will prohibit, under 
severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications, 
intended to instigate the sla\ es to insurrection." 

The Speaker decided that, when reports from committees are called for, a report cannot be made 
from a minority of a committee, as a minority is not a committee: that the paper offered was not a re 
port authorized to be 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 be the uniform practice 
all the Chair can do is to indicate that the action shall he taken which was directed 
to be 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 pies, ntcd by the minority ' 

The Speaker. It has no possible parliamentary status except that when the ma- 
jority reporl shall come up for consideration it might be referred to only as a matter 
of information to the House; and it might furnish a basis upon which amendments 
might l>e offered to the action of the majority, it action can ever be taken on that. 
It is now on the table and it seems to call for no action on the part of Congress. 

That report concludes as follows : 

"We can conceii e of no legislation which would hasten the completion of the road, and therefore rec- 
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 not, as the Chair appre- 

Mr. Hoi.max. 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. 1 move to lay that appeal on the table. 

Mr. Hoi.max. 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. 

Mr. Hoi.max. 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 he called— that having the floor rightfully he had the right to make whatever 
was the proper motion touching the subject-matter. Therefore lie 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 SPEAKKR. 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 tin' table. 

Mr Caswell. 1 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 Cbair also decide that at this time, this not being a priv- 
ileged motion, and no unanimous consent having been given for that motion, it is 
not in order if an objection be made .' 

The Speaker. Tin- Chair docs not hold thegentleman is out of order in presenting 
the 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 thegen- 
tleman from Kentucky to refer this joint resolution to the Calendar. From thai de- 
cision of the Chair I respectfully appeal. 

The Speaker. And the gentleman from Maine moves that the appeal be laid upon 
the table. 

Mr. Hot. man. 1 call for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Cannon. 1 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. 


Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. That is the i run ble. We wanl to gel something on the 

Mr. <'<>x, of New York. And thai is what they are dodgin 

The Speak* i:. The (hair understands if the reporl of i lie committee bad been ac- 
companied by a hill or joint resolution, and had sone to ( •■ Calendar, then thin mat- 
ter would have takeu the same course, It would have h. •<■ i printed and would have 
accompanied the majority report. Wherever tin- inajoritj report went, under the 
uniform practice the minority views must go also. The gentleman from Maim | Mi. 
Reed] moves to lay upon the table the appeal taken by the^entloma-i from N T ew York 
from the derision of the Chair. 

Mr. HOLMAN. And upon that I call for the yeas and nays. 

Tlie yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr Kassox. Is it in order now for me to ask to have a statemenl read from the di- 
gest .' 

The Speaker. 'I' he Chair thinks the question is not debatable now. 

The question beiug taken, there were — yeas97, nays 70, not voting L23. 

So the said appeal was laid on the table. 


The House thru proceeded, as the regular order of business under the resolul ion id' 
the 21st instant, to the further consideration of the Kill of the lions.- i 11. R, :: 
permitting the use of domestic materials in the construction nf steam and sail vessels 
for foreign account, the pending question being on the amendment submitted bj Mr. 
Tucker to said hill, on which question i he 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. Tocker. I ask the speaker this question : If tie- Speaker is right, as I think 
he is. that it is out of order for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kit iky] to 
make the motion to recommit to the Committee on Ways and Means, is it m>1 equally 
out of order for the gentleman from [owa [Mr. Kasson] to move to reconsider tie- 
vote of the yeas and nays when we are acting under that order, and taking tie- \ • as 
and nays on the amendment which I have moved f Will not the Speaker see thai if 
his presenl decision is righl that the motion to reconsider is out of order and cannot 
be entt rtained. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that is nol so. It gives the House a righl 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 t In- quest 
immediately recur on ordering the yeas and nays .' 

The Speaker. Yes. when the question conies up on the amendment. Then any 
member can demand the yeas and nays, ami on the order of one-fifth of those present 
the yeas and nays can he ordered. lint if the gentleman has the right, as the (hair 
has indicated, to make tie- morion to refer, that would take precedence of the mm 
to amend, because paragraph 1 of Rule XVI provides expressly for it. 

Mr. Knott. With the permission nf the Chair I wish to submit this point of order. 

Mr. Tucker. I raise t In- question of order on my friend from [owa [Mr. Kassi 

The Speaker. The gentleman trom Kentucky has the tloor 

Mr. TUCKER. I raise tbe question of order on the gentleman from Iowa, ami that is 
whether he can move to reconsider the ordering of the yeas and nays when be did ad 
vote on that question. 

Mr. Kasson. There was no record of the vote on that question, and it does not mat- 
ter how 1 voted. 

The Speaker. Then- has bee record on ordering the yeas and nay-, ami there- 
fore the point does not lie. But only one poi t der can be pending at the same 


Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. There was a call of the yeas ami naj -, ami on that .all 
of the yeas ami nays the gentleman from Iowa declined to vote. 

Mr. Axdrich. I move to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas ami uays. 

Mr. Knoi i. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have the il 

The Speaker. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Kentucky on the point 
of order. 

Mr. Ait. i: I (II. The yeas and nays were ordered and the yeas and nays w. i. called, 
but there was no quorum. 

Mr. Knott. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States guarantees to ono- 

fifthof the members of the lions.- the righl to demand and have put on l d 

yeas and nays on any proposition. That being -". no majoi ity of this House, howevei 
large, unless by unanimous consent, can deprive that one-fifth of thai utional 

right. That being bo, a motion to deprive them of that right i- in d< i »>i tha 

Constitution, and is manifestly out of order. 


Now, lei us look at this proposition ab inconrenitnti. I make amotion, for instance, 
for the yeas and Days, une-fiith of the members present Becond it. and tlie 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 amis sustained and it is carried, and one-fifth of those present again demand 
the veas 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 Tote upon any question at all 
as long as one-fifth 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. 
1 maintain that the very absurdity of the proposition is so patent that I cannot see 
how it can possibly be entertained at all. By what authority can a majority of the 
House say to one-fifth 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. BURROWS, 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. Th- 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 statu* <ji<o of Saturday, when we adjourned on this ques- 
tion, the status (/no < f this moment, theunfinished business coining 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 on, 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 Hoes 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 he going on at this moment. 

The Speaker. Asa 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. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. There was no vote ordering the yeas and nays on Sat- 
urday, There were some thirty-odd members of the House who constituted one-fifth 
of tin ■ 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 navs were ordered has no right to make it. 

The SPEAKER. There is no question about the fact that the yeas and nays were or- 

Mr TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. But not by a vote of the House. 

Mr. BURROWS, Of Michigan. I ask now to have read, as hearing upon the point of 
order, what I send to the, desk. 

Tin- Speaker. The Clerk will read. 

The ( 'lei k read as follows: 

Mi Kellogg moved that the order by the House of the yeas and nayB be reconsidered. 

Sir. Pollock raised the question of order thai it required four-fifths to reconsider an order tor the 

lie n speaker decided thai according t.. ii„. precedents a majority mighl reconsider the order, but 
thai thequestion would immediately recur on ordering the yeas and nays, when one-fifth would be auttt- 
oienl for thai purpose (February 14, 1S48.) 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that, following the precedents, it must entertain 
the motion. There seem to have hen precedents during the entire history oi the 
Concress of the United states in favor of entertaining the motion to reconsider a vote 
orderin« the yeas and navs. The chair mighl agree with the gentleman from Ken- 

tucky if this was an original question ; hut the decisions are all one way. It is vei 
true,' as has been stated, that after such a vote is reconsidered one^fifth of those pre 
en1 would still have the constitutional right to again order the y. as and nays on tl 
same quesi ion. 

Mi. 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. KNOT! 1 calls for the yeas .and nays on the motion to reconsider. 


The yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider were ordered— 42 members voting 

Mr. Dunn. [ move now to reconsider thai vote bj which the yeas and nays have 
been ordered on the motion to reconsider. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Arkansas can bardlj be in 
earnest about that. 

Mr. Donn. I want to run the rule to a ridiculous result. 

The Speaker. All parliamentary rules thai are followed ou1 improperly may run 
into absnrdil ies. 

Mr. Dunn. The position I take is that this runs into an absurdity. 

Mr. Robeson. Ii cannol li<' in order to reconsider :i vote to reconsider. 

Mr. Dunn, [f any one makes the point of order on mj motion lei the Chair rule 
upon it. 

The Speaker. The Chair has simply ruled, following a line of precedents through House, that a motion to reconsider the \<>te by which the 
yeas and nays were ordered was in order. The Chair cannol entertain two motions 
of that kind at t he same tune. 

Mr. Dunn. Bu1 this was a vote ordering the yeas and nays. Now. I move to re- 
consider thai vote: and if a point of order is made on mj motion I ash the 1 bail to 
rule upon it. 

The Speaker. Ir is like making several appeals at the same time. The chair can- 
not present any sueh absurdity under the rule. The Clerk will ea'l the ml]. 

Mr. Kknna rose. 

The Clerk proceeded to call the roll, and called the first two names. 

Mr. Kknna. I rose to a point of order before the call of the roll began. I ask the 
Chair to rule upon t he motion of the gentleman from Arkansas. 

The Speaker. That motion would undoubtedlj he in order, but the Chair cannot 
entertain two mot ions of the .-a me kind at t he same time. 

Mr. Kknna. This motion does not apply to the same vote as the other. Tin- one i^ 
to reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays on the amendment of the gentleman 
from Virginia ( Mr. Tucker]. This does not applj to t he same \ ote at all. The mo- 
tion of the genl leman from Arkansas applies tot be vote last taken. 

The Speaker. The Chair understands thai perfectly well. Bu1 it is the same char- 
acter of motion. 

Mr. Kknna. Does the Chair hold it out of order.' 

The Speaker. The Chair does not hold it out of order. Hut the Chair holds it can- 
not entertain t wo unit ions of the same kind at the same time. 

.Mr. KKNNA. Does the Chair hold it to he in order .' 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. Kknna. i ask the ('hair to decide whether the tion of the gentleman from 

Arkansas is in order or is not in order. 

The Speaker. The Chair would hold it would he in order if the House was not pro- 
ceeding to vote on a similar motion. 

Mr. KENNA. If the Chair holds the motion is out of order I desire to appeal from the 
decision of the ( 'hair. 

Mr. Hiscock. 1 made the point of order that the Clerk had commenced the roll-call 
and that two names had been called. 

Mr. Kknna. 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. Kknna. Does the Chair entertain raj appeal.' 

The Speaker. The Chair cau snbmil no appeal pending the roll-call. 

Mr. Kknna. I rose in my place and wa^ recognized by the Chair. 

The Speaker. There need be nodifficulty aboul this. The < 'hair followed the 

edents in entertaining the motion of the gentleman fr Iowa. In .• i of 

Congress, so fai as the Chair is able to learn, certainly in all the chair is familiar 
with, the practice has been to allow a mo i ion to reconsider a ■ which i : 

and nays have been ordered, [f presented a- an original questio i the Chaii in 
bold otherwise. Bui when the yeas and nays have been ordered o:i n 'notion of t lial 
kind the chair does not i hi uk it can entertain a similar motion and bu'.i nil tl 
tion on that, going on indefinitely. In this the Chair follows < the pi 

that two appeals cai t be submitted at the -a me time. 

Mr. Kknna. I onh desired the chair to parson thai be< a new n 

I ion. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair would hold the prop,,. i, of lie -ml. 

sas i 'der for the same reason thai il has entertained the other motion ; bill 

not entertain the t w o at t be same t ime. 

Mr. Kknna. And from the ruling of the Chair thai the tion of tli 

Arkansas is ,,,n of order 1 desire to appeal, in order thai then 
the House on this novel proposition. 


The Speaker. The Chair did not so rule. The Clerk will proceed with the call of 
the roll. 
The Clerk resumed and concluded tin- call of the roll. 

The question was taken; and there were — yeas 94, nays 7^, not voting 117. 
So the order for the yeas and nays was reconsidered. 

July 2;">, 1882. 

Mr. Miller, as a question of personal privilege, sent to the Clerk's desk ami had 
read the remarks made in the Senate on the 21st instant by Mr. BUTLER, a .Senator 
from the State of South Carolina. 

Mr. BUCKNKR and Mr. CARLISLE made points of order that no question of personal 
privilege was involved in the puldieat ion read, and that controversies between Sena- 
tors and Representatives, of tins character, were in gross violation of parliamentary law 
and prop] iety. 

The Speaker overruled t he same, on the ground that the attack was made upon Mr. in I nth 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 




The Speaker, at llo'clock and 5H minutes a. in., announced the regular order of 
business to he, under the special order of the House adopted on the 21st instant, the 
further consideration id' the hill 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. TUCKEK moved to 
amend the said motion by adding thereto the following instructions, viz : 

With instructions to report a liill 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 equipmi nt of any steam or sail vessel constructed and equipped 
within the United States for any citizen of the United states or tor any foreign citizen or subject: 
Provided, That the same shall not apply to any such vessel to he engaged in the coast wise commerce of 
the United states 

Mr. HASKELL made the point of order that the said amendment submitted by Mr. 
Tr< KER was not in order. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker overruled the same, on the 

ground that the said lion was in order as an amendment of the mot ion to refer. 

under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the previous question not having been ordered or moved. 

In whicb decision the House acquiesced. 


Mr.SrRlNGER, from the same committee, reported without amendment the hill of 
the Senate ( s. 329) to authorize th«' preparation and publication of a classified, an- 
alytical, ami descriptive catalogue of all Goverumenl publications from July 4, 177ti, 
to' March I. 1881. 

Mr. HOLMAN made the point of order that the said hill 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, onthe ground 
1 hat as the Committee on Printing had the right to report at any time, it carried with 
ittherighl of present consideration in the House: which was in harmony with the 
p.i-t practice of the House, and with this view the Chair was inclined to adhere to 
thai practice, and consequently overruled the said point of order. 

From this decision of the Chair Mr. Holman appealed ; pending which, mi motion 
of Mr. Van VOORHIS, t he said appeal w as laid on the table. 


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. K a>s<>\ moved to recommit the said hill to the committee of conference, with 
i nst ructions to report the game with t he following proviso at t he end of t he lull, viz: 

Provided. That the Secretary of War, with the approval of the President, may limit any expend!, 
tore provided by this act to any less sum than that authorized therefor during the current fiscal > ear- 
in any case where in their opinion the public interest does not require the entire expenditure. 


The Speaker. Tlie Chair thinks it would nol be in order to so recommil the report 
to tlie conference committee. It is never in order to instruct the conference commit- 
tee to do ilia i which it could not do under the reference made of the matter to the 
committee in the firsl instance. 

Af.. i -i 2, 1882. 

Mr. Page, as a privileged question, called up the m< I the President return- 

ing the bill of the House (H. R. 6242) making appropriation for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and loi othci pur- 
poses, wiihout his signature and with his objections to its passage, and moved thai 
the House proceed to reconsider the said bill, on which motion Mr. Page moved the 
previous quesl ion. 

Mr. Kasson moved to refer the said message and hill to the Committee on < om- 
merce, with instructions: which motion he subsequently modified by withdrawing 
said instructions. 

Mr. PAGE made the point of order that the said mot ion was not now in on 

The Speaker held that the motion to refer would be in order but for the pendei 
of the motion for the previous question on the tirsl motion submitted bj Mr. Page. 

Mr. Kasson made the point of order that the motion to refer was in order, ler 

the practice of the House, and particularly under clause 1 of Rule XVII, which ;■ 
rmtted 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 fust made whether it would be in order to move to refer, and since the tion 

which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson | proposed to make was sen 1 to the Clerk, 
the Chair understands the gentleman from Iowa to have withdrawn that pari of his 

motion which included instructions to the committee. Clearly thai would 1 it 

of order. The House could nol instruct the committee to report the bill back with 
amendments, as it is a hill which the House itself could not amend when it was being 
considered. What the House cannot do itself ii cannot instruct a committee i" 

This hill comes back to the Housh by reason of the veto message of the President of 
tlie United States, and under the Constitution, paragraph -J. section 7. article 2, the 
House must proceed to reconsider it. Thai does not necessarily mean that the House 
may debate it. Reconsidering may be voting on it ; and perhaps that was all that was 
intended by the language of the (Don -tituti >n. The Chair would not intimate that 
if the House desires it may not debate ; but reconsideration might be had by simply 
voting on t he bill. 

It, is settled, the Chair thinks, by the practice, thai a motion to refer— a simple 
motion to refer— to a committee may be entertained. Bui the Chair thinks that thai 
motion to refer musi come in at the proper time. It is the tirst duty of the House, 
under tin- Constitution, as the chair interprets its language, to reconsider and pro- 
ceed tO VOte Upon the vetoed hill. If the House chooses, bj Ordering the pi''. 

question, to cut off debate upon this matter of reconsideration, thai is within the 
power of the House, [f the House .iocs not order the previous question, the Chair 
would hold that a motion to refer would be in order. It id claimed thai under Rule 
WIl of the House the motion to refer, being, as the Chair holds, eqmvaleul 
motion to commit, is in order. The (hair does nol think so. Rule WIl speaks 

entirely of the proceedings governing the ordinary passag he bill. It the 

whole "rule is read it will appear thai a motion lor the previous question 

first upon the engrossment and thud reading of the bill. Then, thai 

hausted itself upon the third reading of the hill, the second step is a motion toi the 

previous question upon the passage of the same hill, such a lull as the Ho 

ordered to he engrossed and read a third lime. 'I his rule r< lers to the , 

bill in the ordinary seuse. Tin- hill before us is al a differcnl 

.nidation of a bill which the House and Senate have already "'• 

purpose of dcte.mii, ine whether the House will l»j a tv Ihc bill, 

notwithstanding the President's veto as provided b\ tin - 

The Chair feels bound to hold that the i the pr< 

been .mule first, mnsl he (irsl submitted to the H If that be voii-il du 

Chaii will cut, rtain a mot ion to refer t he bill. 

.1 vnuaio i. c 

M, KA8SON, as a privileged question, under the order of llu 11 

December last from the Con ttee on R< in llu ' 

ferred the bill of the Senate (S, 133 I iilntc find impr. 

United States, reported the snme withoul amendment, toi 

Mr. C. LBERSON made the ,,o,nl of ordel that under i 


the bill of the House (H. R. 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 other purposes, approved March 3, 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 House 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 lias been made a special order 
the rule above cited was thereby waived. 

January 11, 1883. 

The House then proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the further consid- 
eration of the bill of the House (II. 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. Pack for section 18 of the bill. 

The question recurring on the amendment submitted by Mr. CaNDLEK 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 lien thereof the words "upon payment of an im- 
port duty of WO per cent, upon the value of." 

Mr. SPRINGER made the point of order that the said amendment was not in older, 
for the reason that it struck out of a proposition words to which the House has just 

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 withoul delay a bill providing for the purchase, free admission, and regis- 
try of foreign-built vessels, and for the tree 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 tim«>." Mr. Reed made the point of order thai the Baid modi- 
fication was not in order, for the reason that the House was dividing when the said 
modification was proposed, and also on the further ground that leave to report at any 
time was a change of the rules 

The Speaker overruled the firsl 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 lor the purpose of considering the bill of the House 
No. 7191 (fortification appropriation bill); when Mr. White made the point of order 
thai i be regular order of business was tin- consideration of unfinished business. 

The Speaker held the motion of Mr. Forney to be of higher privilege, under clause 
9 of Rule XVI. 


Febru \ky 13, L883. 

Mr. R. W. Townshend, as a privileged question, submitted the following resolu- 
tion, to amend the rules. 

* # ■¥ # - 

Mr. Mills made the point of order thai the resolution was not in order except 
by unanimous consent. 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground thai a motion i" amend 
tlw rules could be made on one day's notice, as pro> ided by clause 1 ol Rule \ \ 111. 
Imt also held that it was in older to move ti> refer the resolution to the C nit tee on 


Febrtj \i;v 26, I--::. 

Mr Reed, as a privileged question, called up the following resolution reported bj 

him on Sat unlay last from the Committee on Rules, \i/.: 

During the remainder of iliis session ii shall !><■ in order ;it anj li to more in suspend M 

which motion shall be decided by a majority vote, to take from the Speaker's table Uousi bill 

with the Senate amendment thereto, entitled "A bill to reduce internal-revenue taxation md 
to declare a disagreement with the Senate amendment to the same, and to ask For a comraittei o( con- 
ference thereon, to be composed of Ave members on the part of the House. If Buch motion Bb.aH t ul 
tin- bill shall remain upon the Speaker's table unaffected bj the decision of the lion-, upon 

Mr. BLACKBURN made the poinl 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 fad that the geutleman would 
have the righl to claim that he reserved the righl i<> make it before the question ol 
the consideration of that rule was submitted to the House. The (hair was not ad- 
vised of the nature of the poinl of order reserved by the gentleman; and the chair is 
clearly of the opinion that it onghl to have been stated before the Honse decided t<> 
go forward with the consideration of the resolution: for that is now the action ol the 
House, anil the Chair dies not very well see how his decision now would affect that 
order oi- override the action of the House, even if it should he held that the point ol 
order was good. Tin- chair, however, will take no advantage 

Mr. Bragg. Let me inquire, Mr. Speaker, if the chair did nol state to the gentle- 
man from Kentucky that the point ol order could be reserved .' 

The Speaker. Tin- (hair does not intend or propose to lake any advantage oi the 
condition in which this resolution has been placed by tin- action of the House. Bui 
at the time that this reservation of the point of order was made of course il could not 
be foreseen what action the House would take on the question of consideration. 

Mr. Bragg. Hut the Chair expressly stated that the reservation of the poinl "t 
order would he observed. 

The Speaker. The Chair repeats thai it has no intention of taking advantage ol 
the situation, and remembers very well all that took place 

It is proper for the chair to say that with tin- question of the constitutional pre- 
rogatives of the House, in tin- matier of originating revenue lulls, the chair now at 
least has nothing to do. That question does not enter into the decision ol 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 thai tills res Hon. 

if adopted, would not he a rule of the House. It would be rather earlj foi tn i 
to undertake to decide on that which is not before tin- House. It is reported n 
from i In- ( lommittee on Rules. . . 

i;,,t passing that, ii is perfectly competent, as the chair thinks, for thin H 
when tin- sul.jcct is properly broughl before it. to change even nileol the House ami 
all of the rules that have been adopted by the House. And onrlj in tit 
resolution ,,f the House was adopted authorizing the Committee on Rule* 
any time anychauge or modification of the rules or any new rules. I 
committee has been exercised perhaps in this case. Bui iu M 
on Rules has reported this rule as a substitute for various propositus 
character that have been introduced in Hie House and referred to 
This conns from the committee as a substitute tor them nil. 
Its effect, if the Chair is to look tn that, may be, ill till 

p,,i a8 ide other rules which would prevenl the Hon thai th< 

low. Bui tin- greater certainly includes the lesser, ll ' w m the,,,, 
mittee to reporl a rule to mspend the whole of Rule \ i 

amendment of the Senate, on the poinl of order being 

of the Whole House on He- state ,,f the Union. It is in the p 

to report to Ho- House a prop,,,,, mspend the rule I 

Sionof the rules l,v a two thuds sole. In othel 


ported from the committee, and properly, which would suspend or repeal or annul or 
set aside every rule of this 1 louse, 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 t<> a single great and important measure now pending before Congress, 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 

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]!, m. having arrived, the Speaker, in accordance with the order of 
the House ol February 7, instant, declared the House to be in recess until 7 o'clock 
and 30 minutes p. m. 


(7 o'clock and 30 minutes p. in.) 

* * * * * * * 

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 lions.- took a re- 

By unanimous consent the said motion was considered as withdrawn. 

The question recurring on the motion ol' Mr. Reed to lay on the table the appeal 
taken by Mr. BLACKBURN from the decision of the Chair, and being put, ir was de- 
cided in the affirmative. 

* * # * * * 

So the said appeal was laid on Hie 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 in the affirmative. 

Mr. Carlisle submitted tbe following resolution, viz: 

Resolved That the proposition now under consideration be recommitted to the Committee on Rules, 
with ini-tructionstbat if tbe same shall be again reported it shall be so amended as to permit the 
Bouse to vote upon a motion either to concur or to non-concur in the amendment oi the Senate to the 

bill ol' the House No. 558S, 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, 

Tbe SPEAKER. Tbe Chair will state thai 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!, 
thai it turns out. <>n examination of thai precedent, that it is not a precedent in 
support of the righl 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. < >ne moment, if the gentleman please. The motion to recommit was 
made on the L8th 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] thai he should have that right after the time 
bad arrived (January 19, L882), when the previous question was ordered, as stated by 
the ('hah -at the time the motion was made. The Chair will quote the exact lan- 
guage used : 

The Sri: \ki h ruder the arrangement made between the gentleman fiom Vermont and the gentle- 
man I' New Jersey their has been a motion made to recommit. 

That was made upon the previous day. So that for that reason it is not a prece- 
dent. And for the further 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 nor 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 l.y the gentleman from In- 
diana | Mr.] to recommit a proposition thai was presented here. The point 
was made and decided in this session or in this Cougress— the Chair thinks in this 

session, bill it may have 1 a in the last. And there the Chair decided according to 

its then opinion of the fair read inn of this rule. 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. Will the chair permit me to suggest, as it is late, thai 
be yield to a motion to adjourn and have the precedents to-morrow. It is now after 
9, and this is a very important mailer. 


The Speaker. The Chair understands its importance and does not desire t<> be 
hasty about it. If there be any general disposition on the pari of the Hous. 
jonru the Chair will nol proceed. [Cries of "No!" "No!"] 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. To tesl the sense of the House on thai point I mal 
the motion that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. Kasso.v. I make the poinl 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. Bui the Chair does nol feel inclined to yield unless Buch is the gen- 
eral desire of the House. 

Mr. Hammond, of Georgia. 1 am sorrj the Chair retracts its admission. How can 
we ascertain whether the sentiment be general or uol unless bj r vot. 

The Speaker. Gentlemen indicated was the sense of the House i>> cries of 
"No," &c. The Chairdoes not say the gentleman from Georgia interrupted the Chair 

The effect of the motion for the previous question is very clearly stated in the b 

paragraph of Rule KVII: 

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being order, d l>\ a majoritj of meml 
present, if a quorum, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a du 
upon the immediate question 01 questions on which ii has been asked and ordered. 

There can be no doubl but what the previous question can be asked and ordered 
upon a single motion, whether in writing or orally, or upon a series ot motions, or 
upon an amendment or amendments; and it may he made to embrace all authorized 
motions or amendments and include the hill to its engrossmenl and third reading. 

The principal purpose of the previous question is to bring the House to a direcl 
vote upon the pending question, and if other things intervene to delay such vote it 
must he by virtue of a plain provision of the rule. 

And then — 

The rule goes on to say — 
on renewal and second id' said motion — 

\fter the previous question has been ordered on a hill, before engrossmenl and afl 
it has been engrossed and read a thud time, which is only usual with b |oint 

resolutions, which under the Constituti f the United Mate, have the effecl ot bills 

and are treated as bills for all purposes ol Legislation— the rule then provides that- 

on renewal and second of said motion — 

The previous question on the passag ■ rejection may b( ordered. Now, the plain 

reading of this part of the rule is that it is dealing with the passage ol a bill. I Ben 
the rule further provides: 

It shall be iii ordei . pending the motion for ... after the previous question shall baye be. n ord. red on 
its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and Bubmil a motion to commit, with or without instruct! 
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 hill has several stages through which it must pass before H i an ne 
broughl toils passage. This refers, in the opinion of the Chair, to the passage ol » 

bill, and only a lull. . . . . , 

Then the motion to commit with or without instructions, in the opinion i 
Chair, can only be made pending or after the previous question has beet ii «»n 

the passage of the bill, and it is only by virtue of the rule thai thai motion can bo 
entertained. .,, It 

The latter clause ot this same paragraph sens lo make this perteetlj clear. 

states that — 

A motion to lay upon the table Bhall be in ord. r on the si cond and third i '"■ 

The Chair is of the opinion thai but for that. lause, after the previous queHtion« 
ordered a motion ... lay np-m the table would uol be in order. H » on s 

tions as are expressly authorized to be m. bj this rule afte. ll 

is ordered that can be made at all, and a mot, on to recommil 
single verbal motion, or a written motion cannot I.- made, 
can ii he .aid within the contemplation of the rule, to boon i 
bm wbicl 'goes through its various stages to its final pas 

motion after the previous question lias bee lered on its p 

or withoul instruct ion-. . v 

In theopini ■ the chair the point of ordei made bj the gentl. 

[Mr. REED] is well taken, and it is til. listi '»• 

Mr. Carlisle. 1 take an appeal from the iUcih i the < n 

Mi i;i i i. l move to lav thai appeal on the la 

Theqnestion was taken ; and there were ""-'• not vol 

So the appeal w a- laid on the table. 



February 27, 1882. 
Mr. N. J. Hammond, as a question of privilege, submitted the following resolution, 

xuwvuwu, xuhi me euusuiuie 01 me senate oill (li. K. .i..;js) entitled "An act to i educe, internal-rev- 
nne taxation, and for other purposes," under the form of an amendment to the bill of the House ill. 
v. 5538) entitled "An act to reduce internal-revenue taxation," containing a general revision and re- 
teal ot laws imposing both import duties and internal taxes, is in conflict with the true intent and 
purposes of that clause of the Constitution which requires "all bills forraising leven 
in the House of Representatives ; " and that therefore said bill so amended do li.- apt 

Resolved, That the substitute of the Senate bill (H. K. 5538) entitled "An act to i educe internal-rev- 
enue taxation, 

venue shall originate 
... upon the Table. 
And be it .further resolved, 1 bar the Clerk of the House be, and is hereby, directed to notify the Sen- 
ate ol 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 hills. 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 

The House having proceeded to it's consideration, after 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 tor 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 tor a committee ol conference thereon, to be composed of live members on the part of the House. 

Mr. Carlisle made the point of order that the said resolution was not in order, 
for the reason that the said bill was not before the House for present consideration. 

The Speaker sustained the same, on the ground 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. 
Kasson 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 
once a disagreement with the Senate amendments with a view of immediately put- 
ting the bill and amendments in conference. On the ground, therefore, that theques- 
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 litle.33 of the Revised Statutes, which pro- 
vides lor duties on imports, baa been so modified and changed by the introduction of new provisions. 
containing, among otheT fchings.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 (.pinion 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 it' this bill shall be referred to a oommitteeof 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 ol Hie House m regard thereto, before said committee of conference, and if necessary, in their 
opinion, alter ha vine con felted with Ho- Senate conferees, Baid conferees 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 
bo the bill such as grow out of the alleged violation of the Constitution by the Senate 
in passing an impost bill as a portion of an a ndincnt to an internal- revenue bill 

ploposed by the lion- e. 

From this decision of i he Chair Mr. X. .). Hammond appealed : pending which, on 

motion of -Mr. REED, the said appeal was laid on tin- table. 

March 2, 1883* 

Mr. Butterworth, from i he commit t c f conference on the disagreeing votes of 

the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House (H. K. 


7077) making appropriations for the support of the A.rmj for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1884, and for other purposes, submitted the following report, viz : 

* # # * # -•# 

The accompanying statement having been read, Mi. Bragg made the point of or- 
der that the statement accompanying the said reporl \\ as nut in order, tin i lie reason 
that it was nut in compliance or conformity with Rule XXIX, anil also the furthei 

point of order that the report itself was nut in compliance with the Baid rule. 

# # # # * » » 

The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground thai ii hh- nut for the 
Chair to decide whether a conference reporl ami accompauying statemenl was or was 

not in strict conformity with said rule, that being a question of fact. 

March ::. L883. 

Mr. Kkli.i:y, as a. privileged question, from the commitl >f conference on the dis- 
agreeing votes of tin' two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the hill of the 
House | II. R. 5538) to reduce internal-revenue taxation, submitted the following 
port, viz: 

* * * * * » # 

Mr. Bayne made the point of order that the said reporl was nut in order fur pres- 
ent consideration, on the ground that the detailed statemenl required by Rule X\l\ 
did not accompany said report. 

After debate on the said point of order, the Speaker sustained the same, on the 
ground thai the paper submitted by Mr. Keixey, entitled " Index to changes pro- 
posed by the enmmitt >f conference," though signed by the majority of tin- confer- 
ees on the part of the House, was not in c pliance with the last clause of Rule 


Mr. Kki.i.kv 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 nut such a state- 
ment as is required by the rule, fur the reason that it only states tin- effed of the 
amendment proposed t>y the Senate, whereas the rule requires a statement sufficiently 
explanatory to show the effed <>\' the propositions reported by the committee. 

The Speaker overruled the point at' order. 



Apportionment of representation ' '■' 

Appropriation bills, legislation in 16, 89 

Army of the United States 22,52 

Army, civil appointments — 1' 

Army at the polls 61,97,103 

Bank reserves 

Chandler, Zachariah, on death of 

Cincinnati Representatives 

Contracts, < Jovernmenl 

Counting electoral vote ''-" 

Courts, appointments by 

Court of pensions ' ' - 

Deputy marshals at the polls 90, 116 

Discharged soldiers, appointment of 

Distinguished < (Moans 

Election cases. Wigginton vs. Pacheco 

Bradley vs. Slemons 

Bisbee vs. Hull l34 

Yeates vs. .Martin 136 

Election laws, repeal of iq? 

Examining surgeons, lees of 

Funding bill, supplemental -. - 

Geneva award .' 

Inventors, taxing ]: 

Letter carriers, pay of, &c - ■-- -'!.' 

Mail matter, classification of '' 

Parliamentary decisions '■'•' l j~ 

Patent extensions 

Paymasters, age of z. 

Peace at the polls ''_' 

Tension agents Jji 

Politics in the jury box 

Public lands, proceeds of, for education 

Rule XXI 

Resumption of specie payments [ 

Soldiers' Home managers 

Speaker, election, address of -■ ' 

vote Of thanks, valedictory ] 'j. 

Surveys, coast and interior 

Spirits, unpaid tax on - 

Trade-dollar .' .. 

War claims, Bartholomew Agricultural Society 
Richard 1 [eater --- 

Williamand Mar\ College 

John T. Armstrong .. z. '. 

Southern. &C 

fellow-fever epidemic ■ 



Adjourn — 

Ruling that pending a motion to suspend rules but one motion to, was in order. 159 
Alaska — 

Ruling that proposition to seat M. D. Ball as Delegate from, was not a privi- 
leged question 

Amendment — 

Ruling as to, being germane 154 

Ruling that, could not be offered while demand for previous question was 

pending 155 

Ruling that certain resolutions relating to "lull to reduce internal revenue 

taxation" was in order as, to rules 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, Rule XXI 176 

Appeals — 

Ruling that t wo, cannot be pending at the same time 165 

Apportionment — 

Ruling thai bill making, of Representatives under last census was a priv- 
ileged question 155 

Appropriation rill — 

Ruling that motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a gen- 
eral, was of higher privilege than unfinished business HI 


(See Committee of the Whole.) 
(See also Polygamy.) 
(See ulso Utah Territory.) 
Business — 

Ruling that when a day has been assigned a committee it may present such, 

as it deems proper 172 

Clerk's boll (see «!*<> Roll of Clerk Bouse of Representatives) — 

Ruling as to 153 

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 hill, a point of order 

requiring its consideration in, came too late 157 

Ruling that certain bill relating to bigamy was not subject to requirement of 

clause:!. Rule XXI: that it must receive its tirst consideration in _. 158 

Ruling that motion to recommit report of, was not in order 182 


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 172 

Conference report — 

Ruling thai a detailed statement must accompany a 172 


Ruling that question of, cannot he raised againsl assignment of a day to a com- 
mittee 171 

Ruling thai rigid of Committee on Printing to report at any time carried with 

it righl of 182 

Constitutional privilege — 

Killing as to question of 188 



Debate — Pa £<* 

DklkuItf— h!,t ' ° an ^ u>nninated onl y b - y ordering previous question 

KUn ruest1ou r ° POSiti0ntOS, ' at M ' ° BaU as "'"'" Ala8ka ' wasnota Privileged 

Delegates — " — '' ;( ' 

Ruling as to swearing in of ... 

Detailed statement — ' 

Ruling that a, must accompany a conference report 
Rulings as to sufficiency of, required by Rule XXI 


Dilatory motions — 

Rulin S tbat > were not iu orde r pendinga proposition to change the rulesofthe 

Germane — 16 ~ 

Ruling as to amendment being, .- , 

Rulings that an amendment was not, either to pend^ga'mend'nVenVorlubiect 
matter of pending bill 

House of Representatives — 

Ruling as to organization of 

Ruling as to pri v i I eges of 


Killing that certain, to committee not in order 1 56 

Ruling that, could not be given a conference committee on" a subiVctnotin 

(•inference .-., 

Ruling that, were in order by way of amendment "to motion to"refer"under 

clause 4. Rule XVI . . ., 

[NQUIRY — J * 

Ruling as to resolution of j- fi 

Ruling as to reporting resolution of, within one week "after "reference " 160 

Leave to report at axy time— 

Ruling that, carried with it right of consideration when reported I - I 

Minority — ^ 

Ruling that, of a committee could not propose legislation or submit views as 

matter oi parliamentary right _ ,-- 

Modification — 

Ruling as to, of proposition , -- 

Ruling that, of motion by adding "with leave to "report" atany "time ("was 

not in order , . 

Organization of House (see House of Represextatiyi •- 
Polygamy (set Bigamy and Committee of the Wiuue) 
Preamble — 

Ruling that a certain, was not in order, being in the nature of debate 171 

Previous Question— 

Ruling that demand for, precludes amendment tv, 

Printing — 

Ruling as to, of reports ,** 

Ruling that right of Committee on, toreportat any time carried with it right 

ol consideration when reported ion 

Privilege— " 

Killing as to question of, concerning H. of R. l.M 

Ruling that alleged fraudulent transactions in taking testimonj in contested" 

election case was a question of ln-> 

Ruling that a protest was not a question of. 166 

Ruling as to question of personal I -•> 

Ruling that question of constitutional, must be disposed ofindepi adenl ofool- 

lateral or subsidiary questions [gg 

Ruling that certain resolution presented question of constitutional . 1-- 

PRTVILEGED QUESTION (set also Alaska) — 

Ruling that a hill making apportionment of Representatives under last census 

"■■»— 156 

Protest — 

Kuling t hat a. does u..i present question of privilege 
Question <>f privilege -< Privileged question 

Ruling as to, presented by Mr. White j — j 

L'i:< i 88 — 

Ruling that motion lor a. not m ordei during reading of a report from Com- 
mittee on Rules . 

90 a— k 13 



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 cover or include 

pend ing proposition 1 86 

Reconsider — 

Ruling that one motion to, vote hy which yeas and nays were ordered was in 

order l? 9 

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 dilatorv motions were not in order pending 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 1*3 

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 18J 

Strike out — 

Ruling that motion to, matter j ust inserted not in order .,_ lap 

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 -- 1*6 

Utah Territory— 

Ruling as to Delegate from '•>* 

Veto — 

Ruling that motion to refer, message was not in order pending demand lor 

previous question l*j» 

Vote— ; 

Ruling as to right of Speaker to - -•■'<* 

Voting — 

Ruling that request of member to be excused from, on motion to adjourn 

was not in order ''•'- 

Yeas and nays — 

Ruling in order motion to reconsider vote by which, were ordered 1 <•» 



SE 1 'ENTH CI > m ■ /.' ESS. 

[Taken from Index to < .'onjjrresxioiiiil liecord ; (inures refer to pane of Record.] 

First Session. 


Rules that motion to adjourn over is not a motion to change rules 41o':5 

Rules that vote on motion to fix time to which adjourn is subject to mot inn 

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 421 8 

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 vea-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 poinl 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 reqnesl to be excused from voting on a motion to lav 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, 21C7 

Rules that yeas and nays are not required on passage of an appropriation 

bill under suspension of rules ■'"'■'~' 

Business (See also Special orders. I 

States order of calling committees for motions to suspend rules 137 

Rules on precedence of contested-election cases 3273, 3274, 3315, 3441, Ho:; 

Rules that demand for regular order can not be withdrawn conditionally. 3512 

Rules that recess does not all'eet status of pending motion. 1247 

Call of committees — 

Rules that under praet ice of House he cannot ent.rtaina motion for consid- 
eration during 5139 

Call of House— 

Ruled thai acommittee having leave to sit during sessions oi House could 
be compelled to attend by order of House and thai motion to excuse at- 
tendance of committee pending call of the House not in order 

Rules that no other business in order pending.. ■ ,|,; ' Ul, ~ 

Rules not in order to introduce a resolution for reference during " 12 

Gall of States — 

Rules thai resolution to discharge a committee is nol in ordei nnuei appeal 

from decision laid on tabic at* 

Rules that privileged questions take precedence of •' ' 

Commitment — 

State- his opinion that Chair mav correct impropei '• i. ,. n. e Oi bills at time 

stat." bis opinion thai change oi referenceof a bill is nol a question of priv- 



Commitment — Continued. 

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 
Rules 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 1853 

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 find — 

Rules that resolutions making appropriations to be paid out of contingent 
fund of House are not subject to rule requiring tirst consideration in Com- 
mittee of Whole 4852 

Control of measure — 

Decision, and debate relative to, after adverse action of House on original 

proposition „ 1 132-1142 

Debate — 

Decision, and debate relative to right of member to yield floor to another 

without limitation of purpose 1130-1142 

Remarks relative to control of debate, alter adverse action of House on original 

proposition 11:59-11 12 

Rules it out of order lor member to attack a member of Senate for words 

Spoken in debate in that body fi5 "*'' 

Dilatory MOTIONS — 

Rules them out of order on a proposition to amend rules; appeal from de- 
cision laid on table 4324 

protest against ruling 4325 

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 



Journal — 

Rules that motions not entertained should not be entered on Journal unless 

House directs - 1332, I 

Boles that motion to amend .1 on rnal takes precedence <>!' motion to approve l ; 
Laying on table — 

Rules that motion to lay on table is in 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 '," 

Minority reports — 

Rules that they are not reports of committee 3317,6416 Ml!) 

Organization of House — 

Rulings on various points of order during 9-15, 35-39 

Personal explanations — 

Ruleson cases presented as questions of privilege -723 725, 1208, 1209,6526 6529,6889 
Previous question — 

Rules that motion to lay on table can be entertained after yeas and nays or- 
dered on ' •'" 

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 61 00 

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 - ! 18! 15 
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 *3 - 26 

Questions of privilege — 

States his opinion that change of reference of a bill is not question of pri\ ilege 322 

Rules correction ot Record to he — - 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 1 208 1215 

Rules that resolutions condemning action of majority and of the Chair are not 
questions of privilege, and that motion to lay them on the table is in or- 
der and not debatable -- -• 1398 1400 

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 1280 
Rules that a vote being taken and declared and the yeas and nays fchen called 

for and refused, it is too late to raise point of order that uo quorum rated 1>H 

Rules that point of no quorum does no1 hold against a vote lemand for 

yeas and nays -- - ' '•'" 

Recess — 

Rules that, doc not affect status of pending motion »->' 

Rules thai pending a motion to adjourn motion no1 in ordei foi a recess oi to 

vacate a previous order for a recess .. --■ '•'' ' ' 

Recognj roN— 

Rules that there is do appeal on question of. -• ' , ' 1 ' 

Rkcommi tmknt — . 

Rules that amendments may be offered to motion foi 

Rules out of order motion to recommit with instructions to report back mat- 
ters not germane --• 

Rules that a motion to recommit with instructions is nol in ordei U "toon- 

tains anythingin itself ot by way of preamble inthenatureol debate 
Rules thai amotion to recommit pending the demand foi previous question \s 
not subject to amendment 


Reconsi deration — age ' 

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 3075 

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 notice, and that on being reported back is subject to con- 
sideration .1 jl 6314 

Speaker's vote — 

Debate and remarks of Speaker relative to his right to vote 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 1 3947 

Rules that a special order for consideration of a bill reciting what amend- 
ments will be in order on consideration excludes ^ro/o/-m« 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 AVhole 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 lor or against measure under 3477. 347^ 

relative to motions in order pending motion for 3491 

Rules that under call of committees for mot ions 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 tor 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 



Suspensions of rules — 

Rules that a motion to adjourn having been made and voted down pendinga 
motion to suspend rules, thai another motion to adjourn is not in ordex 
until call of the House has disclosed lack of quorum.- 5122 

Rules that a motion to adjourn being made pending a mot inn to suspend rules, 

that a motion to tix time to which House adjourn is not in order . 5616 

Veto — 

Rules that, may he 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 1272 

Rules that request to be excused from voting on motion to lav an appeal on 

table is not in order 4326 

Rules that an objection does not prevent a member from withdrawing his 

vote ... - 111 i 

Yeas and nays — 

Rules that motion to lay on table can he entertained alter yeas and nays or- 
dered on previous question . 158 

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 yeas and nays not required on passage of an appropriation hill un- 
der suspension of rules 50! '7 

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 . 139 

Amendment — 

Rules in order motion to strike out or amend an amendment to an amendment 

he fore original amendment- perfected 1 122, I 123 

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 a1 any time extendsonlj to bills raising rev< ane 529 
Committees of the Whole — 

Debate on methods of stopping debate in, and decision thai mot ion to strike 

out enacting clause is debatable — 61,62 

Conference committee— 

Rules relative to referring constitutional objection to the tariff hill to 

Conference reports — 

Rulings relative to nature of written reporl required bj the rules 3709 3712 

Consideration — 

Rules that unanimous consent given to reporl hack at anj time carries with il 
righl of consideration, hut that question of consideration maj be raised 
Rules that member can raise question of consideration againsl a hill without 

reference to matter he proposes to call up it' question carried 1582 

Enacting cl u be — 

Decision of Committee of Whole that motion to strike out i- debatable <;i 

Chairman of Committee of Whole rules that motion to amend lull may he 
made pending the motion to strike out enacting clause, hut that lottei 

motion must be first voted on 

Engrossment — 

Rules thai point of order that a hill has not actually been engrossed cannot 

be made after bill read a third time 186 

Leaves of absence — 

h'liles that request for leave <>!' absence is not subject u> amendment i Mi 

Rules that House has righl by majority vote to granl 

Rules thai if more than fifteen members present il requires majority ol those 
present to granl - 

huh- that motion to adjourn would take precedence of Bubmttl 

for leave of absence, bul thai motion for a recess to take effect at future 

time would not affed righl of members to Bubmit requests foi i '■- 



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 
Recommits l — 

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 I . 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 h 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 

Strikingout — 

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 


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