be obliged to change their old definition of "loyalty" from lealty or loyalty to law, and define it to mean only allegiance to the Republican party, to the party in power.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] on my left, avows plainly and directly before the country, and I admire the audacity with which he avows it, that the whole and sole object of incorporating Florida in this bill is to secure the ratification of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will excuse but I said neither the whole nor the sole

me, of it.

Mr. BROOKS. I do not wish to misrepresent the gentleman. Let him repeat what he said.

Mr. BINGHAM. Well, I said nothing of the kind. I said that upon the admission of the sixth State might depend the ratification of that amendment; and I stated that as a strong reason why the State should be admitted.

Mr. BROOKS. Ah, that is simply the same idea in other words; or, in point of fact, the gentleman has consulted his arithmetic, his addition and subtraction, and by the process of two of the great rules of arithmetic he has come to the conclusion that unless Florida be included in this omnibus bill the proposed fourteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution cannot be carried; that it is necessary, in order to carry that amendment, to include Florida in this bill, and to admit her with these other States. That is the idea which the gentleman avows. So that while one gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] avows "loyalty," alias Republicanism, as his definition of the standard by which the admission of States is to be determined, the other gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] lays it down as his fundamental creed that in order to change the Constitution of the country, it is necessary, according to his arithmetic, no matter what may be the constitution of Florida, no matter whether the State may be rebellious or anti-rebellious, to overlook and override all other considerations and to admit the State for that object, if not for that object alone. And this is an argument which he addresses to the intelligence, to the patriotism, to the loyalty of the other side of the House, in order to consolidate those ranks over there which have been divided; and he thinks that by an appeal of this sort, altogether of a party character, he can make men change their opinions; and for that purpose, if not for that purpose alone, to alter the very fundamental law of this country. I admire the audacity of that avowal. It may be useful, if not now, hereafter, that posterity may see why and with reference to what the Constitution of the country has been changed.

Sir, if I could look upon this question as being, what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] declares it to be, a question not of principle but of policy, I do not know but that I should agree with him as to the admission of the State of Florida in this omnibus bill. Sir, the party in power will reap no profit hereafter from this arrangement. Conceived in fraud, brought forth in iniquity, as this constitution and that convention were, the admission of the State under such an organization, though it may serve the temporary purpose of securing a change in the Federal Constitution, can result in no good, but rather detriment, to the party in power.

As I have before stated on this floor, two sets of Yankees-carpet-baggers" from the North and the West-one set from the distant State of Wisconsin, and the other from New England, not having been absent from there long enough to have lost the nasal twang with which they started from their original homes, came before the Reconstruction Committee and contested long and earnestly the question which set of these "carpet-baggers" properly represented the sentiment of the State of Florida. So earnest had been this same contest in that State that General Meade was brought from his headquarters at Atlanta to settle the contro

versy between the two contending factions of the convention. Equally earnest, equally fruitful in invective and denunciation were these two sets of Yankees that appeared before the Reconstruction Committee. By this bill the

Wisconsin set of Yankees is received and the New England set rejected; and the constitution and laws of the State have been so arranged that when the Governor-elect of the State shall be elected to the United States Senate, as he will be, the Lieutenant Governor, also from Wisconsin, steps in and becomes the Governor, with all the appointing power and all the patronage which this bill will concentrate in the hands of that officer. Sir, not only was the constitution conceived in fraud, but the elec tions were brought forth in iniquity.

We are told that there are twenty-four thousand voters in the State of Florida. The marvel is between these two sets of contending Yankees before the negroes of Florida that the twenty-four thousand was not aggravated into the number of two hundred and forty thousand voters. If the contest had been severe and sharp enough before the ignorant negroes of Florida these votes might not only have been multiplied, but doubled and quadrupled, increased from twenty-four thousand to two hundred and forty thousand. Give me a committee of this House to visit the State of Florida, and I will show that in no primary election in the State of New York ever conceived there in fraud, and never in any place whatever, in the innermost recesses of any invisible grogshop, was ever conceived a system of election more fraudulent, more rascally, more villainous than the mass of these elections in the various counties of Florida. Yet here, without investigation, without looking behind the record at all, the honorable gentleman from Ohio comes in and tells us twenty-four thousand voters have voted to support this constitution of Florida.

The other honorable gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER] says that he would not look with a microscopic eye into these constitutions at all; and yet in this Florida constitution, in an amendment not submitted here, but in the Senate, in an amendment which comes down to us from the Senate, is a fundamental law fixed by us, a law as irreversible, as irrepealable, as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, a law which puts it out of the power of Florida hereafter to regulate suffrage at their own election, which fixes and ingrafts upon the constitution of Florida for all time to come an immutable law in reference to the right of suffrage in Florida. Sir, this is not the work of Florida. This is the microscopic view of the two Houses of Congress in order to fix forever the right of the negroes to suffrage.

Sir, you legislate in this way in vain. The intelligence, the education of the country, to say nothing of the white race of the country, must govern there as everywhere else in the land.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I wish the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me for five minutes. Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman for five minutes.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I desire to say a word in reference to the regularity of the proceedings under the reconstruction law. I hold in my hands the proceedings of what is called the Reed party, submitted to the Reconstruction Committee by Lieutenant Governor Gleason. I will read from that statement:

"The convention met, pursuant to General Pope's order, upon the 20th of January. There were only twenty-nine delegates present of the forty-six elected, in consequence of the lack of facilities for traveling, the State being nearly destitute of railroads, and the steamboat communication irregular and uncertain, An effort was made to postpone the election of president until absent members could arrive, but the friends of Daniel Richards objected to any delay, and he was elected as president of the convention.'

I will not read further. I can state the facts in fewer words. They became dissatisfied with the rulings of the convention and with the

appointment of the committees. Those who were thus dissatisfied left the convention for the purpose of leaving it without a quorum. They learned afterward the convention had made up a constitution, and had adjourned in order to hear from General Meade. They therefore returned, I think about eleven o'clock at night, and took possession of the hall. They then passed a resolution entering their solemn protest against the unauthorized, unprecedented, and arbitrary conduct of the presiding officer, Daniel Richards; that, himself ineligible to a seat in this body, as shown by the certificates of the board of registration, he had appointed a committee of three ineligible persons to determine the question of eligibility, and when an addition was asked to that committee he had refused to allow them to report. Then, at the close of the proceedings-and to this fact I desire also to call the attention of my colleague-in order to get the signatures of the delegates in that convention, they passed an ordinance that no delegate should have his pay unless he signed the constitution. That ordinance was passed by the convention. It is not to be found in the constitution, because it was not an ordinance to be submitted to the people. But both parties testified before the Committee on Reconstruction to that fact. The committee heard the statement of both parties when they were both present, so there was no possible chance of mistake in regard to the fact. I submit to my colleague whether this makes the proceedings regular and in accordance with the act of Congress.

Mr. BINGHAM. It is a very easy matter, I think, to answer all that has been said by my colleague on the committee [Mr. FARNSWORTH] touching the irregularity of this proceeding. It is very well settled in this country that the presentation of a constitution by the people of any organized Territory, or of any disorganized State of the Union, if you please, is a mere exercise of the right of petition; and it would be a sad day for the people of any State or Territory if it were in the power of their elected delegates in convention assembled by withdrawing in any manner from the convention to take away from them their undoubted right, upon their own motion, if you please, not contrary to law, but subordinate to it, to frame a constitution, vote upon it as your law requires, and present it to the Congress of the United States for approval. It is a question that was settled nearly forty years ago under the administration of President Jackson, settled in the light of an opinion delivered to the Congress of the United States by his distinguished and learned Attorney General, and from that day to this I have never seen it challenged by any man of any party deliberately, in Congress or out of it. It is for the people to pass upon the constitution of Florida, adopted by the people under your own law, no matter who draws up the form. It is for the people to pass upon it. That is the substance of your law; that the people may adopt constitutions of government in the late insurgent States.

Mr. WOODWARD. I ask the gentleman to name a State of this Confederacy which has had its constitution forced upon it by a military power.

Mr. BINGHAM. In the first place we have no confederacy. There was a confederacy sometime ago whose capital was in Richmond, but we have got no confederacy and no confederation now. We have a nationality; we have a Republic.

Mr. WOODWARD. I deny it.

Mr. BINGHAM. I know the gentleman denies it. So does Jefferson Davis.

Mr. WOODWARD. I deny that we have a nationality.

Mr. BINGHAM. I know the gentleman denies that we have a nationality. If we have no nationality, in God's name, by what name are we known among the nations of the earth? Mr. WOODWARD. The gentleman does not answer my question.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do answer the gentle

man's question; but I want to answer one part of it first, and I want him to understand that I do not admit that we are without a nationality. Neither do I admit that we are but a confederacy. It was necessary that there should be this conflict between the gentleman and myself, for it rests upon conviction.

It can

Now, as to the other point suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WooDWARD,] of a constitution forced upon a people by the bayonet within the Republic as the constitution of a State. I say it has never been done by the Government of the United States, nor is it attempted to be done now. The bayonet did not compel the people to vote. not compel them to vote. The gentleman ought to remember the words of the great tribune of the people of France when he said, Bayonets have no power over the will of the people." They have no more power over the will of the people than they have over the omnipotence of God himself. You may crush men by the bayonet, you may torture men by the wheel, but you can neither by the force of the bayonet nor the torture of the wheel compel freemen to vote! It is a libel upon the freemen of America, unworthy of the place and unjust to the people for any man to talk about American freemen, either among the everglades of Florida or among the granite hills of New England, being compelled to vote by the bayonet. I tell the gentleman he libels the American character when he intimates that any portion of the freemen of this country anywhere, North, South, East, or West, ever voted by compulsion of the bayonet. They vote voluntarily. They vote as freemen only dare vote, according to the convictions of their own minds and according to the purposes of their own will. That is my answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, but do not delay me. Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman has told us in very emphatic language that bayonets cannot force men to vote. Well, possibly that may be so, although a friend on my left says he has felt the power of the bayonet, and knows it has some compulsion in it. But I put the question to the gentleman if bayonets may not prevent men from voting, and stand between them and the exercise of the right of suffrage?

Mr. BINGHAM. That is another and very different question, sir, and that is the very thing that was done.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. That was the very thing that was done in these States.

Mr. BINGHAM. That was the very thing that was done for four long years by that party that followed the black banner of treason under the lead of gentlemen who called themselves the confederate States of America, and who seem to find an ally in the gentleman from Wisconsin, from the question which he propounds to me. I deny, sir, that American freemen have ever under the laws of Congress or by the will of the great body of the American people been deterred from voting according to their will and pleasure in accordance with the requirements and subject to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Twentyfour thousand men in Florida, constituting three fourths of the freemen of the State, entitled either under its ancient constitution or under our own laws of reconstruction to vote, and constituting the body of that people, acted under no coercion whatever. The man is inexcusable who undertakes to raise any such question here. It was in the power of the people of Florida to sit quietly in their homes, and there was no one to make them afraid or to

drag them to the polls. On the contrary, they went voluntarily for the purpose of restoring that State, broken and blasted by armed rebellion, to its former place in the Union, and to give to its people their proper political power in the councils of the nation.

Mr. BECK. I would ask the gentleman whether in this very bill you are not seeking to impose upon the people of Alabama a consti

tution which not only General Meade, but this House, has declared was rejected by the people of that State in the manner provided by your own law, namely, by staying away from the polls? Mr. BINGHAM. Not at all. It never was any part of the law to which the gentleman refers that those men who stayed away and would not vote either one way or the other should deprive seventy-eight thousand qualified electors of the right of petition; nor was it, as my honorable colleague [Mr. SHELLABARGER] right well knows, ever the intention of any gentleman upon this floor who had anything to do with framing those bills to put it in the power of a set of men lately in rebellion to take away from the representatives of the people in Congress assembled the right at any time to alter, amend, or repeal their own laws in the interest of the common country and in the interest of the loyal people. Seventy-eight thousand freemen in Alabama voted for that constitution; and the gentleman from Kentucky, when he turns back the records of his country, will find that the party with which he is in some sort of alliance upon this floor deemed it important, in violation of every provision of the Constitution, to admit a foreign State into this Union after the treaty-making power had rejected it, represented by only twelve thousand voters, by joint resolution did admit the then foreign State of Texas. But that was in the interest of that Democracy which made merchandise of men; and this movement to day is in the interest of that Democracy which secures freedom to all men and equal rights of suffrage, irrespective of social position, irrespective of complexion, irrespective of wealth, upon the simple condition of citizenship, adherence, and loyalty to the Constitution and laws of the United States within the several States of the Union. This is the marked distinction between the positions occupied by that party which the people have broken up and destroyed, and that great party which to-day represents the intellect and the heart and the conscience, not only of America, but of the civilized world.

And this brings me now to the point which I was approaching when the gentleman interrupted me. I desire to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] my associate on the Committee on Reconstruction. He undertook to limit the meaning of the few opening remarks which I made by incorporating into those remarks the words, "The sole purpose, the only purpose, the whole purpose, of admitting Florida is to secure the ratification of the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Audacity! Sir, is it not audacity in the gentleman, and in the miserable party which he represents, to undertake to thwart in this manner the solemnly declared will of the American people, from Maine to Oregon? Does not the gentleman know that within the last two years the people of twenty-three organized States of this Union, by overwhelming majorities, have declared that it is their will that the Constitution of the United States shall be so amended that State secession and State rebellion shall hereafter be left without color of excuse, without color of authority in that Constitution? Does he not know that the people within those twenty-three States, representing not less than twenty-five millions of the people of this nation, have not only declared that which I have just uttered, but have declared further that no State of this Union shall levy contributions to the extent of a single farthing for the purpose of paying the expenses of rebellion against the Government or the Constitution of the United States?

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

Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir; not now. I am dealing with the audacity of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] I want to know whether it was not audacity in the party which the gentleman undertakes to represent here, after the people of Ohio, by a majority of from forty to fifty thousand, had declared in favor of this fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in a minority in the last vote in the State of Ohio, though by accident a majority in the Legislature, to dare to repeal the recorded will of that people and undertake to revive the expiring fortunes of that rebellion which has covered the land with graves and has filled the land with lamentation?

The gentleman speaks of audacity. Sir, the people will answer that at the polls; they have answered it, and will answer it again.

The gentleman, however, has undertaken to play the role of prophet here upon this occasion, and gives us warning that the enactment of this bill, and the admission of those States, and the ratification by them of the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution will not profit us? How does the gentleman come to speak so authoritatively? Has he been gifted with the vision of the seer? Does he sup pose that the people of the United States are about to take a step backward; that they are about to legalize treason again under the pretense that the sovereignty of the State is superior to the sovereignty of the nation? Does

he

suppose that they are going to fall back and adopt the theory suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WOODWARD,] that they are no nationality after all; that they are

The gentleman says there was audacity in my statement. Audacity in what, sir? Audacity in saying that we should lift up the fallen columns of the Republic? Audacity in saying that we should restore ten States, broken and disorganized by rebellion, to their places in the Union? Audacity to make again this great people one people from sea to sea? Audacity in using the words of the great Declaration to take new securities for the future safety of the people of this country, North and South, East and West? I expressed in those remarks which the gentleman calls audacious, merely the declared will of the people of the United States.

ent States, each sovereign within its own territorial limits? Does he, when he gives out these oracular sayings of his, suppose that the people of the United States are really to entertain for a moment the exploded theories of that great and astute man who so long led the South by the splendor of his intellect and the profundity of his logic, John C. Calhoun, that the Government of the United States is nothing but a mere agent, the principals of which are separate, sovereign, and independent States of the Union? God forbid that the gentleman should prove in this matter a prophet of God, or even a prophet of that inferior being who sometimes ventures to prophesy evil in his own name! I trust it may fare with the gentleman in the course of his prophetic pilgrimages as it fared with the prophet of old when he ascended the mountain for the purpose of cursing God's Israel, and on his way was met by the angel, beautiful and immortal, guardian of men and nations, when, lifting his eyes, he saw the plains white with the tents of the chosen, the rescued, the redeemed, and the protected people, was compelled, instead of cursing, to utter blessings and exclaim, "How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel!"

Let the House do its duty. Let this Con

gress restore the disorganized States and bring them back to equal representation in the Congress of a common country. Let it go out all over the world that our feuds are ended, that we are again one united people, having at last but one country, one Constitution, and one destiny; and the whole earth will clap its hands with joy that the Republic, the last refuge of afflicted humanity upon earth, still lives, and by the blood of its patriot martyrs is redeemed, regenerated, and immortal among the nations. The SPEAKER. The first question is on the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] to amend the Senate amendments by striking out "Florida" wherever it

occurs.

Mr. BROOKS. On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 45, nays 99, not voting 45; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Burr, Cobb, Eldridge, Eliot, Farnsworth, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Harding, Holman. Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Julian, Knott, Marshall, Maynard, McCormick, McCullough, Morrissey, Niblack, Nicholson, Paine, Phelps, Pike, Price, Randall, Robinson, Sawyer, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Taffe, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Van Trump, Elihu B. Washburne, and Woodward-45.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom. Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hawkins, Higby, Chester D. Hubbard, Halbard, Ingersoll, Judd, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz. Laflin, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, McClurg: Mercur. Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Pomeroy, Raum, Robertson, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom-99.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Arnell, Barnum. Boutwell, Cary, Chanler, Finney, Fox, Haight, Hill, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kelley, Kerr, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, McCarthy, Moorhead, Mungen, Nunn, Orth, Perham, Peters, Poland, Pruyn, Ross, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodbridge-45.

So the amendment of Mr. FARNSWORTH was not agreed to.

D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom-110,

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Arnell, Baker, Barnum, Boutwell, Cary, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Finney, Fox, Griswold, Haight, Hill, Hooper, Asabel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Judd, Kelle. Kerr, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, McCarthy, Moorhead, Mungen, Nunn, Orth, Perham, Peters, Poland, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Randall, Ross, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Smith, Stewart, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodbridge-51.

So the amendments of the Senate were not laid upon the table.

During the vote,

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, stated that Mr. HUNTER, who would vote in the negative, was paired with Mr. HAIGHT, who would vote in the affirmative.

Mr. NIBLACK stated that Mr. KERR, who was absent by leave of the House, would vote against the bill in all its forms.

The reading of the bill, by unanimous consent, was dispensed with.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

The question recurred on concurrence in the amendments of the Senate.

Mr. BOYER demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 111, nays 28, not voting 50; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Harding, Hawkins, Higby, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom-111.

NAYS-Messrs. Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Eldridge, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Holman, Hotchkiss, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, Morrissey, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Randall, Robinson, Stone, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Van Trump, and Woodward-28.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Arnell, Baker, Baldwin, Barnum, Beck, Boutwell. Cake, Cary, Chanler, Farnsworth, Finney, Fox, Haight, Hill, Hooper, Asabel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Knott, George V. Lawrence, William Law

The result of the vote was announced as above stated.

and

The SPEAKER. The question now recurs on concurring in the amendments of the Senate. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I move that the amendments of the Senate be laid on the table; on that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 28, nays 110, not voting 51; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Axtell, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Eldridge, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Holman, Hotchkiss, Knott, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, Morrissey, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Robinson, Stone, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble. Van Auken. Van Trump, and Woodward-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks. Barnes, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Cobarn, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Gravely, Halsey, Harding, Hawkins, Higby, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulbard, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell. Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Pike, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Price, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Starkweather. Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble. Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry

Perham, Poland, Pruyn, Ross, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn. Thomas Williams, Jaines F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodbridge-50.

So the amendments of the Senate were concurred in.

During the vote,

Mr. NIBLACK stated that on this vote Mr. KERR was paired with Mr. ORTH.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, stated that his colleague, Mr. JONES, was paired with Mr. VAN HORN, of New York.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. BINGHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, moved that Senate bill No. 307, for the relief of certain Government contractors, be taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee of Claims.

The bill was taken up, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

SURVEY OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

Mr. BUTLER. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropriations to report back Senate bill No. 170, to provide for deficiency of expenses incurred in the survey of Indian reservations, with the recommendation that it do not pass.

Mr. BUTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. ALLISON. Mr. Speaker, I know how hard it is to resist any report that may be made by any committee of this House, especially the Committee on Appropriations. This is a bill covering certain deficiencies for surveys of public lands. It happens to be my fortune to have a constituent who is interested in this bill, and therefore I feel it my duty to resist the report of this committee, at least so far as my constituent is concerned. The bill chiefly relates to the payment of money to persons who have surveyed Indian lands. The portion which I desire to refer to relates to the survey of the Cherokee lands and Osage trust lands, as I believe they are called.

The House is familiar with the circumstances under which these surveys were made. They were made under authority of two distinct treaties made in 1866 between the Osage and the Cherokee Indians and the United States. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to refer to those treaties. I will only state that the Secretary of the Interior in one case and the Commissioner of the General Land Office in the other case were directed to have the lands surveyed and the proceeds of the sales paid into the Treasury of the United States, a portion being first applied to reimburse the United States for the necessary expenses of surveying these lands. About the time of the ratification of the treaty Congress, in an appropriation bill, appropriated $50,000 to pay in part the expenses of those surveys. My constituent made these contracts in 1860, and under that appropriation received on his contract $15,000. There is now due to him about eighteen thousand dollars. I have the account here, adjusted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

Now, it has been claimed by some that these treaties were fraudulent, and by others that there was no authority of law for them. All that may be true, yet I claim that when the Government of the United States authorized by contract certain work to be done, and an honest man undertakes to perform that service, good faith to him requires he should receive compensation. This work was done in the fall of 1866 and summer of 1867. It was done in precise accordance with the law which fixed a price for this service, only the Commissioner of the General Land Office let the work at one dollar less per mile, I believe, than the law authorized.

Now, I do not desire to go into the question of these treaties made between the Govern ment of the United States and the Cherokees and Osages. I only desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that here is a man who has performed honest labor under a contract made with the proper officers of the Government, and under and by virtue of a treaty made and ratified by the Senate of the United States. I believe it is unjust to him to keep from him this money which he has honestly earned. The money necessary to pay for this service is to-day in the Treasury of the United States, but by a mere formality the Comptroller refuses to pay the amount due, because he says it is necessary that Congress should make the appropriation.

So far as the Osage lands are concerned, it is well known to members of the House that they were settled up as rapidly as they could be surveyed. There was an absolute necessity for these surveys, because immigrants were going in by the hundred and thousand for the purpose of occupying the lands, and many of. them are now taken up.

This bill contains appropriations to the amount of some seventy-nine thousand dollars. I do not know anything in relation to any other

claim except that which affects my own constituent. I have before me all the papers. They convince me that he is entitled to receive his pay, amounting to some eighteen thousand dollars. What I desire the gentleman who reports this bill to do, and what I desire the House to do, is to have this bill recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations in order that they may report it back, allowing men who have honestly performed labor to receive the compensation to which they are entitled, especially when it does not really take any money out of the Treasury, but only takes from it money that is there held for the purpose of reimbursing men who have performed this work.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. Was this work per formed under a contract made by the United States?

Mr. ALLISON. The work was performed under contracts made with the then Secretary of the Interior, Mr. HARLAN, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office. What I desire to impress on the House is the fact that this work was honestly and faithfully performed, that the Government has received the benefit of it, and that the Government in this regard is a mere trustee for this fund, which goes into the Treasury of the United States from the proceeds of the sale of the lands.

Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman tell us what authority the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office had to contract for surveying these lands?

Mr. ALLISON. They had authority under the treaties made with the Osage Indians and the Cherokee Indians.

Mr. MAYNARD. Does not the gentleman know that this House solemnly decided, the other day, that those treaties were wholly nugatory, and conferred no sort of right, power, or authority on anybody?

Mr. ALLISON. I do not know precisely what the effect of the decision of the House

was.

Mr. MAYNARD. I made this same proposition here the other day and argued it before the House with whatsoever of ability I was able, and I will ask the gentleman how he stood on that question.

Mr. ALLISON. I do not know what particular decision my friend refers to, but I want to ask him a question. Here is a surveyor who, under a contract made with the proper officers of the United States, has expended money and performed labor. I ask him if, as a member of this House, he is willing to allow this man to go without receiving his just com. pensation, and especially when the money does not come out of the Treasury of the United States, but out of the proceeds of the sales of the very lands which he surveyed.

Mr. MAYNARD. I will answer the question very cheerfully. I believe that the treaties to which he alludes are valid and binding obligations upon the Government, and that all the rights and duties imposed and conferred by that treaty are as of high a character as any that we have. I so believed, and so argued the other day when speaking in behalf of the rights of the Indians under the treaties. But the House decided the other way, and what I wish to know is how the gentleman is going to get over that decision?

Mr. BLAINE. By the vote of a majority. Mr. ALLISON. That is the very thing I am trying to get over, and I want a vote of the majority of the House recognizing the fact that this work has been performed and paying the man who performed it his honest and just dues.

Mr. BUTLER resumed the floor.
Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman allow me
few minutes?

Mr. BUTLER. I will yield to the gentleman for five minutes,

Mr. PRICE. I do not know that I shall want five minutes. I merely want to say to the House what I understand to be the facts of the case, and if I understand them properly there certainly ought not to be any hesita

tion in reference to the action of the House upon it.

A citizen of my State was sent for by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to cometo Washington and receive certain orders. He came here, and the Commissioner directed him to go and make a survey of the Osage lands. He knew nothing about the treaty, nor was it any part of his business to know anything about it-whether it was right or wrong. He was acting under the difections of the officers of the Government. He was given to understand when he took this contract that the pay for the work was to come out of the proceeds of the sale of the lands after they were surveyed. With that understanding he proceeded to the field, and by the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office he put four parties in the field. Why? Because it is alleged, and nobody denies that, that the lands are needed, that settlers are waiting to go upon them, that they are so anxious to settle these lands that they go upon them without their being surveyed, and the fact is that the settlers were waiting and did take up these lands as fast as they were surveyed. Now, what could any citizen of the Republic do under circumstances of that kind? What would any member of this House do under circumstances of that kind if he were a surveyor and without work and could get a fair price? I ask any gentleman whether he would not have taken the contract when it was offered to him by the Secretary of the Interior or the Commissioner of the General Land Office with the express understanding that no pay was to come to him until the lands he surveyed should be settled and the money paid into the Treas ury of the United States, and then he might expect his pay from it?

Now, under these circumstances, and with this state of facts existing, this gentleman took this contract, by direction of the officers of the Government, put four parties into the field, and performed the survey. The lands have been sold and paid for, the very land he surveyed; the money has been paid into the Treasury and is there to-day. Now, I would like the gentleman who reported this bill from the committee to tell me who is to get that money? And when we talk so much here about the rights of the citizen, which ought to be guarded in all civilized countries, I want to know what higher right a citizen of this Republic has than the right to receive from the Government the just compensation promised him, after he has complied with the conditions placed upon him? That money lies to-day in the Treasury of the United States, and it has been especially appropriated to pay for the lands which have been surveyed, and without surveying which-I wish gentlemen to remember that fact-there would not have been one dollar of this money in the Treasury. Can there be a fairer statement of the case than this? Can there be a more equitable claim upon the Government than this claim? If these are not the facts, if this is not the state of the case, then I have misunderstood the case entirely. But if these are the facts, if this is the state of the case, then I undertake to say that no gentleman who understands the case can refuse to acknowledge the justice of the claim, because in his individual capacity he would not for a moment dream of doing so. It is the due of a citizen of this Government, who has performed the duties imposed upon him, and now only asks that he may receive his fair compensation agreed upon.

Mr. BUTLER. If this case was as stated by either of the gentlemen from Iowa, [Mr. ALLISON and Mr. PRICE,] I would agree that this House ought to pay this man. But there is a different way of stating the case. By treaty with the Osage Indians $20,000 was to be appropriated for the survey of their lands. By the treaty with the Creeks a certain other amount was appropriated, which I do not now remember. In the following year the Gov. ernment of the United States appropriated [Mr. FARNSWORTH;] not a bit; and there is no

$50,000 for these surveys, which my friend [Mr. ALLISON] has omitted from his statement. Of that $50.000, $15,000 has already gone into the pocket of his client. By the treaty only $20.000 is to be used for this purpose.

Mr. ALLISON. Not my client; my constituent.

Mr. BUTLER. Constituent of the gentleman. I beg his pardon; it was a slip of the tongue entirely from the force of habit.

Now, let us see what is the proposition here. That we appropriate $78,000 to pay for surveys; and it is put upon the ground that these surveys have been made. I will not go into the question whether they have or have not been made. All I wish to present to this House is this: that there is no authority of law for making these surveys, and that the appropriation, either by treaty or otherwise, has been expended, and was expended long before this work was done; and, with the agreement in one treaty for $20,000, and an appropriation toward these surveys of $50,000, Congress went just as far as it is bound to go and fixed a limit. And the question with the House today is, whether any Indian commissioner or any Secretary of the Interior, disregarding the appropriations and the laws of the United States, can authorize any work to be done that he chooses to have done, or any expenditure to be made that he chooses to have made, and then have the men with whom he made that contract or agreement, without having the right to make it, come here and say: "We did the work; we are honest; pay us.'

Mr. BLAINE. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLAINE. I differ with the gentleman who reported this bill, [Mr. BUTLER,] either through mistake or otherwise, in regard to the statement he now makes. He says this was made the limit. Now, I do not think there was any limit at all. There was no such thing specified in the treaty or appropriation or law as a limit beyond which they should not go. This appropriation was not at all dissimilar to appropriations of like character which have been made ever since this Government has owned public lands, appropriations very much more extravagant in their character. This is nothing more than an ordinary deficiency. Where is the limit? The treaty specified an appropriation, but never said that this much should be appropriated and no more. There is no such clause either express or implied.

Mr. BUTLER. Now, let us see about the limits:

"The Osage Indians having no annuities which would enable them to pay anything to carry this treaty into effect, it is agreed that the United States shall appropriate the sum of $20,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the purpose of defraying the expense of the survey and sale of the lands hereby ceded."

There is the limit.

Mr. BLAINE. But the point my friend makes is not the point in question. The clause of the treaty under which this survey was made is not the one which the gentleman has read, but it is this:

"The lands herein ceded shall be surveyed as the public lands of the United States are surveyed under the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and shall be appraised by two disinterested persons, one to be designated by the Cherokee national council, and one by the Secretary of the Interior, and, in case of disagreement, by a third person to be mutually selected by the aforesaid appraisers; the appraisement to be not less than an average of one dollar and a quarter per acre exclusive of improvements."

Under that treaty obligation this work was done. There was no limitation of the treaty obligation. The job was to be done; and the fair implication is that whatever was necessary to do it the Congress of the United States was bound to appropriate.

Mr. BUTLER. Now, then, to resume what I was saying. Part of this claim is under the Osage treaty, the provision of which I have read, and part under the Cherokee treaty. The Congress of the United States has appropriated so much as it thought proper to carry

out the provisions of those treaties, and it is bound to appropriate no more. What is the ground on which this appropriation is claimed? Are gentlemen unwilling to leave the Congress of the United States untrammeled in the matter of appropriations? We have appropriated in the general bill all that was thought proper for surveys of the public lands each year. But how is it attempted to compel the United States to make appropriations which they have not deemed it proper to authorize? When we have appropriated $50,000, the Secretary of the Interior not only expends that $50,000, but makes contracts involving an expenditure of $78,000 more; and then he comes in here through the men who have done the work or their representatives, and says, "You must pay this, because the work has been done;" and although there is no authority of law for this expenditure, although Congress in its judg. ment decided not to expend any more, yet we are forced into the improper position of seeming to reject a claim for labor actually done, or else paying just as much as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior may without authority have contracted to pay.

This bill has received two examinations at the hands of the Committee on Appropriations. After I was at first directed to report the bill, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] made his statement to me, and I put his case before the committee, when, by the unanimous judgment of all the members present, I was authorized to report the bill with a recommendation that it do not pass. It is time that we should understand whether Congress is to control this matter of appropriations. What is the use of this Congress, under its constitutional authority, determining each year how much money shall be spent if the head of each Department may, as is now claimed, run the country in debt just as much as he pleases and then force through an appropriation to meet such indebtedness upon the ground that somebody has done-what? "In good faith done the work." Sir, the laws are open to all; and it is the duty of every man making these contracts or carrying them out to see just how much money has been appropriated for the particular work. The constituent of my friend from Iowa should have stopped when the appropriation was exhausted. That was bis duty; and it was the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to have authorized no work beyond the point to which an appropriation

had been made.

Mr. PRICE. I wish to ask my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] a question. Does he not concede that this work has been honestly and fairly done; and if so, is not the party who has in good faith performed it entitled to compensation therefor? If we can this morning, in less than two and a half minutes by the clock, vote away what cost the Government thousands of dollars as an act of generosity, I ask the gentlemen whether we ought not to be sufficiently just to pay a man for labor performed, who has faithfully and honestly complied with his engagement with the Govern ment? It is all in a nutshell; and the answer to this question will settle the case.

Mr. BUTLER. I will endeavor to answer the three questions which the gentleman has put to me, although not in the order in which he has put them. First, he asks whether a man who honestly and justly performs work for the Government is entitled to his pay? Yes, always. Second, whether we can vote away $2,500,000, more or less, in two and a half minutes? Is it to pay our honest debts? If so, I say yes; but whether we can or not we ought to pay our debts in any event. The other question is, was not this work honestly and faithfully done? On that I am not instructed, but I am instructed that it was not honestly and faithfully done under the law, because it was done in violation of the law; and the law is known of all men, especially of surveyors and Indian agents and all that class

of men, for they study the law with great diligence to see how they may evade it. Mr. BLAINE. I ask the gentleman to yield to me.

Mr. BUTLER. I do not think I can; I promised not to.

Mr. ALLISON. yield to me.

I ask the gentleman to

For a moment.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. ALLISON. I wish to make a statement. The gentleman from Massachusetts says, so far as this particular claim is concerned, it was in violation of law. I wish to call his attention to facts and dates. The appropriation of $50,000, of which he speaks, passed Congress on the 28th of July, 1866. This contract with my constituent was on the 15th day of August, 1866, to survey the Cherokee lands and not the Osage lands; and under the Cherokee treaty it is made the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to survey those lands. Therefore I say, so far as the survey relating to the Cherokee lands is concerned, it was made by the Secretary of the Interior in pur. suance of the treaty with the Cherokees. And if there is any treaty which can be made with the Indians which is binding upon Congress or the country it is this treaty of 1866. Gentlemen may say that treaty was not ratified. It was ratified and finally signed by the parties on the 11th of August, 1866, several days before this contract was made. I have the certificate of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that this work was faithfully and honestly performed; and I can see no reason why, in justice, equity, and law, this man should not have the reward of his honest toil.

Mr. BUTLER. I am content that he shall have the reward of his honest toil, but I ask him to come to this House, as every other man who has a claim against this Government-to come through the Committee of Claims of this House, and not through the Indian Bureau. I wish him to come and say, I have a claim for which there was no provision of law, and for which there was no appropriation by law; and, having such a claim, I desire to be recog nized, because I believe it is just and honest." My constituents have to come here when they have just claims against the Government. They have to go before the Committee of Claims of this House. But, sir, these surveys of these Indian lands, and all such matters are attempted to be put through here under the claim that they are a deficiency. There was no deficiency of appropriation. It was a willful,direct, intentional violation of the law, and known to be so at the time; and the man who did the work and the Commissioner took the risk of getting an appropriation through Congress, as it had been the custom to do before. When it is said this is here, as a matter of right, to that I answer, you have no right because you had no authority of law.

Now, then, I will deal with this Cherokee matter. It is a survey of a part of the neutral land, that land for which the Connecticut Emigration Company has paid $800,000; and while we were discussing the subject in this House the treaty was put through the Senate, a treaty by which land worth $4,000,000, as I am informed, was sold for $800,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. And ratified?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir; ratified while we were talking about it, while we were calling the attention of the nation to it.

Mr. MAYNARD. Whose lands were they? Mr. BUTLER. I have no difficulty about that. They were lands belonging to the Cherokee Indians, and they were conveyed with a condition in the title that they never should be sold except by the consent of the United States; and that consent, in my judgment, cannot be given by the Senate of the United States. For what is to be the effect? The Senate have undertaken to ignore the rest of the Government of the United States in this matter by what they call a treaty made up here in the Indian Bureau, taking some eight or nine

thousand dollars to pay the expenses of the Indians, while they were here, to feed and feast them and get them drunk until they made it.

Mr. MAYNARD. By virtue of what arrangement did the Cherokees procure the title to this land. Was it not by treaty?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir; there is no difficulty about that. I admit the title perfectly; but it was covered with this condition: that the United States should have the right to sell. Now, then, what is the effect of selling it?

Mr. MAYNARD. I ask the gentleman whether the assent of the United States was not to be given precisely in the same way that the United States originally gave title to the land-that is, by treaty?

Mr. BUTLER. No, sir; not at all. It was put in without the consent of the United States. Now, what is the effect of that? Why, that the land is sold for $800,000, and as soon as that is eaten up and drank up by the Indians they come upon the United States for an appropriation of money to take care of them, while $3,000,000 of their property has gone into the hands of speculators. In the meantime this Osage tract is being surveyed for what purpose? Why, to get through a treaty which is now before the Senate. I believe it was ratified; I do not know; but it was lately before the Senate for eight million acres, at twenty cents an acre, payable in fifteen years.

A MEMBER. Yes, sir; nine millions. Mr. BUTLER. I keep within bounds. Now, then, I say we are asked to appropriate money for a deficiency for what? To meet these surveys, so that the lands settled may be surveyed at the expense of the United States, and the men who bought these lands by that treaty may get possession of them. I had not intended to go into this matter, but when gentlemen come here and claim such good faith in this matter I want to show this House and the country how impossible it is for us to limit the expenditure of this country if we cannot say how much shall be expended or how much shall be used by officers of the Government; up to this time I say it is quite impossible, because this is the way it is done. While my friend from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] will go with me in cutting down Indian appropriations, yet when it comes to a deficiency bill, when he is appealed to, as he is in this case, by his constituent, who has done work, then he feels it his duty-and I do not mean to say improperly at all-to come and advocate the cause of that constituent in this House. By such means we get the appropriations raised day by day. The power which gives control to this House over the expenditures of the country becomes practically useless.

Why, sir, do not gentlemen know that you cannot get any public work done of any description within the amount appropriated? It is not possible to do it, because both the contractor and contractee often have an interest.

in it, and they say, "We will begin upon t and we will run up the appropriation; we will add so much more, and then we will come in and ask the additional sum to be made up in a deficiency bill."

Mr. MAYNARD. The gentleman has stated again to-day, as on one or two previous occasions, that this tract of land was granted to the Indians on the condition that they should never sell it without the consent of the United States. His usual accuracy in such matters led me to suppose that he must necessarily be correct in this statement. I have examined the treaty; it is before me.

Mr. BUTLER. Of what year?

Mr. MAYNARD. Of 1835. It provides that the land shall be conveyed in fee simple to the Indians and their descendants, but I have not been able to find the provision to which he refers. I shall be glad if he will cite that part so that I may examine it.

Mr. BUTLER. I had the citation on my brief when the matter came up before. You will find it is provided for. I cannot at this moment turn to the page. But the very fact