NAYS-Messrs. Cattell, Conness, Cragin, Fessenden, Fowler. Harlan, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Willey, Williams, and Yates-22.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cameron, Cole, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Wade, Welch, and Wilson-23.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. PATTERSON,] from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. YATES. I move to amend the bill by inserting after line four hundred and eightynine:

That the Secretary of the Interior in his discretion is authorized to expend the appropriation heretofore made for the purpose of erecting a penitentiary for the Territory of Colorado on the site belonging to and owned and provided for the purpose by said Territory.

I am directed by the Committee on Territories to report this amendment.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Has it been referred to the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. YATES. It does not make any appropriation. I will state that an appropriation of $40,000 was made to build a penitentiary in Colorado Territory, and the site was to be fixed under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. The difficulty which I wish to obviate is this: the title to a grant on which it is to be built is in the Territory, and the Secretary of the Interior does not wish to expend the money without some instructions, inasmuch as the title to the ground is in the Territory. I presume there is no objection whatever to the amendment. It does not propose to make any new appropriation whatever, but simply that the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, apply the money already appropri ated.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. This would be an authority to the Secretary of the Interior to erect a prison on a different tract of land from that authorized by a previous appropriation? Mr. HARLAN. I understand the difficulty which the Senator from Illinois seeks to obviate to be this now by a general law no head of a Department can expend money in the erection of public buildings until the title shall have been shown to be clear and in the United

:

States; but in making the conveyance of the site for the penitentiary the conveyance was made to the Territory of Colorado? So the Senator from Maine will see that there is a technical difficulty.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. This, then, is to authorize him to erect the building for which the appropriation was made, upon a different tract of land.

Thirty-Ninth Congress. I reported it from the Committee on Territories.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire to refer to the statute. Mr. CRAGIN. Here is the book, [handing it to Mr. EDMUNDS.]

Mr. EDMUNDS. The act of 22d January, 1867, I see, appropriates of the revenues of that Territory that amount of money for that purpose. That being so, I do not see that there is any objection to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I offer this amendment as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That the Assistant Secretary of the Interior shall be entitled to receive a sum equal to the difference between his salary as such and that of the Secretary of the Interior for and during the period he has heretofore acted pursuant to law as such Secretary during the absence from the seat of Government or illness of such Secretary, and such sum is hereby appropriated out of any money not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to inquire of the Senator who offers this amend ment whether he understands that to be usual; whether there is any precedent for it; whether it is customary for the subordinates, when performing the duties of the head of the Department in such cases of sickness or absence, to receive the higher compensation.

Mr. HARLAN. Similar provision was made for the Assistant Secretary of another Department during this session, and it has been made, I think, frequently heretofore.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Is this amendment moved by a committee?

Mr. HARLAN. The Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr, EDMUNDS. Has it been referred to the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir; notice was sent to us.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does notice do under the rule?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I understand the rule to require that it should be referred. Mr. EDMUNDS. Presented in the Senate and referred to the committee.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I understand that was done.

Mr. HARLAN. It was presented and referred yesterday to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to allowing Mr. Otto the pay of Secretary of the Interior during the time his chief has been employed as Attorney General. There is justice in that; but to adopt the general principle stated in the amendment would lead to innumerable claims. For instance, the Secretary of State has been occasionally absent

Mr. HARLAN. No, it is the same tract of land as I understand, but the land was con

to the United States of America.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. And the former appropriation only authorized it to be erected on land belonging to the United States.

Mr. HARLAN. That is a general provision

of law.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. And this proposes to authorize him to expend this money on land belonging to the Territory?

Mr. YATES. The Territorial Legislature fixed the site.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The object of my inquiry was to learn whether it was an item of appropriation, or simply a direction of an appropriation already made.

Mr. CRAGIN. I will state that at the last session of Congress the Committee on Territories reported a bill authorizing the Territories to erect penitentiaries at an expense not exceeding $40,000, to be taken out of the internal revenue taxes raised in the Territory. Mr. EDMUNDS. When was that act passed? Mr. CRAGIN. At the last session of the

that time, and the Government would lose nothing by that arrangement. I should be willing to give Mr. Otto the difference in pay during the time his chief has been acting as Attorney General.

Mr. FESSENDEN. How is it when the head of a Department is absent for several weeks because of sickness?

Mr. SHERMAN. The difference in pay has never been given so far as I know, and I do not think it ought to be done.

Mr. HOWE. You have, I guess, at least as many as half a dozen statutes on the book declaring that such payments as this shall not be made. If Congress is willing to pay an Assistant Secretary for acting in the place of the principal, it ought to be a general rule. If you put this provision in here, you will have a separate bill in every case where the head of a Department is absent for a short time and his assistant performs his duty. That is unnecessary legislation, even if it is just.

Mr. FOWLER. I want to know if the meaning of this is that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior shall have the same pay as the Secretary. When he is serving as Secretary I should like to know who is discharging his duties as Assistant Secretary I thought he was placed there for the purpose of discharging the duties of the Secretary when the Secretary should be absent.

Mr. HARLAN. At this session we passed a bill on an amendment to some law giving the heirs of a chief clerk in the State Department the pay of Secretary of State during the period he served as Secretary of State. Such bills have been passed here repeatedly giving an Assistant Secretary the pay of Secretary during the time he acted as such on account of absence from the city or on account of sickness of the Secretary. I do not want to press this if it is not a proper thing to be done; and if those who are conversant with the custom of the Government in relation to such questions will say that it has not been done repeatedly in relation to other Departments I shall withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I believe the case of Mr. Dickins was an old matter, and for peculiar reasons. It arose before there were laws on the subject. There are now statutes on the subject, and that case cannot properly be cited as a precedent.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Iowa can see the distinction I make. The United States appropriate money, $8,000 a year for the pay of the Attorney General, and $8,000 for a Secretary of the Interior. While the Secretary is performing the duties of Attorney General according to law by assignment, important responsibilities are necessarily thrown upon his assistant, and I am willing to pay him for that time, because then the United States lose nothing; they pay only two officers of the higher grade, whereas if you extended the rule further and allowed for a temporary absence, as a matter of course the United States would be paying two officers for performing the same work, and that principle is forbidden by law. There is an express provision in a general law which declares that no officer shall receive the pay of his chief when there is no vacancy in the office, because as a matter of course that would involve two salaries for the same office. I do not know of any case where that has been granted.

Mr. HARLAN. I will accept the modification of the amendment suggested by the Senator from Ohio, to make it read that he shall receive the difference in pay between that of Assistant Secretary and Secretary

during the time the Secretary has acted or may

act as Attorney General.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope that will not be put on an appropriation bill, because if that is a true principle it ought to be applied to the other Departments, where the thing is happening constantly, and therefore it ought not to be put on this bill. In the next place, I doubt greatly the propriety of it at all. The fact is that when an Assistant Secretary performs the duties of Secretary he does not do any more work than he did perform, and he has the honor of being acting Secretary of the Interior, or of State, or whatever it may be. I am not speaking of this particular gentleman; I have no doubt he is as solid as anybody is; from what I know of him I have no doubt he is; but I speak of all of them. They do not wear themselves out any more than they did before; they get the pay they had before, and some clerk performs the duties they did before; and there is no need of paying them extra.

Mr. HARLAN. Judging from the expres sions that have been made here, there is no use in urging the amendment, and I withdraw it.

Mr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee. I offer this amendment, to be inserted after line two hundred and twenty-five, on page 10:

To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to enlarge the lot in the city of Nashville for the erection of a custom-house, $25,000.

It is proper for me to state that in offering

this amendment I do so under the instruction of the Committee on Commerce, and that the appropriation meets the approbation of the Treasury Department. It is simply to enlarge the lot of ground at Nashville for the site of the custom-house.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I will state to the Senate what this is. In 1856 Congress appropriated $20,000 to purchase a lot of land in the city of Nashville for the erection of a public building in that city, and the act limited the size of the building. The Secretary of the Treasury now communicates to the Committee on Commerce that the lot of land which was authorized to be purchased is not large enough for the erection of a suitable building, that there ought to be additional land procured for that purpose. The supervising architect has sent to the Committee on Commerce a plan of the building which is in harmony with the custom-houses that are being built now, and have been for the last six or eight years in the country generally, whereby it becomes necessary to acquire additional land. As I understand the matter, the Committee on Commerce recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to acquire additional land for that purpose, and this appropriation is made to enable him to do it.

Mr. POMEROY. Land for what? To erect a building on?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. A custom-house, court-house, and post office.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How much land have they now?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. One hundred feet by fifty perhaps; and the plan of the building is one hundred and twenty feet.

Mr. POMEROY. They want $25,000 for more land?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMUNDS. What is the amount of receipts from imports at that port? Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not know. What I mean to say about it is that heretofore an appropriation of $20,000 was made to buy land for the erection of a public building in the city of Nashville, and that is found now to be inadequate; there is not land enough on which to erect such a building as is recom. mended by the supervising architect and by the Treasury Department.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My inquiry was what was the amount of yearly receipts from customs at that port?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not know. Very likely the Committee on Commerce may know.

Mr. FOWLER. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate in discussing this $25,000 appropriation for the purchase of land for the site of a building for a custom-house in the city of Nashville, when there never has been one dollar of money expended in the State of Tennessee by this Government for any public building whatever. In 1860 a lot was purchased by the Government, which is there now; it is too small for the purpose of erecting this building. Instead of being worth $20,000 now, that lot is worth $100,000 We add a certain quantity of land so as to make the lot large enough to erect a building suitable for the purpose. We need a custom-house, a post office, and a court-room, as in other cities. It is certainly a very small amount, much smaller than has been expended in any city of the same size in any State of the Union. I am very well aware that the citizens there will have to make up some of the money needed to secure land enough to build a suitable building upon.

I do not recollect the amount of receipts from customs, but the internal revenue of that district is very large, and previous to 1860 the receipts from customs were considerable; at the present time they are small, and have been since 1860. Of course the customs ought now to increase very rapidly. I could make a statement of the size of the buildings constructed in other cities of the Union, and also of the prices for which they were erected, if it were

necessary, but I do not think it is necessary to go into such statistics for the purpose of mak ing clear the propriety of this little appropriation of $25,000 to be expended in the State of Tennessee.

Mr. POMEROY. I would not like to oppose anything that ought to be done; but if this is for the purpose of an internal revenue office or post office it ought to be so stated. I understand it to be for a custom-house.

Mr. FOWLER. All the officers of the Government there are to be in this custom-house building, I understand.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator represents they have large internal revenue receipts, and need a post office, but he fails to tell us in regard to the receipts from any commerce that passes through the custom-house. I am willing to give to these States any reasonable appropriation for anything that we are in the habit of appropriating for in any State; but I never thought of asking for an appropriation for my own State for the purpose of building post offices or an internal revenue office, although I presume they would be very acceptable and desirable. States which are so situated that do not have much commerce cannot expect to have custom-houses. I would not call this a "custom-house;" call it some other

name.

Mr. CHANDLER. It is well known that in Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukie, and other cities, buildings were erected for customhouses, post offices, and court-houses, and all the Government offices. This amendment simply authorizes the extension of the size of the lot at Nashville to enable them to rent a building relatively of the same size as in these other cities.

Mr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee. If my friend from Kansas would look to the law of 1856, authorizing the erection of this customhouse at Nashville he would see that the building at Nashville is not only intended for a custom-house, but for the use of the courts of the United States, and the post offices and other offices connected with the Government of the United States.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CAMERON. I move to amend the bill by inserting an appropriation of $25,000 for a post office building in the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I believe there is now no town of that magnitude in the United States that has not such a building erected by the Govern ment. The post office at Harrisburg yields a large revenue to the Government, and the safety of the mails and the dignity of the Government require that there should be such a building there.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the amendment reported from a committee of this body?

Mr. CAMERON. Well, Mr. President, it ought to have been reported before. [Laughter.] I suppose if the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will "accept service" now that will do.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment can be entertained by unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the amendment?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. It is not in order ?

Mr. POMEROY. I did not understand what the amendment was.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has been renewed.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The objection having been made once, it was hardly neces sary to renew it.

Mr. CAMERON. It is not exactly the same proposition, because I have added a condition that the money shall be appropriated on condition that the people of Harrisburg shall pay the additional sum which the Secretary of the Treasury shall say is necessary to erect a proper building.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I suppose the Senator is hardly serious in urging this proposition. There is no instance where the Government has built a post office by itself. In large seaports, and perhaps in some other places where a custom-house has been necessary, provision has been made for a customhouse building that should also contain accommodations for the post office and the United States courts. There is no instance, I believe, where an appropriation has been made for building a post office by itself; and by law the Post Office Department is authorized to provide all necessary accommodations for post offices. I must enforce the rule on the Senator.

Mr. CAMERON. I do not think the chairman will do that when he comes to look at the case. When we have a United States court at Harrisburg we are perfectly willing that it shall have rooms in this building without charge. Just think of it, at the seat of government of what is admitted to be next to the greatest State in the Union we have no place for the post office there unless it is by the sufferance of the people who own the buildings.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is the case everywhere.

Mr. CAMERON. No; it is not the case at Portland, in Maine.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. It is the case in my own city.

Mr. CAMERON. We have provided in this very bill for such a building at Portland, in Oregon.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. My own city is parallel precisely to the honorable Senator's case as to being the seat of government, though not parallel in greatness as regards the com. parative importance of States; and I should hardly think of moving the same thing for Augusta.

Mr. CAMERON. This is the difference between the cases: the post office in the town which is the seat of government of the State of Maine I think gives no surplus, or very little, while at Harrisburg it is a very large one. The Harrisburg office is the most profitable post office to the Government in the State of Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia, and Philadelphia is the most profitable in the Union, not excepting New York.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I believe this is all out of order. The question of order has been raised, and it is not debatable.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was so feebly raised that the Chair did not know whether it was intended to be insisted on or not. [Laughter.] In the mean time gentlemen go on to argue it. I suppose they waive the point of order when they go on to argue the question. Points of order should be made promptly in limine; and when gentlemen proceed to argue the merits of a proposition it is to be presumed they waive points of order.

Mr. POMEROY. It would be a pretty good precedent to set, because I want to move a similar appropriation when this amendment is adopted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amend ment will be reported.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It was objected to.

Mr. ANTHONY. I suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania that he can readily remove the only objection the Senator from Maine makes to the proposition. The Senator from Maine says that no post office buildings are constructed unless there is a custom-house in the same building. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will consent that there shall be a custom-house in this building I suppose the Senator from Maine will withdraw his objection?

Mr. CAMERON. Certainly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If a question of order is made the amendment cannot be received.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If I understand the Chair so to rule, I have a motion to make. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair so rules, of course.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I call the attention of the Senate to the ninth page of the bill, line two hundred and six:

For repairs and outfits, $15,000.

The estimate was $170,000; and I am told that $15,000 is a misprint; it should be $150,000.

Repairs and outfits "

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. It is in regard to the revenue-cutter service. I move to make the appropriation $150,000 instead of $15,000.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Maine.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The amendments made as in Committee of

the Whole were concurred in.

Mr. HOWE. I wish to renew a motion to amend made by the Committee on Appropriatious, to strike out the appropriation for marine hospitals, and I wish to add to what I said the other day on that subject a few remarks made by the Secretary of the Treasury in his report submitted in 1865; one page is all I wish to read:

"The working of the marine hospital system as at

are now located. Even at ports where it may be deemed best to retain the ownership of the hospital buildings it might be advisable to lease them to private or municipal hospitals, which would gladly receive the seamen on favorable terms. Such an arrangement was formerly in force at Charleston, South Carolina, much to the advantage of the patients and the fund.

"Should these suggestions be adopted, and at the same time the rate of contribution fixed at thirty cents a month, instead of twenty, as at present, the proceeds of the tax, thoroughly collected and economically administered, would be ample to meet every demand which a judicious discrimination in affording relief would make upon them; and the seamen would receive far more substantial and efficient benefit than under the present system."

Mr. President, I showed the Senate the other day that up to 1846 there never had been a dollar contributed by the nation to this fund but once, and that was in lieu of the twentycents tax. That took place in 1837. I showed that repeatedly since 1846 Congress had omitted all appropriations. I showed that when they first commenced making appropriations they commenced appropriating twelve or fifteen thousand dollars per annum, the highest being $25,000, until one year they appropriated $200,000 in aid of this fund and to furnish five different hospitals. Putting the two subjects together, the appropriation was $200,000. I now produce the testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury, who says that if you will take ten cents more a month, that is to say $1 20 a year, from the men who are employed in this service, and add it to the fund, the sailors can be taken better care of with that fund than they are with the money which you appropri ate; and the only argument alleged, as I remember, the other day in favor of this appropriation was that the wages of the seamen

The erection and repair of numerous expensive buildings, and the support of the establishments necessarily connected with their operations, have entailed upon the Government a yearly expense far beyond the amount contributed by the seamen, which has been met by large annual appropriations by Con

gress.

The act of July 16, 1798, by which the system was created, and the rate of contribution fixed at twenty cents per month, confined the action of the Government to the simple expenditure, for the benefit of the seamen, of the amounts thus contributed by themselves, and contemplated laying no burden on the public Treasury. If it is deemed advisable to continue any system of relief, under control of the Government, it is respectfully suggested that the original intent of the law should be carried into effect and the fund made self-sustaining. With this view it will be necessary to increase the fund and to make a material reduction in the expenses.

Experience has shown, and former Secretaries have at various times and with entire unanimity represented to Congress, that the system of public marino hospitals, maintained and managed by the Government, is the least economical method that has been devised for the administration of this fund, and affords the least comparative benefit to the seamen. The expenses of these establishments are large, independently of the number of scamen received in them. When the patients are numerous the average rate of expense per man is not unreasonable; but where they are few, as at most of the public institutions, the expense per capita is very largely in excess of the cost of maintaining them under contract at private, State, or municipal institutions, where they would be better accommodated at an expense exactly proportioned to the services rendered.

Mention may be made, in illustration, of one of these public hospitals, which is maintained at an annual expense of upward of four thousand dollars, and which accommodates an average of less than a single patient, at a daily cost per capita of more than $14 50; while quite as satisfactory relief can be had under contract for about one dollar per day.

There are, moreover, several hospital buildings, erected at great cost, now lying idle, out of repair, and not available for their intended use. Some of these have never been occupied, and one, at least, is situated at a point remote from any port, and where relief is never demanded. Others now occupied are in a condition requiring large and immediate outlay to preserve them.

In view of these facts, it is strongly recommended that authority be conferred by law upon this Department to sell such hospitals as experience has shown are not needed, retaining only those situated at important ports, where, by the course of commerce, demands for relief are likely to be most frequent and pressing, and where contracts on favorable terins cannot be procured with private or municipal institutions. The proceeds should either be returned into the Treasury, in repayment of their cost, or invested for the benefit of the hospital fund.

In favor of the contract system it may be remarked that it is in operation most successfully at New York, where demands for relief are far the heaviest, at Baltimore, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Louisville, and Cincinnati; and it is believed that quite as advantageous and satisfactory arrangements might be made at other ports where Government hospitals

and shiftlessly for purposes of dissipation that they would not save anything to take care of themselves; so that this $1 20 a year which the Secretary proposes to take out of their wages is money which confessedly, if it is not taken, will be squandered in dissipation. Take that ten cents away, says the Secretary, and you can save to your Treasury $150,000 a year. Now I ask the Senate to make that substitute, to refuse this appropriation, and then put that clause in the bill; and I want the yeas and nays on that proposition.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported.

The CHIEF CLERK. The amendment is to strike out from lines forty-seven to fifty-four the following clause:

For supplying deficiency in the fund for the relief of sick and disabled scamen, $150,000: Provided, That hereafter the Secretary of the Treasury shall communicate at each annual session of Congress a full and complete statement in detail of the amounts collected from seamen, and also the amount expended for sick and disabled seamen, in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 3, 1802.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The report from which the Senator read was the first report, I believe, that was made by the present Secretary of the Treasury. The Senator is not disposed to place much reliance on the opinions of the present Secretary of the Treasury, but with these he is disposed to agree.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator is entirely right. I did not read that to strengthen myself, but I put it to influence the conviction of the Senator. I never knew him to differ with the Secretary of the Treasury when he asked an appropriation, and I hoped he would follow him when he discouraged one.

Mr. FESSENDEN. He does not discourage that appropriation now. He suggests a change of the system. I do not think he knew at that time anything about it. I know precisely how that was got up; he sent a clerk of his Department, who was officiating as librarian, I forget his name, to look at the hospitals around the country, and he made an examination and gave his opinions when he came back, and upon the opinions of that clerk the Secretary founded his report. The suggestion made has a good deal of plausibility in it; but if we are going to change the system it must be done as a whole. You cannot do it by diminishing the

fund at once, which is absolutely necessary under the present system. If the system is to be changed it cannot be changed now by striking out a necessary appropriation, because it is a matter that must be done by degrees. If you omit to make the needed appropriation either they go on and there is a deficiency to be made up, or else you must shut up some of these hospitals, turn the men out of doors, and that without making a new arrangement for a contract system of some kind or other.

I am of opinion, as I stated the other day, that we have too many of these hospitals. We have them at some places where neither the present demands for supporting sick and disabled sailors nor the prospective demands are such as to justify the erection of a building. A great many buildings have been erected, more especially up and down the Mississippi river, more I think than are necessary there. Some have been sold; considerable reforms have already taken place; Congress has authorized the sale in several places of hospitals that were not needed and where the expense of keeping them up was necessarily very great comparatively in consequence of there not being sufficient demand to justify the erection and keeping up of a building. Probably the reason a marine hospital has not been built at the city of New York is that the city of New York has so many sailors that no one hospital we should be likely to erect could hold all who ought to be accommodated. At any rate, they have not begun the system there; for what reason I do not know. Perhaps it was unwise to charge the old system, but I am myself of a different opinion, and I have been always of a different opinion. I do not think it operates well in all cases to leave these men to the tender mercies of contractors; but where you have a large extent of sea-coast and a great deal of navigation it is better to have a hospital, and have it properly cared for and properly managed. We want more or less of them, how many I do not know.

If the Senator desires to correct the evil it must be done systematically. You must examine, in the first place, and see how many hospitals can be dispensed with and sold, and how many it is necessary to retain; because there are some places where they are necessary for these purposes, and others where they are not. Take the hospital that is erected in my city. It cost with the furniture, probably about sixty thousand dollars. The Senator says "sell it for a town hospital." It is a little out of the city, though on the harbor. It is in the town of Westbrook. The town of Westbrook has no need of it, nor has the city of Portland. The city of Portland has ample accommodations for all its poor. It would not be good for any purpose. It would not bring $10,000. It would only bring what the materials would sell for when taken down. It is the only marine hospital for about three hundred miles of seaWill you shut up that hospital at once without making another arrangement.

coast.

I say, then, that if my friend wishes to arrive at a proper conclusion-and I have no sort of objection to its being tried-there should be an examination made to see what number of dif ferent hospitals can be dispensed with, which of them ought to be sold, and then provision should be made by law to exact more of the sailors, if you mean to meet it in that way; but at present you have no law on that subject, and it is not very likely that you can get a law through at this session of Congress. This sum is necessary for the succeeding year; you cannot begin a reform of this kind by simply saying that money which is absolutely needed for the system as it exists shall not be appropriated and then leave everything to chance afterward to make it up. That is no way to begin, because it is an important system and we have got to take care of these people in some way or other.

If, therefore, the Senator wishes to substi tute the contract system, entirely sweep out all these hospitals, let us have a well-digested plan for that purpose, and not begin by striking out this appropriation which, in the exist

ing state of things, is absolutely necessary to the support of the seamen. That is what I object to. I will, if I remain in Congress long enough, go with the Senator to examine this system thoroughly, and if there are errors in it that ought to be corrected, to correct them, dispose of the hospitals we do not need, substitute the contract system where it will be more advantageous; but to strike out at once an appropriation that is absolutely necessary for the system as it exists, is, in my judgment, not wise legislation, and is not the right end to begin at, because there is nothing provided to make up for what is absolutely necessary.

make this appropriation while you are investigating the system the seamen will suffer. No, sir; let the hospitals stand; let the seamen occupy them if those who contract to take care of them think they can take care of them there the cheapest. All I propose to do is to withhold this appropriation which you have demonstrated over and over again is not necesssary, and then to add to the seamen's fund ten cents a month more than you now collect from it. That, the Secretary says, will take care of them, and take better care of them than has been taken of them heretofore. Then you can make up your minds at your leisure whether your hospitals are necessary or not. My amendment has nothing to do with them; it will not destroy them; it will not dissipate

Mr. DRAKE. I want to make a suggestion to the honorable Senator from Wisconsin about this matter which, perhaps, may have some weight with him. I think the principal objec-them; it leaves them where they are. tion which has existed to these hospitals has grown out of the want of efficient superintend ence of them. They have been very much more expensive heretofore than there was any necessity for, the custom-house officers having the matter put into their hands of providing for them without understanding that business. To remedy that difficulty the Senate has passed at the last session a bill authorizing the appointment of a supervising surgeon, whose duty it shall be to examine the condition of all these hospitals, to supervise the operations of them, and the supplies for them. I would suggest to the honorable Senator from Wisconsin whether it would not be wiser, in regard to this matter, to wait until such an officer as that has had the subject in hand long enough to investigate the condition of them and to put us in the right track for remedying any objections that may have existed heretofore to the system.

Mr. COLE. The estimates are based on some information which the Department has on the subject.

Mr. HOWE. The Secretary of the Treasury has nothing to do with the estimates. His board submit the sum they want, and they ask $200,000 this year because they had it before.

Mr. COLE. I have no objection to any more economical disposition that can be made of sailors who have become disabled or sick in the service, but this proposed rejection of the appropriation will be followed, as I see, by no provision whatever for them. These hospitals are established, I believe, by particular laws, and it appears to me the proper way to effect a remedy would be by reorganizing the system, modifying the laws, and not by withholding an appropriation. There is one of these establishments at San Francisco, a very large marine hospital, established by the General Government. It has been in use a long time, and has generally been well filled with patients. If the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin should prevail, it seems to me it must necessarily result in closing it up, and of course in great distress to the inmates of the hospital. I presume the appropriation of $150,000 may be sufficient. I am willing to agree to that reduction which has been made, but I am opposed to striking out the appropriation entirely.

Mr. HOWE. Now, I call attention to the fact that here are the Senator from Maine, the Senator from California, and the Senator from Missouri, insisting upon this appropriation of $150,000, and insisting upon it simply because you have got so many hospitals to take care of, and not because you have got so many seamen to take care of. The Secretary of the Treasury says that you can take care of the seamen without any money from the national Treasury if you will add ten cents a month out of the funds of the seamen.

The Senator from Maine says here is a system and you are in danger of disturbing the system by suddenly cutting off this appropriation; that the true way to effect a reform is to see how many hospitals you can dispense with, and then when you have dispensed with these see how much money you want out of the Treasury. Mr. President, in answer to that, I call his attention and that of the Senate to the fact that more than half a dozen times since 1846, when you made your first appropriation to this fund, you have made no appropriation at all. You did not make any appropriation in 1865, not a dollar to this fund, and the seamen did not suffer; at least if they did, we did not hear of it.

And yet it is suggested that if you do not

Mr. COLE. I presume they are able to give good reasons why the appropriation should be made.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 11, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Conkling, Conness. Edmunds, Howe, McCreery, Trumbull, Wade. Williams, and Yates-11.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Cole, Cragin, Drake, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Osborn, Patemner, Vickers, and Welch-20. terson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart,

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cattell, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wilson-27.

So the amendment was rejected.

The amendments were ordered to be en

grossed, and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. No. 347) to confirm the title of Ethan Ray Clarke and Samuel Ward Ciarke to certain lands in the State of Florida, claimed under a grant from the Spanish Government.

The message also announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. No. 1206) to restore to certain parties their rights under the laws and treaties of the United States; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker bills and joint resolutions; and they were thereof the House had signed the following enrolled upon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate:

Almira Wyeth;
A bill (H. R. No. 411) for the relief of

A bill (H. R. No. 523) granting a pension to James S. Todd;

A bill (H. R. No. 671) granting a pension to the widow of Henry Kaneday;

A bill (H. R. No. 775) granting a pension to Rebecca Jane Kinsel;

A bill (H. R. No. 780) for the relief of Martha M. Jones, administratrix of Samuel T. Jones;

A bill (H. R. No. 1129) for the relief of the widow and children of Colonel James A. Mul

ligan, deceased; and

the pay of the Assistant Librarian of the House. A joint resolution (H. R. No. 312) relative to

PENSION BILLS.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the following bills:

A bill (H. R. No. 373) to place the name of Mahala A. Straight upon the pension-roll of the United States;

A bill (H. R. No. 456) granting a pension to the minor children of Pleasant Stoops;

A bill (H. R. No. 518) granting a pension to George F. Gorham, late a private in company B, twenty-ninth regiment Massachusetts volunteer infantry;

A bill (H. R. No. 522) granting a pension to W. W. Cunningham;

A bill (H. R. No. 525) granting a pension to Jeremiah T. Hallett;

A bill (H. R. No. 661) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of William Craft;

A bill (H. R. No. 662) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of George R. Waters;

A bill (H. R. No. 663) granting a pension to Cyrus K. Wood, the legal representative of Cyrus D. Wood;

A bill (H. R. No. 664) granting a pension to the minor children of Charles Gouler;

A bill (H. R. No. 666) granting a pension to Henry H. Hunter;

A bill (H. R. No. 669) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Myron Wilklow;

A bill (H. R. No. 670) granting a pension to the widow and children of Andrew Holman; A bill (H. R. No. 521) to place the name of Solomon Zachman on the pension-roll;

A bill (H. R. No. 673) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of John S. Phelps;

A bill (H. R. No. 672) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Charles W. Wilcox;

A bill (H. R. No. 676) granting a pension to Thomas Connolly;

A bill (H. R. No. 677) granting a pension to the minor children of James Heatherly; A bill (H. R. No. 770) granting a pension to John H. Finlay;

A bill (H. R. No. 675) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Cornelius L. Rice;

A bill (H. R. No. 771) granting a pension to John L. Lay;

A bill (H. R. No. 773) granting a pension to William H. McDonald; and

A bill (H. R. No. 825) granting a pension to John W. Hughes:

And asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bills, and appointed Mr. SIDNEY PERHAM of Maine, Mr. J. F. BENJAMIN of Missouri, and Mr. G. F. MILLER of Pennsylvania, managers at the conference on its part.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, the Senate proceeded to consider the message received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bills of the House last named.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, it was Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments to the said last-named bills, and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the said bills.

Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the President pro tempore.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. VAN WINKLE, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. EDMUNDS.

BILL RECOMMITTED.

On motion of Mr. STEWART, the bill (S. No. 349) granting aid in the construction of a railroad from the town of Vallejo to Humboldt bay, in the State of California, was recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 1206) to restore to certain parties their rights under the laws and treaties of the United States was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ELECTORAL VOTES OF LATE REBEL STATES. Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to consider Senate joint resolution No. 139, relating to the counting of electoral

votes.

Mr. SUMNER. I wish to remind my friend

that to-morrow at one o'clock has been set apart for the business of the District of Columbia.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I cannot help that. We will do the best we can. This is business of

the District of Columbia.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CONKLING. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, July 2, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON. The reading of yesterday's Journal was, by unanimous consent, dispensed with.

TAX ON INTEREST OF BONDS.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1350) to authorize internal tax on the interest of bonds and other securities of the United States; which was read a first and second time.

The bill and report were read in extenso, as follows:

A bill to authorize an internal tax on the interest of the bonds and other securities of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act there shall be levied, collected, and paid a tax of ten per cent. on the amount of interest hereafter due and payable on all the bonds and other securities of the United States. To secure the collection of said tax, the amount of interest hereafter paid on any bonds or other securities of the United States, bearing interest at six per cent., shall be at the rate of only five and four tenths per cent., and bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. shall be at the rate of only four and five tenths per cent.; and if bearing interest at the rate of three per cent.shall be at the rate of only two and seven tenths per cent. per annum. No higher rate of interest than is herein prescribed shall be paid on any bond or other security of the United States now outstanding, or authorized to be issued, all conditions of any such bond or other security, and all laws and parts of laws to the contrary notwithstanding,

The Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred the resolution of the House, instructing them to report without unnecessary delay a bill levying a tax of at least ten per cent. on the interest of the bonds of the United States, to be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury and such of his subordinates as may be charged with the duty of paying the interest on the bonded debt of the United States, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report and bill:

The Committee of Ways and Means are opposed to the proposition embraced in this resolution, and report the bill only in obedience to the positive order of the House. In the argument made in the House in favor of the resolution the English income tax law was referred to and quoted. There is a law corresponding to that law on the statute-books of this country, imposing a tax on incomes of five per cent., while the English law is less than three per cent. But your committee have been unable to find in the statute-books of England or any other civilized country a law that could be regarded in any way as a precedent for the bill the House have instructed the committee to report, which, if enacted, will be simply a law providing for the payment of a rate of interest on the Government debt ten per cent. less than was agreed for, ten per cent. less than is stated in the bonds, and ten per cent, less than was pledged to be paid by the solemn enactment of Congress when the money was required to carry on a war which threatened the life of the nation. The evil effects resulting to a nation, whether her national credit is guarded and protected, or whether by legislation of the character now proposed the confidence of all other civilized nations is forfeited, may not be felt or appreciated in time of peace; but the committee desire to call attention to the consequences that would follow the passage of a bill of the character now submitted, in case we should ever hereafter have occasion to use our credit for the purpose of providing means either to sustain ourselves at home or to defend ourselves in any collision with a foreign Power.

The committee repeat that in reporting the bill they act in obedience to the positive directions of the House, and contrary to their own best judgment. They reserve to themselves their rights, as members of the House, to oppose in every possible way the adoption of a measure which they regard as hostile to the public interest and injurious to the national character.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, moved that the bill and report be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move

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

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I demand the yeas and nays on the latter motion.

The SPEAKER. It cannot be brought back into the House by a motion to reconsider except by unanimous consent, as it is a bill which must have its first consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I withdraw my motion.

EXPORTERS OF RUM.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, from the same committee, also reported back House joint resolution No. 318, to correct an act entitled "An act for the relief of certain exporters of rum," with the recommendation that it do pass.

ex

The resolution provides that the word "and," where it occurs in said act after the word " port" and before the words "actually contracted," be changed into "or;" so the corrected act shall read, "intended for export or actually contracted for."

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts, moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask consent to introduce a bill to equalize taxation and reduce the interest on the public debt, for reference to the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. RANDALL. Let the bill be reported. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I only desire to have it referred.

Mr. RANDALL. I want to hear what it is. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] demands the regular order, which excludes all business but that which is privileged. This, therefore, cannot be considered unless the gentleman withdraws his demand.

Mr. ORTH. I am willing myself to do so, but there are gentlemen around me who insist upon the regular order.

The SPEAKER. The bill is, then, not before the House.

DIVISION OF TEXAS.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. The Committee on Reconstruction, who have been some time considering the matter, have come to a unanimous agreement to report back the bill which was sent to them for perfection (H. R. No. 1203) to provide for the erection of not more than two additional States out of the territory of the State of Texas, and for other purposes, with one amendment.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Does the gentleman expect to put it on its passage to-day?

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. That was the intention.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I hope that will not be done. I did not expect it would be disposed of to-day.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. What day would suit the gentleman better? If the gentleman will fix a day I am willing it should be done.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I do not know about the state of business before the House. Let the bill be printed and recommitted.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I have received letters and telegrams from the convention. They are very anxious we should act upon the bill so that they may act. I will consent, however, to have it printed and recommitted, and I will consult the gentleman when to call it up.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Is this a subject upon which the committee can report at any time?

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. BECK. Will not the gentleman agree to £x Wednesday next, when Mr. BINGHAM and Mr. BROOKS will be here?

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I will not fix any time now, because it might not suit my friends.

Mr. BECK. I desire it should not come up before those gentlemen are here.

The bill was ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the committee.

PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS IN CALIFORNIA.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has now commenced, and the House resumes the consideration of House bill No. 1206, to restore to certain parties their rights under the laws and treaties of the United States, pending at the expiration of the morning hour yesterday, on which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. STONE] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. STONE. I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. ORTH. When the morning hour expired yesterday I was opposing the adoption of the proviso to this bill offered by the gentleman from California, [Mr. JoHNSON.] I will now say to that gentleman that if he will offer his amendment as a substitute for the proviso now attached to the original bill I will withdraw my opposition.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will do so. I move to strike out all after the words "provided further," in the substitute, as follows:

That such confirmation shall not affect the rights of third parties, but shall establish simply the title of the claimant as between him and the United States.

And to insert in lieu thereof the following: That all persons who, previous to the passage of this act, have acquired any valid right or title to any of the lands embraced within the provisions of this act under the preemption or homestead laws, or otherwise, shall be protected in their rights.

That amendment will make the bill as it was

originally.,

Mr. ORTH. I am willing a vote should be taken on the adoption of the amendment. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ORTH. Before resuming my seat I desire to say that this bill enables parties to go into our own courts of justice and test their rights under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and also whatever rights they may have acquired under the homestead and preemption laws of the United States. The bill was thoroughly considered not only by the Committee on Private Land Claims, but by the Committee on the Public Lands, and is unanimously reported to this House.

Mr. STONE. In the absence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WOODWARD,] who left the city yesterday, it has fallen to my lot to give a brief explanation to the House of this bill, and in order to understand it thoroughly it is necessary to refer back to the treaty made between the United States and Mexico. By that treaty the United States agreed to respect all Mexican or Spanish titles, and for the purpose of ascertaining the public lands in the State of California they appointed a land commission, and required landholders, or those who held grants from Spain or Mexico, to exhibit to this land commission the evidence of their titles, and the commission was to decide upon the validity of those titles granted to the parties on appeal, first to the district court, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. The commission commenced and continued its session, but by the act only two years were allowed the parties to present their claims and have them adjudicated upon. After a while the act was further extended for two years, making four years in all. That time has expired, and it has been found by examination that there are a variety of claimants in California who claim titles under the Mexican and Spanish Governments, who, owing to the short time allowed by the original act of 1851, have not yet had an opportunity to have their claims presented and adjudicated upon. The sole object of this bill is to extend the time one year longer. This is no new bill. It enunciates no new princi