is any weight in the recognition of these governments by the President; I do not think there is. I do not think he had any right to recognize governments in the rebel States at all. I suppose the honorable Senator and myself agree on that subject; but there is a party who hold that his organization of State governments in the rebel States was valid and constitutional, and that those governments are the permanent lawful governments of the States; and they insist upon it, they have insisted upon it in this Chamber, as the honorable Senator knows very well, that Congress has on repeated occasions recognized by its legislation the existence and the validity of those governments. Would the honorable Senator leave that very important question open to debate and discus

sion hereafter?

Mr. CONKLING. Not at all; and therefore I propose to close the question by excluding from the provision all governments which have been recognized as temporary or provis ional. Now, does the Senator mean to say that anybody has argued that Congress, speaking at this time, recognizes or has recognized those governinents as legitimate, permanent governments, contradistinguished from provisional governments, when the President himself and his party, as has been argued here over and over again, and greatly at length the other day by the honorable Senator from Indiana, [Mr. HENDRICKS.] have never treated them as anything except temporary and provisional governments?

It may be said that that objection which the honorable Senator makes, which is so unlike the objection he made last night, has the recommendation of ingenuity; but he must pardon me for saying that I do not see that it has. It seems to me that it is a criticism made in the very teeth and letter and obvious meaning of the provision. "Unless at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors, there shall be in such State a government recognized by Congress as regular and permanent, and not provisional only." How anybody in the face of that language can say that there is room for the shadow of a doubt as to its meaning in the behalf suggested I cannot comprehend.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I will ask the Senator whether his amendment would not exclude the votes of States situated as Wisconsin once was, whose votes were counted in the joint convention of the two Houses? Would it not exclude the votes of States that may have been taken under provisions made by their constitutional conventions before State organizations have been actually organized or an act of the State Legislature passed authorizing the election of electors? There may be cases of that kind where it would operate very inconveniently; cases where there would be no question about the validity of the new State; no objection to its organization or its constitution; and yet it might not have gone through all the necessary forms to meet the requirements of his amendment before the electoral votes were taken.

Mr. CONKLING. I should like to ask the Senator what he means by not having gone through the forms required by this amendment?

Mr. BUCKALEW. The form of setting up a State government, and having regular authority by virtue of State law for holding the election of electors, and the acceptance of the constitution by Congress, and the admission of Senators and Representatives, all which would seem to be contemplated as constituting recognition by Congress under the amend

ment.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not understand the provision at all as the Senator does in that respect. The original proposition recites what are to be the prerequisites, and recites the things to which the Senator has referred among others. This provision is that there shall be in the State a government which Congress recognizes, and that the election shall have taken place under the authority of that government. If the Senator can put me the case of a Territory which does not come within this

provision, the votes from which ought to be counted, I should like to hear such a case as that stated.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Of course the territorial organization might continue until the State was fully organized under the enabling acts of Congress. The electoral votes might be taken before the new State organization was perfected, and yet there be no earthly objection | to the reception of those votes.

Mr. CONKLING. How would this amendment interfere with that?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I think it would exclude the vote.

Mr. CONKLING. If the Territory is to be treated as a State within the provision at all, then it seems to me the language is exactly adapted to admit it. Why not? It would have a government, which government would be recognized by Congress, and the election would have taken place under the authority of that government. That is precisely what is provided for here.

Mr. BUCKALEW., I think the new government set up in such a case would be strictly provisional, until the State constitution and rep resentatives should be accepted by Congress, and the State fully admitted. It would fall exactly under the description of a provisional government.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not think so. I cannot imagine any case which would fall within it. I do not think there can be such a case put. If there can then it would be impossible to have any general provision on this subject, and it would be impossible, I submit to the Senator, to execute in its terms the mandate of the Constitution in that respect.

Mr. DRAKE. I wil state to the honorable Senator from New York that just such a case has occurred in the history of this country. The constitution of the State of Missouri was adopted in July, 1820, the year of a presidential election. Suppose that State had gone on at the presidential election to elect electors in the expectation of being admitted. There would occur a case where it had not been recognized at the time of the election in November, and such a case may occur again, and yet Con- || gress would recognize it afterward, and before the counting of the electoral vote. If the hon- || orable Senator perceives my meaning, he will perceive at once a case that might arise.

Mr. CONKLING. I say that is a case that did not happen. If in addition to what did occur other things had occurred that would have been a case. My answer to it, to be brief, is this: there are several answers to it, but one will do; if afterward Congress recog nized it as a State, that would be the end of the whole thing. If Congress did recognize it and did count the votes, of course it would be held to be within the provision as it would be, and that would settle it altogether. You might state the case on the constitution as it stands just as strongly as you can state it upon this provision, and I ask the Senator from Missouri to look at the language of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That cannot happen in such case as he states, for it would not be a State, but Congress afterward in the case he has supposed would condone that and treat it as State for that purpose, and that would settle the whole thing, and that would be just as much under this declaratory provision as it would be under the Constitution without any provision of law about it, because if you are to stick in the letter the Constitution stands just as much in your way as would a provision of this sort.

Mr. DRAKE. How can that be, when the Senator's amendment says that at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors there shall be in such State a government recognized by Congress, and the election shall have been held under the authority of that government. The constitution of the State of Missouri was formed in July, 1820, and its Legislature was elected in August, 1820, and that Legislature went on to perform the functions of a State

Legislature and elected Senators in Congress, and they by virtue of that election were ad mitted into Congress as soon as the State was admitted. Now, suppose a question had never arisen there in regard to the admissibility of Missouri; suppose a controversy over the question of slavery had not arisen, and Missouri had been admitted before the counting of the votes, but not before the day of the election, and had presented her electoral votes, if such a law as this had been on the statute-book, it would have excluded them and required repeal.

To

Mr. CONKLING. To go back to the point of the Senator's question, which, I think, was in his first suggestion, all that can be just as the Constitution can be, and if the Senator will give me his attention I will try to answer him precisely. "Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That implies literally that there is to be a State with a Legislature, and that the direction is to precede the choice of electors, not only to be at the same time, but earlier than that. enforce this literally, how could you ever count the votes in such a case as he has put? You could not do it obviously, because there was no State, there was no Legislature of a State prior to or at the time of the choice, and therefore all you can do is to condone it and treat it as virtually complied with afterward when you count the votes, and that you can do under this provision. If the Senator will look at the Constitution he will find that his criticism is just as strong applied to the discrepancies between the case he states and the Constitution itself, and I think more so, than it is between the case he states and this provision.

Mr. President, I have occupied much more time about this matter than l'intended when I rose; and when I make a single further observation, I shall relieve the Senate. I do not think it is worth while for legislative or for political purposes to put forth in an act of Congress the idea that we expect that the particular States which we have been reconstructing are to tumble down or collapse before the next presidential election. I do think it is prudent to have a general provision on this subject for abundant caution, as we had in 1864; and as we are compelled to make one now in reference to the three States of Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas, which are not in condition to vote, I think it is worth while, while attending to them, to extend it so as to provide for any possible danger; but to select suspiciously and tremulously those States which we have just rebaptised, and say that while we fear no commotion anywhere else, we are trembling lest there the rebellion should break out again, as an act of legislative or party policy does not commend itself to my judgment. Nor does it commend itself to my judgment to pass a temporary act, as we did in 1864; and now let me remind my honorable friend from Mich igan that if ten years ago the very proposition which I offer to-day had been adopted, there would have been no such occasion in 1864. Hé will agree with me about that. There would not have been any necessity for the provision, nor any proposition by joint or concurrent resolution in 1864 to provide for this.

If the provision is adopted now no matter what may take place in this presidential elec tion or any future presidential election on this head, we have a statute which stands a harmless statute unless difficulty arises, and which, if difficulty of this sort does arise, will provide for every case, be it North, South, East, or West, just as well for a Dorr or a Shay's rebellion, or an anti-rent rebellion in the State of New York, as for secession in the State of South Carolina. While we are about it why should we not adopt a general and lasting provision on this subject, disclosing no weakness and no unreal apprehension in any direction, but providing abundantly for every adverse contingency which any Senator can apprehend? I have no pride about this, Mr. President, I need not say. I shall vote with great pleasure for the original proposition introduced by the Senator from Vermont, if we come to that,

with one or two amendments, which I shall take the liberty to offer; and I have no doubt that, so far as the present occasion is concerned, and the substance of it, that provision will be adequate; and yet I must think that a general provision to be made durable, and to apply to all cases, would be much wiser for the present and the future than this special and temporary proposition.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, there is so much said in the Senate that might just as well not be said for the purpose of shedding light on any question that the greatest trouble I ever have to address the Senate at all is to determine whether I have anything worth saying. I think there is something worth saying about this matter. I am not going to wander from the points of the case and not going into any political discussion; I simply wish to have the matter shown in its true light and in as brief terms as I can possibly command.

It is of no manner of use for the Senator from New York to talk about introducing a general proposition here and putting it upon the statute-book of the country when he knows, as well as he knows anything else, that it never would have occurred to him in the world to introduce such a proposition as this but for the fact that this Congress has been through its whole history so far, and the next preceding Congress through its whole history, dealing with States that were in insurrection; and, sir, we might just as well come out and treat the subject upon that basis, admit to the country that we are still dealing with States that were in insurrection and not undertake to salve over the whole thing by adopting a general proposition which, in my opinion, is an insult to the loyal States to adopt at all. The very proposition that we have gone upon in all our legis. lation is that these insurrectionary States ceased to be States in connection with the Union by their insurrection, and that it was necessary that they should be readmitted to representation in Congress. The amendment that I propose directly affirms that fact by its terms. The Senator from New York shies clear round it, and says nothing whatever about it. It does not refer, either, to the insurrectionary States; but proceeding upon the idea that there is a necessity for a general law, it goes into the enactment of a law which could have no possible necessity except in the fact that insurrectionary States exist.

Why should we do this? Why should there be such a law put on the statute-book with regard to Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Missouri, and all the other loyal States of the Union to determine the question here whether their governments had been recognized by Congress when the joint session of the two Houses meet in February next? There is necessity for it. I do not understand the reason which lies at the bottom of the amendment of the Senator from New York. Does he dislike to come up and talk in plain terms about these insurrectionary States and deal with them upon the basis of their readmission to Congress and the substitution there of lawful and permanent for provisional governments? If he does. I do not. I choose to take this matter by the horns exactly as it stands, to put no general statute upon the book for which there can be no justification in the circumstances of the country. You can find no justification in the condition of any of the States but those that engaged in rebellion; and I wish to make it distinctly and pointedly applicable to them. This is the whole purpose of my amendment; that is the difference between the amendment of the Senator from New York and the one that I have proposed, that he undertakes to deal as to the whole nation and all the States on a condition of things that is not applicable to all, while I undertake to deal with the rebel States and the condition of things applicable to them only. Therefore, sir, it is that I think the amendment I have proposed is preferable

to his.

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

New York [Mr. CONKLING] to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. DRAKE.] The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 19, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Conkling, Cragin, Fessenden, Fowler, Harlan, Henderson, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ross, Stewart, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, and Wilson-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Conness, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Howard, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Sumner, Tipton, Vickers, Williams, and Yates-20.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cameron, Chandler, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, and Welch-18.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DRAKE. I propose to amend the amend ment by inserting in the first line after the word "'heretofore" the words "declared to be."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be so modified. The question is on the amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. We have never declared them to be simply in insurrection; we always "rebellion."

say

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five o'clock having arrived, the Senate according to the order will take a recess until half past seven o'clock.

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate reassembled at seven and a half o'clock p. m.

POST ROADS.

On motion of Mr. RAMSEY, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 589) to establish certain post roads.

Mr. RAMSEY. I am instructed by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads to move a few amendments. I move to strike out lines seven and eight, under the head of "California," in these words:

From Trinity Centre via Summersville, Petersburg, Cecilville, Centreville, and Black Bear to Sawyer's Bar.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RAMSEY. I move to strike out line thirty-seven under the head of Minnesota, in these words:

From Sauk Rapids, via Princeton, to Taylor's Falls. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RAMSEY. I move to insert after line twenty-one :

KANSAS.

From Waterville, via the county seat of Clay, Cloud, Ottowa, and Saline counties, and Sharp's Creek to Wichita on Walnut Creek.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

MAQUOKETA RIVER.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution (S. R. No. 107) in relation to the Maquoketa river in the State of Iowa.

The amendment was to add as an additional section to the resolution, as follows:

And be it further resolved, That dams and bridges may be constructed across the Iowa river in the State of Iowa above the town of Wapello.

Mr. HARLAN. I move that the Senate concur in that amendment, and I will state that the Legislature of the State has memorialized Congress asking for this authority. The amendment was concurred in.

TARGET-SHOOTING ASSOCIATION.

The Senate proceeded to consider its amendments to the bill of the House (H. R. No. 344) to incorporate the Washington Target-Shooting Association, in the District of Columbia, disagreed to by the House; and

On motion by Mr. HARLAN,

Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments to the said bill disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and ask a conference on the disagreeing yotes of the two Houses thereon.

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

The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. HARLAN, Mr. CONKLING, and Mr. VICKERS.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, communicating further, in connection with his message of the 23d of May last, information relative to transactions which have occurred in Japan in connection with the civil war which exists in that empire; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

WAIT TALCOTT.

On motion of Mr. TRUMBULL, the bill (H. R. No. 1099) for the relief of Wait Talcott was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It is a direction to the Secretary of the Treasury to credit to Wait Talcott, (as of the 18th February, 1865,) internal revenue collector for the second district of Illinois, the sum of $556 93, in consideration of the loss of that sum by the robbery of his deputy, Captain Richard A. Smith.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 1337) to increase the pension of Mrs. Frances T. Richardson was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

The bill (H. R. No. 1363) to increase the pension of Emily B. Bidwell was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 329) to amend the fourteenth section of an act approved July 28, 1866, entitled “An act to protect the revenue, and for other purposes,' was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

VALLEJO AND HUMBOLDT BAY RAILROAD.

Mr. CONNESS. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 349. My object is to get the bill read; I shall not ask action upon it just now.

The motion was agreed to; and 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 considered as in Committee of the Whole. The Committee on Public Lands proposed to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting:

That there be, and is hereby, granted to the State of California, for the use and benefit of the San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company. (a company organized and created under the general laws of said State,) the right of way through the public lands of the United States for the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the town of Vallejo to Humboldt bay, and the right, power, and authority is also hereby given to take from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road material of timber, earth, and stone for the construction thereof; said way is granted to the extent of one hundred feet in width on each side of said railroad, where it may pass through the public domain.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That there be, and hereby is, granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroad and telegraph line, and to secure the transportation of the mails, troops, munitions of war, and public stores over the route of said line of railway, every alternate section of public land, not mineral, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad on the line thereof, between Calistoga Springs and Humboldt bay, where the United States have full title, not reserved, sold, granted, or otherwise appropriated, and free from preemption or other claims or rights at the time the line of said road is designated by a plat thereof filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office. And whenever, prior to said time, any of said sections or parts of sections shall have been granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, or preempted, or otherwise disposed of, other lands shall be selected by said company in lieu thereof, under direction of the Secretary of the Interior, in alternate sections, and designated by odd numbers, not more than five miles beyond the

limits of said alternate sections, and not including the reserve numbers: Provided, That all mineral lands be, and the same are hereby, excluded from the operations of this ast: Provided further, That the word "mineral," where it occurs in this act, shall not be held to include iron or coal: Provided further, That the lands hereby granted to aid in the construction of said railroad shall be sold by the State of California to actual settlers in quantities not to exceed one quarter section to any one person, and at a price to be fixed by the company not exceeding $250 per acre, and the amount received for said land shall be paid by the State to said company, after deducting all the expense incurred by the said State in making such sales. And all sales so made shall be made upon the following terms, namely, one fourth of the amount thereof shall be paid in cash at the time of purchase, and the balance thereof shall be paid by the settler in three annual installments with interest. not to exceed seven per cent. per annum, until paid. And the Secretary of the Interior shall have power to prescribe rules and regulations for carrying this act into effect, and no person shall be deemed an actual settler who does not furnish evidence, in such form as the Governor of the State may prescribe, that it is his or her intention to enter upon, improve, and reside upon the lands he or she may purchase: Provided further, That any alternate even-numbered sections along the line of any railway, which have not been sold or entered upon by actual settlers within ten years from and after the survey and location of said railway, shall be disposed of on the same terms as other public lands of the United States.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever said San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company shall have ten consecutive miles of any portion of said railroad and telegraph line ready for the service contemplated, the Governor of the State of California shall certify to the Secretary of the Interior that ten consecutive miles of the said road and telegraph line have been completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, as in all other respects required by this act; and thereupon patents of lands, as aforesaid, shall be issued to said State, confirming to the said State for the said company the title to said lands situated opposite to and conterminous with said completed section of said road. And from time to time, whenever ten additional consecutive miles shall have been constructed, completed, and in readiness as aforesaid, and verified as aforesaid to the President of the United States, then patents shall be issued to said State for the use of said company, conveying the additional sections of lands as aforesaid, and so on as fast as every ten miles of said road is completed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That said Vallejo and Humboldt Bay railroad shall be constructed in a substantial and workmaulike sanner, with all the necessary draws, culverts, bridges, viaducts, crossings, turn-outs, stations, and watering-places, and all other appurtenances, including furniture and rolling-stock, equal in all respects to railroads of the first class when prepared for business, with rails of the best quality; and a uniform gauge, being the same as that of the Union and Central Pacific railroads, shall be established throughout the entire length of the road. And there shall be constructed a telegraph line of the most substantial and approved description to be operated along the entire line. And it shall be the duty of the San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company to permit any other railroad which shall be authorized to be built by the United States, or by the Legislature of the State of California, to form running connections with it on equitable, just, and fair terms.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States shall cause the lands to be surveyed for ten miles in width on both sides of the entire line of said road, after the general route shall be fixed, and as fast as may be required by the construction of said railroad; and the said odd-numbered sections of land hereby granted shall not be liable to sale or entry or preemption after the line of said railroad is designated by a plat filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, as provided in section two of this act, except by said company, as provided in this act. And the reserved alternate even-numbered sections shall not be sold by the Government at a price less than $2 50 per acre when offered for sale.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted. That each and every grant, right, and privilege herein, are so made and given to and accepted by said San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company, upon and subject to the following conditions, namely: that the said company shall commence the work on said road within one year from the passage of this act, and shall complete not less than ten miles per year after the second year, and shall construct, equip, furnish, and complete the main line of the whole road by the 4th day of July, A. D. 1880.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the United States make the several conditional grants herein, and that the said San Francisco. Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company accept the same upon the further condition that if the said company make any breach of the condition hereof, and allow the same to continue for upward of one year, then in such case, at any time hereafter, the United States may do any and all acts and things which may be needful and necessary to insure a specdy completion of the said road.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the acceptance of the terms, conditions, and impositions of this act by the said San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company shall be signified in writing under the corporate seal of said company, duly executed pursuant to the direction of its board of directors, first had and obtained, which acceptance shall be made within one year after the passage of this

act, and not afterward, and shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the directors of said company shall make and publish an annual report of their proceedings and expenditures, verified by the affidavits of the president and at least five of the directors, a copy of which shall be deposited in the office of the said Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the better to accomplish the object of this act, namely: to promote the public interest and welfare by the construetion of said railroad and telegraph line, and keeping the same in working order, and to secure to the Govcrnment at all times, but particularly in time of war the use and benefits of the same for postal, military, and other purposes. Congress may at any time, having due regard for the rights of said San Francisco, Vallejo, and Humboldt Bay Railroad Company, add to, alter, amend, or repeal this act.

Mr. CONNESS. Now I move that the bill be postponed until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to.

PENSION BILLS.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H. R. No. 614) for the relief of Mrs. Alice A. Dryer;

A bill (H. R. No. 851) granting a pension to Ann Williams;

A bill (H. R. No. 886) for the relief of Mrs. Mary J. Trueman;

A bill (H. R. No. 991) for the relief of Zadock T. Newman;

A bill (H. R. No. 1263) granting a pension to Joseph A. Fry;

A bill (H. R. No. 1295) granting a pension to William J. Cotty, late of the twenty-first Missouri infantry volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1315) for the relief of Seth Lea;

A bill (H. R. No. 1331) for the relief of Nancy Cook, of Tennessee;

A bill (H. R. No. 1332) for the relief of Barbara Stout, of Tennessee;

A bill (H. R. No. 1882) granting a pension to Sarah E. Ball, widow of James Ball, deceased, late fireman on the steamer Vedette, connected with the Burnside expedition;

A bill (H. R. No. 1383) granting a pension to Miss Ann E. Hamilton, of Alleghany city, Pennsylvania, aunt and adopted mother of James E. McKillip and Charles P. McKillip, deceased, late soldiers in the Union Army;

A bill (H. R. No. 1884) granting a pension to Mrs. Elizabeth Lane, of Boston, Massachusetts, mother of John Lane, deceased, late a private in company A, twelfth regiment Massachusetts volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1885) granting a pension to Roslinda McCalee, widow of Barney McCa

lee, deceased, late a private in company I, tenth regiment New York cavalry volunteers; A bill (H. R. No. 1386) granting a pension to Hinman L. Hall;

A bill (H. R. No. 1387) granting a pension to Elizabeth G. Hibben, widow of Rev. Samuel Hibben, deceased, late a chaplain in the fourth cavalry regiment, Illinois volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1388) granting a pension to Kate Higgins;

A bill (H. R. No. 1389) granting a pension to Eliza Donnelly, mother of Dudley Donnelly, deceased, late colonel of the twentyeighth regiment infantry, New York State vol

unteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1390) granting a pension to Michael Reilly;

A bill (H. R. No. 1391) granting a pension to Jane McNaughton;

A bill (H. R. No. 1392) granting a pension to Chauncey D. Rose, father of Alvin J. Rose, late a sergeant-veteran in company A, second regiment of Ohio cavalry volunteers, who was killed in action at Five Forks, Virginia, April 1, 1865;

A bill (H. R. No. 1393) granting a pension to Hugo Eichholtz;

A bill (H. R. No. 1394) granting a pension to Daniel Sheets;

A bill (H. R. No. 1395) granting a pension to Esther C. C. Vangilder, widow of Charles F. Vangilder, deceased, late a private in com

pany M, first regiment Vermont heavy artillery volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1396) granting a pension to Stephen T. Carver;

A bill (H. R. No. 1897) granting a pension to Prescott Y. Howland;

A bill (H. R. No. 1398) granting a pension to Martin Burke;

A bill (H. R. No. 1399) granting increased pension to William B. Edwards;

A bill (H. R. No. 1400) granting a pension to Jonathan H. Perry ;

A bill (H. R. No. 1401) granting a pension to John La Marsh;

A bill (H. R. No. 1402) granting a pension to Catharine Skinner;

A bill (H. R. No. 1403) granting a pension to Helen L. Wolf;

A bill (H. R. No. 1404) granting a pension to William Smith;

A bill (H. R. No. 1405) granting a pension to Elizabeth Lamar;

A bill (H. R. No. 1406) granting a pension to Patrick Collins;

A bill (H. R. No. 1407) granting a pension to John Gridley;

A bill (H. R. No. 1408) granting a pension to Catharine Gensler;

A bill (H. R. No. 1409) granting a pension to Asa F. Holcomb;

A bill (H. R. No. 1410) granting back pension to the minor children of Joseph Berry;

A bill (H. R. No. 1411) granting a pension to Polly W. Cotton;

A bill (H. R. No. 1412) granting a pension to the children of William R. Silvey;

A bill (H. R. No. 1413) granting a pension to Jane Rook; and

A bill (H. R. No. 1414) granting a pension to Sarah K. Johnson.

These bills were read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. ELECTORAL VOTES OF LATE REBEL STATES.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now I call for the regular order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of the morning session is the joint resolution (S. R. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College votes of States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized. That joint resolution is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole; and the pending question is on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. DRAKE.]

Mr. DRAKE. With regard to that amendment, in consequence of a suggestion made by adjourned, as to the use of the word "insurthe Senator from Kansas just before the Senate rection," I have examined the acts of 1861, and the proclamation of the President in regard to the insurrectionary States, and have found that I had correctly used the word "insurrection." I have now modified my amendment so as to embrace the very language of the acts and proclamations of 1861; and it reads thus:

"No State whose inhabitants were by the proclamation of the President of the United States of August 16, 1861, declared to be in a state of insurrection, shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President and Vice President of the United States, nor shall any electoral vote be received or counted from any such State, unless at the time prescribed by law for the choice of such electors the State shall have been readmitted to representation in Congress, nor unless the electors shall have been chosen under and by authority of a State government theretofore recognized by Congress as lawful and permanent, and not provisional."

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish Senators to pay a little attention, because the only object any of us have is to get the measure in the best form. I studied the subject somewhat myself before the original resolution was introduced; and going over the debates of 1864 and 1865, and the various forms in which Senators then offered amendments to reach this same result, I thought it was altogether wiser to take what was then settled upon as the foundation of this proposition, because men of all parties agreed to that form and voted for it. As L stated to-day, it was maintained that in that form it was the true and proper expression of legislative will; and I would be glad to have

the Associated Press-who have to-day, I see, reported my advocacy of the joint resolution, which was all I was entitled to, but who have omitted to report what I read as to the previous opinions and declarations of the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Illinois-if is is not too much trouble to them, to put what they said, or the substance of it, into their report, because, as the report goes out to the country in the evening papers, the Senator from Kentucky is represented as contending that Congress has not any power or jurisdiction whatever over this question. I would beg of the Associated Press, as a favor to the country, and for the cause of history, to put in the opinion of the honorable Senator from Kentucky delivered three years ago, in which he most clearly demonstrated that this was one of the subjects over which Congress had jurisdiction, and upon which they ought to act.

so far as the prohibitory branch of it is concerned, the very language which is contained in the joint resolution now reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, and which was copied from that joint resolution. That resolution had a preamble which recited "that the inhabitants and local authorities of the States of Virginia, North Carolina," and so on, recit ing them, "rebelled against the Government of the United States, and were in such condition on the 8th day of November, 1864, that no valid election for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, according to the Constitution and laws thereof, was held therein on said day ;" and therefore Congress proceeded to resolve that "the States mentioned in the preamble" were "not entitled to representation in the Electoral College" at that election. That was the declaration. Now, this joint resolution stands precisely upon that position, which was then agreed to with the concurrence of all parties, and merely declares, naming those same States, that they shall not now be entitled to representation unless they shall have organized themselves into a new political community, and shall have thereafter once more been restored into the brotherhood of States. It is a logical, necessary consequence of that legislation. Now, on a question which is represented by the Senator from Illinois and several others to be a delicate

Mr. EDMUNDS. To that I have only to reply by asking the reporters of the Associated Press to report exactly what the Globe shows that the Senator from Kentucky did say, which I read this morning, and the country then will judge what his two positions are as distinguished between 1865 and 1868.

Mr. DAVIS. I am sorry that the honorable Senator gives himself any trouble about what the reporters of the Associated Press report of his remarks.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not.

Mr. DAVIS. I never give myself any trouble about or any attention to what they report me as saying. I would as soon they should report one thing of me as another, because I care not what they do report, and I should hope the honorable Senator was as indifferent as I am in relation to that matter.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have found no fault with the Associated Press as to reporting me. They have always done me entire justice by condensing what I have to say into a very narrow compass indeed. What I was saying was that inasmuch as my honorable friend from Kentucky is known over the whole country as a public man and as a jurist, I hoped they would do the country the benefit of reporting what he did declare in 1865 as well as what he declared to-day. That is all.

Mr. DAVIS. I am obliged to the honorable Senator for his courtesy, and I hope he will extend it a little further by reading himself all that I said on the subject.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have done so with the greatest satisfaction and instruction. Now, to come back to the precise point that is pending: when you have studied the debates of 1865 and the form in which they were finally crystalized into a statute, we find that our predecessors at that time thought the wise and safe way was to say exactly what we did mean as it respected the very States of which we spoke, and it therefore declared that those States, naming them, there having been votes sent here from two of them, were not legally entitled to be represented, using in the main,

and follow it in substance and in form, which has been agreed to by gentlemen of all parties, than it is to resort to any new rule? I think it is: and it was so thinking, and after having tried almost all the experiments that my friend from Missouri and my friend from New York have, that I came to the conclusion that it was wisest to follow what our predecessors had settled upon.

One very serious objection to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri, until he has now modified it in the light of later events, (which shows how unsafe it is to pass upon an amendment in a hurry.) was that as he proposed it it declared that" no State heretofore in insurrection" should be entitled to representation, &c. That leaves open the very question that we are trying to foreclose, because our honored friends on the other side maintain that no State as a State ever has been in insurrection or rebellion. That is the very dogma upon which they hang all their hopes. But my friend from Missouri has now modified it, so that as to that particular objection the difficulty is removed, and his amendment now provides that "no State whose inhabitants were by the President's proclamation of August 16, 1861, declared to be in a state of insurrection shall be entitled," and then copies at quite a little distance the language of the original joint resolution. I do not now remember whether all these States were named in the proclamation of 1861. I presume the Senator from Missouri has looked to that.

Mr. DRAKE. Every one.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That proclamation, as I remember it, was partial as to several States, omitting several districts in some of the States, and naming the others altogether. Of course in a running debate in the Senate we cannot tell precisely how such a provision will apply. But still if Senators think it is better, instead of naming, as the joint resolution of 1865 did, by name the very States that we meant to operate upon, and in respect to which as a matter of precaution there is a necessity for action, to pass a general formula, be it so. Action is called for, not necessarily on account of the violence that has been talked of, but because according to the distinct announcement of the Democratic press and of the Democratic leaders it is fairly to be presumed that there is an intention to have a vote cast for electors there by white men, as they call them, not necessarily by overturning the other gov ernments, but quietly, and on the ground that by the laws of 1860, still in force as they say, the white men are entitled to do that to have a quiet election and send on a set of votes from

the white men alone, when another set will come from the reorganized governments. It is, therefore, necessary to declare by law which of these two ostensible representations from such a State is to be received.

Then there is another provision in this amendment that these States shall not be entitled to hold this election, and so on, until the States "shall have been readmitted to representation in Congress." It is a somewhat equivocal phrase. One gentleman would say that meant until they had become entitled to representation,'" and so far I should agree to it. Another would say, my honorable friend from Pennsylvania with his keenness and clearness would say "that meant until their Senators and members had been actually admitted," that they could not hold an election although they might have become entitled to be admitted, and therefore next February, when the votes come to be counted, if the State of Alabama or North Carolina should happen to have voted in a direction that he should consider to be the wrong one or the unconstitutional one, and their Senators and Representatives had not before the 3d of November actually taken their seats, he would say their votes under this provision were not to be counted. That may or may not be a correct construction. It is somewhat equivocal. It will bear either interpretation, whereas the object of this law is to provide against any such open question being raised and to determine by a rule which does not admit of any misinterpretation, no matter how ingenious may be the person who would wish to misinterpet it, what shall be done in that contingency.

Now, Mr. President, saying this, and only saying it in the interest of getting that which shall state what we propose in the clearest and most specific way, having the sanction of all parties for its form adopted in 1865, I feel obliged to oppose this amendment of my friend from Missouri. Otherwise I have no objection to his amendment or to that of my friend from New York. What they desire I desire.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DRAKE. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DRAKE. I notice one feature of the original joint resolution to which I desire to call the attention of the Senate. Simply that if the Senate choose to put this matter upon that basis, it will do so with a full knowledge of the exact position of things. The original resolution does not make the admission of the electoral vote of any of these States dependent upon the readmission of the Representatives and Senators of these States to their seats in Congress, but upon the fact that the people of such State and before the day of choosing the electors have adopted a constitution under which a State government shall have been organized and shall be in operation. Therefore, Mr. President, we are to leave the matter, if the original resolution is adopted, at loose ends so far as determining the question whether these States are again admitted to representation in Congress. If I am wrong in this matter the honorable Senator from Vermont will correct me.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I will correct my friend. What the resolution reported from the committee provides is-that is the substance and effect of it-that when these States, Alabama and North Carolina, and those that we have now provided may be admitted and yet whose Senators and Representatives have not come, shall, under our law which authorizes them to come have complied with it and become entitled to have their Senators and Representatives in this Capitol, then they shall be entitled to cast their votes for President, and to have them counted. That is the proposition which the bill contains; and it is not indispensable to their voting that their Senators and Representatives should actually have been received, because according to ordinary expect

ation we shall propably have adjourned before the Senators and Representatives from all those States will have been received here, as a mere matter of time. Suppose we should; I do not know that we shall; but take it for granted that we inay; my proposition is that having adopted the fourteenth article of amendment, having got their governments in operation under this act of admission which has passed, as the Senate knows, and having taken every step pursuant to our law to put themselves upon their original restored footing, they may be entitled to vote on the first Tuesday of November, and let their Senators and Representatives come here and be sworn in, if they are not before, on the first Monday of December, to which we shall adjourn when we do adjourn; and that I think is right. They ought not to be deprived of their vote for whomever they may cast it, because we do not interfere with that; nobody wishes to interfere with it. They are perfectly at liberty to vote the Democratic ticket if they think they can carry the platform and candidates; nobody objects to that; but they ought to be permitted, when they have complied with all that Congress requires, and their Senators and Representatives have become fully entitled to be admitted, to then cast their vote for President, although it may be three or four weeks afterward before those Senators and Representatives actually come in.

Now, I understand my friend's construction of his amendment to be the one I supposed might be put upon it, and he would require that they should actually have come here and been sworn in and admitted to their seats. I think that is going too far.

Mr. DRAKE. I think that I can state the whole proposition in much fewer words than those employed by my friend from Vermont.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not doubt that.

Mr. DRAKE. It is simply this: whether the Senate will agree to letting the electoral vote be counted in those States which have not been declared by Congress to be entitled to representation here by the admission of their Senators and Representatives, or whether they shall go on and elect upon their assumption that they are entitled to be readmitted. There is the whole thing. The question is, in other words, whether we shall take their electoral vote before we have ourselves recog nized practically their right to readmission, or whether we shall wait until after that practical recognition has taken place.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend will permit me to say that as to five States, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, who have not yet their Representatives here, by a bill we have passed they be now readmitted and entitled to representation as soon as they adopt the fourteenth article of amendment; and as to one of them, Georgia, there is another little condition about not en foreing a particular article of her constitution, and that the Legislature is to vote upon it. No matter for that. Then we have declared as to these five States that their constitutions are satisfactory to us, that their people are justly entitled to be remitted to self-government now. If we should happen to adjourn before their Senators and Representatives get here, after they have adopted the fourteenth article, I can see no ground of justice on which they should be precluded from voting for President. If the Senate do, very well.

Mr. DRAKE. Then the matter stands in this way we have declared that they may be admitted upon the happening of a certain contingency, may be admitted upon their doing certain things; and now the proposition is to give them the right to send in an electoral vote here before we ourselves have declared that the conditions of admission have been complied with. I merely wish the Senate shall see sharply and distinctly the point of difference between the two propositions, and if it is the desire of the Senate to take the original instead of my amendment, certainly with all cheerfulness I will abide their judgment.

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I like the amendment of my friend from Missouri best in one respect, and yet I think there is a great deal of force in the last argument I have heard from the Senator from Vermont. Is an amend. ment to the amendment in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is amendable.

Mr. CONNESS. Then I beg to submit a slight amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri to strike out in the sixth line the words "been readmitted," and insert in lieu thereof the words "become entitled." I do not like that part of the committee's resolution which recites the States. I prefer that they should not be recited. I like the style of the amendment best.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Missouri if he has referred to the proclamation mentioned in his amendment, and is quite certain that it enumerates the States that were in rebellion. I do not wish to make any mistake on that subject.

Mr. DRAKE. I did so, and had the book here. I will have it again.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have none whatever. Mr. TRUMBULL. Then why should we pass a resolution declaring "if they comply."

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that there is objection to including those States; but there is a suggestion which perhaps would have some force upon the idea proposed by the Senator from Illinois, and that is, that it is not only necessary under this resolution that these States should be entitled to representation in Congress, but it is necessary that electors should be elected under the government that is recognized by Congress.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire again of the Senator from Oregon if he has any expectation that anybody is to be elected in Arkansas or Florida under any other government, or would give color or countenance to such an idea for a moment by passing a resolution to provide against it.

Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator from Oregon will listen a moment, I will read him a clause from the proclamation:

"Now, therefore, I. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in pursuance of an act of Congress, approved July 13, 1861, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the said States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, (except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany mouatains, and of such other parts of that State and the other States hereinbefore named as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be, from time to time, occupied and controlled by forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents,) are in a state of insurrection against the United States."

Mr. DRAKE. That is it.

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, that is it; but the Senator from Missouri will observe that the the proclamation contains exceptions. One excep tion is the whole of what is now West Virginia, and then there are exceptions of parts of other States which are not in insurrection, and those parts of States which are occupied by the troops of the United States. It presents a very complicated question.

Mr. DRAKE. When the proclamation expressly declares that the inhabitants of those States were then in insurrection, with some slight and inconsiderable exceptions, I should hardly think there could be any question as to the States referred to in the language of my amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not altogether pleased with the phraseology of the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Vermont, but at the same time, since the reading of that proclamation, I can see that a door will be left open there for controversy, and it is desirable, if we legislate upon this subject at all, to make our legislation clear, certain, and definite, so that it can be understood, and so as, if possible, to avoid any future controversy on the subject. I suppose that the object of this joint resolution is simply to provide that so many of the States which were in rebellion as are not entitled to representation in Congress when this session of Congress adjourns shall not be allowed to cast electoral votes for President and Vice President. That is the purpose of the joint resolution. I should prefer to have phraseology employed less diffuse and more pointed than that contained in this original joint | resolution. I suppose that it will be necessary for somebody or tribunal to decide this question as to whether or not these several States have complied with the reconstruction acts of Congress."

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Oregon if he has any doubt as to whether Arkansas and Florida have complied.

is possible, although I acknowledge it is not very probable in my opinion, that the white men of those States may undertake to hold a presidential election under the provisional goveruments that were set up there by the President, and repudiate the governments that were organized under the reconstruction acts of Congress because they allow suffrage to the black men. I am very sure that proclamations have been made by men very prominent in the party opposed to the reconstruction policy of Congress that some means were to be devised to overthrow and destroy these State governments that were set up under the reconstruction acts of Congress. Whether that attempt will be made at the presidential election, or whether those persons may suppose it most expedient to wait and see if their candidate is not elected, is more than I can determine. But if we are to move thy legislation at all on this subject it is desirable that it should be as explicit and as unambiguous as possible.

I was about to say that these questions as to whether or not these States have complied with the reconstruction acts of Congress, as to whether or not their electors were chosen under the governments that have been recognized by Congress, must be questions to be decided, I suppose, by Congress when it proceeds to count the electoral votes, for there must be some tribunal or some body somewhere to decide these questions in case a controversy should arise; and although I am not so fully impressed with the necessity of this legislation as some other Senators, because it seems to me that the power is in Congress at that time to pass upon all these questions, yet it is perhaps advisable to have some legislation on the subject, and I would prefer to have this joint resolution so constructed as to refer exclusively to those States that are not entitled to representation in Congress when this session adjourns. That is the way the resolution ought to read, and that is what it ought to mean, and, not provide that certain States whose Senators and Representatives are now in Congress, shall not, in a certain contingency, be entitled to representation in the Electoral College. I have no time to suggest an amendment, but that would suit my views better than any of the propositions that have been submitted. I concur with the Senator from Vermont that whenever a State is entitled to representation in Congress it should be entitled to have its electoral votes counted for President and Vice President; and if we should adjourn in a week or two before Senators and Representatives from some of those States are able to take their seats in Congress, I do not think that therefore those States should be denied the right to have their votes counted for President of the United States.

Mr. DRAKE. I have concluded to accept