to them by the local authorities and by Congress. This possession of the island, dating back prior to the occupation of the country by the United States. gives these parties a right superior to that which was acquired by the United States by the proclamation of the President in 1850 or 1851, which declared this to be a military reservation.

I know it has been stated that this island is a rocky island. There are rocks upon it; but there is also good land upon it. These persons were there before the military occupation, with their dwellings and their out-houses, and they had their orchards, their cattle, and other stock. They were living there as quietly and peaceably as any people were living in any other portion of the State. I do not charge that there was any motive for the use of military force to get these persons out of possession, springing from the railroad company, because I do not know that that is the case, and I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the military thought they had a right to this property, and took it in the manner they did for military purposes. But these people have been custed; they have been driven from their homes; they have been forced to abandon their works there, their wharves, their quarries, and their fields; and if this company is to come in and take possesion of this island, or any portion of it, it should pay these parties the little value that will be attached by a cammission, under the laws of California, to their possession and improvements. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will acquiesce in this amendment. It is only an act of justice to parties who have been overridden by the military authorities, and whose rights have not been properly respected.

Mr. HOWARD. If the Senator will allow me, he is speaking of improvements made by those settlers. I beg him to state, if he is able to do so, what those improvements are.

"Mr. COLE. I have already stated what those improvements were. They consist of farm-houses, out-houses, orchards, wharves, quarries, and other things too numerous to mention-valuable improvements which I have myself seen, and which anybody can see any day from the ferry-boat that passes from San Francisco to Oakland. These persons are, in my judgment, clearly entitled to some consideration.'

As a closing bit of that history, showing that I was right in inferring the sentiment of San Francisco not to be unfriendly to this bill, by the course of its Senators, which has never to this day been challenged, I give the vote on the bill, taken a few minutes after the foregoing remarks; as follows:

"The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

"The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 28, nays 8; as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Drake, Fowler, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Williams, and Yates-23.

"NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Edmunds, Hendricks, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Trumbull, Vickers, and Willey-8.

"ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Norton, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle. Welch, and Wilson-22.

"So the bill was passed."

That Mr. COLE was in his seat is shown by the Globe, which reports him as making a remark a few minutes after on the " exportation of rum." So, of its two Senators one voted for and defended the bill, the other said he was willing it should pass, evincing only an anxiety that no advantage should be lost by private speculators, and he evaded the final

vote.

That this scheme for the benefit of private speculators is not dead, let the following bill, introduced into the Senate, show, as also the memorials that have been laid on our tables this morning, copies of those heretofore disposed of by the Judiciary Committee:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
February 2, 1871.

Mr. CASSERLY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following bill; which was read twice, referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims, and ordered to be printed:

A bill to settle the title of Yerba Buena or Goat Island, in the bay of San Francisco, California. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representalices of the United States of America in Congress sembled, That the island of Yerba Buena or Goat Island, lying and being in the bay of San Francisco, in the State of California, one mile and a half distant in an easterly direction from the United States ea tom-house, in the city of San Francisco, in the said State of California, be, and the same is hereby, confirmed to Thomas H. Dowling, who claims the said island under a grant from the Mexican Govern

ment: Provided, That the President of the United States may reserve such portion of said island for military purposes as he may think necessary, not exceeding ten acres, due compensation being made to the said Dowling for the said portion so reserved or to be reserved.

These schemes come up whenever Goat Island is talked of as a railroad terminus, and it is astonishing how anxious their promoters are lest the Government be swindled by giving it for railroad purposes. up

I find in the Alta California just succeeding that date, and in other San Francisco papers, a reference to the action on the bill, but no words of objection. There were no resolutions by the Chamber of Commerce, no public meeting, no petition, and no excitement.

Again, this bill was considered in the House of Representatives on the 15th of June, 1870, and came very near passing. I voted for it, as did my two Democratic colleagues. What ever other sins were laid to our charge that vote never was by any one, either at the time the vote was given or afterward. In that debate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BLAIR] said:

"I had occasion to become a little acquainted with the situation of this island and the Bay of San Francisco while I was on a visit to the Pacific coast lastsummer with the Committee of Ways and Means of this House. On the 4th of July last, General Ord, commanding at San Francisco, accompanied the members of the Committee of Ways and Means, with a large number of intelligent gentlemen, citizens of the city of San Francisco, and a considerable number of the officers of the Army attached to his command, to all the ports in and around the Bay of San Francisco. During that visit there was a great deal of discussion as to the necessity of retaining this island by the Government for military purposes, as to its value in that regard, and as to its value in other respects. I remember that the subject was discussed quite at large as to whether the building of a railroad track from Oakland across to the island would interfere dangerously with the navigation of the waters of that bay. From my present recollection of the matter, I think there was a general opinion expressed that there would be no difficulty in so constructing the road as not to make such an interference. I know my own mind settled down very positively upon that opinion."

66

This testimony of the opinion existing with a large number of intelligent gentlemen, citizens of San Francisco," coming from an impartial source, is worthy of especial note, in view of the violence in that city against those who recently voted in ignorance of the rampant hostility that has been stirred up so suddenly. But more than this, this speech of the gentleman from Michigan was transmitted to San Francisco, and was there published in the Alta California-the paper that would now burn and hang all who think more of San Francisco than of Saucelito. As this extract shows that that paper and the people of San Francisco knew exactly what was said pro and con on the bill, I will read it entire verbatim, or rather will ask the Clerk to relieve me by so doing. It is found in the Alta of June 27, 1870:

The Clerk read as follows:

The Goat Island Bill in the Senate.-The following debate was held in the House of Representatives, June 15:

"The bill granting Yerba Buena island to the Western Pacific Railroad Company for a terminus, came up as unfinished business of yesterday, when the opponents of the measure again resorted to dilatory motions to prevent its passage. After an hour of filibustering, Mr. DAWES, of Massachusetts, who said he had voted for the bill in every stage of it, suggested that the opponents of the bill should have fifteen minutes to state their objections to the bill, and that the same time be allowed to the friends of the bill.

Mr. GARFIELD suggested that the amendment be also admitted, requiring the company to pay for the island such sum as might be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

"The SPEAKER remarked that the main question having been ordered, the bill was not now amendable.

"The proposition made by Mr. DAWES was acceded to, and Mr. Washburn, of Wisconsin, proceeded to state his objections to the bill. He said that if the Representative from Brooklyn should come in with a proposition to give Governor's Island to the Long Island Railroad Company, and to allow that company to bridge across between Governor's Island and Long Island, it would be practically the same proposition as that before the House. This proposition was an old friend of his. While General Grant was Secretary of War he stated that on no condi

tion should the island or any part of it be parted with by the Government. If the island was put up at auction it would probably bring $5,000,000, and yet it was proposed to give it away to a railroad company that had already received $65,000,000 in bonds and untold millions of acres of land. He knew that it was the most powerful corporation in the United States; that it could make Representatives and Senators, and perhaps Presidents; but he warned members that the country was in no condition to tolerate such action as was proposed. He quoted against the bill the opinions of General Humphreys of the engineer department, and of Professor Peirce of the Coast Survey, who says that the building of a railroad between the island and Oakland would be disastrous to the harbor of San Francisco.

"Mr. WHEELER replied to Mr. Washburn and advocated the bill. There was no parallel, he said, between Yerba Buena island and Governor's Island, for vessels of any considerable_draught could not pass on the east side of Yerba Buena island. The opinion of Professor Peirce was founded on the idea that there was to be a solid causeway built between the east end of the island and Oakland; but the bill provided that the work should be open so that the water could flow through without obstacle.

"Mr. BLAIR Supported the bill, and stated that, in company with General Ord, many United States officers, and some of the most respectable citizens of San Francisco, he had, on the 4th of July last, made an excursion in and around the bay of San Francisco, when the subject of building a railroad across Goat Island and between it and Oakland was discussed, and the general idea was that it could be done and would not interfere with the harbor. argued that a railroad would not injure the island for military purposes, but, on the contrary, would improve it, and it would be convenient to the people and to commerce.

He

The vote was then taken on the passage of the bill, and it was rejected-yeas 80, nays 82. A motion to reconsider was entered."

Mr. SARGENT. Now, sir, I have carefully examined the file of the Alta on that day, and for a month later, and there is not a word of dissent from the statement of the gentleman from Michigan, of objection to the passage of the bill, or to the united vote of the California delegation in its favor. Where were these vigilant guardians of the interests of San Francisco? Why were not crowds of "hoodluma" collected to burn my name and that of my colleagues and of "those who voted for" us? This zeal is new-born and suspicious. San Francisco is being deceived by the base schemers who would betray its interests to private advantage. Any objection now existing to the use of Goat Island as a railway terminus existed then. Why was it not urged? Why was not an admonition given to the Representatives of the State? Why wait until they had again acted in just the same manner and then abuse them with scurrilous tongue? Up to a few weeks ago no lisp of opposition was made in San Francisco, either by press or people. The state of opinion that the Ways and Means Committee found there in 1870 existed until 1872, months after the Representatives of the State had left the State and assumed their duties here. This acquiescing attitude of San Francisco on this question was to be expected, and, despite its recent ebullition, is in consonance with its interests. It is idle to talk of California's Representatives as enemies to San Francisco, and no inference is justifiable to that end arising out of their support of this bill.

The passage of this bill, if its terms should be accepted by the railroad company, would be a boon of incalculable value to San Francisco. The leaders of the opposition to the measure at San Francisco are equally opposed to any other project for making that city the terminus of the Central Pacific. They have private schemes in view. It will hardly be believed, but it is nevertheless true, that some adventurers, in the hope of plundering the people of San Francisco by means of a donation to a rival road, are understood to have already devised a scheme for falsely construing an act of Congress six years old to contain a grant of lands for hundreds of miles in the State of California, terminating at San Francisco. They clamor against allowing the pres ent road to enter the city by any mode whatever. The Bulletin, a journal of great influence, has steadily insisted upon city aid for the construction of a railroad bridge from Oakland Point to the peninsula. The same

paper, however, found it entirely consistent with its ideas of San Francisco interests to entertain the Goat Island project as being also friendly to the city, preferring, however, a bridge across the bay. These two projects are both equally denounced by the Alta California, which fiercely opposes the entrance of the Central Pacific into San Francisco on any terms.

The clamor and din against any approach to San Francisco by the railroad has been kept up in that city so loudly and continuously by selfish schemers that no other voice has been heard. The people will never forgive these men when calm reflection shall enable them to see the mischief they intend against the city. They must have had their eyes opened to some extent by the correspondence which has recently taken place between the leaders of the opposition to this measure and the officers of the United States engineer corps and the Coast Survey. As this correspondence contains the most complete argument in favor of this bill that has yet been made, and as the enemies of the bill elicited it by their own questions propounded to gentlemen selected by themselves as being the highest scientific authority, gentlemen whose disinterestedness is universally conceded, I will here introduce it:

Bridging the Bay-Opinions of the United States Engineers Various Bridge Projects Discussed.-The following correspondence between the mayor and prominent citizens and officers of the United States engineer corps and Coast Survey, will be read with interest:

SAN FRANCISCO, March 14, 1872.

GENTLEMEN: You are doubtless aware of the present unsettled and feverish state of public opinion in San Francisco touching the connection of our city with the railroad system of the State. Situated as it is upon the extremity of a peninsula, and consequently cut off by the waters of the bay from direct railroad communication with the country on whose trade it depends, the problem of making it the railroad center, as well as the commercial metropolis of the State, seems to present great difficulties. The engineering obstacles are aggravated by the facts that the city has no voice in the management of the railroads, while the railroad company has no such interest in the city as to lead it to make sacrifices merely for the accommodation of its people. In connection with these considerations, the contests hitherto waged between the several points at which the company has secured large tracts of land, apparently for terminal purposes-to say nothing of their designs upon Goat Island-have created a distrust which exerts a most baneful influence upon the future prospects of our city.

Public opinion, distracted by the opposing views of newspaper writers, by the ever-changing rumors of the intentions of the railroad company, and by the interested advice of railroad men and real-estate operators, has been unable to settle down upon any one plan as better than all the others suggested. Accurate knowledge, whereon to base correct opinion, is lacking. There is abundant capital ready for investment in that property which shall most surely and permanently anchor the railroads to the city. But the question is, what is that project? What plan of operation is most feasible and most certain to decide the vexed question of the terminus in favor of the city of San Francisco?

It has occurred to us, therefore, to address you, as the highest local authority on engineering matters; as being professionally familiar with all the elements of the problem, and wholly disinterested in its solution, in the hope that you will be inclined to favor the public of this city with your concurrent opinion on the following questions:

1. What would be the effect, if any, in shoaling the harbor and bar of San Francisco, consequent upon the erection of a bridge resting upon piers, connecting Goat Island with Oakland Point?

2. What would be the effect upon the harbor and bar, of a solid causeway between those points? What the effect of a continuation of the present pile bridge?

3. Is it possible to build a permanent bridge or causeway across the Bay of San Francisco, at any point south of the city?

4. If yea, between what points on the two sides of the bay-everything carefully considered-would you recommend such bridge or causeway to be located?

5. What description of bridge or causeway would you recommend? If a bridge, what would be its ength, breadth, height above high-water mark, distance between the piers? Where would you locate the draw? What would be the approximate cost of such a structure? And what would be its effects in shoaling the harbor and bar?

6. Do you consider that a bridge, wherever located, or however constructed, would be as economical, or any more direct, or any more effective in fixing the terminus at San Francisco, than the use of steam ferry-boats of sufficient capacity to accommodate an entire train of freight or passenger cars? Such

boats are used between Plattsburg and Burlington, on Lake Champlain, a distance of twenty-five miles, on the line of the railroad between Ogdensburg, New York, and Boston; also across the Susquehanna, at Havre-de-Grace, Maryland.

7. Is it a fact, as intimated by Governor Stanford, in his letter of the 11th instant to the board of supervisors of San Francisco, (copy inclosed,) "that the Southern Pacific railroad will, in order to avoid the heavy grades necessary consequent upon passing from the Tulare valley into the Santa Clara valley. be compelled to send its business by the way of the San Joaquin valley, and thus reach San Francisco in company with the railroad system of the north by the Livermore pass, or by the straits of Carquinez and Oakland?" Is the topography of the Diablo range, south of this city, of such a character that the thirty-fifth parallel road will be unable to reach San Francisco on a direct line from the southward up to the peninsula?

If, gentlemen, you can spare enough of your valuable time to give to the public the benefit of your united opinions on these questions, and also to recommend such plan for permanently connecting the railroads with San Francisco, as shall appear to you to be the most feasible, economical, and effective, we are confident you will contribute greatly to unite the minds and means of the people in the work of its execution, and thus confer an inestimable benefit upon all our citizens.

We remain, gentiemen, your most obedient servants, WILLIAM ALVORD.

R. B. SWAIN,

President of Chamber of Commerce.
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN,

First Vice President of Chamber of Commerce.
JAMES OTIS,

H. B. WILLIAMS.
JOSEPH BRITTON,
J. T. DEAN.

L. H. ALLEN.

W. W. MONTAGUE,

C. T. HOPKINS,

C. ADOLPHE LOW,

J. C. MERRILL,

W. C. TALBOT,
JOHN O. EARL.

CHARLES WEBB HOWARD,
E. B. MASTIC,

P. SATHER,

GEORGE C. HICKOX,

H. B. TICHENOR,
M. ASHBURY,
ALBERT DIBBLEE.

General B. S. ALEXANDER, United States Engineer; Professor GEORGE DAVIDSON, United States Coast Survey; Colonel R. S. WILLIAMSON, United States Engineer; Colonel GEORGE H. MENDELL, United States Engineer; Colonel C. S. STEWART, United States Engineer; Captain A. F. RODGERS, United States Coast Survey.

--

SAN FRANCISCo, March, 1872. GENTLEMEN: We have carefully considered the several questions presented to us in your letter of the 14th instant.

These questions and the issues to which they lead are broad and comprehensive in their character, depending for their solution, not alone on problems in engineering, but, to some extent, on considerations of political economy.

In reference to these latter considerations we beg leave to remark, that after several conferences we find that the limited time at our disposal, the want of that particular kind of information necessary to enable us to present this branch of the subject in such shape as would secure to it reference hereafter as a useful compilation of facts and opinions, as well as the nature of the subject itself, involving as it does the application of some of the most important principles by which the coonomy of trade and commerce is secured, all combine to render it impossible for us to give you a full report on this branch of the subject. We think it best, therefore, to confine our observations, at least for the present, to answering the several specific questions which you have propounded to us, namely:

Question. What would be the effect, if any, in shoaling the harbor and bar of San Francisco, consequent upon the erection of a bridge resting upon piers, connecting Goat Island with Oakland Point?

Answer. A bridge on piers between Yerba Buena Island and Oakland Point would have no appreciable effect in shoaling the San Francisco harbor or bar, if the bridge were built on small piers with spans of three hundred or four hundred feet; in other words, the number of piers reduced to a minimum and also of the least possible width consistent with safety, and so placed and shaped with reference to the chaunel and the direction of the tides as to offer to them as little obstruction as possible. The superstructure of such a bridge with long spans would have to be of iron. The cost would depend to some extent on its character-whether a simple railroad bridge or one combining the two purposes of railroad and highway traffic and travel. The cost would be from four to six million dollars.

Question. What would be the effect upon the harbor and bar of a solid causeway between those points? What the effect. of a continuation of the present pile bridge?

Answer. A solid causeway between Yerba Buena Island and Oakland Point would work immediate, direct, and irreparable injury to the harbor of San Francisco, and though the injury to the bar would

be indirect and not so immediate, it would be not less certain or irreparable. The immediate effect of such a structure would be to cause dead water." a stoppage of the tidal current now flowing between Yerba Buena and the Oakland shore, commencing at a point at low water opposite to Hunter's Point, and extending in a line slightly concave toward the east, and the western extremity of Yerba Buena Island. The main ebb current would follow this line, forming whirls and eddies on the perimeter of the curve, with "dead water" toward the Oakland shore and the causeway, The mouths of San Leandro and San Antonio estuaries would gradually fill up. The current reaching the western side of Yerba Buena, would here move with a cutting velocity and take off all assailable angles and points of the shore. Reference to the accompanying chart will show what the island has done unaided by artifice in forming a shoal upon its north shore. This is the simple effect of the dead water" caused by the interposition of so large a body as the island to the flow of the tide. A causeway to the Oakland shore, with its additional obstructions to the current, would effect a connection of the shoal north of the Yerba Buena with Point Richmond, seven miles to the northward, on the eastern shore of the bay. It is safe to say that a tidal area of not less than forty square miles (twenty-five thousand six hundred acres) in the Bay of San Francisco, would be directly obstructed by the causeway suggested, while the indirect effect upon the regimen of the tides in other parts of the bay can hardly be predicted or estimated with safety.

To continue the present pile wharf from Oakland Point to Yerba Buena island would produce the same effect, though in less degree, as to build a solid causeway; a single decade would, in all probability, go far toward shoaling the water on either side of such a bridge, leaving the bottom bare at least at e very low tide, and with rapid subsequent progress toward a closure of the channel between the island and the Oakland shore.

Question. Is it possible to build a permanent bridge or causeway across the Bay of San Francisco at any point south of the city?

Answer. The interests of the United States, of California, of commerce, and the mandates of science, all protest against the building of a causeway or any other solid structure anywhere between any points across the Bay of San Francisco.

It is entirely within the range of possibility to build a permanent bridge across the Bay of San Francisco south of the city. The difficulties of obtaining secure foundations for piers are as yet unknown, but they can scarcely be greater than those which have already been overcome by science in other localities, and as regards the whole structure we may appropriately quote from the report of the chief of engineers for 1871, (page 432 :)

It is proper to state here in regard to long spans of four hundred feet and upward, that they are not impracticable at reasonable expense, and, that when properly proportioned, they are more stable and safe than smaller spans, because their own weight is so great in proportion to the moving load that the latter changes the permanent strain but little. High piers, proportionally widened and lengthened, are just as firm as low ones, and the greatest pressure the stone has to sustain is not one tenth of its crushing load."

Question. If yea, between what points on the two sides of the bay, everything considered, would you recommend such bridge or causeway to be located? Answer. The answer to this question must be conditional upon the location of the railroads and their convenience of transit to a point on the city front adjacent to the center of business. If the main trunk roads of the continent are likely to converge at a given point on the opposite side of the bay, the eastern end of the bridge should, of course, be as near that point as the three collateral elements of the shortest line, the shoalest water, and the least impediment to navigation will permit. To illustrate this, select a given point on the opposite side of the bay as the supposed point where all the main roads can most conveniently unite; locate the terminus on this side of the bay, and, using a chart for the purpose, draw a line between the two points; the true bridge line should be as near to this imaginary one as the collateral elements of the question mentioned above will admit.

Question. What description of bridge or causeway would you recommend? If a bridge, what would be its length, breadth, height above high-water mark, distance between piers? Would you recommend stone, iron, or crib-work, for piers? Where would you locate the draw? What would be the approximate cost of such a structure? And what would be its effect in shoaling the harbor and bar?

Answer. As to the description of the bridge, it may be stated that if it is necessary to build a bridge across the Bay of San Francisco, the materials should be as nearly imperishable as possible; the piers of as little width as may be consistent with safety and "sharpened at the ends" so as to offer the least resistance to the current; the width of the piers between high and low water should not exceed ten or twelve feet; their length, depending upon the width of the bridge, should be parallel with the current; the distance between the piers should not be less than four hundred feet over the main channel; the height of the bridge not to exceed ten feet above high water; the piers should be of masonry, the superstructure of iron.

The total length of a bridge between Alameda and Hunter's Point would be a fraction under five miles; this would require sixty-five piers, if four hundred feet spans were used.

Suppose the average thickness of the piers be fifteen feet, they would aggregate the sum of nine hundred and seventy-five feet taken from the water-way, which would be one twenty-seventh part of the width of the bay between the points named. The first two miles of the eastern end would be through shoal water, commencing on the shore at zero and running to eighteen feet, the average depth about nine feet at low water; the western three miles would be across the main channel of the bay; the least four fathoms, twenty-four feet, the greatest twelve fathoms, or seventy-two feet at low water; the average of this part of the line would be not far from fortyfour feet at low water.

The distance between Alameda Point and Rolling-Mill Point is a little less than five miles. A bridge between these points would pass for the eastern two miles through water averaging nine feet in depth at low water, the extremities being zero and eighteen feet; the three miles across the main channel would be in depths varying from four fathoms, twenty-four feet, to nine and one fourth fathoms, fifty-six feetthe average depth would be about forty feet at low water; the comparative evenness of the bottom on this line and its direction being at right angles to that of the current in this part of the bay, would, other things being equal, make it more desirable. The draw, if but one, should be about one mile from the San Francisco shore, and of a width of not less than four hundred feet.

If such a bridge is ever undertaken, it ought to be first class in every respect.

The interest connected with it after completion would be too great to permit the risk of its destruction by fire or any other causes within the compass of man's ability to prevent.

It ought to accommodate a double-track railroad overhead, and roads for ordinary transit below.

The cost would depend to a considerable extent on the nature of the foundation.

If no very great difficulties should be encountered, except from the depth of water, the approximate cost of such a bridge would be $15,000,000.

Question. Do you consider that a bridge, wherever located or however constructed, would be as economical, or any more direct, or any more effective in fixing the terminus in San Francisco than the use of steam ferry-boats of sufficient capacity to accommodate an entire train of freight and passenger cars? Such boats are used between Plattsburg and Burlington, on Lake Champlain, a distance of twentyfive miles: on the line of the railroad between Ogdensburg, New York, and Boston; also, across the Susquehanna, at Havre-de-Grace, Maryland. Ansicer. We believe it will be preferable to use properly constructed ferry-boats for the present. at the question of economy of transit only, we think that the railroad interests and the commerce of San Francisco will have to be greatly increased before the construction of a bridge across the bay will be justified.

For instance: if the cost of the bridge is $15,000,000, the interest on the cost at seven per cent. per annum, will be $1,050,000, to which must be added the cost of keeping the bridge in order, painting, attending the draw or draws, &c., say $25,000, making the total annual cost of bridge and its maintenance, $1,075,000.

Now, the cost of keeping up and running a firstclass ferry-boat between this city and Oakland, capable of transporting twenty freight cars at a time, would not exceed $100,000, or at most $150,000 per year, so that the city or the railroad, as the case may be, looking at the question of expenditure only, had better keep a free forry between this city and Oakland, consisting, if necessary, of seven ferryboats, at an annual cost of $150,000 each, rather than to build and maintain a bridge at an annual cost of $1,075,000.

While, therefore, we admit the practicability of building a bridge across the bay, and the possible necessity of it being built at some future day, the large expenditure necessary for its construction should make it a question to be left to the judgment of those most interested, whose ideas of the urgency of the measure may be well qualified by their ability to meet the expenditure.

We are fully aware that there are other considerations bearing on this subject, but, as we have already said, we have neither the time nor the special information to enable us to discuss them at present. Question. Is it a fact, as intimated by Governor Stanford in his letter of the 11th instant, to the board of supervisors of San Francisco, (copy inclosed,) "that the Southern Pacific railroad will, in order to avoid the heavy grades necessary consequent upon passing from the Tulare valley into the Santa Clara valley, be compelled to send its business by way of the San Joaquin valley, and thus reach San Francisco in company with the railroad system of the north by Livermore pass, or by the straits of Carquinez and Oakland?" Is the topography of the Diablo range of this city of such a character that the thirty-fifth parallel road will be unable to reach San Francisco on a direct line from the southward up the peninsula?

Answer. From the best information we can obtain, we are of the opinion that Governor Stanford is correct in bis statement that the Southern Pacific railroad will be forced by economical considerations to pass through the San Joaquin valley. And we believe that a train of cars placed at any point in that valley, from one end of it to the other, could be brought, at the present time at least, to San Francisco cheaper and in less time by the way of Antioch and the straits of Carquinez and Oakland, than by any other

route.

This is not the shortest line, however, and the

day may come when the business passing through the San Joaquin valley will become so great as to justify San Francisco or the railroad companies in piercing the Mount Diablo range of mountains by a tunnel at some point south of Livermore pass, in order to shorten the line of transit connecting the city with the eastern and southern railroads leading into that valley.

In that case it will probably be to the interests of San Francisco to have such railroads brought into the city on the western shore of San Francisco bay. We inclose herewith a copy of the Coast Survey chart, entitled "Entrance to San Francisco bay," upon which we have marked the two bridge lines alluded to in this paper, namely, from Almeda Point to Hunter's Point, and from Almeda Point to Rolling-Mill Point; also, a causeway from the Oaklaud shore to Yerba Buena island, and that portion of the bay both north and south of the causeway, which would in time be filled up by its construction. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, B. S. ALEXANDER,

Lieut. Col. Engineers, Bot. Brig. Gen., U. S. A.
A. F. RODGERS,

Assistant U. S. Coast Survey.
G. H. MENDELL,

Major of Engineers. C. SEAFORTH STEWART, Colonel U. S. Engineers.

R. S. WILLIAMSON,

Major U. S. Engineers.

N. B. The absence of Professor Davidson from the city has prevented us from consulting him in the preparation of our reply to your communication. Hon. WILLIAM ALVORD, Mayor of San Francisco, R. B. SWAIN, President of the Chamber of Commerce, WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JAMES OTIS, and others. Here we are told that a pier bridge to Goat Island would do no injury to the harbor, while a bridge to the peninsula would cost $15,000,000. The Bulletin, which originated the latter project and clings to it tenaciously, declares that it can be carried out for a fourth of that sum. But the united opinions of the engineers who were selected by the mayor and Chamber of Commerce of the city as being best able to inform them must be taken as more authoritative than the belief of an editor, however able in his vocation.

The reply to the seventh question puts an end to any hopes that may have been entertained that the California connection with either the thirty-second or the thirty-fifth parallel road can for years to come enter San Francisco by its land side on the west. All transconti. nental roads, then, whether existing or rival roads, must communicate with San Francisco by bridge or ferry across the Bay of San-Francisco until in the years of greatness which will come to that city her trade will justify the tunneling of a range of mountains lying at the southeast. The only remaining question, then, is how to cross the bay. The present mode is by a ferry from Oakland, a distance of six miles shortened by a wharf extending into the bay, reducing the distance to about

four miles.

Goat Island is less than two miles from the San Francisco shore. The bay between Oakland and the island is shallow, and a bridge which would meet all the demands of trade and do no injury to the harbor is, as the engineers tell us, entirely practicable. With such a work completed, and depots for freight and passengers in at least three localities on the San Francisco water front, and the largest ferry-boats plying from shore to island, each one capable of carrying a train of twenty cars loaded with freight, it would be difficult to show that San Francisco was being excluded from railroad connection. If this privilege is not granted and accepted by the company, the present ferry must be continued or the $15,000,000 bridge must be built; and who shall build it? Shall a city of one hundred and fifty thousand people pay $100 a head on every man, woman, and child for that pur pose? Or shall a city loan be negotiated at seven per cent., and every man, woman, and child in the city be mulcted in the sum of seven dollars every year to pay the interest? The bridge seems entirely out of the question. Shall the ferry continue its present length, and the railroad track terminate as now, at a wharf of wood? Or shall it be reduced to less than two miles, and the solid rock of Goat

Island be substituted for the piles which decay and are eaten by the teredo, making the wharf after a time not easy to be fixed, unsafe for the traveling public? These are the only questions to answer. Schemers who want to plunder San Francisco under a pretense of building a road to compete with the Central, upon the strength of a land grant which never existed, may vociferate unmeaning trash about injuring San Francisco by connecting her more closely with the balance of the world. It will always be in the power of San Francisco to bridge the bay when her growth and wealth shall be equal to the undertaking; but I see no reason why, in the mean while, two thirds of the water which now isolates her from the railway should not be bridged, and her people enabled in five minutes to reach the point for making up all local and eastern trains.

I venture the prediction that if this bill becomes a law and there should be any hesitation on the part of the company to accept the privilege with the conditions it imposes, the people of San Francisco will, with united voice, in less than a year be as earnestly urging the company to go to Goat Island as a portion of them are now urging us not to allow them to go there. I support the bill as a better friend of San Francisco than those who are scheming to finger $15,000,000 of its money as a subsidy to a rival line, or who wish to take the terminus of the Continental road to Saucelito.

In my remarks on this bill before I attempted to show further that the interest of San Francisco would be subserved by attracting Asiatic commerce; that that commerce would afford it a market which would build up its manufactories, give it unceasing employment in fitting, repairing, furnishing, and building ships, &c., far more valuable to its growth than enriching a few toll-gatherers. I will not again dwell on these considerations, important as they are. My argument has not been answered except by the abuse of a disreputable newspaper, the Alta California, published by a speculator in the town lots of a pretended rival city.

But there is another side to this question which such papers overlook or designedly ignore. I and my colleague from the third district have a constituency that have much to say on this question, and their interests are in our hands. I do not believe there is any real antagonism between the interior and San Francisco unless the latter persists in enormous wharf charges, port dues, and expensive transhipment for every pound of freight that leaves the interior, as wheat, wool, ores, &c., and every pound of supplies consumed in the interior.

The course of one or two of the Bay papers would imply that there can be no representation of the State outside of San Francisco. For myself, I should plead if necessary coram non judice, that San Francisco has no right to try me in my representative capacity for my action in dealing with a measure affecting my imme diate constituents, even if their interests were rival to those of that city. Until March next, at least, my allegiance and best services are due to the people who honor me with a seat here; and if I see that the farmers of the Alameda or San Joaquin valley are taxed needlessly a dollar a ton in getting their wheat to the Liverpool market, or the miners that much in shipping crude ores, or both for all they consume entering the Golden Gate, I shall ask no leave of any one outside of my district to remedy that state of things. Were this otherwise properly, why are States divided into congressional districts? Why does the line of my district separate me from San Francisco?

That there is not entire accord with the extreme views of ignorant and selfish San Francisco speculators in the rest of the State could be proved by a multitude of extracts from the California press, but I have not time to read them. I hold in my hand telegrams from prominent citizens of the interior that have been sent to me and my colleagues, which are

Hon. A. A. SARGENT, M. C.:

This is to certify that the Assembly on this day refused to pass a resolution requesting our Senators and Representatives in Congress to urge Congress not to lease a portion of Yerba Buena or Goat Island to the Central Pacific Railroad Company.

M. D. BORUCK, Chief Clerk House of nineteenth session Legislature.

A resolution assuming and approving the opposition of the California Senators to the Goat Island grant was voted down by an overwhelming majority in the Assembly.

Mr. COX. Will the gentleman allow me to make a remark?

Mr. SARGENT. The gentleman will please not to interrupt me just now.

Here is a telegram from a majority of four of the State senate of California, a body having a Democratic, as the House has a Republican majority. These senators represent the people of thirty five counties, in which live two thirds of our population, and in which lies five sixths of our territory. Among the senators who sign this telegram are the chairman of the committee on federal relations, the chairman of the committee on military affairs, the chairman of the committee on agriculture, the chairman of the committee on public lands, the chairman of the committee on swamp and overflowed lands, the chairman of the committee on roads and highways, the chairman of the committee on counties and county boundaries, and the chairman of the committee on finance. I will ask the Clerk to read the telegram: The Clerk read as follows:

SAN FRANCISCO, April 12, 1872. Hons. A. A. SARGENT, S. O. HOUGHTON, and J. M. COGHLAN:

Whereas the senate of the State of California is informed that a bill is now pending in the Congress of the United States, the object of which is to confer upon the Central Pacific Railroad Company the right to occupy by lease a portion of Goat Island for a terminus; and whereas neither this State nor the nation under the provisions of this act can be taxed one dollar to aid the railroad in improving this now useless island; and whereas by the report of Brigadier General Alexander and four other distinguished engineers in the service of the United States made to the citizens' committee of the city of San Francisco, dated March 14, 1872, said officers state that a bridge on piers between Yerba Buena Island and Oakland Point would have no appreciable effect in shoaling the San Francisco harbor or bay if the bridges were built on small piers with spans of three or four hundred feet. And again they concurrently state that a permanent bridge structure entirely across the bay would cost $15,000,000, while a bridge that would connect Goat Island with our system of railroad without injury to the harbor of San Francisco would cost but from four to six million dollars; and whereas a tax of from one to two dollars a ton is now imposed upon all freight crossing the Bay of San Francisco, which would be avoided if said island was joined by a bridge with the transcontinental railroad and its connecting lines and branches; therefore, in the interest of commerce and ship transportation, and for the benefit of the interior of California, as well as for the benefit of every State east of us :

Be it resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use all honorable means to procure the passage of the bill leasing a portion of Goat Island for the purposes of a railroad terminus.

We, the undersigned, members of the State senate of California, not having had an opportunity to vote on the above preamble and resolution owing to the press of business during the last days of the session, hereby certify that we cordially indorse the same, believing, as we do, that Goat Island is the natural western terminus of the Pacific railroad. CHARLES KENT,

Senator from Nevada County. STEPHEN WİNG,

Senator from Toulumne, Mono, and Inyo Counties.
T. J. KEYS.

Senator from Stanislaus, Merced, and
Mariposa Counties.

M. C. ANDROSS,

Senator from Toulumne County. GEORGE S. EVANS,

Senator from San Joaquin County.
BARLOW DYER,

Senator from Calaveras County.
S. C. HUTCHINS,
Senator from Yuba and Sutter Counties.
C. MACLAY,

Senator from Santa Clara County.
T. M. BANVARD,

Senator from Placer County.
WILLIAM MINNIS.
Senator from Yolo and Solano Counties.
JAMES VAN NESS,

Senator from San Louis Obispo and
Santa Barbara Counties.
A. COMTE,

Senator from Sacramento County.
WILLIAM WIRT PENDEGAST,
Senator from Lake and Napa Counties.
JAMES A. DUFFY,

Senator from Sacramento. JAMES H. NEFF,

Senator from Placer County. H. K. TURNER,

Senator from Sierra County.
B. D. WILSON.

Senator from Los Angelos County.
THOMAS FOWLER,
Senator from Tulare and Kern Counties.
JOHN BOGGS,

Senator from Colusa and Tehama Counties.
A. J. BETGE,

Senator from San Francisco County.
DAVID GOODALE,
Senator from Contra Costa and Marin Counties.
THOMAS BECK,

Senator from Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Mr. SARGENT. Still another senator, Mr. Tompkins, representing Alameda county, in which Oakland is situated, telegraphs as fol lows:

SAN FRANCISco, April 11, 1872. GENTLEMEN: I am requested to express my opinion to you in reference to Goat Island. I think the use of it ought to be granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company. It is worthless now. It would thus be made very valuable. Whatever increases the aggregate national wealth adds to the general prosperity and increases the means for the support of the Government. To retain it as it is, under the pretext that it is wanted for defense, is absurd. If made as strong as Gibraltar it would be of no avail against an enemy outside of the Golden Gate, and one powerful enough to force the way in would put San Francisco under contribution. At once the paradox would be true that for Goat Island to defend San Francisco would be to destroy it. The foolish panic got up in San Francisco appears to me to be confined almost entirely to the owners of property in the south part of the city. I believe that it will soon subside, and that those most active in it will be most ashamed of it afterward. The rest of the State is indirectly interested in the improvement of the island, and so far as I have the means of judging will cordially support you in doing all you can to secure that result. I should not have extended my opinion upon you as a volunteer. Respectfully and truly, yours,

EDWARD TOMKINS. Hon. SARGENT, HOUGHTON, and COGHLAN. The president of the State Agricultural Society telegraphs to me:

men well known to me, and purporting to speak for large classes of citizens, I read one more from the cultivator of thirty-six thousand acres of wheat, as follows:

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, April 13, 1872. SIR: I have thirty-six thousand acres of wheat growing in San Joaquin valley, and am in communication with farmers representing at least five hundred thousand acres of cultivated land, and I can say that it is the unanimous wish of all farmers and business men outside of San Francisco that Goat Island should be given to the railroad company for the reason that it will relieve them of an unnecessary tax of at least one dollar per ton upon all goods and product going from or to San Francisco, and will aid the commerce of the country and its connections with foreign commerce, lessening its expenses and increasing its profits even in San Francisco. JOHN W. MITCHELL.

Hon. A. A. SARGENT.

The motives of Mr. Mitchell in sending his telegram are perhaps explained by the following from one of the interior California papers:

"The efforts of the Pacific mail line of steamers to establish a lucrative trade with China and Japan and the Pacific islands have encountered the most serious obstacles in the vexatious and onerous port charges and transfer charges of San Francisco. Heretofore the custom has been to make as much as possible out of every ship that arrived, without the slightest reference to the effect of such a course upon the trade of the country. For example, the commissioners of immigration levied a tax on each person landing there; every vessel of one hundred tons burden was charged six dollars per day: vessels of one thousand tons burden, twenty-five dollars per day; and vessels of twenty-five hundred tons burden, fifty dollars per day, for the mere privilege of making fast to a wharf. For unloading goods on the wharves there are additional charges of twentyfive cents per ton, or in cases of goods discharged from ship to lighters, twelve and a half cents per ton. Then there are extra charges for drayage to warehouses, cost of warehousing, drayage back to ship or car, and other incidental expenses, until what with the loss of time and damage to goods by these repeated handlings, we have a total toll of about two dollars perton upon all merchandise passing through San Francisco.

Now, this system can only be maintained at the cost of the absolute loss of the vast Asiatic commerce which is now within our grasp. To lose this commerce is to inflict an almost irreparable injury on San Francisco herself, and to lessen the profits of the merchants of the nation at large, perhaps from thirty to fifty per cent."

It is a question of life and death to our trade and to the interior of the State. Our miners and farmers in flush times may stand the tolls and hinderances of the present order of things, but it is a grievous burden at any time.

I make no further extracts from the press in the interior to this effect, although I could do so from papers published from one end of the State to the other. I know there is not a unanimous opinion either in or out of San Francisco. But will any candid man say that after the long acquiescence of San Francisco in this project, and its sudden and unexpected change of base, with such powerful indorsements of the project from the interior, my representative limitations, and my firm conviction, long since expressed by word and vote, and still entertained, that this is a measure helpful to national and State commerce and beneficial to San Francisco itself, any one has a right to arraign me in vile terms for supporting it?

The fact that sixty aeres of the island are reserved absolutely for military purposes, and the whole to be taken in case of war existing or threatened, and that it is more available for such purposes with a road running to it than without it, would seem to be an effective answer to any objection from a military point of view. But Goat Island has never been deemed of importance in that connection. By the time a hostile force could get by Fort Point, Lime Point, Black Point, and Alcatraz, it would be too late for Goat Island to save San Francisco. In the late rebellion several new points were fortified and the old ones strengthened, while Goat Island remained unfortified. The reservations for military purposes in and around the Bay of San Francisco are enormous and disproportionate, and the clamor of the Aita California, that all of Goat Island must be reserved, is answered by itself in an article

"The Military Reservation Business.-Among the other misfortunes against which this city has to struggle in her efforts to build herself up is the military reservation business. San Francisco has been reserved for military purposes to an extent that is positively stunning. Preparations for defensive warfare have been made on a scale which would be sufficient for the demands of that great and final ruggle which Gog and Magog are to bring on the world. If the solicitude of the General Government for the protection of the maiden city by the Golden Gate should be measured by the amount of Land which it has laid aside for war purposes, the conclusion could not be resisted that its defense occupies the entire and exclusive attention of the military authorities. Sixteen hundred acres probably of the best land in our suburbs, known as the Presidio reservation, a large semicircular sweep at Point San José, upon the very edge of the town, and all the islands in the bay are considered by a prudential military department to be essential for the repulse of the invader, when he comes upon us with his iron-clads, around either the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.

More land has been taken possession of in and around the city of San Francisco for military purposes than in all the cities of the Atlantic sea-board put together, fronting as they do those nations from which alone positive danger may be apprehended. We are fortifying here on a gigantic scale, to all appearances for no other purpose but to guard against a hostile movement of Chinese or Japanese junks, for which, without any reservation whatever, the monitor Camanche or even an ordinary steami-tug with a Parrot at the bow would be more than a match. In the whole vast expanse of the Pacific we can discern no other possible enemies, and it is needless to say that no very serious trouble may be ever apprehended from them. We hold it to be clear that no matter what shape the future may take, no European nation with which we might happen to come in collision would ever attempt to deal us a blow in a region so distant from natural bases as the Pacific and so entirely destitute of all appliances for the repair of damages in case of defeat or disaster."

This ridicule of the Government for doing what is now contended must be continued, I do not cite to prove the shameless inconsistency of the sheet in question, but that the cry of the need of the whole island for military purposes is raised now to deceive the people of the city and Congress.

I ask pardon of the House for occupying so much time on this question. But the ruffianly proceedings of "hoodlums" at San Francisco, prompted and defended by unprincipled speculators who are seeking to sacrifice the real interests of San Francisco to their own selfish schemes, have made it necessary that I explain with some care my position. I have not been hetrayed into anger by the inconsiderate denunciation of well-disposed men, and still less by the vile abuse of knavish sharpers who are seeking to fleece the city by means of subsidies to impossible railroad schemes, or transfer its business to a distance. I deemed it my duty to study carefully and perfect the details of the bill, secure the harbor from damage, and get more intimate connection between San Francisco and the East. I think the bill, as now presented, secures these ends, is for the benefit of the State and the great city, and shall record my vote in its favor.

Mr. WHEELER. I now call the previous question.

Mr. COX. I hope the gentleman will not insist on that now.

Mr. BANKS. Will not the gentleman allow some time for debate?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir; after the vote is reconsidered.

Mr. BANKS. Let us have the debate now. Mr. COX. I wish a telegram from San Francisco to be read, which shows a state of things different from what has been represented.

Mr. WHEELER. I shall admit that with pleasure, if the vote is reconsidered.

Mr. COX. The matter should not be forced in that way. I say the people of California are not represented here on this question.

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry. Is it in order to move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider?

The SPEAKER. The Chair is informed by the Journal Clerk that that motion has already been made and voted down. The

consider on the table.

Mr. SARGENT. I desire to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] that the State of California is as well represented on this floor as is the gentleman's own district.

Mr. COX. I made no personal allusion when I stated that the State of California and the city of San Francisco are not represented on this subject by the gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. SARGENT. I would like to know who made the gentleman from New York a school master over me and my colleagues?

Mr. COX. I represent a district as a member of the Congress of the United States. I do not represent any bank. I represent the property and the people of the United States now sought to be despoiled by this species of legislation. And I ask merely to be heard on this question.

Mr. SARGENT. The gentleman represents Tammany, and nothing else.

Mr. COX. That is a blackguard remark. Mr. WOOD. If I understand the proposition of my colleague from New York, [Mr. WHEELER, it is to reconsider the vote by which we disposed of the previous bill, and I desire to know of the Chair what the effect of the vote would be?

The SPEAKER. The previous bill was disposed of by recommitting it to the commit

tee.

Mr. WOOD. Will his motion, if carried, have the effect of bringing the bill which he has read as a part of his speech before the House?

The SPEAKER. Should the House reconsider the vote recommitting the bill, the Chair will then have to submit the question upon recommitting. Should the House reconsider the vote recommitting, the original bill will be before the House, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. WHEELER] has indicated his pur. pose to move what was read at the Clerk's desk as a substitute therefor.

Mr. SPEER, of Pennsylvania. Would the substitute be open to amendment? Mr. RANDALL.

unction to your soul.

Do not lay that flattering

The SPEAKER. That would depend upon whether the gentleman from New York should demand the previous question.

Mr. WHEELER. I desire to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] that he shall have every opportunity to produce and have read the telegram to which he has referred. I have no desire to stifle discussion or to shut out facts, as the gentleman must know from my course on former bills.

Mr. HOLMAN. Does the gentleman propose to allow amendments?

Mr. WHEELER. You may submit them for consideration?

Mr. BANKS. I hope the previous question will not be sustained.

The question was put on seconding the demand for the previous question, and there were-ayes 73, noes 69.

Mr. HOLMAN called for tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WHEELER and Mr. Cox were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 72, noes 63.

So the previous question was seconded. The question recurred upon ordering the main question to be put.

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SPEER, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If the main question be ordered, will it then be in the power of the gentleman from New York to prevent all amendments?

The SPEAKER. It will be in the power of the House, not of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RANDALL. Does the ordering of the main question now cut off all amendments?

The SPEAKER. It does not. The main question is merely upon the question of reconsideration; it does not reach the bill itself.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 100, nays 72, not voting 68; as follows:

YEAS Messrs. Ames, Averill, Barber, Barnum, Austin Blair, George M. Brooks, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, Freeman Clarke, Coghlan, Conger, Crocker, Darrall, Dawes, De Large, Dickey, Duell, Dunnell, Eames, Elliott, Ely, Farnsworth, Farwell, Wilder D. Foster. Frye, Garrett, Getz, Goodrich, Griffith, Harmer, Harper, George E. Harris, Hawley, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley, Ketcham, Lamport, Lansing, Leach, McGrew, McHenry, MeJunkin, McKee, Mercur, Merriam. Moore, Morey, Morphis, Leonard Myers, Negley, Niblack, Orr, Packard. Packer, Palmer, Peck, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Prindle. Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley, Sessions, Sheldon, Shoemaker, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, John A. Smith, Snapp, Thomas J. Speer, Starkweather, Stowell, Sutherland, Sypher, Thomas. Turner, Twichell, Upson, Voorhees, Wakeman, Waldron, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Willard, Williams of Indiana, and Williams of New York-100.

NAYS-Messrs. Acker, Adams, Ambler, Arthur, Banks, Beatty, Bell, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Comingo, Cotton, Cox, Crossland, Davis, Eldredge, Finkelnburg, Garfield, Golladay, Haldeman, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Hay, Hereford, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King, Lewis, Manson, Marshall, McClelland, McIntyre, McNeely, Merrick, Monroe, Hosea W.Parker, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Shanks, Sherwood, Slater, Snyder, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson. Stoughton, Strong, Terry, Dwight Townsend, Tuthill, Tyner, Van Trump, Waddell, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Wood, and Young-72.

NOT VOTING - Messrs. Archer, Barry, Beck, Beveridge, Bigby, Biggs, Bingham, Boles, James Brooks, Buckley, Burchard, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, William T. Clark, Cobb, Gonner, Crebs, Creely, Critcher, Donnan, Dox, Du Bose, Duke, Forker, Charles Foster, Henry D. Foster, Hale, Halsey, Hambleton, John T. Harris, Havens, Hill, Kellogg, Kendall, Kinsella, Lamison, Lowe, Lynch, Maynard, McCormick, McCrary, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Mitchell, Morgan, Isaac C. Parker, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shellabarger, Shober, Slocum, Worthington C. Smith, Storm, St. John, Swann, Taffe, Washington Townsend, Vaughan, Walls, Jeremiah M. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Winchester-68.

During the roll call the following announcements were made:

Mr. PRICE. I am paired with Mr. TownSEND, of Pennsylvania, who is absent on account of sickness; if here he would vote "ay," and I should vote "no."

Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. I am paired with Mr. HAMBLETON; if here he would vote "no," and I would vote "ay."

Mr. DONNAN. I am paired with Mr. HALSEY; he would vote "ay," and I should vote "no."

Mr. VAN TRUMP. My colleague, Mr. MORGAN, is paired with some gentleman on the other side of the House; if here he would vote "no."

Mr. McCLELLAND. My colleague, Mr. B. F. MEYERS, has been called away by sickness in his family. He is paired with some gentleman who is in favor of this bill. If here he would vote "no."

Mr. HALDEMAN. Mr. SLOCUM, who would vote "ay," is paired upon this question with Mr. WINCHESTER, who would vote "no."

The question was upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is it in order now to move to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table? The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that such a motion would be in order.

Mr. HOLMAN. I make that motion. Mr. WHEELER. Has not the House already voted down one motion to lay this motion to reconsider upon the table?

The SPEAKER. It has; but the Chair is of opinion that business of such a character has intervened as to make the motion again in order.