Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King. Lamison, Leach, Lewis, Manson, Marshall, McClelland, McCrary, McIntyre, McNeely, Merrick, Monroe, Moore, Niblack, Hosea W. Parker, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Slater, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson, Storm, Stoughton, Strong, Swann, Terry, Tyner, Upson, Van Trump, Vaughan, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Wood, and Young-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Averill, Barber, Barnum, Bingham, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, William T. Clark, Coghlan, Conger, Creely, Crocker, Dawes, De Large, Duell, Dunnell, Elliott, Ely, Farnsworth, Wilder D. Foster, Frye, Garrett, Goodrich, Halsey, Harmer, Harper, George E. Harris, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley, Kellogg, Ketcham, Lamport, Lansing, Lynch, McGrew, McHenry, McJunkin, Mercur, Merriam, Mitchell, Morey, Morphis, Leonard Myers, Negley, Packard, Packer, Palmer, Isaac C. Parker, Peck, Perce, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Porter, Prindle, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley, Sessions, Shanks, Sheldon, Shoemaker, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, John A. Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J. Speer, Starkweather, Stowell, Sypher, Taffe, Turner, Twichell, Voorhees, Wakeman, Waldron, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Williams of Indiana, and Williams of New York-94.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barry, Beck, Beveridge, Austin Blair, Boles, James Brooks, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Conner, Crebs, Critcher, Darrall, Dickey, Dox, Duke, Eldredge. Farwell, Charles Foster, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Hale, John T. Harris, Hawley, Hill, Kendall, Kinsella, Lowe, Maynard, McCormick, McKee, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morgan, Orr, Pendleton, Aaron F. Perry, Price, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sherwood, Shober, Slocum, Worthington C. Smith, St. John, Sutherland, Thomas, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tuthill, Waddell, Walls, Willard, Jeremiah M. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Winchester-62.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

A message in writing from the President of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. HORACE PORTER, his Private Secretary, who also informed the House that the President had approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the House of the following titles:

An act (H. R. No. 578) to extend the time for the completion of the military road from Fort Wilkins, at Copper Harbor, in the State of Michigan, to Fort Howard, at Green Bay, in the State of Wisconsin;

An act (H. R. No. 1180) to extend the time for filing claims for additional bounty, under the act of July 28, 1869;

An act (H. R. No. 1238) to remove the charge of desertion against Daniel Orner, late private in company H, ninety-first regiment Pennsylvania volunteers;

An act (H. R. No. 1638) to create the Linkton land district, in the State of Oregon;

An act (H. R. No. 1781) authorizing the Secretary of War to deliver condemned ordnance to certain soldiers' monumental associations;

An act (H. R. No. 1782) in relation to bounties;

An act (H. R. No. 1862) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to make certain negotiations with the Ute Indians in Colorado;

An act (H. R. No. 2253) for the relief of Cathron & Maguire, bankers and brokers of the city of Rome, Georgia; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 108) granting condemned cannon for the erection of a soldiers' monument at Mound City, Illinois.

CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1553) relating to the Central Pacific Railroad Company.

The question was upon the first amendment offered by Mr. HOLMAN to the substitute.

Mr. HOLMAN. I have changed the phraseology of the amendment somewhat, but not so as to alter its sense.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

In lines twenty to twenty-five of the first section insert, so that it will read:

And within three months from their appointment

said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall award such annual sum as rental for the use of said half of said island as granted by this act as in their judgment, or in the judgment of a majority of them, shall be deemed just and equitable, not less than $50,000, which amount shall be paid by the said Central Pacific Railroad Company annually thereafter during the said occupany.

Mr. WHEELER. I prefer the original proposition submitted to the House, and I object to any modification.

Mr. HOLMAN. It was submitted with the understanding that the phraseology of the amendment might be made to correspond with the phraseology of the section.

The SPEAKER. If an amendment is admitted and agreed to, and there is any necessity to modify the phraseology of it so as to make the meaning conspicuous, of course that is always done, and the enrolling clerk is allowed to take a liberty of that kind. If the gentleman from New York [Mr. WHEELER] thinks this amendment as modified is materially different from the other, he has the right to object. But in the judgment of the Chair it presents the same question to the House.

Mr. WHEELER. I prefer the amendment as it was originally presented, and as it was understood by gentlemen.

Mr. SARGENT. And it was reported from the Clerk's desk as framed by the gentleman from Indiana himself.

Mr. HOLMAN. There is manifest injustice in the objection of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WHEELER.] I stated at the time I offered the amendment that of course I wished to arrange its phraseology in such a manner as to make it correspond with the section; and that is all I now propose to do. The striking out of the words "before it shall avail itself of the provisions of this act," should be included in the amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. The amendment was carefully prepared by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN,] and reported from the Clerk's desk for the information of the House. To change it now will give rise to inquiries all around me which I cannot answer. I there

fore prefer that the question shall be taken on the amendment as originally presented.

The SPEAKER. The amendment will be reported as originally presented.

The Clerk read as follows:

After the words "shall be deemed just and equitable," in line twenty-three, section one of the substitute, insert the words not less than $50,000 as an annual rental."

The question was taken upon agreeing to the amendment; and upon a division, there wereayes 51, noes 69.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. BEATTY and Mr. HOLMAN called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was again taken; and there were-yeas 86, nays 93, not voting 61; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Acker, Adams, Ambler, Archer, Arthur, Banks, Beatty, Beck, Bigby, Biggs, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton, Burchard, Coburn, Comingo, Cotton, Cox, Crossland, Davis, Donnan, Du Bose, Eames, Finkelnburg, Forker, Henry D. Foster, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Griffith, Haldeman, Hambleton, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Havens, Hay, Hereford, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King, Lamison, Leach, Lewis, Manson, Marshall, McClelland, McCormick, McCrary, McIntyre, McNeely, Merrick, Monroe, Niblack, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, William R. Roberts, Shanks, Sherwood, Slater, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson, Storm, Stoughton, Strong, Swann, Terry, Tyner, Upson, Van Trump, Vaughan, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Wood, and Young-86.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Averill, Barber, Barnum, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, William T. Clark, Coghlan, Conger, Creely, Crocker, Darrall, Dawes, De Large, Duke, Dunnell, Elliott, Farnsworth, Wilder D. Foster, Frye, Garrett, Goodrich, Halsey, Harmer, Harper, George E. Harris, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley, Kellogg, Ketcham. Lamport, Lansing, McGrew, McHenry, McJunkin, Mercur, Merriam, Mitchell, Morey, Morphis, Leonard Myers, Orr, Packard, Packer, Palmer, Isaac C. Parker, Peck, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Porter, Prindle, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley, Sessions, Sheldon, Slocum, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, John

A. Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J. Speer, Starkweather, Stowell, Sypher, Taffe, Turner, Twichell, Voorhees, Wakeman, Waldron, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Willard, Williams of Indiana, and Williams of New York-93.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barry, Bell, Beveridge, Bingham, Austin Blair, Boles, James Brooks, Benjamin F. Butler, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Conner. Crebs, Critcher, Dickey, Dox, Duell, Eldredge, Ely, Farwell, Charles Foster, Hale, John T. Harris, Hawley, Hill, Kendall, Kinsella, Lowe, Lynch, Maynard, McKee, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Moore, Morgan, Negley, Hosea W. Parker, Pendleton, Price, Ritchie, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shellabarger, Shober, Shoemaker, Worthington C. Smith, St. John, Sutherland, Thomas, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tuthill, Waddell, Walls, Jeremiah M. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Winchester-61.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question now recurs on agreeing to the second amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HoLMAN,] which will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Add to the first section of the substitute these words:

But no provision of this act shall take effect until the said Central Pacific Railroad Company shall have paid into the Treasury of the United States the sums paid by the United States as interest on the bonds issued by the United States for the benefit of said company, and now remaining unpaid, namely, the sum of $5,089,215.

The question being taken on agreeing to the amendment, there were-ayes 53, noes 69. Mr. BEATTY and Mr. HOLMAN called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 79, nays 92, not voting 69; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Acker, Adams, Ambler, Arthur, Banks, Beatty, Beck, Biggs, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Comingo, Cotton, Cox, Davis, Donnan, Du Bose, Eldredge, Finkelnburg, Forker, Getz, Golladay, Griffith, Haldeman, Hambleton, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Harmer, Hay, Hereford, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King, Lamison, Leach, Lewis, Manson, McClelland, McCormick, McCrary, McIntyre, McNeely, Mercur, Merrick, Monroe, Packer, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, William R. Roberts, Sherwood, Shoemaker, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson, Stoughton, Strong, Swann, Terry, Tyner, Van Trump, Vaughan, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Jeremiah M. Wilson, Wood, and Young-79.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Averill, Barber, Barnum, Bingham, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Burchard, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, William T. Clark, Coghlan, Conger, Creely, Crocker, Darrall, Dawes, De Large, Dickey, Duke, Dunnell, Eames, Elliott, Farnsworth, Wilder D. Foster, Frye, Garfield, Garrett, Goodrich, Hale, Halsey, Harper, George E. Harris, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley, Kellogg. Ketcham, Lamport, Lansing, McGrew, McHenry, McJunkin, Merriam, Mitchell, Moore, Morphis, Packard, Palmer, Peck, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Porter, Prindle, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley, Sessions, Sheldon, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, John A. Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J. Speer, Starkweather, Stowell, Sypher, Taffe, Turner, Twichell, Upson, Voorhees, Wakeman, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Willard, Williams of Indiana, and Williams of New York-92.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, Barry, Bell, Beveridge, Bigby, Austin Blair, Boles, James Brooks, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Conner, Crebs, Critcher, Crossland, Dox, Duell, Ely. Farwell, Charles Foster, Henry D. Foster, John T. Harris, Havens, Hawley, Hill, Kendall, Kinsella, Lowe, Lynch, Marshall, Maynard, McKee, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morey, Morgan, Leonard Myers, Negley, Niblack, Orr, Hosea W. Parker, Isaac C. Parker, Pendleton, Price, Ritchie, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Shober, Slater, Slocum, Worthington C. Smith, Storm, St. John, Sutherland, Thomas, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tuthill, Waddell, Waldron, Walls, John T. Wilson, and Winchester-69.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

The question then recurred on agreeing to the following substitute, offered by Mr. WHEELER:

Whereas the Central Pacific railroad, the western link in the chain of railroads connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, is now completed to Oakland, opposite San Francisco, and it is important that the western terminus of said railroad should be as near as possible to San Francisco, and should have sufficient accommodations for the travel and commerce passing over said road: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the use of one half of the island of Yerba Buena, or Goat Island, in the Bay of San

Francisco, California, is hereby granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, for a terminus for its railroad, to be used exclusively for railroad purposes; and this grant shall continue so long as the said premises shall be used by said company, its successors and assigns, for the purposes above named, and no longer; and said premises shall be subject to taxation as is other like property under the laws of the State of California: Provided, That within one month from the passage of this act, the President of the United States shall appoint three commissioners, who shall be authorized at the expense of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, after being duly sworn or affrmed faithfully to perform their duties and that they have no interest in said company, to examine said island, to hear allegations and proofs, and to take into account as well any benefits as any injury which may accrue to the Government of the United States from the execution of this act; and within three months from their appointment said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall award such sum for the use of said half of said island, as granted by this act, as in their judgment, or in the judgment of a majority of them, shall be deemed just and equitable, which amount, when the award shall have been approved by the President, shall be paid by said Central Pacific Railroad Company, before it shall avail itself of this grant: Provided further, That said one half of said island shall be selected and designated within six months from the passage of this act, by or under the authority of the President of the United States: And be it further provided, That this grant is upon the express condition that the Government of the United States hereby reserves the free use of the whole of said island for military purposes in time of war, or in anticipation of war, when deemed necessary by the President of the United States.

SEC. 2. That nothing herein contained shall destroy or impair any lawful or equitable rights and claims of private parties, if such exist, to the said island, or any part thereof; and the said Central Pacific Railroad Company is hereby authorized to locate and eonstruct its railroad and telegraph line from its present terminus at Oakland to said island, and there establish the western terminus of said railroad and telegraph line: Provided, That this extension shall be subject to the charter, laws, and conditions which now govern the construction and existence of the Central Pacific railroad; but no subsidy of any nature whatsoever is hereby intended to be or is given to the said Central Pacific railroad: Proruded further, That said railroad shall reach said island with its track, and occupy its designated portion thereof, within three years from the time said company shall be in undisputed possession, free from adverse claimants: And be it further provided, That the superstructure upon which the track shall be placed shall be built upon piers, with spans of not less than three hundred feet, which piers shall be reduced to a minimum, and also to the least possible width consistent with safety, and so placed and shaped with reference to the channel and direction of the tides as to offer to them as little obstruction as possible.

SEC. 3. That if at any time the wants of commerce or naval communication shall require it, upon the direction of the President of the United States, the said Central Pacific Railroad Company shall erect a draw-bridge over such portion of the channel as the engineer department of the United States shall direct.

SEC. 4. That any and all railroad companies shall have the right to run their cars from the mainland over the track of the Central Pacific Railroad Company to said island, and thereupon have reasonable facilities and accommodations for doing business, under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by the said Central Pacific Railroad Company: but each company availing itself of this privilege shall first pay to the Central Pacific Railroad Company a just proportion of the cost of the improvements on said island, and the expenses incurred in reaching the same from the mainland; such proportion to be measured and determined by the benefits which said railroad company may derive from the use of said main track and island; and in case of any disagreement between any such railroad company and the said Central Pacific Railroad Company, as to the amounts to be paid, and as to the use and occupancy of said track and island, the same shall be determined by the Secretary of War, subject to the approval of the President of the United States: Provided, That the said Central Pacific Railroad Company, and any other railroad company availing itself of the privileges of this act, shall receive and deliver freight and passengers which shall pass over their lines of road, or any part thereof, without extra charge, at one or more points convenient for business and travel on the western shore of said bay, and within the corporate limits of the city of Sau Franisco: Provided further, That the said Central Pacific Railroad Company shall make no charge for wharfage for freight or passengers which have passed or are to pass over their line of road or any part thereof: And be it further provided, That Congress reserves fall power, whenever in its judgment it may be proper so to do, to authorize by law any other railroad company or companies to construct and maintain its or their own independent connections with and use of that part of the island of Yerba Buena, the use of which is by this act granted, that shall not be actually occupied for legitimate railroad purposes under law of Congress at the time said subsequent legislation may be had; and Congress may at any time alter, amend, or repeal this act, having due regard to the rights and interests of all railroad

The question being on the passage of the bill, Mr. HOLMAN called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 101, nays 86, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Averill, Barber, Barnum, Austin Blair, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, William T. Clark, Coghlan, Conger, Creely, Crocker, Darrall, Dawes, De Large, Duell, Duke, Dunnell, Elliott, Farnsworth, Henry D. Foster. Frye, Garrett, Getz, Goodrich, Halsey, Harmer, Harper, George E. Harris, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hoar, Hooper, Houghton, Kelley. Kellogg, Ketcham, Lamport, Lansing, Leach, Lowe, Lynch, McGrew, McHenry, McJunkin, Mercur, Merriam, Mitchell, Moore, Morey, Morphis, Leonard Myers. Orr, Packard, Packer, Palmer, Isaac C. Parker, Peck, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Porter, Prindle, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Rusk, Sargent, Seeley. Sessions, Sheldon, Shoemaker, Sloss, H. Boardman Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J.Speer, Starkweather, Stowell, Sutherland, Sypher, Taffe, Turner, Twichell, Upson, Voorhees, Wakeman, Waldron, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Willard, Williams of Indiana, and Williams of New Yorks-101.

who would have voted in the affirmative, while he would have voted in the negative.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. COX. I move to amend the title of the bill, if it be in order, so as to express the intent and meaning of the bill.

Mr. WHEELER. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks consent to move an amendment to the title.

Mr. COX. Have I not the right to the floor to make that motion?

The Clerk read as follows:

Amend the title of the bill by striking out the words relating to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and inserting in lieu thereof "A bill to give a railroad company over five million dollars of public property without consideration."

Mr. COX. That is the idea.

Mr. WHEELER. I object, and demand the vote on my motion to reconsider and lay on the table.

The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, notifying the House

Banks, Beatty, Beck, Biggs, Bingham, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton, Burchard, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Comingo, Cotton, Cox, Crossland, Davis, Donnan, Du Bose, Eames, Eldredge, Finkelnburg, Forker, Wilder D. Foster, Garfield, Golladay, Griffith, Haldeman, Hambleton, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Havens, Hay, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kerr, Killinger, King, Lamison, Lewis, Manson, Maynard, McClelland, McCormick, MeCrary, McIntyre, McNeely, Merrick, Monroe, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Shanks, Sherwood, Slater, John A. Smith, R. Milton Speer. Sprague, Stevens, Stevenson, Storm, Stoughton, Strong, Swann, Terry, Tyner, Van Trump, Vaughan, Walden, Wells, Whitthorne, Jeremiah M. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Wood, and Young-86.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, Barry, Bell, Beveridge, Bigby, Boles, James Brooks, Caldwell, Campbell, Carroll, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Conner, Crebs, Critcher, Dickey, Dox, Ely, Farwell, Charles Foster, Hale, John T. Harris, Hawley, Hereford, Hill, Kendall, Kinsella, Marshall, McKee, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morgan, Negley, Niblack, Hosea W. Parker, Pendleton, Price, Robinson, Roosevelt, Sawyer, Scofield, Shellabarger, Shober, Slocum, Worthington C. Smith, St. John, Thomas, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tuthill, Waddell, Walls, and Winchester-53. So the bill was passed.

During the vote,

Mr. McNEELY stated that his colleague Mr. CREBS, who was absent by leave of the House on account of sickness in his family, would if present have voted in the negative, and in the affirmative on all the amendments.

Mr. ELY stated that he was paired with Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire, who would have voted against the bill, while he would have voted for it.

Mr. NIBLACK stated that he was paired with Mr. MARSHALL, of Illinois, and that while he would have voted in favor of some of the amendments he was himself generally in favor of the bill, while Mr. MARSHALL was opposed to it.

Mr. BELL stated that he was paired with Mr. NEGLEY, of Pennsylvania, who would have voted in the affirmative, while he would have voted in the negative.

Mr. SHOBER stated that he was paired with his colleague, Mr. CоBB, who would have voted in the affirmative, while he would have voted in the negative.

Mr. PRICE stated that he was paired with Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania, who would have voted in the affirmative, while he would have voted in the negative.

Mr. HAZELTON, of Wisconsin, stated that his colleague, Mr. SAWYER, who was friendly to the bill, was paired with Mr. MORGAN, from Ohio, who was opposed to it.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York, stated that he was paired with Mr. MCKEE, of Mississippi,

for the relief of the heirs of the late Captain R. R. Perkins, of the United States Army; in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

The message further announced that the Senate had adopted the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on a bill (H. R. No. 1866) for the relief of Mrs. Frances A. McKinney.

The message further announced that the Senate had recommitted to the committee of conference a bill (H. R. No. 1060) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That David S. Gooding, contestant from the fourth congressional district of Indiana, be allowed the sum of $3,080 out of the contingent fund of the House, in full for necessary expenses and disbursements paid out and incurred by him in the prosecution of his claim to have been elected to the Forty-Second Congress.

The resolution was adopted.

Mr. HAZELTON, of Wisconsin, moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

from the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the case of Dr. Houard.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the order of business. The Committee on Foreign Affairs are authorized to report at any time in relation to the case of Dr. Houard. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAWES,] who || is chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, is on the floor for a privileged motion, which would take away the priority of that order, a motion to suspend the rules for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the tariff bill. And the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] is on the floor desiring to submit a motion to suspend the rules for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration of an appropriation bill.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. And I desire to move that the House now proceed to 'the consideration of business on the Speaker's table.

The SPEAKER. That motion would not be privileged, as there has been no morning hour to-day.

Mr. BANKS. I will say to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means that we hope to dispose of the resolution in regard to Dr. Houard in two hours.

Mr. W. R. ROBERTS. Say three hours. Mr. BANKS. We hope it will not occupy more than two hours, but the discussion will not go beyond three hours at any rate.

Mr. RANDALL. The consideration of the case of Dr. Houard has now been postponed for eight days, and I hope it will be at once proceeded with.

Mr. BANKS. I trust the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means will allow us to go on with that question.

Mr. W. R. ROBERTS. It is a very important question, and I trust we will have time to discuss it.

Mr. NIBLACK. I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will allow us to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the fortification bill.

The SPEAKER. The best way in which the priority of business can be settled is for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts on the left of the Chair, [Mr. BANKS;] and the two other gentlemen who have privileged reports can raise the question of consideration.

Mr. COBURN. Let me remind the Chair that the consideration of the homestead bill has been fixed for this day, to the exclusion of every other order except reports of the Committees of Ways and Means and Appropriations.

The SPEAKER. The Chair apprehends that that is true. He had overlooked the assignment of that order for to day.

Mr. RANDALL. I desire to make a remark | on this question. When the Chair decided that the Goat Island bill should have preference over the case of an American citizen, who is in jail, with his feet in chains, he stated that that bill had higher privilege; and I understood the Chair to state that the case of Dr. Houard would come up next.

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not distinctly apprehend what the gentleman first stated. The statement, as it fell upon the ear of the Chair, was offensive.

Mr. RANDALL. I did not mean to be offensive.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decided that the motion to reconsider was one having the highest privilege known to the House.

Mr. RANDALL. And the Chair decided, further, that it cut off the consideration of Dr. Houard's case, being a motion of higher privilege.

The SPEAKER. Precisely.

Mr. RANDALL. That is what I meant to say.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman differ from that ruling of the Chair?

Mr. RANDALL. No, sir; but I drew the inference that the Chair stated substantially that Dr. Houard's case would come next. And now the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DawES] proposes to intervene the tariff bill.

The SPEAKER. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] rose the Chair was about to submit to the decision of the majority of the House what business should be proceeded with.

Mr. BANKS. That is the proper way of settling it.

Mr. RANDALL. I shall be quite satisfied with that.

Mr. BANKS. I propose to submit the report of the committee, and, if possible, I shall be willing that the House should limit the debate to two hours.

Mr. RANDALL. I cannot consent to that. The gentleman knows that the members of the committee themselves will occupy two hours; and there are others of us, not members of the committee, who are very much interested in the subject. I brought the case to the attention of the House, and I do not wish to be cut short in the remarks I desire to submit.

Mr. DAWES. It is perfectly evident that if the House is to take up at all for consideration the financial measures of the Government, they must do it at once.

I understand that behind this there is a prop. osition to call up the resolution for final adjournment. Between the resolution for final adjournment and all these other questions I submit to the House the proposition reported from the Committee of Ways and Means. And if the House shall decide to lay aside the questions of finance reported by its committee, the responsibility will not rest upon the committee, and they will not feel themselves under obligations to call the attention of the House to them.

Mr. W. R. ROBERTS. We ask only three hours to discuss the claim of an American citizen now in jail rotting there, and we are leaving him there.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. There are forty million American people interested in the finance measure, and some of them are in jail too. [Laughter.]

Mr. L. MYERS. I want to say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, that this question involves the liberty of an American citizen, and is of higher privilege than anything that can come from his committee.

The SPEAKER. The question is not de batable. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] as upon the floor. The other gentlemen raise the question of consideration.

Mr. HAWLEY. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. I desire to know what will be the effect on the homestead bill, in my hands, if it does not come up to day.

The SPEAKER. The bill will not lose its place at all, and the Chair hopes the gentleman will not antagonize it with this measure.

Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to suggest to my colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means that as we are to meet at half past seven o'clock for the consideration of pension bills, we can get along but a very little way in the discussion of the tariff bill if we take it up now.

Mr. DAWES. If the House will permit me to make my motion after the reading of the Journal to-morrow I will withdraw it.

Mr. BANKS. If this question is settled we will not object.

Mr. DICKEY. I object to any such con

tracts.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on

Foreign Affairs, is recognized by the Chair. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] raise the question of consideration.

Mr. DAWES. I withdraw my motion, and give notice that I shall renew it to-morrow immediately after the reading of the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would inform the gentleman that the question of consideration cannot be raised after a question is under discussion.

Mr. DAWES. It will be in order to move to suspend the rules to-morrow morning.

The SPEAKER. The difficulty about that would be that the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs have arranged somewhat as to the discussion, and it will be the duty of the Chair to recognize that arrangement.

Mr. DAWES. Does not the rule say that it is in order at any time to move to go into Committee of the Whole on a revenue bill?

The SPEAKER. It does not say that it is in order to submit that motion unless the gentleman has the floor; and further, the tariff bill is made a special order after the morning hour.

Mr. DAWES. I do not so understand it. The SPEAKER. That is the impression of the Chair.

Mr. DAWES. I find that the Chair is right. Mr. BANKS. After we have entered upon the discussion of this question the gentleman will have the privilege, if he can get the floor, of moving to go into Committee of the Whole, and if the House will not consider the question, we have nothing to say.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will then announce, because it is a fair adjustment as between the claims to the floor, that the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, desires to proceed now, with the condition that the gentleman from Massachusetts may to-morrow, if the Houard case is not finished, test the sense of the House on going into Committee of the Whole on the tariff bill.

Mr. RANDALL. I object, for the reason that he has not a right to make his motion before the morning hour.

The SPEAKER. It does not necessarily follow that he would not have a right to make the motion. The only difficulty is that if the House goes into Committee of the Whole before the morning hour, there is no special order, and the committee can take up any bill it chooses.

Mr. RANDALL. We want only three hours to discuss the Houard case.

Mr. W. R. ROBERTS. That is all we ask. Mr. DAWES. It is evident that unless I settle the question now I shall be unable to get into Committee of the Whole on the tariff bill to morrow.

Mr. BANKS. It is not evident.

The SPEAKER. There is but an hour remaining of the session of to-day, according to the usual practice, and gentlemen of the Com. mittee on Foreign Affairs propose to occupy two hours. That will bring the vote in the House to-morrow a little after two o'clock.

Mr. NIBLACK. I think the House had better let me go on with the fortification bill. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. What becomes of the special order, the homestead bill?

The SPEAKER. It cannot be displaced. If the gentlemen interested in it will waive it for the present, there is no danger of its not being reached. The Chair hopes the gentleman will not obtrude it now, as there is a great desire to settle the case from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. COBURN. Let me suggest to the Chair that it will lose its place if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] goes on with his resolution.

The SPEAKER. It will lose its place to that extent. It is made the special order from

day to day until disposed of, and will run to the end of the session unless sooner disposed of. Mr. BANKS. I hope the House will allow us to go on with this subject for some little time.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New Nork. I hope not to the postponement of the financial business of this country.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will for himself submit to the House the question of consideration.

The question was taken; and upon a division there were-ayes 94, noes 46.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. DAWES and Mr. HALE called for the yeas and nays.

The question was taken upon ordering the yeas and nays; and upon a division there were-ayes 20, noes 106; not one fifth voting in the affirmative.

Before the result of this vote was announced, Mr. DAWES called for tellers on ordering the yeas and nays.

The question was taken upon ordering tellers; and there were twenty-six in the affirmative.

So (the affirmative being more than one fifth of a quorum) tellers were ordered, and Mr. DAWES and Mr. BANKS were appointed.

Mr. COX. Will the Chair allow me to make a suggestion to save time?

The SPEAKER. The Chair is under the impression that it will not save time. [Laughter.]

Mr. COX. I think it will.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 27, noes 131. So (the affirmative not being one fifth of the vote) the yeas and nays were not ordered. The House accordingly resolved to proceed with the consideration of the resolution in relation to Dr. John Emilio Houard.

ALABAMA CLAIMS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States: To the House of Representatives of the United States: In answer to a resolution of the 22d instant, I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, with the British case and papers which accompanied it.

WASHINGTON, April 24, 1872.

U. S. GRANT.

Mr. BANKS. I move that this message, with the accompanying papers, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, without being printed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BANKS moved to reconsider the vote last taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DR. JOHN EMILIO HOUARD.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the following preamble and resolution reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs:

Whereas Dr. John Emilio Houard has, after one year's imprisonment and trial by a military courtmartial, been convicted of complicity in an insurrection against the Spanish Government in the island of Cuba, and, upon said conviction, has been transported to a penal e lony of Spain for a term of eight years, from which conviction, sentence, and punishment he appeals for protection to the Government of the United States; and whereas it appears, first, that said Houard was a native-born citizen of the United States; second, that he never renounced his allegiance as such citizen, but, on the contrary, has claimed to be, and has been enrolled by the officers of the Government of the United States as a citizen of the United States; third, that it is not shown by any form of proof that he ever became by any act a subject or citizen of the Government of Spain; and Whereas it further appears that his trial, sentence, and punishment have been in disregard and violation of his undoubted rights as a citizen of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain: Therefore,

Be it resolved. That, in the judgment of this House, the said John Emilio Houard was, and is, a citizen of the United States by birth and continued and uninterrupted choice, and, as such, is entitled to all and every protection from this Government, and, in the opinion of this House, the President should

promptly demand his unconditional release and the restoration of his property, which has been confiscated to the use of the Spanish Government.

Mr. BANKS. In consideration of the generous kindness of the House, I will trespass upon its patience but a few minutes. Such facts as I have to present I will state in ten minutes, if it is possible to do so.

The gentlemen of the House understand the nature of the case presented by the memorial of the friends of Dr. Houard. Extensive communications have been made by the Secretary of State, as well as limitless discussions upon this question in the newspapers. We understand the case to be this: Dr. Houard is a native-born citizen of the United States. He was born in Philadelphia in 1815, and at the age of five or six years he removed to Cuba with his father, a naturalized citizen of the United States, in 1821 or 1822. In 1826 the father died. Young Houard, who is the subject of this resolution, returned to Philadelphia, his native city, where he was educated, and where he attained his majority. He received his medical diploma in that city from the Jefferson University in 1843, and the year after, 1844, removed to Cienfuegos, in Cuba, and was there admitted to the practice of medicine in that country. His diploma, given to him by the Spanish Government, recognizes him as a native of the United States. There is no evidence that in any form whatever Dr. Houard every abjured allegiance to this country, or made oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government. He is therefore, so far as we understand the facts, a nativeborn citizen of the United States.

In 1869 he received from the Spanish Government what is called a cedula, recognizing him as a resident there, and describing him as a native of the United States, and another in 1870 of the same character. In the latter part of 1868, or early in 1869, as the Secretary of State informs us, he registered himself before the consular officers of the United States in the island of Cuba as an American citizen, and he repeated this registration in 1870. among those recognized as Americans by the consular agent who begged of the Government of the United States that an American ship of war might be sent to Cuba for the protection of American citizens.

He was

There is nothing whatever shown in this case to indicate an intention or desire on the part of Dr. Houard to alienate himself from the United States, to disavow his allegiance, or to take upon himself the obligations of a Spanish citizen. In December, 1870, he was charged with infidencia, as they call it, that is, unfaithfulness to the Spanish Government. It appears that some boxes of medicine that he once had in his possession were found in the camp of the insurgent Cubans, and he was charged with having furnished those medicines to the insurgents, which he denied. There is no proof that he did so. Upon trial by a military court-what the Secretary of State calls an extraordinary tribunal"-he after one year's imprisonment, convicted and condemned to eight years' imprisonment in a Spanish penal colony in Morocco, where he is now at hard labor in the quarries, his head shaved, his limbs loaded with chains, working out his sentence as a Spanish subject and prisoner, being all the while a nativeborn American citizen.

was,

He claims that as an American citizen he has the right to the protection of this Government; and we believe that under the treaty of 1795 he is entitled, whatever offense he may have committed against the Spanish Government, to a trial before a court of law in the same manner as other men-Spaniards, Americans, or Englishmen-are tried in time of

peace.

Now, sir, we may concede that Dr. Houard was a domiciled resident of Cuba, although there is no proof that he went there with the intention always to remain there, which, ac

cording to Vattel and other writers upon international law, is essential to establish the character of a domiciled resident. On the contrary, it appears that it was his intention to return to this country. All his relations with this country were kept up. His children were educated here. He in nowise separated himself from his own country except by a residence in Cuba for the purpose of practicing his profession as a doctor of medicine; that residence which is permitted by all nations, and which in nowise changes the national character of those who adopt it, unless accompanied by declarations and public acts which public law specifies as necessary to a change of nationality.

He was convicted, as I have stated, of the charge of infidencia, and is now serving out his sentence at a penal colony in Morocco. Mr. Capoti, the witness upon whose testimony he was convicted, and who testified of his own knowledge that he was guilty of the charges made against him, now makes oath in this country that his testimony was false and without any foundation whatever. He asserts that his evidence was given in what he describes as a "panic terror," the fear of being dragged through the streets by the volunteers, who, independently of the Spanish and Cuban Governments, rule on that island at the present moment. So that there is nothing to show that Dr. Houard is guilty of this charge. On the contrary, nothing that appears in this case can be held to prove him guilty of the charge brought against him.

Now, we claim that in the present condition of Cuba he had a right under the treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain to trial before a court of law in the same manner as Spanish citizens tried in Spanish courts, or Americans in the courts of the United States. The provision of the treaty is as follows:

"ARTICLE VII. And it is agreed that the subjects or citizens of each of the contracting parties, their vessels or effects, shall not be liable to any embargo or detention on the part of the other for any military expedition or other public or private purpose whatever; and in all cases of seizure, detention, or arrest for debts contracted or offenses committed by any citizen or subject of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same shall be made and prosecuted by order and authority of law only, and according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases. The citizens and subjects of both parties shall be allowed to employ such advocates, solicitors, notaries, agents, and factors, as they may judge proper, in all their affairs, and in all their trials at law in which they may be concerned before the tribunals of the other party; and such agents shall have free access to be present at the proceedings in such causes, and at the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be exhibited in the said trials."-Treaty with Spain, Statutes-at-Large, vol. 8, page 142.

This provision was regarded by the authors of the treaty as the most important of all its provisions.

Dr. Houard has had no such trial as this treaty provides. He has not been convicted by authority of law. His conviction was by what the Secretary of State calls "an extraordinary tribunal," a military court. He was convicted upon testimony which, by confession of the witness, was false, forced from him by fear of personal violence on the part of the ruthless men who control the government of the island.

It

The only defense on the part of the Cuban Government is contained in the document No. 223, which doubtless gentlemen have seen. is a letter of Mr. Lopez Roberts, the Spanish minister, to Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, received February 15 of the present year. The Spanish minister says Dr. Houard has no right to claim American citizenship. Other communications from the Spanish or the Cuban Government say that he is a Spanish subject. Now, sir, we affirm that an American cannot become a Spanish subject except by abjuration of his obligations to his own Government and taking an oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government. If he has ever done this, they have the power to show it. He cannot prove a negative except by his denial, which is positively made, confirmed by all his

relations and friends, and believed by the offi. cers of our Government in Cuba. There is no fact shown of this character. He cannot become under the Spanish law a Spanish subject except by taking the oath of allegiance. If he were a Spanish subject, if he had taken the oath of allegiance to Spain, our case would have been abandoned. But, sir, there is nothing to show that he ever did take any such oath of allegiance. Everything, on the contrary, is in the opposite direction-that he never did take any such oath of allegiance to Spain and never renounced his allegiance to the United States.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. How long has he resided there?

Mr. BANKS. Since 1843-44. Upon receiving his diploma in medicine he went to Cuba. He was graduated at the Jefferson Medical College, in the city of Philadelphia, in 1843, and went to Cuba in the succeeding year, 1844.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the West India islands belonging to European Powers the authority to naturalize is generally vested in the sovereign or regulated by local law:

"In the island of Cuba, by the Spanish ordinance of October 21, 1817, the captain general may grant letters of license for domiciliation to all resident foreigners, upon their taking an oath of fidelity and submission to the law."

It does not appear this has been done in this

case.

"These letters entitle them to hold real and personal property, and to the same protection in their person and property as Spanish subjects.

But for the first five years of domiciliation they cannot engage in trade, open a shop, or become owners of ships or vessels, unless in partnership with Spanish subjects. After five years of domiciliation they can become naturalized. They must present their original letter of license to the captain general, and avow their intention to make the island their perpetual residence; and if it appear, after due inquiry by the Government, that they have resided constantly on the island for five years, and are of good moral character, letters of naturalization are granted to them after they have sworn fidelity to the Roman Catholic religion, to the Crown, and to the laws, and renounced all foreign allegiance to and every privilege received from any other Government. When thus naturalized they and their legitimate heirs and descendants acquire all the rights and privileges and are placed upon the same footing as natural-born subjeets. The provision, however, in respect to naturalization, though still in full force, has become practically a dead letter, as natives enjoy but few privileges which resident or domiciled foreigners do not possess.

"In Hayti the code of 1860 requires a declaration under oath before a justice of the peace renouncing allegiance to every other Government. In Mexico, two years' residence and one year's previous declaration of intention are required. Colonists in Mexico who settle new lands can be naturalized a year after they settle, upon taking the oath of allegiance. In Brazil, naturalization is effected by joint resolution of both chambers and the approval of the emperor. In Peru and Chili, five years' residence and a declaration on oath are necessary. In the Central American States aliens are naturalized by legislative act; in Costa Rica, by the president of the republic, upon a renunciation of previous national allegiance. In Honduras naturalization is obtained from the Legislature; in San Salvador, by acquiring real estate and residence of five years, or marrying a Salvadorian woman and residence of three years, or naturalization by the Legislature. In most of the States of Central America naturalization is granted by the Legislature."

There is nothing to show that Dr. Houard ever took even the oath of fidelity to the Government of Spain, although we cheerfully admit that he was bound to observe the laws of the Government where he lived.

Mr. PERRY, of Ohio. Is there anything to show he has not?

Mr. BANKS. That is for the Spanish Government to show. They have the record and show nothing on that point. There is nothing in the whole record to show that he ever did take an oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government. If there is any such record the Spanish Government has that record and can show it, but it never yet has done so. own statement is against the fact.

His

Mr. PERRY, of Ohio. Having resided there so long as it appears that man has, is it not incumbent upon him to prove he was not a citizen, instead of incumbent on Spain to show that fact?

Mr. BANKS. We so hold. If the Spanish Government administers justice according to law, he is subject to the judgments of their tribunals; but they have no right to try him for any offense in a manner different from that to which other men are subject. I have only this to say in this connection: we claim that Dr. Houard, if a domiciled resident, would be obliged to obey the laws of the Spanish Government in Cuba, and if he did not he would be subject to punishment by the established judicial tribunals of the country. But he has not been so tried and so punished as other subjects of Spain are. He has been tried by a court-martial under military laws, when there was no war and no necessity for resorting to this "extraordinary tribunal." And we say that under the treaty of 1795 he is entitled to the protection of the Government in that regard, and that it should demand of the Spanish Govern ment the release of Dr. Houard or a justification of his detention under the provisions of the treaty of 1795, and upon the principles of international law recognized by all civilized States.

We say, then, in the words of the resolution reported from the committee, that the facts of the case show

First, that said Houard was a native-born citizen of the United States; second, that he never renounced his allegiance as such citizen, but, on the contrary, has claimed to be, and has been enrolled by the officers of the Government of the United States as a citizen of the United States; third, that it is not shown by any form of proof that he ever became, by any act, a subject or citizen of the Government of Spain; and that his trial, sentence, and punishment have been in disregard and violation of his undoubted rights as a citizen of the United States, [residing in Cuba,] under the Constitution and laws thereof, and the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain.

And under this state of facts we recommend that the President be authorized to demand on the part of this Government his release. We submit the question on this statement for the decision of the House, with full confidence in the justice of its judgment.

I have now the honor to yield to my colleague on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. AMBLER.] How much time does my colleague desire to Occupy?

Mr. AMBLER. I shall occupy as little time as I possibly can. I shall not require, I think, more than half an hour in any event.

Mr. BANKS. I would not desire to restrict the time of my colleague except with the view of bringing the discussion within as close limits as possible. I hold possession of the floor until my colleague has finished his remarks.

Mr. AMBLER. I would have been very glad, indeed, to have avoided a discussion of this question this afternoon, as I do not feel entirely confident that I shall be able to make myself understood by the House, on account of a feeling of indisposition and lack of strength.

The question which is presented here for the consideration of the House is, as I suppose, not one as to the manner in which the Spanish Government conducts affairs in the island of Cuba generally. I have no controversy with the distinguished gentleman, the chairman of the committee, who has just addressed the House upon that subject. I shall not undertake any discussion with him as to the propriety or impropriety in themselves of the proceedings which have been had in connection with this case of Dr. Houard, but shall confine myself to what I conceive to be the only question which is presented to us for consideration and determination.

And that, in my judgment, is the question, was Dr. Houard, at the time of his seizure by the Government of Spain in the island of Cuba, a citizen of the United States of America? If he was, then, sir, I concede that there has been a violation of his rights as a citizen of the United States in the manner of his trial for his supposed offense. And it is certain that under the treaty of 1795 the Spanish Govern

ment was bound to furnish to this Government a copy of the record of those proceedings, which they have failed to do, and in that regard have violated their obligations under that treaty. I have no controversy with the chairman of the committee as to that.

There has been a very considerable appearance of excitement, especially on the other side of the House, in the preliminary controversy which occurred immediately before the commencement of this discussion, as to the rights of this citizen of the United States. Now, sir, my own convictions upon the subject are that citizenship has not only its rights but its duties; that a man who claims the protection of this Government owes some duties to the Government; and that this is not a case which appeals to us with so much force as gentlemen would have us suppose, when we take into consideration the fact that, according to the proof in the case, from 1843 until now Dr. Houard has never placed his foot on the soil of this country, and has never in any manner assumed to have any duty, or discharged any duty as to the Government of the United States. During our recent war, if he was a citizen of the United States domiciled in Cuba, he had or might have some duties. That he took a single step to discharge any such duty is not pretended.

Now, what are the facts in the case? This gentleman is the son of Louis Houard, who was a native of Verdonet, in France, immigrated to this country about the end of the eighteenth century, and in 1803 was naturalized a citizen of the United States in one of the courts of Philadelphia. He married here, and in 1815 John E. Houard was born a citizen of the United States in the city of Philadelphia; so that as to the first proposition stated in the resolution reported by the committee I have no controversy whatever. He was a native-born citizen of the United States of America. In 1820 or 1821 or 1822, when he was a mere boy, his father emigrated to Cuba, and settled in the neighborhood of what is now Cienfuegos, where, as appears by the records here, and as to that there is no dispute, he settled as a colonist, and as a colonist received from the Government of Spain lands in that neighborhood for himself, his wife, and each of his children. I do not think that there will be any discussion as to this proposition, that in his minority he was incapable of acquiring a domicile for himself, that his domicile followed that of his father, and that if his father then lost by that emigration his rights as a citizen of the United States, the child who was taken with him also lost his rights. I say I do not think that any gentleman upon the floor of this House, certainly no lawyer, will be inclined to dispute this proposition. Now, then, Louis Houard, the father, remained there till the time of his death in 1826. There is no pretense that he ever came back to the United States, or ever intended to. He died there in 1826, and the mother and family remained there. I wish to say to gen. tlemen upon the committee who entertain different views that I am endeavoring to state this case as they claim it, that I am endeavoring to avoid every disputed proposition in it. For some reason it seems to be regarded of importance that this man should have attained his majority in this country, and accordingly there are some loose statements that he was here in 1836, when he attained his majority. I concede the correctness of that statement, as there is no contradiction on the subject. He came to this country, then, as is admitted, and if I do not state the case correctly I will be glad to be corrected now. He came to this country in 1836 or some time before that, for the purpose of obtaining an education, and became a student at a university or college in Philadelphia, remaining there until 1843, when, upon the 10th of October, he graduated as a Doctor of Medicine.

The next thing we know of him is that he