TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

The VICE PRESIDENT also laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 881) to provide for the abatement or repayment of taxes on distilled spirits in bond destroyed by casualty; and on motion of Mr. SHERMAN, the amendments were referred to the Committee on Finance.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills, received from the House of Representatives, were read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

The bill (H. R. No. 2093) to grant an American register to the Hawaiian bark Florence-to the Committee on Commerce.

The bill (H. R. No. 2682) authorizing the construction of a public building at Fall River, in the State of Massachusetts-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

The bill (H. R. No. 2690) defining and limiting the appropriation of certain moneys for the preparation, issue, and reissue of the securities of the United States, and for other purposes-to the Committee on Finance.

The bill (H. R. No. 2691) to amend an act entitled "An act to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes," approved July 14, 1870to the Committee on Finance.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. KELLOGG. At this stage of the session I notice that there is very little morning business. There is a bill that is upon its pas. sage that I think there can be no objection to, Senate bill No. 58. It is desired by respectable parties all over my State. It is a matter of public concern universally, and there is no party question about it at all. I should like very much to have that bill passed. It is very short.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Louisiana asks unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. No. 58) to prescribe the time for holding the election of electors for President and Vice President in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes. Is there objection?

Mr. BLAIR. I object.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have a little bill to change the spelling of the name of a vessel. I hope the Senate will consent to pass it. It is reported from the Committee on Commerce. It is Senate bill No. 1062, to change the name of the schooner La Pette to La Petite.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Is the morning business through?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. Mr. TRUMBULL. I think we had better go through with it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator from Illinois objects, this bill cannot be considered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it is time we had some way of doing business here that would enable business to be called up.

Mr. SHERMAN. This is to enable a vessel to be put in service.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not suppose there is any objection to it in the world. I certainly have no objection to the measure, but I insist on the regular order of business.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois demands the regular order of business, which is the presentation of petitions and memorials.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. WILSON presented three petitions of late soldiers and sailors of the United States volunteer Army and Navy in favor of the passage of a bill to provide industrial homes and training schools for the orphans of the soldiers and sailors who served in the Army or Navy of the United States during the war of the rebellion; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. PRATT presented a petition of citizens of Lafayette, Indiana, praying the adoption

of certain measures by the Congress of the United States to provide ways and means for collecting and disbursing the charities of the benevolent who may wish to remember the suffering Persians in their adversity;_ which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. BLAIR presented the petition of Daniel Duffy, a pilot of the Mississippi fleet during the late war, praying additional pay for his services; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. LEWIS presented the petitions of P. H. Trout, of Staunton, Virginia, and of James W. T. Allen, of Hardy county, West Virginia, praying the removal of their political disabili ties; which were referred to the select Committee on the Removal of Political Disabilities.

Mr. CONKLING presented two petitions very numerously signed by soldiers and sailors of the State of New York, praying that they may be permitted to sell, assign, and transfer their right, title, and interest in and to the lands granted them under the homestead act; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. CONKLING. I present a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, which, if I were presenting at another moment, I would state more at length than I shall do now. It relates to the coinage of the country, giving facts and making a very strong argument in regard to some matters to which I beg to call the attention of the Committee on Finance. I move its reference to that committee.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SAWYER presented the petition of James H. Holmes, attorney for Samuel B. Watrons and others, praying for authority to test their rights to certain lands in Mexico before the proper courts; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am directed by the Committee on Finance to report back the bill (H. R. No. 2629) amendatory of an act setting aside certain proceeds of internal revenue for the erection of penitentiaries in the Territories of Nebraska, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Dakota, approved January 22, 1867, and to ask that the committee be discharged from its further consideration. If the penitentiaries provided for in this bill need an appropriation, the bill ought to go to the Committee on Appropriations; but I simply ask that the Committee on Finance be discharged from its further consideration.

The Committee on Finance were discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and it was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HITCHCOCK subsequently said: I desire to ask that House bill No. 2629, from which the Committee on Finance has been discharged this morning, be referred to the Committee on Territories. It relates to a matter in Washington Territory, and properly belongs to that committee.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection at all, provided they do not make a special fund out of which the money is to be appropriated.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection the bill will be referred to the Committee on Territories.

Mr. BOREMAN. I am directed by the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 639) for the relief of Jane A. Green, to report it back without amendment, and to ask for its immediate consideration. It is merely to authorize the issuing of a bond to this lady in lieu of one destroyed by fire. It will not take a moment to pass it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from West Virginia asks unanimous consent for the present consideration of this bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope it is not neces

sary for a Senator to rise to object to every one of these unanimous requests. After I have just objected to the Senator from Ohio asking the same thing, and after the request of the Senator from Louisiana was objected to by a Senator across the way, how can the Senator from West Virginia expect, when Senator after Senator has asked the same thing and it has been objected to, that he can now be permitted to pass his bill in this way?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois objects. If the Senator states that he makes the objection for the whole morning hour and remains in his seat, the Chair will entertain it without requiring him to rise on each occasion; but when a Senator asks unanimous consent it is the duty of the Chair to propound that request to the Senate unless some other Senator states that he objects to all such requests for the whole morning hour, and remains in his seat during the hour.

Mr. BOREMAN. This is not a matter personal to myself. The bill is rather more a matter of form than anything else, and I believe such a bill has not been retused in any similar case. The lady is a constituent of the Senator from Illinois, and if he chooses to object, let him do so.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It requires unanimous consent to consider the bill, and objection is made.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2567) to authorize the issue of a supply of arms to the authorities of the Territory of Montana, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Harmon E. Wentworth, late second lieutenant fourth New York artillery, reported a bill for his relief.

Mr. FENTON. If unanimous consent is not granted for the consideration of that bill, as I presume from what has been said it will not be, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to withdraw the report until after the morning business is completed.

Mr. WILSON. I withdraw the report.

Mr. SUMNER, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2247) giving the approval and sanction of Congress to the termini and route of the Anacostia and Potomac river railroad, and to regulate its construction and operation, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 818) to allow the Orange, Alexandria, and Manassas Railroad Company to run trains and transport passengers and freight within the corporate limits of Washington city, reported it with an amend

ment.

Mr. NYE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom were referred the bill (S. No. 927) for the relief of the children of Otway H. Berryman, deceased, and the bill (S. No. 899) for the relief of the children of O. H. Berryman, and others, reported them without amendment.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. CLAYTON (by request, as he stated) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1083) to amend the various acts relating to agents and attor neys prosecuting claims or demands before Congress and the Executive Departments of the Government, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SAWYER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1084) authorizing Samuel Watrous and others to have their rights to certain land in New Mexico adjudicated in the proper courts; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No.

1085) for the relief of P. O'Donnell; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. SUMNER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained; leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1086) to change the location of the Railroad National Bank. of Lowell, Massachusetts, to the city of Boston, Massachusetts; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, asked, and by

unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1087) for the relief of Thomas E. Tutt & Co.; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

EQUAL RIGHTS IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. VICKERS. I offered an amendment yesterday to the bill of the Senator from Massachusetts, which I desire to have printed.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland desires to have an amendment which be offered yesterday to the pending Dis trict school bill ordered to be printed. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. Senate resolutions are now in order.

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS.

Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, it must be very unpleasant to any member of the Senate to object to the consideration of private bills, when it is asked almost as a special favor to have them considered. In order to obviate all difficulty I submit the following order, and ask for its present consideration:

Ordered, That during the present session no bill shall be considered till after the usual morning business shall have been disposed of, and that no motion to take up bills shall be entertained by the Chair until after the morning business shall be ended.

Mr. BOREMAN. I object to that. The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution lies over, objection being made to its present consideration.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

Mr. SPENCER. I ask leave to offer an amendment to the bill (H. R. No. 2208) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes. The amendment is in line one hundred and eight, page 9, in the clause making appropriations for the improvement of Mobile bay and harbor of Alabama, to strike out "$50,000' and insert $100,000."

The proposed amendment was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

SURVEY OF ISTHMUS OF DARIEN.

Mr. HAMLIN submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to furnish the Senate with Commander Selfridge's report and maps of the survey of the Isthmus of Darien for an interoceanic ship-canal.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Senate resolutions are still in order.

Mr. BLAIR. I desire, if the morning business is concluded, to ask to take up a bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not conIcluded until the Chair announces its conclusion. [After a pause.] The morning business is now concluded.

Mr. KELLOGG and others addressed the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. KELLOGG. I ask that Senate bill No. 58 be now taken up. It is upon its passage. Mr. CAMERON. I ask the Senator from Louisiana to allow me to make a motion that will not take a moment.

Mr. KELLOGG. If the Senator will allow me first to have this bill taken up, I will do

So.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisi

ana, to take up what is known as the Louisiana election bill.

The motion was agreed to.

POTOMAC RAILROAD DEPOT.

Mr. CAMERON. I now move that House bill No. 2187, to confirm the action of the board of alderman and common council of the city of Washington, designating a depot site for the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad

Company, and for other purposes, be taken up. I will state that I submit the motion merely for the purpose of agreeing upon a day when the Senate shall discuss it, and I do it after consultation with the Senator by my side, [Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont,] who is opposed to the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Louisiana election bill being before the Senate, the Senator from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent that the bill in regard to the depot for the Baltimore and Potomac railroad be taken up, not for discussion now, but to fix some time when it shall be discussed.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I think it but fair that some day should be fixed when that bill may be disposed of, and if the Sena tor from Pennsylvania is disposed to fix it for a day when it will not interfere with business that is now pending, or immediately expected to be pending, say next Tuesday, I shall make no objection.

Mr. VICKERS. Tuesday will not suit me; Wednesday will suit me. I shall not be in the city on Tuesday.

Mr. CAMERON. I have been very goodnatured about this matter, and all I desire is that the Senate shall take it up at some time, and enable us to dispose of it, and I will agree now to the suggestion of the Senator from Maryland, and say Wednesday next.

Mr. SUMNER. It seems to me that would be entirely fair. If the Senator from Penn. sylvania will consent to a day next week, I think we ought all to unite in bringing the bill forward at that time, for I agree with him it ought to be disposed of, and I will unite in that most cordially; but I do think that the bill ought to go over until next week. There are reasons why it should go over until then. Mr. CAMERON. I will say Wednesday

next.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the bill alluded to by the Senator from Pennsylvania in regard to the depot of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company will be assigned as a special order for Wednesday next at twelve o'clock, subject to the unfinished business, and the Chair at that time will recognize the Senator from Penn. sylvania, with the consent of the Senate, to move to lay on the table whatever unfinished business may then be pending so that a majority of the Senate may, if they desire, go on with the bill or may refuse to go on with it. Is there objection to the proposition? Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia? No; it appears to be fair, and I agree to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair hears no objection.

ISLAND OF YERBA BUENA.

Mr. STEWART. I ask the Senator from Louisiana to give way for a moment. I should like to have House bill No. 1553, relating to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, read a second time and referred. Its second reading was objected to the other day. Mr. KELLOGG. I will yield for that purpose.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the bill in regard to Goat Island being read the second time and referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad?

Mr. COLE. It will lead to some discussion. Mr. BAYARD. I am aware that the Senator from California on my left [Mr. CASSERLY] desires to be in the Senate when that motion is made.

Mr. STEWART. Then I will make the

motion immediately after the conclusion of the pending bill.

ELECTIONS IN LOUISIANA.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 58) to prescribe the time for holding the election for electors of President and Vice President in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. When the bill was last under consideration, the Senate agreed to an amendment reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, striking out the greater portion of the bill, and the Secretary will report the bill as it now stands.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

That in the State of Louisiana the election of Representatives to the Forty-Third Congress and the appointment of electors of President and Vice President for said State shall be on the first Monday of November, in the year 1872; but thereafter such elections and appointment shall be on the day designated by law for the other States.

Mr. SUMNER. I am not ready to say that am against this bill; indeed, I want to be for it; but I confess a remark made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] when it was last up has at least drawn my attention to the importance of the question. As I understand it, it proposes to make the presidential election in Louisiana on a day different from that in other States. There may be a sufficient reason for that, but it ought to be a strong reason. I had supposed that when the election was made uniform throughout the country we had reached an important point in the administration of our Government. It seems to me that the rule should not be departed from except for cause. Now, I wish to know, first, whether there is sufficient cause for such a departure; and, in the second place, I should like to know whether, if there be such a cause, a remedy cannot be found in some other way?

Mr. CARPENTER. The cause is that the day for the election of presidential electors is next to the day when there must be an election under the State law, so that there must be two elections on two consecutive days, venient, and result in a great portion of the which of course will be expensive and inconpeople not being present at both elections. There can be no other remedy than this because there is not time. I understand the day of election in Louisiana is fixed by the constitution of the State.

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes sir.

Mr. CARPENTER. There is not, of course, time to amend their constitution for the purpose of reaching that election. This bill is therefore to cure the inconvenience for this one election. It is very easy to see that where you are to have the whole people of a State out at an election on Monday you will hardly get them all out at an election on the next day, Tuesday. It would be far better if there was a

month intervening; but if these elections occur on consecutive days, it will be a great hardship and inconvenience. This bill only makes the change for one year, and after that they must change their State constitution.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, by the constitution of Louisiana, the State election is to be held on the first Monday of November. It seems to have been a mistake in engrossing the constitution. It was intended to make it on the first Tuesday of November, the day that the presidential election was to be held by law, but it is put on Monday, and that cannot be changed. By the law a congressional election is to be held on the same day with the State election. As stated by the Senator from Wisconsin, the presidential election coming on the next day after the State and congressional election, it will be a great hardship, requiring two days instead of one, taking two days from labor where it should take but one, and many poor people who have to travel some distance will perhaps be unable to attend both

elections. If they go to one they will omit

the other.

I will state another reason that will commend itself to the judgment of the Senator || from Massachusetts. By the law of Congress we have now certain provisions to protect the voters at congressional elections, securing inspectors to prevent frauds, and making certain provisions to favor a fair election. Those provisions will operate on Monday, but they will not operate on the next day, the day of the presidental election; so that the force and violence which have prevailed in the South, and which it was intended by two laws that we have passed to prevent, can operate on Tuesday, the day of the presidential election. If, however, the presidential election shall come on Monday, the same day with the con gressional election, then the protection thrown around congressional elections by the act of Congress will also go to the benefit of the presidential election. I see no objection to it. I think the bill ought to pass.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think the reason last given by the Senator from Indiana should be conclusive against the passage of the bill. He admits that the object of changing this day, or one great object, is so that Congress can control the election for electors of President and Vice President of the United States indirectly. We know that directly Congress has no business to interfere in any shape or form with the election of electors of President and Vice President, none whatever. The only thing it can do is to fix a time when the election shall take place; but the Senator from Indiana says we have got a law by which Congress undertakes to supervise other elections, and now we want to put the presidential election on the same day, so that we can supervise the election of electors of President and Vice President, which is a direct violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

What you cannot do directly in a matter of this kind, you cannot do indirectly; but now the Senator from Indiana avows that the object of changing this time is that he may bring to bear on the election of electors the action of Congress through its legislation. The Constitution of the United States has said in so many words that electors of President and Vice President shall be chosen in each State in such manner as the Legislature thereof shall provide; and Congress has no business to interfere in any shape or form with that election; and if the object of this bill be, as the Senator from Indiana now avows, to control the State of Louisiana in the election of its electors, then it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, did I admit that it was the object to allow Congress to control the election? I admitted no such thing, but what I said was that if the elections were held on the same day and the votes should go into the same box, the presidential|| election would indirectly have the benefit of the security for fair elections that has been thrown around congressional elections. Now, what does the Senator want? Does he want the scenes of 1868 to be renewed in Louisiana? Does he want the presidential election to be held under such circumstances that it can be controlled by the Ku Klux, as it was in 1868, when perhaps one half of the Union voters were driven from the polls throughout the State of Louisiana; when in some towns there were scarcely no votes cast except upon one side? If the Senator wants those scenes to be renewed; if he wants this election to be held there without the protection of the law, so that what was done can be done again, then he ought to oppose this bill. Sir, the boot is on the other foot. It is not that Congress may control the election, but it is that there may be a fair election, that there may be inspectors appointed in the city of New Orleans, one man on each side, who shall be present and see the votes cast, and see them counted, I

and never to leave the ballot-boxes until they are counted. If the Senator is in favor of an honest election, then there is nothing in his objection; but if he prefers that the scenes of 1868 shall again be renewed in the State of Louisiana, he ought to oppose this bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the Senator has not escaped, by his statement, from the position which his first declaration placed him in. He says the object is not for Congress to control the election, and then admits that the object is to place this election under the protection of a law of Congress that we have passed. What business has the Senator from Indiana or the Congress of the United States to place the election of electors of President and Vice President of the United States under the protection of an act of Congress? The Constitution reads:

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

That is what the Constitution says, and yet the Senator proposes to place the election of electors under the protection of an act of Congress! Where does he get the authority to place the election of electors of President and Vice President under the protection of an act of Congress? I understand, Mr. President, what this protection may meanthe protection that is to be afforded by the sus pension of the writ of habeas corpus, and a military power stationed in the States to supervise elections.

The Senator asks me if I am not for an honest election. Certainly I am for an honest election; and because I am for an honest election by a free people, I am opposed to congressional supervision where there is no right to supervise. I want an honest election; buI shall have very little hope of an honest election with a military force stationed at every precinct under an act of Congress to supervise when the presidential election comes off. I want the people to be free to vote for whom they please, and not that sort of freedom which Louis Napoleon gave to the subjects of France when they voted for him as emperor.

Now, sir, it having been avowed by the Senator from Indiana that the very object and purpose of this change, of holding an election for President on one day in one State and in another State on another day, is to place this election of electors with which Congress has no right to interfere under the protection of an act of Congress, he admits that he is in favor of doing that which the Constitution of the United States gives him no right to do. The only thing that the Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to do is to fix the time. I agree that we may fix the time, though I think it somewhat questionable (I will not express a decided opinion about that) whether when the Constitution says that Congress may determine "the time" of choosing electors, we can determine times, and fix one day in one State and another in another, I am not clear about that; I think it would be a question of very considerable doubt. But when the avowed object of fixing different times, if Congress has the authority to fix dif ferent days, is to place the election under the supervision of Congress, then I say it is an attempt to control a free people by a power that has no right to intervene.

Mr. MORTON. The Senator says he is in favor of an honest election; but he is opposed to the use of the means by which it can be obtained.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not say that. Mr. MORTON. That is quite as consistent as the man who was in favor of the Maine liquor law, but was opposed to its execution. The Senator has not forgotten what transpired in the city of New Orleans, in 1868, at the last presidential election. He has not forgotten the murders, reported at three thousand, that occurred in the State of Louisiana before that

election took place, and only a few weeks before. And now he is opposed to this change, because what? Because under a law of Congress the judge of the circuit court of the Uni ted States could appoint one man on each side, a Democrat or a Liberal Republican, if you please on one side, and a Republican, on the other, to be present and see that there is a fair election.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Is that all they can do? Mr. MORTON. That is all that would be allowed, and the Senator says

Mr. TRUMBULL. Does the Senator know that beyond that, under your election law, there may be appointed, as there were in the city of New York, escaped convicts from the penitentiary ad libitum?

Mr. MORTON. I have heard that said, but I never heard it proved, and I do not believe it. It is one of those innumerable calumnies that have been told.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Does not the law authorize the appointment of deputies ad libitum ?

Mr. MORTON. The law authorizes the marshal of the United States to preserve order, and that is all it does do.

But now, Mr. President, one word further. The Senator says we want this election held on the day before, so that the President may sus pend the writ of habeas corpus. Does not the Senator know that the Ku Klux law is one that operates on every day as well as election days? The question of the power of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus where rebellion may exist is one that has nothing to do with the election, and does not refer to the election law at all. The Senator's ideas are somewhat confused upon this subject. He has got another law in his mind that has no reference whatever to elections.

I made the statement, first, that it was desirable that the people should not be kept away from their business for elections for two days, instead of one day, that the State of Louisiana might be saved the expense of fifty thousand or one hundred thousand dollars for a second election; and second, that it might have the benefit of protection from those acts of murder and violence that dishonored our nation in the eyes of the whole world only four years ago.

The Senator is in favor of fair elections, but opposed to the means by which they may be obtained. If he wants a renewal of the scenes that took place in 1868, he should oppose this bill. If he wants murders and violence to prevail throughout the whole South, he should have been opposed, as I believe he was, to the enactment of the Ku Klux law only a year ago.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana has sought to refresh the memory of the Senate and of the Senator from Illinois by what occurred in New Orleans in 1868. Would it not be also well to remind them of what occurred in 1871, when the Federal authorities, the military authorities of the United States, deliberately interfered with the councils of one party in the State of Louisiana by force of arms? Let me further remind the Senator from Indiana that when the proposition was made in the committee on investigation, as appears by their journal, to have those affairs in the city of New Orleans investigated, that there might be a committee or even a sub-committee appointed to go to Louisiana, they voted it down. When it was proposed to have these affairs in New Orleans investigated, and to know by what right the armies of the United States were paraded there for the purpose of terrorism, of intimid. ation of the free action of men within even the ranks of the Republican party itself, the records will show that the committee by a party vote refused to have that investigation made. It will not do for the Senator here to raise his cry of Ku Klux in regard to Louisiana. His party and his party friends upon that committee, by a strict party vote, voted

down the proposition to let that State be investigated; and so of the State of Texas.

We will meet the issue at the right time, and the country will see, if it be in the power of the minority of that committee, the precise truth without extenuation, without palliation, as to what the cry of Ku Klux does amount to, and what it is intended to cover. But when the Senator from Indiana talks of what has occurred in New Orleans, I think he had better embrace in the statement what has occurred directly within the ranks of his own party, and what has been the action of the Executive of this country by interfering there, without one shadow of warrant or law, in interparty matters in the Republican ranks. Mr. MORTON. Will the Senator allow me a word?

Mr. BAYARD.

Certainly.

Mr. MORTON. There were probably some disturbances in Louisiana last fall or the early part of the winter; but I believe the authors of them have now joined the ranks of the Senator's friends, and I suppose he will have but very little to say on that subject hereafter.

Mr. BAYARD. Do I understand the Senator to refer to my friends-my party friends or personal friends?

Mr. MORTON. I do not say the Senator's personal friends, but his political friends.

Mr. BAYARD. If he speaks of my political friends, my answer to the Senator is that he must be very ignorant of what my political fellows did, or else he is exceedingly reckless in his charges-one or the two. A revenuecutter of the United States was used for the purpose of breaking up a quorum of the Louisiana Legislature by the collector of the port, a gentleman who holds office now, and holds personal relations with your Executive also. Whatever may have been the difficulties last fall and winter in New Orleans, a committee of the other House was appointed to investigate them, and they have not yet made their report. I do not know more than this, that they existed solely and entirely within the ranks of the party of which the distinguished Senator from Indiana is so great an ornament. It was among his friends, men who hold their power because of the influence of him, and of such as he is in the country, that the difficulties there occurred; and the solution for all these difficulties was the very prompt and simple one of military force. That is the doctrine that is to supplant the checks and balances of the American Constitution! That is to be the solution of all political questions and of all difficulties; and that, forsooth, is to procure honest elections!

No, Mr. President, the discussion this morning in regard to this Louisiana bill has let the cat out of the bag completely. It is not the innocent bill to save the cost and trouble of the community of Louisiana being compelled to meet at the polls on two different days to cast their votes first for their State officers and then again for Federal officers. That is not it. The object and intent simply is to rope in the State election of Louisiana and place it under the same military machinery that has been devised by the Senator and his party friends to control elections throughout the United States. That is the object of it; not that the people of Louisiana are to be allowed to exercise their own will in their own way in regard to their elections, but that it is to be secured by military force, and the scene, I suppose, reenacted there, with whatever additions may be found necessary, that was enacted in the fall of 1870 in New York, when the spectacle was presented to the world and to the American people of armed ships moored at the foot of the streets of that city in time of profound peace, decks cleared for action, guns loaded ready for what? To sweep the streets of that city of political opponents, of those who de. sired to have the will of the people expressed by legal methods instead of under the authority of the military! Nay, further, military expe

ditions marched to the center of that city, under regular military orders issued, with so many days rations cooked and uncooked, and so many rounds of ammunition; as regular a military expedition as ever was ordered during the late war carried out against the city of New York in 1870, in a time of profound

peace.

I am reminded by my friend from California [Mr. CASSERLY] that he proposed here and proposed in vain a resolution of inquiry to know precisely by whose authority and under what details this order was carried out, and the Senate choked the resolution and never

permitted the facts to appear before the people of the country. Now, we all know that this game is proposed to be repeated and intensified, and intensified at a time when the Executive of the nation is to be the direct recip ient of the benefit of his own violent action.

I am not sorry that this question is brought up to-day, and I hope it will be kept up until the people of this country are aroused to the true condition of the facts. Your law was bad enough at any time; it was unconstitutional at any time; it was shocking to the sense of a civilized people who propose to live under a Government of laws at any time. When now it is proposed to be revived, and these methods reproduced, when the candidate himself is to begin these measures of violence that may tend to secure his success, surely the people of this country had better arouse and had better see to their liberties, for undoubtedly they are in great danger.

He

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, one word. The Senator says the object is to " rope in," to use his own elegant phrase, the State election and bring it under the military supervision of the Government. I suggest to the Senator that his ideas are somewhat confused. ought to know that now, as the law stands in Louisiana, the State election and the congressional election are to be held on the same day, and the State election does have the benefit of any protection that Congress may have thrown around the congressional election.

Now, what the President of the United States did do there was to preserve order and to prevent bloodshed, and he has the thanks of every honest man in Louisiana for having done it.

In 1866 the power of the Government was so managed that a riot was allowed, and three hundred colored Republicans were shot down in the streets of New Orleans. Does the Senator want those scenes to be renewed? I sup pose so, because he complains so bitterly of the means used by the President to prevent the repetition of that bloody massacre.

We

But the Senator, when I suggested to him that the author of these recent disturbances had joined the ranks of his Liberal friends, says that I am ignorant of his position. If we are to infer anything from his remarks, it is that those who have gone into this Liberal movement are not his political friends. shall understand by and by, in the course of a month or two, whether that is the Senator's position or not. We know what hopes have been held out to those who went to Cincinnati, that the Democracy would father their little enterprise, would adopt their candidates. We are to infer this morning that the Senator disclaims that. Whether he will do so a few weeks hence we shall know better then than

now.

Mr. BAYARD. Yes, sir; the Senator from Indiana may be a great deal wiser three weeks hence than he is now, and I trust by that time he will be able to do two things: in the first place, to know the position of the great Democratic party, for whom I make no pretense to speak, but of my place in whose ranks I am exceedingly proud. He may learn then, and only then, when their accredited representatives have spoken, what that great organization intends to do for the benefit of this country. Perhaps by that time he will

learn better to appreciate the motives of a political opponent whose only object in legislation is, not that laws shall be made to benefit by indirection and by wrong the party with whom he acts, but that laws shall be made which shall conserve the liberties of the entire people, whether they are his political opponents or not. It seems to be almost impossible nowadays to hear the Senator from Indiana discuss any question here upon the basis of constitutional principle. With him there is but one idea, as it seems to me, and that is party and party success; and he cannot appreciate the fact that a man may go for a law because it is right, whether it shall happen at the time being to run with the success of the party to which he is attached or not. Mr. EDMUNDS. May I ask my friend from Delaware a question?

Mr. BAYARD. Certainly.

Mr. EDMUNDS. He speaks of unconsti tutional laws. If he is willing, I wish he would inform the Senate whether in his opinion the bill now under consideration is unconstitutional?

Mr. BAYARD. Not as it now stands.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is the way we are going to vote for it.

Mr. BAYARD. It is not as it now stands. I was speaking more of the course pursued by the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. BLAIR. It is proposed by this bill to change the law of the United States fixing the time for the election of members of Congress so as to make it conform to the time fixed by the State Legislature of Louisiana for the election of State officers and the electors of President and Vice President. The Legislature of Louisiana fixed that time with a full knowledge that Congress had fixed a different time. They must have had some reason for fixing the time differently. If they had desired to have their election on the same day and escaped the inconvenience which is now complained of, they would have conformed to the time previously fixed by the action of Congress; but they saw proper to fix a different time, and now they ask Congress to change the time for the election of members of Congress, and thus make a different day in Louisiana from that which has been fixed for the elections throughout the country.

This argument is much stronger in the case of other States where different times for State elections are fixed than that which is fixed for the election of members of Congress and of electors of President and Vice President of the United States. I believe Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States have different days of election, and yet their Senators and Representatives do not ask Congress to change the time to conform to that of the States. They do not complain of the additional expense and inconvenience. They do not ask Congress to vary it, because they know this time was made the same and uniform throughout the country for the purpose of preventing voters from going over from one State to another, as it was alleged was the habit in former times.

That is a danger quite as great as the one to which the Senator from Indiana alluded. I will not say that this bill is offered here for that purpose, but in my judgment it certainly opens the door for that kind of fraud. It was to prevent that fraud that the uniform time for the election was fixed by the Congress of the United States. I hope it will not be changed to suit the convenience of a State which had it in its power to make its election on the same day as that which had already been ordained by Congress for the congressional election.

The Senator from Indiana alludes to the riots that took place in 1866. Does he not know that the military commander in New Orleans, New Orleans and Louisiana being then under military government, before any regular civil government had been organized, telegraphed to Secretary Stanton and asked

him if he should use the troops to prevent a riot? And does he not know that the Secretary of War suppressed that telegram, that he did not communicate it to the President, that he made no response to the military commander in New Orleans, and the riot grew out of his criminal negligence? The Secretary of War, the constitutional adviser of the President, took the responsibility of suppressing the telegram which notified him that a riot was imminent, and it was believed by many that he did it on purpose that the riot might occur, and that it might make a justification for the harsh measures contemplated by the party then in power. It certainly was an occurrence which stimulated the passage of those harsh measures. There never has been any explanation given to the country of the criminal neglect of the then Secretary of War to communicate with the President and give proper instructions to the commander in New Orleans when Louisiana was under military control and had no civil organization to preserve the peace. When the Senator is throwing his accusations widespread against the Democratic party, he should remember that that, riot, which he has dragged into this debate, was traced directly to the then head of the War Department, who failed to communicate these facts, so momentous, to the President of the United States, and in so failing, failed of his highest duty. That was the cause of that riot.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri will please suspend. The morning hour has expired, and the Post Office appropriation bill is before the Senate, the pending question being on the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. NYE,] upon which last night no quorum voted.

Mr. NYE. I hope we shall take a vote on this question.

Mr. KELLOGG. I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. WINDOM,] who I believe has this bill in charge, to let it be passed over informally for the time being to allow the Senator from Missouri to finish his remarks, and then I shall ask a moment in reply, and I will then ask a vote.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Louisiana asks unanimous consent that the appropriation bill be passed over informally so that the Senator from Missouri may conclude his remarks.

Mr. BLAIR. I will continue my remarks at some other time when the bill comes up regularly.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator object?

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, sir; I object.

Mr. KELLOGG. I ask that the appropriation bill be passed over informally. permit this matter to be disposed of in this

way.

cannot

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] is entitled to the floor on the pending amendment to the appropriation bill. Does he yield to the Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. NYE. I yield.

Mr. WINDOM. If it was to be passed over informally I would not object; but this political debate will doubtless take all the after

noon.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable upless Senators ask and obtain unanimous consent to speak upon it. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay the appropriation bill on the table, for the purpose of following that with a motion to continue the consideration of the Louisiana bill.

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. Let us have the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. KELLOGG. I am importuned on all sides to withdraw this motion, and I will do So. I wish it understood, however, that I do so out of deference to the request of two or three Senators, and now I ask unanimous

consent

Mr. BLAIR. That is not in order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been ordered, but the Senator from Louisiana asks consent to withdraw his motion. Is there objection to his withdrawing the motion? ["No!" "No!"] The motion is withdrawn, and the Post Office appropriation bill is before the Senate.

Mr. KELLOGG. I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Minnesota and of the Senate for a single moment, and I hope they will accord it to me unanimously. I will occupy but a few moments. I desire to put myself in a correct position. It is due to me and due to my constituents. I am unwilling to occupy a false position regarding this matter.

I introduced this bill more than a year ago; that is to say, I introduced it as I recollect during the second session of the last Congress; and I did so at the request of many of the people of my State without regard to color and without regard to political predilection. The object of the bill I have already explained. No one can mistake it. The constitution of the State of Louisiana unfortunately provides that the State election shall be held on the first Monday of November, and the law of Congress provides that the presidential electors shall be chosen on the first Tuesday of Novem. ber, the day following. The object of this bill is simply to provide for the choosing of presidential electors at the coming fall election on Monday, the day of the State election, and after that time the law of Congress is to operate as it does at the present moment; in other words, to give the State the opportunity after the next Legislature is chosen to amend the constitution of the State so as to provide that the election for State officers may fall upon the same day as the choosing of electors.

That, sir, was my sole object, and I stand here to-day to protest in the name of the people of my State against this rawhead and bloody-bones discussion being dragged in here on every conceivable occasion. It has nothing to do with this question. As the Senator from Indiana has well said, the law of Congress to which such reference has been made applies to the election on Monday, the choosing of Representatives in Congress. Sir, the principal object of this bill is that the choosing of electors may fall upon the same day in order to obviate the expense and inconven

Mr. WINDOM. I hope the bill will not be laid on the table. We were within a few minutes of reaching a vote upon it last night.

Mr. KELLOGG. I only wish it to be passed over informally.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri objects to its being passed over informally, and the Senator from Louisiana can only attain his object by moving to lay the appropriation bill on the table.

Mr. KELLOGG. Very well; I move that it be laid on the table.

in the very heart of the sugar season. Any. body who knows anything about the great interests of Louisiana, the sugar bowl of the nation, knows that thirty or forty days, commencing about the 20th of October, are consumed in turning out and grinding and preparing for market the whole sugar crop of that country, and the same may be said of the cotton crop. The people on the Teche and of the Red river country and all through the State have petitioned for this measure. The simple statement of these facts are suffi cient to suggest to any Senator, I can but be

lieve, the necessity and the justice of this

measure.

Sir, I have letters from prominent members of the Democratic party favoring it. I might specify them with propriety, and if I were to mention their names I think their recommendation in this regard would commend this bill to the judgment and good will of our friends on the other side. Those I represent in part have asked me to press this bill.

At the last session this bill was reported favorably from the Committee on the Judiciary, of which, as every one knows, my honorable friend from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] is chairman; but there was no pressing necessity at that time, and it went over at that session. Now, sir, it comes from another committee of eminent lawyers of the Senate, I believe reported with unanimity; I do not believe, and I think I can venture to say, that no Senator upon that committee objected to it.

The Ku Klux law has nothing to do with it. I admit that one of the acts referred to in this discussion, the enforcement law, approved February 28, 1871, applies on the day of election to a certain extent in cities of more than twenty thousand inhabitants, and consequently, in Louisiana, in New Orleans alone; and, sir, I believe it would go far to promote order, to secure peace, and insure a fair election, the great desire of every honorable citizen.

I cannot understand why there should be this opposition constantly on a local question of this nature, when I come here, as I repeat once more, representing the people of my State irrespective of party, and throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate and ask for the passage of a bill of universal concernment, which cannot be said to conflict with one principle of common justice, and certainly with no single clause of the Constitution, no syllable of recorded law. There is and can be no objection to it. I am thus earnest because I desire that the true state of this case shall be known. It is not to control the election so much as it is to subserve and promote the material interests of the people by providing that the election shall be upon one day, and not compel them to undergo (which I shall not dwell upon in detail) the great expense and inconvenience of an election running through two days.

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. HORACE PORTER, his Secretary, announced that the President had this day ap

proved and signed the act (S. No. 973) to fund certain liabilities of the city of Washington existing June 1, 1871, and to limit the debt and taxation in the District of Columbia.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 1467) to amend the thirtyfirst section of an act entitled "An act for enrolling and calling out the national militia, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1863;

A bill (H. R. No. 1343) supplemental to an act entitled "An .act for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth census;"

A bill (H. R. No. 2227) to regulate the employment of engineer soldiers on extra duty; A bill (H. R. No. 2692) to provide for the establishment of a military prison, and for its government; and

A bill (H. R. No. 2693) to provide for an additional term of the district and circuit court of the United States at Syracuse, New York.

The message further announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1776) declaring