1:

li

I·

--~ - ~-

11718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 7,

1isted musicians of Atmy and Navy competing against civilian musicians-to the Committee on Labor.

By 1\lr. KAHN: Petition of California Harbor, No. 15, Amer­ican Association of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, of San Fran­cisco, Cal., against the Littlefield pilotage bill, to amend section 443 of the Revised Statutes-to the Committee on the 1\Ier­·chant Marine and Fisheries.

By l\Ir. KELIHER: Petition of Springfield Board of Trade, for a parcels-post law if country merchants are fully pro­tected-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

Also, petition of Massachusetts Board of Trade, for a perma­nent nonpartisan tariff commission-to the Committee on Ways and 1\Ieans.

Also, petition of Rabbi Isaac Elchano Lodge, against immi­gTation legislation increasing head tax and providing an educa­tional test-to the Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza­tion. t

Also, petition of National Paint and Varnish Association, for a nonpartisan tariff commission-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Massachusetts Association of Sealers of Weights and Measures, indorsing a bill creating a commission to in\estigate weights and measures-to the Comruittee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By Mr. McKINNEY: Petition of Russell Post, No. 86, Grand Army of the H.epublic, of Hamilton, Ill., for the Sherwood pen­sion bill-to · the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan: Papers to accompany bills for relief of Omstead Larue and John W. Carr-to the Com-mittee on In\alid Pensions. .

By 1\lr. NEEDHAM: Petition of the Elbell of Los Angeles, Cal., for the establishment of laboratories under State, Federal, and city governments for scientific study of criminals-to the Committee on Appropriations.

By 1\fr. NORRIS: Petitions of citizens of Guide Rock, Rus­kin, and Wilsonville, all in the State of Nebraska, against a parcels-post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post­Roads.

By Mr. OVERSTREET: Petition of National German-Amer­ican Alliance, for forest reservations in White Mountains and Appalachian l\lountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Indiana State Federation of Clubs, for forest reser...-ations in White Mountains and .Appalachian Mountains­to the Committee on Agriculture.

By 1\lr. PAYNE: paper to accompany bill for relief of Asapll Whiting (H. R. 16474)-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\Ir. PRAY: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Phoebe Clark-to the Committee on Claims.

By 1\Ir. RAINEY : Petitions of R. H. Grann and 51 others, of Beardstown; W . S. Camp and G5 others, of Jacksonville; H. F. Iteason and 18 others, of Mason; J. R. Singleton and 29 others, of White Hall; Robert H. McFadden and 17 others, of Mattoon; John R. Kirkman and 17 others, of Jacksonville, and T. A. Smith and 6 others, of White Hall, all in the State of Illinois­to the Com)Dittee on Military Affairs.

AI~o, petition of Givens Brothers and 101 other merchants and business men, of Mount Sterling, Ill., against a parcels-post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

Also, petition of Public Policy Legion of Illinois, favoring non­interest-bearing notes for public improvements-to the Com­mittee on Banking and Currency.

Bv 1\Ir. RA..l'I"SDELL of Louisiana: Paper to accompany bill for relief of William Nelson-to the Committee on Invalid Pen-8ions.

By Mr. RIORDAN: Petition of officers, directors, and trus­tees of art museums in the United States, for importation of art works duty free-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of National German-American Alliance, for forest reservation in White 1\fountains and outhern Appa­lachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By l\lr. SLEMP: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Isaac Q. Barstow-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. S"~HTH of Arizona : Paper to accompany bill for relief of 1\Ir . Cornelia H. Keyes (H. R. 4651)-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. ·

By Mr. S LZE R: Petition of Utica (N. Y.) Public Library, again t S. 21)00 and H. R. 11794, denying librarians the priv­ilege of importing copies of any book duty free-to the Com­mittee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Musical Mutual Protective Union, of New York, favoring H. R. 103, against competition of Government musicians from Army and Navy with civilian musicians-to the Committee on Labor.

Also, petition of · Harry H. Williams, of the Words and Music Club of America, for amendment of copyright law-to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. W ALL.A.CE : Paper to accompany bill for relief of l\frs. Octava Nutt-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. WANGER: Petition of William T . Powell, Depart­ment commander of Pennsylvania, Grand Army of the Republic, in behalf of 100,000 pensioners of Pennsyl...-ania, against aboli­tion of the several pension agencies thToughout the United States-to the Committee on Appropriations.

By 1\lr. WASHBURN : Papers to accompany bills for relief of John Feaghey and ~renzo A. Dodge-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. .

Also, paper to accompany bill for relief of Isaac H. Daggett­to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, February 7, 1908. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. HENRY N. CoUDEN, D. D. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and ap·

pro\ed. NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call up the confer­ence report on the bill ( S. 4 5), to create a new division for the northern judicial district of Texas and to provide for terms of court at Amarillo, Tex., and for a clerk for said court, and for other purposes. .

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman desire the statement read?

Mr. JE:I\"'KINS. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report.

Mr. CLARK of 1\Iis ouri. Mr. Speaker, is there not a rule that these conference reports have w be printed in the RECORD?

Mr. JENKINS. I will say to the gentleman that the rule was followed, and the conference report printed in the RECORD.

Mr. CLARK of Iissouri. All right. The conference report is as follows :

CONFERENCE RErORT.

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Hou e to the bill ( S. 4 5) to create a new division for the northern judicial district of Texas and to pro\ide for terms of court at Amarillo, Tex:., and for a clerk for said court, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference ha Ye agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amend­ment of the House numbered 2, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1: That the Senate recede from its dis­agreement to the amendment of the Ron e numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows :

"After the word ' Texas,' in line 2, page 2, insert: ' shall be held twice each year at the city of Amarillo, in Potter County, Tex., beginning on the third Monday of April and the fourth Monday of September in each year; ' " and the House agree to the same • .

JOHN J. JENKI S, C. E. LITTLEFIELD, R . L. HENRY,

Managers on the pa.rt of the House. C. D . CLARK, KNUTE NELSON, c. A. CULBERSON,

Mana.gers on the pa1·t of the Senate. The statement was read, as follows:

STATEMENT. It was the intention of the House to change section 2 of the

Senate act so as to provide in the law the time when the court was to be held. The . act provided tha t the judges of the courts should fix the times at which the courts were to be held. The House amendment intended to provide for the change by striking out all of lines 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of section 2 of the Senate act, inserting in lieu thereof:

" Beginning on the third Uonday of April and the fourth Monday of September in each year."

It is agreed that the amendment striking out line 3 was a mistake. In order to correct the mistake and ha \e the act provide the times when the couTt should be held, it was agreed to by the conferees that the Senate recede from its disagree-

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ 1·719 ment to the· amendment of the House numbered 1, and agree to the came with amendment, as follows:

After the word " Texas " in line 2, section 2, page 2, insert: "shall be held twice each year at the city of Amarillo, in Potter County, Tex., beginni:bg on the third Monday of April and the fourth Monday of September in each year."

And that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 2, and agree to the same.

JOHN J. JENKINS, C. E. LITTLEFIELD, R. L. HENRY,

Managers on the part ot·the House.

The question was taken, and the conference report was agreed to. • On motion of 1\Ir. JENKINS, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to was laid on the table.

ADJOURNMENT OVER,

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House ad­journ to-day it be to meet on ~fonday next.

The question was taken, and the motion was ag~~eed to.

PAY OF COMMISSIONERS FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,

Mr. T.A. WNEY. 1\fr. Speaker, I offer the following joint reso­lution, by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and ask for its· immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows : Joint resolution [H. Res. 130] providi.ng for salaries of the Resident

Commissioners from the Philippine Islands. Resolved, etc., That the Sergea.nt-at-.Arins of the House of Represent­

atives is authorized to pay to each of the two Resident Commissioners from the Phillppine Islands, out of the appropriation made for the current fiscal year for compensation of the Members of the House of Representatives, the same rate of compensation as is authorized and being paid to the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico, together with $2,000 each, as authorized by law, in lieu of mileage. -

The SPEA..KER. The gentleman asks unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution. Is there ob­jection?

1\Ir. MANN. 1\fr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask what this does. Is the pay of the Resident Commissioners now provided by law, and how does this change it?

Mr. TAWNEY. The pay of the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico is $7,500 per annum, the same as the salary of a Member or Senator, und in lieu of mileage tile Resident Com­missioner receives a fixed sum, the exact ·amount of which I do not now recall; but that is not material in this case, for the reason that the act of July 1, 1902, creating a civil government for the Philippine Islands authorized the election of two Com­missioners and expressly provided for compensation in lieu of mileage and tra\el from Manila to Washington, $2,000. That is the amount that is carried in this resolution.

l\lr. l\DU~. Does not the act provide for salaries for these Commissioners?

Mr. TAW1\TEY. It provides for a salary of the Commission­ers which was the salary at that time of a Member of Con­gress. Since that time the salaries of Members of Congress have \)een increased to $7,500. The salary of the Commissioner for Porto Rico has been increased to $7,500. Now, it was not thought wise on the part of the committee to report a resolution making any distinction between the compensation paid to the Commissioners from the Philippine Islands and the compensa­tion paid the Commissioner from Porto Rico, so their salary, by the resolution, is made the same as the salary of the Resident .Commissioner from Porto Rico.

1\Ir. MANN. Out of what fund is the money paid? Mr. TA. WNEY. Out of the appropriation for salaries of Sen­

ators and Members of the House. Mr. :MANN. Is that provision under the original act? Mr. TAWNEY. Yes; it is paid out of the appropriation for

salaries of Members and Senators. l\fr. DALZELL. The same as Delegates from the Territories? 1\fr. TA,VNEY. Yes. The SPEAKER. The request of the gentleman from Minne­

sota is to discharge the Committee on Appropriations from the further consideration of the resolution and consider the same aB in the House. Is there objection?

There was no objection. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a

third time, was read the third time, and passed. , On motion of Mr. TAWNEY, a motion to reconsider the last vote was laid on the table,

FORT RILEY MILITARY RESERVATION,

Mr. ANTHONY. l\Ir. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of the bill H. R. 12398, to authorize the War Department to transfer to the State of Kan~ sas certain lands now a part of the Fort Riley l\Iilitary Reserva~ tion, and that the same be considered in the House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kansas asks unani­mous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of the bill H. R. 12398 and consider the same in the House.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the War Department be, and the same is

hereby, authorized to transfer, not to exceed 1 acre of ground, to the State of Kansas whereon is located the ruins of the old station building which was the first Kansas Territorial capitol at Pawnee, situated on the United States military reservation at Fort Riley, Kans., the metes and bounds to be determined by the War Department.

With the following committee amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: "That the Secretary of War be, and ·he is hereby, authorized and di­

rected to grant to the State of Kansas the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a tract of land, not to exceed 1 acre of ground, whereon is located the ruins of the old station building which was the first Kansas Territorial capitol at Pawnee, now i_ncluded ~n military reservation of Fort Riley, Kans., for the preservation of said ruins as a historical relic, the metes and bounds of said tract to be determined by the Secretary of War."

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. 1\fr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the gentleman how much is this acre of land worth?

Mr. A....~THONY. I should imagine its intrinsic \alue would be about $25.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Is it so located that it would interfere in any way with the Government use of this reserva­tion?

l\Ir. ANTHONY. It is not; it will interfere with the use of the r~servation in no way. The bill was unanimously reported by the Committee on l\Iilitary Affairs and has the indorsement of the War Department.

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. It is purely for historical purposes? 1\fr. ANTHONY. Purely for historical purposes, the preser­

vation of the first capitol of the State. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request? [.After

a pause.] The Chair hears none. The amendment was agreed to. The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a

third time, was engrossed and read the third time, and pas ed. On motion of Mr. ANTHONY, a motion to reconsider the last

vote was laid on the table. BRIDGE ACROSS ST. LOUIS RIVER BETWEEN WISCONSIN AND MIN·

NESOTA.

l\Ir. BEDEJ. 1\fr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the­present consideration of the bill (H. R. 16050) to authorize the Interstate Transfer Railway Company to construct a bridge across the St. Louis River between the States of Wisconsin and l\Iinnesota. ·

The Clerk read the bill, as follows : Be it enactecZ, etc., That the Interstate Transfer Railway Company,

a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, its successors and assigns, be, and they are hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a railroad bridge and approaches thereto across the St. J,ouis River between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota at the most feasible point in section 12, in township 48 north, range 15 west, in the State of Wisconsin, to a point opposite in section 11, in township 48 north, range 15 west, in the State of Minnesota, in ac­cordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges across navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906: Provided, That the actual construction of sa1d bridge shall be commenced within two years and be completed within four years from the date of the passage of this act .

SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

With the following committee amendment: Strike out the proviso in lines 4, 5, 6, and 7, page 2. ·The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. The amendment was agreed to. The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read

the third time, was read the third time, and passed. On motion of 1\!r. BEDE, a motion to reconsider the lust \ote

was laid on the table. DILLS ON PRIVATE CALENDAR.

1\Ir. HASKINS. l\Ir. Speaker, I move that the House resolye itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of tbe Union for the consideration of bills on the Private Calendax.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into Committee of the

•

I

I

I!

:

1.'

--

1720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY '7,

Whole House on the state of the Union, with Mr. FosTER of In the matter of stores and supplies in :fL"'\:ing the valuation Vermont in the chair. of property taken, the court adopted tills rule which certainly

Mr. HASIG ·s. Mr. Chairman, I move to take up for consid- was jnst to the Government, and that was to ascertain what eration the bill H. R. 15372, and I ask that the first reading of the Go'lernment was paying at that- time for similar stores the bill be dLilensed with except by title. · through the Quartermaster's and the Commissary Departments

'l'he CHA.IRllAN. The gentleman from Vermont moyes to of the Government. I say this is certainly fair to the Govern-take up the bill which the Clerk will report by title. ment, if not fai.r to the claimants, who have been without their

The Clerk read as follows: interest these many year . The court in the first place, when For the allowance of certain ciaims reported by the Court of Claims a bill is certified by the Hou e to that tribunal, a certains and

under the pro,isions of the acts approved March 3, 1883, and :March 3, reports upon the loyalty of the claimant during the civil war, 1887, and commonly known as the Bowman and the Tucker acts. or the loyalty of the deceased who ow-ned the property at the

The CHAIIDIA.l~. The gentleman from Vermont asks unani- time it was taken, and your committee, in singling out these mous consent that the first reading of the bill be omitted. findings, have cast aside all findings unless it was held affirma-

:Mr. M.A.X.~. . Mr. Chairman, I think the bill ought to be read. tively by the court that the parties were loyal to the Gar-ern­The CHAIR~fAN. Objection is heard, and the Clerk will read. ment during the suppression of the rebellion. In the second 'The Clerk began the reading of the bill. place, we have been particular to understand what the coui-t During the reading of the bill, has decided, what they have found was the fact as to the i\fr. DALZELL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. property concerned, and where it went to. If there was any

How does this bill come up before the committee at this time? doubts in those findings as to whether the General Government Of course I understand it is on the Private Calendar, but it is or the Federal Army had the use of it, we have laid that finding not the first on the Private Calendar. aside and har-e not included it in this bill.

1\Ir. HASKINS. This is a bill on the Private Calendar. Or in some instances the property taken may have been sold, Mr. DALZELL. Bills under the Private Calendar, unless and we find further the court's affirmati-re finding as a matter

otherwise ordered, come up in their order. of fact as to whether that property, or the ayails of that prop-The CHAIRHA...,. The Chair will say in response to the in- erty, had been covered into the 'l.'reasury of the United States.

quiry thnt the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. HASKINS] moves So in er-ery case that we have reported here where there has that the committee take up this bill. been a taking of property we have reported none except where

l\Ir. DALZELL. But the motion has not been passed on. it has been affirmatively ·determined by the Court of Claims, Mr. HASKINS. Oh, yes, it has; there certainly was no ob- the h·ibunal created by this very body for the adjudication of

jection. facts in relation to these matters, that tlley have affirmative1y The CHAIRMAN. The bill is being read pending the motion. fotmd that the General Government or the Federal Army had Mr. HASKINS. I asked unanimous consent, and there was the use of this property that was taken. There is another

no objection. class of cases which we have reported favorably upon, and The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the Clerk will that is the pay of officers of the Federal Army during the

continue the reading of the bill. suppression of the rebellion. Here, for instance, is the case The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill. of a first sergeant of a company. The econd lieutenancy The CHAIRl\IAN. The question now is on the motion of was yacant, and the gover11or of his State commissioned him

the gentleman from Vermont to take up the bill for considera- as second lieutenant, or the first lieutenancy may have been tion. vacant, through death or resignation, and the governor of the

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. State to which he belonged commissioned him as first lieutenant l\fr. HASKINS. 1\Ir. Chairman, I want to say for the in- or even as lieutenant-colonel or major, or colonel in command

formation of the House that this bill embraces the findings of of the regiment, and in cases where they were a signed to the Court of Claims in 321 cases represented by an equal duty according to the increased rank to which they had been number of bills, which were introduced chiefly in the Fifty- promoted, and were discharging the duties and assuming the eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses and were referred by the responsibilities of the office to which they had been commis­action of this House to the Court of Claims to find the facts sioned, but failed of muster for various ca u es, then we report and report them back to this House. A few of those bills that in favor of the payment of those claims the difference between went to the Court of Claims by reference from the House were the amount they received when they were mustered out under in prior Congresses, .but very few of them, and were not acterl the inferior rank and the ammmt they should have received if upon and certified back to the House until recently. This bill they had been mustered out in the grade to which they had has three clas es of claims : First, for stores and supplies taken been commissioned by the governor of their State and wherein by the Federal Army from loyal citizens of the States that 'vere they were performing the duties of the office to which they in insurrection, amounting according to the findings of the had been commissioned. court to 255,436.42; the second class is for officers' pay, .Mr. KEIFER. Will the gentleman allow me? amounting to $36,910.53, and the third is by churches, colleges, l\Ir. HASKINS. Certainly. and lodges that were occupied by Federal troops during the l\Ir. KEIFER. I think it was the law in the beginning of war, amounting to $21,19 .2 . This makes a total amount of the late Spanish war that all commissioned officers, regardless $313,545.28. l\Ir. Chairman, this is a reasonable bill, when we of the rank to which they were commissioned and mustered, take into consideration the fact that the omnibus war claims were entitled to the pay of the rank they exercised. bill of the Fifty-ninth Congress failed of passage. Therefore it l\Ir. IIASKINS. I am coming to that in a moment. I have includes what should have been in two bills instead of one. In said there were various causes which led to these officers pro­making up this bill the committee has been guided entirely by rooted not being mustered at the time. Some of them before the findings of the Court of Claims. In selecting these findings an opportunity to muster were killed in battle, others were seyeral of them have been laid aside and reported upon ad- taken prisoners and from various other causes beyond their yersely and others not included here will probably receir-e an control, becam~e it was a ru1e at that time of the War Depart­adverse report before this Congress adjourns. It includes ment that a company or a regiment that had fallen below the nothing but the findings of the court on bills referred to it by minimum number was not entitled to muster; therefore the the Honse. Unlike the bill that was reported here. during the War Department refused to muster them in such cases. I want last session of Congress, we have included no Senate bills and to say, soon after the war these officers who had been refu ed no House bills of a miscellaneous character, but have simply muster presented their claims to the War Department for pay­confined it to the findings of the court. In the preparation of ment for the difference from what they did receive and what this bill it required a great deal of labor. The chairman of they should have received if they had been actually must red this committee has worked faithfully more than three weeks out in· the superior grade, but they were disallowed for the upon it. He has carried the papers to his house, the findings reason · in many cases that their regiment or companies had of the court, and has investigated and read them, endear-oring fallen below the minimum. It was the rule. In 1 6G a joint reso · to understand what the court has found and what the court lution was 11assed by the Congre s endeavoring to relieve them means by its findings, and has done this tmtil the wee small and did relieve them to a certain extent, but not these particular hours of the morning. I believe we have a bill here which cases; but in 1807, on the 24th of February, 1807, a law was should be pa sed. If the Government is desirous of paying passed by Congress entitled "An act to provide for the relief of honest indebtedness, as every individual ought to pay his, and certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer force ," 20 Stat­rest under the same obligation to pay it as I do to pay the utes at Large, page 03, and under the provisions of this act of rent of my apartment, there can· be no question about the February 24, 1 07, these officers that the accounting officers of the passage o.f this bill which we have reported to this Honse. [Ap-,1 ·war Department refu ed to allow their claims are now en­plause.] . titled to be paid, but on presenting their claims to the War •

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1721 DepartmE>nt for the second time they were refused considera­tion upon the technical ground that where the Department has once made a ruling upon particular cases they will not reverse that, but so far as the Department is concerned everything stands res adjudicata there. Therefore the only remedy that these brave officers and the widows and orphan children of tho e who died in the service have is to come to Congress for relief, and· these are claims from Maine to California, and not a large amount, $30,910.23, I think, as I gave it, which cleans up all these old cases where they are entitled to receive their pay under existing st.'ltutes, but can not, by reason of the iron­clad rules and regulations of the War Department. Then another class of cases is where the Federal Army during the civil war occupied churches, and in some instances a college, and in one instance, I think, a Masonic lodge room, for bar­racks and for ho pital purposes, property that from the very beginning has been held sacred under the law of nations, used and desecrated; injured, and now they come here to Con­gress for relief, and the Court of Claims, in measuring the amount which these eleemosynary institutions and churches are entitled to receiYe, finds simply the fair rental value of the building during its occupancy by the Federal Army, and in addition thereto such expenses as they have been put to to put the building in a reasonable state of repair, the ordinary wear and tear excepted, which is a fair basis upon which to fix the valuation or the rental value of this property.

Now, I want to say right here, in conclusion, to the Members of this House that I assumed for the committee the responsibil­ity and the duty of examining all these several findings, and I did it with a fair and impartial eye, having in mind not only ju tice to the claimants who have been so long deprived of their just rights, but at the same time of being actually and abso­lutely fair to the General Go>ernment, and wherever there is any doubt in relation to those matters I have resolved the doubt in making up this bill against the claimant and in favor of the General Government. I believe that there never was a cleaner bill ever presented to this body than the one which you have now before you. [Applause.] 1\fr. Chairman, I reserve the bal­ance of my time.

Mr. KEili'ER. I would like to ask the gentleman one or two questions.

The CHAIR~IAN. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. HASKINS. Certainly. . 1\Ir. KEIFER. In the large number of claims in the bill are

there any included that have not been referred to the Court of Claims?

1\Ir. HASKINS. Not one, and not one except such as has been referred to the Court of Claims by this very body. We ha>e included no Senate claims.

1\Ir. SULZER. This bill carries the judgment of the Court of Claims?

l\1r. HASKINS. It is not a judgment; it is a finding of fact. 1\fr. KEIFER. Under the Bowman Act? · .Mr. HASKINS. Yes. Mr. KEIFER. I want to ask, ln looking over the findings of

fact in these cases, or in some of them, if the committee re­jected any claims that were reported from the Court of Claims'?

1\Ir. HASKINS. We have, and reported adversely upon them already; and there are several we have laid aside and withheld making any report out of deference to the Uembers who have them in charge.

Mr. KEIFER. And I would like to ask the gentleman whether or not the Court of Claims, in considering these claims that were referred by this Congress to that court, took up the question of loyalty in every case.

Mr. HASKINS. In every instance; and I want to add right here, in every single, solitary case the General Government was represented before the Court of Claims by counsel from the Department of Justice. ·

Mr. KEIFER. I understand that the Court of Claims, in their findings in regard to colleges, universities, churches, and :Masonic lodges, found that the owners were loyal and the claim­ants were loyal.

Mr. HASKINS. The owners were loyal; and let me say right here that the Southern Claims Commission refused any consideration of that character of claims, because they claimed and reported that they were not citizens; that a corporation . was not a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, loyalty c;ould not be brought into question.

Mr. KEIFER. But the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the rule of loyalty applies as well to a cor­poration as to an individual.

Mr. HASKINS. Exactly so. Mr. GARRETT. But not of a church.

l\Ir. KEIFER. Now, one other question. Are there any claims included here for mere devastation of property?

Mr. HASKINS. There are none. There are claims made, but the court refused to assess any damages for them.

l\Ir. KEIFER. Are there any claims of that kind included in this bill?

l\Ir. HASKINS. Vandalism is not included; destruction of property by act of war or necessity of war-not one.

Mr. KEIFER. Property destroyed in battle or in the move­ment of an army through the country; but property taken for the purpose of providing for the Army, all have been rejected?

l\Ir. HASKINS. All rejected, unless the court finds that the pror>erty was taken for the use of the Federal Army and by order of some superior officer.

l\lr. KEIFER. \Veil, I am satisfied. Mr. M.ANN . Will the gentleman yield for a further question? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.

HASKINs] yield to the gentleman from Illinois? Mr. HASKINS. With pleasure. l\ir. MANN. I understood the gentlemap to say that there

were no claims in the bill except those that had been referred by this body to the Court of Claims. Just what does the gentle­man mean by that?

l\lr. H.A.SKL ... S. I mean that this body referred to the Court of Claims bills that were introduced here under the Tucker Act. Bills that were introduced, that come within the jurisdiction of the Bowman Act, are sent direct from the committee to the Court of Claims.

:\Ir. 1\f.ANN. How many claims are there in this bill that were referred to the Court of Claims by the House of Representa­ti>es?

l\Ir. HASKINS. None except such as were referred by the House.

l\fr. l\IANN. How many are there-can the gentleman tell? Mr. HASKINS. There are on~y about 330 in all. Mr. MANN. Referred by the House? " .Mr. HASKINS. There are 321 claims included in this bill. l\Ir. 1\!Al\TN. I know the gentleman did not intend to mislead

the House, but certainly the gentleman's statement would lead the House to believe that these claims had been referred to the Court of Claims by the House. Now, the facts are that these claims haye never been before the House at all, exeept the bills; they have been referred to the Court of Claims by the com­mittee.

1\fr. HASKINS. All claims arising under the Tucker Act--1\Ir. 1\llU\TN. How many are there in this bill? 1\fr. HASKINS. I can not tell. Mr. 1\fANN. Then I can say that I do not think there are a

dozen all 'told. Mr. HASKINS. Now, so far as the bills introduced under

the Bowman Act are concerned, the very act itself, wliich is an act of Congress, authorizes the Committee on Claims to refer them direct.

1\fr. 1\IANN. I . understand, and I know the gentleman did not mtend to mislead the committee, and his statement would have been stronger if he had stated that these claims were re­ferred under the Bowman Act by the committee itself, because the gentleman probably knows, what is certainly the fact, that it is more to the interest of the claimants to have the claims re­ferred under the Tucker Act than it is under the Bowman Act, because under the Bowman Act the Court of Claims can not report upon a claim which is contrary to any existing provision of law, which means has been barred by any limitation, while under the Tucker Act there is no such limitation on the Court of Claims. Now, as I understand this bill-and that is the reason that I wanted to attract the gentleman's attention­it endeavors to cover only those cases which have been referred by the Committee on War Claims under the Bowman Act, sub­jeCt to all limitations that Congress has heretofore placed upon claims, and does not include the claims under the Tucker A.ct, because they go to the other end of the Capitbl, when they have been referred by resolution of either the House or Senate-­claims under that act have no limitation at an, and most of which have no merit in them.

1\fr. HASKINS. lost of the claims under the Tucker Act are referred by the Senate.

Mr . .MA.l~N. That is what I know, but I did not mention the body . · l\fr. HASKINS. I do not want to be misunderstood. I want

to be perfectly honest. Mr. 1\IAl~N. We all know that that is the gentleman's desire

and intention. l\Ir. HASKINS. Now, we have an item on page 35, com­

mencing at line 1: "To Warwick Hutton, administrator of the

1722 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-HOUSE·. FEBRUARY 7,

estate of Samuel Morrison, deceased, late of Randolph County, $1,340."

.L Tow, a gentleman, a Member of this House, came down · to the committee room with that finding of the Court of Claims and asked to haYe it inserted in the bill. It was inserted in the bill. I ha-ve been o-ver this bill and examined it two or three different times, and upon one of my reviews I found that it was a claim that went to the Court of Claims in 1902. Well,

- that led me to an in-restigation to know why that claim had not been paid, and upon investigation-and I will say right here that we haye documents in our committee room; that no other Department of the Government has to furnish informa­tion-! found that that claim was allowed and passed by the Fifty-eighth Congress and had been paid by the Treasury De­partment. We haye been in constant communication with the War Department and the Treasury Department in relation to all the e matters, and I propose on the second reading of the bill when it is reached to have that item sh·uck out. We do not want anything in this bill that is not right.

Mr. DALZELL. I want to ask the gentleman a q_uestion. Do I understand that the claims embodied in this bill were sent directly from the committee to the Court of Claims?

Mr. HASKINS. Certainly; under the provisions of the Bow­man Act; and nearly all are of that character.

Mr. DALZELL. Under the rules of the House claims can not be sent to the Court of Claims without the action of the House.

Mr. HASKINS. Certainly; and by a law of this Congress which stands upon our statute books.

Mr. MA....."'\TN. I will explain to the gentleman--Mr. DALZELL. Wait a moment. I want to understand

this. I may be in error, but Ru1e L"{IJI, section 3, says: All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the

peop.re; all pro~ee~g touching appropriations of money, or hills m~ki~g approprmtwns of money .o~· proi>ertyr or requiring such appro­pnatlOns to be made, .or autho~·1zm~ payments out of appropriations already made, or relea mg any !lability to the D'nited States for money or property, or r eferring any claim to the Court of Claims shall be first con~idered in a Committee of th~ Whole, and a point' of order under this rule shall be good at any time before the consideration of a bill has commenced.

Now, what I want to understand is this : Does this bill em­body claims that were sent to the Court of Claims by the Com­mittee on War Claims wfth•)Ut having the. question first consid­ered in the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. HASKINS. It doe, under the Bowman Act, and there never was a bill of this kind that passed this Congress but what it included such references.

1\fr. MANN. If the gentleman from Pennsyliania will per­mit me, I think I can--

:Mr. HASKINS. One moment. It is true the gentleman from Penn ylv;:mia has read from the rules of the Hon e. I submit to the :Members of the House, while we certainly haye a very able Committee on Rule , whether a rule made by this House can override an express statute passed by Congress itself.

Mr. DALZELL. The point I want to get at is this-~ Is there a controyersy between the committee, relying on Congressional legislation, and the rules of the House? In other words, has the committee been acting in violation of the rule or without regard to the rule of the Honse upon the assumption that the House rule was not properly made?

.Mr. HASKINS. I did not know what the rule of the House was in that respect, but the committee have been governed by the law. ·

Mr. 1\IAl~N. I think I can set the two gentlemen right. 1\fr. DALZELL. I am only after information. l\Ir. MANN. The rule the gentleman from Pennsylvania

r efers to says that a bill to refer a claim to the Committee on Olaims shall come before the House, and we have on the Cal­endar to-day joint resolutions to refer claims to the Court of Claims. They are reported from the Committee on War Claims to the House, and are on th~ Union Calendar; but the law pro­vides, and it is not contradictory to the rule at all, that when any claim is pending before any committee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before either House of CongreNs, which involves an investigation and determination of facts, the committee or Ilou e may cause the same, with the -vouchers, papers, and proofs pertaining thereto, to be transmitted to the Court of Claims of the United States, and so forth, and the Coort of Claims shall report back the facts in the case.

Now, if these claims had been brought in in the shape of a bill or resolution referring them to the Court of Claims, they would have to come before the House; but the bills are intro­duced to pay the claims, and thereupon the committee, under the law, refers the bill to the Court of Claims for a statement of facts. Th .. 'lt is the Bowman Act. It is not at all contra­dictory of the rules; but I may say, in r eference to that mat-

ter, the reason I ask the gentleman's attention to it is this : It has been the practice to refer certain claim under the Bow­man Act, and when a claim could not pas muster under the Bowman Act, then it has been the practice to obtain its refer­ence under the so-called " Tucker Act.'' The Bowman Act con­tains this provision :

'or hall the said court have jurisdiction of any claim again t the nited States which is now barred by virtue of the provi ions of any

law of the United States. That provision i not in the Tucker Act When the com­

mittee sends a claim to the Court of Claims it is controlled by that provision of law; but when the House, under the Tucker Act, or the Senate, under the- Tucker Act, refers a claim to the Court of Claims there is no Sltch provision in the law, and mo t of the claims that come under the 'l'ucker Act come that way, because they haye not merit enough to pass under the Bowman Act. I am glad that thi bill is compo ed mostly of claims umler the Bowman Act. It is the sh·ongest argument in favor of it that I ha-ve heard about any omnibus claim bills since I have been in the House.

1\Ir. HASKINS. The gentleman from Illinois concedes that under the Bowman Act a committee of the House, or Congres , has a right to refer these claims to the Court of Claims?

1\Ir. MA~TN. Under the Bowman Act any committee can re­fer any question of fact, except pensions, to the Court of Claims.

1\fr: HASKINS. Now, there are but very few claims in this present bill that were referred under a House resolution under the Tuckei· Act.

1\!r. 1\IANN. That brings up a very interesting question. Of course this bill carries only matters which have come throu<Ph the House. The great majority of these claims, especially claims which have not much merit in them, go to the Court of Claims under the Tucker . Act; and there not being the same facility for pas ing matters through this House under the title of courtesy, they go to another body, and are there referred to the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act. Is it the intention of the gentleman, when this bill come back to this body, if it should come back loaded down with all sorts of claims under the Tucker Act, with an sorts of claims which have never been referred to the Court of Claims at all, with nll sorts -of claims which hn.Ye no merit in them whatever-is it the intention of the gentleman to give the House a fair opportunity for con­sideration of those claims?

Mr. HASKINS. In reply to the distingui hed gentleman from Illinois, I want to say to him and to the :Members of this House that I haie no knowledge or information as to what the Senate may do to this bill when it goes over to the other end of the Capitol. But so far as I am concerned I; propo e to act, and so far as I am able to control the War Claims Committee they will act, with perfect fairness and honor toward this Hou e; and if there are any claims in that bill when it gets back to this body that are fi. hy, as we may say, I propose to have them thoroughly investigated and eliminated from the bill, for I my­self will never con ent that thi Government of ours hall be mulcted out of a single dollar that it ought not to pay.

1\Ir. 1\IANN. That sounds good to me. 1\Ir. CLARK of .1.\Iissouri. I think that ought to establish--

·1\Ir. HASKINS. I am stating to the gentleman from Illinois what my feelings are; but I will not consent to have my pa­triotism or my honor impugned by him or anyone else. [Ap­plause.]

I reserve the balance of my time. 1\Ir. MANN. 1\Ir. Chairman, the gentleman is very sensiti\e

of his honor. l\Ir. HASKI.i,S. Not at all. :Mr. 1\IANN. Nobody has impugned the gentleman's honor;

but if the gentleman thinks- his honor is- impugned in this House because somebody asks him what he may do under future con:­tingencie , then the gentleman's honor 'vill be frequently im­pugned. I have no doubt of the gentleman's honor. If I had I should be prepared to delay the passa ..,e of this bill to my uttermost endeaYors. The gentleman says that he has no Imowledge or information as to what will be <lone with this bill in the Senate. He has no information, but I run sure ne has knowledge.

Mr. IL"-SKINS. If I have, I will take advantage of it. 1\lr. 1\I.A.N_ T. Everybody in this body knows that this i a

bill to pay war claims. When it comes back to this body it will be a bill to pay any kind of n. claim. It will not be con­fined to war claims. The question comes u11 at once in the House, if the bill is proposed to be sent to conference, as to who shall be the conferees.

1\fr. HASKINS. iWi1l the gentleman yield? l\Ir. 1U.A.l"\1:T. In just n. moment. I haye ab olute confidence

in the gentleman; but the gentleman is ll{)t familiar with claims which come from the Committee on Claim·s. and to my certain

--- - -

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1723 knowledge, and I think to the knowledge of every -other Member of the House, there have been carried in some of the reports of conference committees on omnibus bills in. the past, where the l>ill originated in the War Claims Committee, and came back from the Senate with claims that in the House would come before the Committee on Claims, and were agreed to in conference, the conferees on the part of the House ha.ving abso­lutely no knowledge in reference to the claims, and the com­mittee which had jurisdiction of those claims saw put into the law, in their faces, and in spite of their efforts, claims which they had rejected in the House, claims agreed to by conferees who had no kllowledge of the subject at all. Of course I do not say this for the purpose of even hurting the feelings of my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Committee on War Claims, but I want to give him notice that if this bill comes back from the Senate loaded down with all kinds of claims, which had no place in the bill in the first place, and the bill comes before the House again, as far as I am concerned, I shall resist just as far as I can, and make use of every possible parliamentary method to prevent the passage of the bill in that form.

1\lr. HASKINS. 1\fr. Chairman, whatever the gentleman may anticipate, or anyone may anticipate, that the Senate may do \Yith this bill ought certainly not to prejudice the House against the bill which we now have under consideration, but the House should be prepared to act upon it fairly, without any regard whatever to what the Senate may do hereafter.

But, as suggested by the gentleman at my side [Mr. SULZER], '"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Mr. 1\IA..J.""''~. That is a very good Democratic doctrine. 1\fr. HASKINS. Well, we will adopt it, for it is good Biblical

docti·ine. Mr. GAI1\'ES of 'l'ennessee. It is mighty good people's doc­

trine, too. [Laughter.] .Mr. SULZER. The gentleman from Illinois evidently is not

as familiar with the Bible as he is with the policies of the Democratic party. [Laughter.]

1\'Ir. l\1ANN. I have not had as much occasion to become fa­miliar with it.

Mr. SULZER. It would do the gentleman a great deal of good to read the Bible. [Laughter.]

l\Ir. 1\f.Al\"N. It has never done the gentleman from New York any good. [Laughter.]

l\Ir. S LZER. I don't think the gentleman from Illinois is a competent judge of that.

Mr. HASKINS. l\Ir. Chairman, I want to say that I have labored in the committee room, and the committee has agreed with me, to keep everything out of this bill that we have re­ported to the House except the finding of the Court of Clailns, and if the bill should come back to this House loaded down with spurious and miscellaneous measures that ought not to have a place in the bill at all I will second the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois to prevent action, for I would rather see the bill fail unless it is a fair bill.

l\Ir. PRINCE. l\Ir. Chairman, I want to suggest to the gen­tleman from Vermont, chairman of the Committee on War Claims, that the idea of the gentleman from Illinois that the bill may be loaded down with amendments will apply to any bill that this House passes that goes to the other branch, and it would apply to a bill passed by any committee in the House, as well as any passed by the Committee on 'Var Claims.

l\Ir. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the present House that progress is being made. I can remember, not a great many years ago, when I seemed to be very much alone in looking into claims that were presented to the House. I should haye been glad in the earlier years to have bad the assistance and the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois--

Mr. l\IANN. I always follow the lead of the gentleman from New York.

l\Ir. PAYNE (continuing). In looking into the claims that come before the House. Other gentlemen have acquired the same habit, not to speak of individual 1\Iembers of Congress. The House is getting to that point where it seems to be the desire of the House to look carefully into these claims and where there is less disposition than there used to be in the years that· are past to manifest a sort of general feeling that "I have got a claim, and therefore I won't look too closely into other claims in order that they can all go through."

I am glad to see that t11e new chairman of the Committee on War Claims-although he is an old Member of the House, but new to this particular business-bas made !'tt1ch a thorough ex­amination of claims in this bill. I have looked into his report, as far as I have been able owing to the time required for the study of other matters, and I congratulate him on the ability

he has manifested in looking into the decisions of the court and, so far as he was able, into the justice and honesty of tile claims which he has presented in this bill.

I was a little surprised when he singled out a claim under this bill and said that after further examination he bad found .that the claim had been paid and settled not a very long time ago. It shows the reason and necessity for the exercise of the most extreme vigilance in looldng into these claims. I confess, l\fr. Chairman, I do not like to see an omnibus bill go through the House, because I know what that means later when the bill comes up for consideration of the amendments that have been placed upon it. Generally these claims bills come back so padded with amendments that the author of the bill in the House is unable to recognize it, and generally they come back so late, not in the seEsion but in the Congressional term, that the conferees on the part of the House and the Committee on War Claims on the part of the House do not have time to make that thorough and careful investigation that they would like to make. As the gentleman from Illinois has stated, they come back loaded with amendments of simple claims against the Gov­ernment, arising in various ways, of which the Commitete on War Claims have no knowledge, because the Committee on Claims alone has jurisdiction. To get a knowledge of these new· claims they must go into original study in order to find out whether the claims ought to be allowed. Claims under the Tucker Act-claims, as the gentleman bas well said, of such ·a character that they could not have got in under the Bowman Act--come back, or at least appear on the bill, after it has been away from the House a sufficient length of time.

l\fr. GAINES of Tennessee. Does the gentleman ask that we should defeat this bill because the conferees may do wrong.

l\fr. PAYNE. If the gentleman will possess his soul in pa­tience I will try. to make my position understood during the small portion of the hour I am entitled to that I shall use .

l\Ir. GAINES of Tennessee. Very well; I hope the gentleman makes it clear.

l\fr. PAYNE. l\Ir. Chairman, I have been sometimes a sort of auxiliary member of the committee on conference when a claims bill has been before that committee, and I remember one Congress that I spent most of my time night and day for two or three weeks trying to get a knowledge of claims that appeared for the first time in the bill, finding that the former chairman of the committee· had little knowledge of them. Afte·r a long struggle, in which compliments were showered upon me not so much by the membership of this House as by some other gentlemen, we succeeded in taking out a good many of the claims that ought never to be in any bill and certainly not in any law ever recognized by the Government of the United States.

I remember the last time we had such a bill before the conference committee that there was one particular claim on that bill which · was opposed by the former chairman of this committee ; he said he could not allow it any way. I looked into it and I found that the Court of Claims had found that the party was disloyal, and for that reason the Committee on War Claims in the House had refused to agree to it. I found that the Committee on War Claims bad reported that claim by a separate bill, which was upon the Calendar. Of course it is but just to say for them that notwithstanding the Court of Claims reported against the loyalty of the claimant, a former Attorney-General of the United States had written a letter or an opinion, in which he seemed to take ground against the Court of Claims, and, I think, contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court, which the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. HA.s­KINS] has included in his report on this bill. I only speak of this to show the gentleman what he has to face. I have no doubt that he will bring the same integrity and ability to the consideration of those amendments when they come here as he has so far given to this bill and to the matters before his committee and as he has ever manifested during the years it has been my pleasure to serve with him as a l\Iember of the House.

l\Ir. HASKINS. 1\fr. Chairman, I simply want to say to the gentleman that I do not think he need borrow any trouble about the bill to which he has just referred ever being brought up in the House.

l\fr. PAYNE. I am glad to hear that from the gentleman, and that is another assurance which is very grateful to me. I would like to see the honest bills against the United States Government paid. I have been beseeching the Committee on Claims for the last six or eight years to select the claims that were honest and just and which in their opinion ought to be pa!d, and to bring them in here and put them on the Calendar

'

1724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 7,

early in the e" ion, that they might receive the con ideration of the Hou e, and not l t some one put in a bill here that ought not to be pa:id at the end of the Calendar and block the Cal­en<lar or f rce the Hou::e to pa s the bill, unworthy as it is, in order that it might get at matters whieh were worthy and which ought to pas . I conuratnlate the House that the ge!!­tlemnn from Yermont has been elected as the chairman of thi committee, and I hope-I lmow-he will continue in his good work upon that committee. [Applause.]

Mr. DOUGLaS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gen­tleninn a question. Is it not possible for \.'lie Committee on Rules to make "'Orne provi ion and to preT"ent the vecy evil at the close of the ses ion to which the gentleman refer ? · l\Ir. PAY.~.. TE. Well, I do not know. The Committee on Rules are bound by the rules of the House. The rules of the House have been framed for the pru·pose of expediting the business of the House, and with twenty or thirty thousand bills introduced and going before the committees, and hundreds of them reported and put upon the Calendar, there must be some method of selecting under the general rules by which those bills can be reached. It is true that in order at some times to prevent a block of business and to deprive the House of the right to con­sider a worthy measure, the power of the Committee on Rules has been invoked in order to take up under special rule some measure that the House desires to pass. That always creates a great deal of criticism and brings out the annual speech of my friend the gentleman from l\Iissouri [Mr. SHACKLEFORD], which he delivered two or three weeks ago, complaining about the despotism of the Speaker of the House and the Committee on Rules. Now, it is not necessary for the Committee on Rules to provide a different ~ray or a different order for considering the bills on the Private Calendar. The rules provide, and under them the gentleman from Vermont [l\1r. HAsKINS] to-day made a motion to take up this particular bill out of its order, and the committee seconded his motion and the bill is now before us, although there is at least one other bill and seT"eral re olutions from his O'\"\TI committee that precede this upon the Calendar.

Gentlemen will find as they study the rules with the idea of trying to understand them, -and the practices of the House with the idea of trying to understand them, that the rules, 'formed through a long eries of years and worked out by the constant practice in this House, to which the best men in the House for tifty years have given their attention in order to have rules that ~rould enable the House to do its business, ever increasing from session to session; if they study these rules they will find that they aTe most admirably adapted for the business of the House and for the expedition and proper order of the business of the House.

l\Ir. MACOX. l\Ir. Chairman, as the gentleman fTom New York has taken up so much time to answer the question of the gentleman from Ohio I will try to cut my remarks short so as not to detain the committee, but I feel I ought to say that I can not understand why it is that Members upon this floor are so prejudiced against war-claims bills. They seem to insinuate that there is some fraud embodied in all war­claims bills that are pre ented to this House. I do not think they can po slbly have any prejudice against them fifty years after the ~rar is over, fifty years after the supplies and property ~rere taken or destroyed by the Union forces from the loyal people of the South.

Mr. PAYNE. Will the gentleman allow me? I want to say "if I had the power I would enact this bill into law to-day and without amendment exce:vt · the one suggested by the gentle­man from Vermont. It is only the other things that will get into it before we finally get it through the legislative ·hopper that have any terrors whatever for me.

Mr. MACON. In response to what the gentleman from New York says I can not help but conclude that he is afraid of the honorable body at the other end of the Capitol. Sir, I am not afraiu of that body. I belieYe they have just as many rights as members of it as we have as Members of the House, and I do not believe that men occupying so exalted stations in life as they do would deliberately and willfully perjure them­selves by trying to force upon this body the passu ,.,e of bills that they knew were dishone t, that they knew had no merit in them. But, sir, getting back to where I was when the gentleman from New York made :Q..is inquiry, I will state that I do not believe that we have ever had a pension day in the House but what there was some improper legislation embodied in some one of the many pension bills that have been passed here without question. .

There was a time, perhaps, when prejudice wildly and bitterly raged between the North and South, that a. son of a southern soldier might have taken the floor to question

~rhether this or that pension was right, exactly, whether or not the applicant was entitled to a pen ion, but, sir , that time has· pa sed, and I am glad of it. I am glad to know that no one who comes from the outhern side of the Potomac River ever raises his voice on this floor against a pension bill whic_h seeks to give some old oldier or his widow or ·some of. his little children some sort of compensation for the services thnt that oldier gave to his country fifty years ago. Sir, I do not know about all of the GJ..aims that are embodied in this bill, but I do know something about two of them, anu in one of them the report shows that in this particular ca e the following property ~ras taken for the use of the United States Army: 3,000 bushels corn in crib _____________________ _:_· _________ _ 1,000 bushels corn in field _____________________________ _

i::1tJtiif~~~~i~~'"~~ii~~~~:i~i~~~i~~~:~~~~~i~~ 40,000 feet lumber----------------------------------------

!}~~:~~~~in0~:~~~~~===============================~==== Board and care of sick soldiers-----~----------------------

$3,000 500 200

2 34 '1)00

1,400 1,030 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,200

400 10;) 480 468

Touu _________ __________ __________________________ 14,891

This was taken, Mr. Chairman, from two minor children who have remained without their money all these years and now the court only finds that they are entitled to receive the small sum of $2,1G6.67. Is there a Member upon this floor who objects to paying that pitiful sum for provender and supplies taken and consumed by Union soldiers and for care of tho e oldiers when they ~rere ick '? I think not; not one. The other case that I know a little about, Ir. ChaiTman, is on in which an old negro had three mules of the value of GOO taken from him by Union soldiers nearly fifty years ago-an old negro who huppened to be fortunate enough to own three mules by reason of the kindness of his southe1-n master. Tow, the Court of Claims says his heirs are entitled to ...,300 for tho. e mules. Will ::\Iembers try to defeat a. meritorious proposition of that kind? 'l'bese claims are just and ought to have been paid long ago. In the name of the loyal people of the South who had their property taken from them at a time when it was perhaps neces­sary to take it, I appeal to the National Government to pay these war claims that are so just and hone t.

:Mr. HASKINS. I move that the Clerk proceed to read the bill by paragraph .

, The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read, if no one else desires to speak.

The Clerk read as follows : 'l'o S. Inman, administrator of the estate of Jacob B. Russell, de·

<:ea ~ed, late of Ringgold County, $3,210.

1\Ir. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to trike out of line 16, on page 7, the word " Ringgold " and insert in lieu thereof the word .. Catoosa!'

The CHAilll\IAl'{, The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows : Line 16, strike out "Ringgold" and insert "Catoosa.." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amend-

ment. The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows : To Sarah Ann. Dobbs, widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs deee!lsed of

Pulaski County, 152.25. ' ' :Mr. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amend­

ment. The CIIAJRMAl'{, The gentleman from Kentucky offers a.n

amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: On page 13, between ljnes 10 and 11, Insert the following: "To James N. Hall, of Montgomery County, $750." Mr. LA.i,GLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that no Member

of thi House has a higher r gard for the di tinguished chair­man of the committee than I have, nor is tbere anyone more thoroughly convinced than I am that the committee was en­t:irely conscientious in preparing thi bilL In fact, I think that the committee, in its great anxiety to avoid any po ibility of including a. claim that ought not to be included, has leaned a little too far the other way. 'l'his claim of James N. Hall has been certified to• Congress from the Court of Claims. The amount due him for his half interest, as given in the finding of fact, is $750. Mr. Hall during the war of the rebellion was engaged in partneTship with a Mr. Burroughs in the retail liquor business at Mount Sterling, Ky. Federal troops were

·- ~--~ - -· -· - --· -- ---

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE .. 1725' stationed there at the time, and the officer in charge, as stated in the finding of fact, claiming that some of the whisky had been sold to men belonging to his command, in violation of his orders, had the entire stock confiscated and taken away. It was taken away in military wagons, ·and the general under­standing there at the time was, as the proof shows, that it was finally taken to a military hospital located at Mount Sterling for the use of patients in that hospital. The court says in its finding that the evidence does not show to the satisfaction of the court what use was made of the liquors. Now, it is true that there is no specific testimony in the record showing just how the whisky and other liquors thus taken were disposed of. I ha-ve taken the trouble to get an abst ract of the testimony in the case and I ha-ve it here. Major Wood, a distinguished Union officer who is now the United States pension agent at Louisville, Ky., testified that he was there at the time and that the liquors were hauled away by order of Major Benjamin, commanding the Union forces there, and taken toward the quartermaster's department, and that the general understand­ing was tllat it was used by the military authorities. The claimant himself testified that the liquors were appropriated and used by the military authorities for hospital patients. Mr. Burroughs, who was the partner of Mr. Hall, also gave sub­stantially the same testimony. I submit to the House that in those days when whisky got into the possession of the officers and men as this did, whether in Kentucky or elsewhere, the presumption that it was not destroyed, but used by them, is so strong that there is no need of offering testimony in support of the proposition. In fact, the presumption I think may be re­garded as conclusive. [Laughter.] This hlr. Hall is now an old man. Every dollar of his savings was invested in that business, and this confiscation of his property left him penni­less. He was intensely loyal to the Union throughout the re­bellion. He has never received a dollar of compensation for this loss. If I had the slightest doubt that his claim was less just than others embodied in this bill I should not offer this amendment. But I feel that this amount, and more, for that matter, is justly due him from the Government, and I believe that the House will so decide. I am sure it would if it knew the facts as I know them. [Applause.]

l\fr. HASKINS. l\fr. Chairman, I desire to state for the in­formation of the House the reason why this claim was not in­cluded in the bill. It is for nine barrels of pure copper whisky, four barrels of pure apple brandy, one barrel of Holland gin, one barrel of ginger wine, and six barrels of spirits, amounting to $3,027. This, it seems, was owned by 1\fr. Hall, the present claimant, and 1\Ir. Burroughs. The court found as a matter of fact that they were selling liquor to the soldiers that were st..<t­tioned at Mount Sterling, contrary to military orders, and an order was issued to seize the whisky. It was seized and it was taken away. But the court says that the whish.ry and liquors were taken away in wagons by said military forces, but what use was made of them does not appear to the satisfaction of the court.

Now, as I stated a while ago, we have included no claims in this bill except those where the court affirmatively found that the property taken went to the benefit of the Federal Army or the Federal Government. There being no finding of fact here, of course we could not well include it in the bill upon the basis that we adopted. 1\fr. ·Burroughs upon the preliminary hearing was found to be unloyal, but Hall was found to be loy a I, and the court found one-half of that due 1\Ir. Hall, amounting to $7'50, providing he was entitled to recover anything. .And our only objection to the bill is that the court failed to find that the General Government had the benefit of this particular property.

Mr. LANGLEY. Mr. Chairman, just a moment--1\fr. HASKINS. Wait one moment. Of course the gentleman

from Kentucky [1\fr. LANGLEY] brought me what purports to be an extract of the testimony taken before the Court of Claims, received from the attorney of 1\Ir. Hall . Well, now, that may be all correct, but the committee could not very well assume that to be true which the Court of Claims failed to find.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amend-ment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk r ead as follows : To John F. Wells, of Mason County, $2u6.24.

1\lr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by substi­tuting for the letter· " F " in the name the letter " E ." It is "John E. ·wens" instead of" John F . Wells." It is a misprint at the Government Printing Office.

The Clerk read as follows : Strike out the initial " F ." in line 24, page 14, and insert in lieu

thereof the letter "E."

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows : To John Wood, of McCracken County, $880. Mr. HASKINS. 1\Ir. Chairman, I mo\e to amend on page 20,

line 1, by striking out the word " McCracken " and inserting in lieu thereof " Tishomingo."

The Olerk read as follows: lri line 1, page 20. strike out "McCracken " and insert "Tishomin-

go," so as to read "Tishomingo County." The question was taken, and the amepdment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows : To Susan E. Joyner, Mary E. Roberson, Martha F. Luster, and Jane

F. Crump, sole heirs of Joseph Anthony, deceased, late of Sumner County, $4,520.

1\Ir. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend on page 26, line 10, by striking out the word "Joseph" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "Josiah," so that it will read "heirs of Josjah .Anthony."

The Clerk read as follows : Page 26, line 10, strike out "Joseph" and insert "Josiah." The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows :

-To Charles W. Hewglez, of Wilson County, $580. Mr. HASKINS. 1\Ir. Chairman, that name

amended, so as to read "Charles W. Hewgley" "Hewglez."

The Clerk read as follows :

should be mstead of

Line 13, page 29, change the spelling of the name to " Hewgley " instead of "Hewglez."

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk r ead as follows: To Robert E. Williams, John T . Williams, Mary E. Williams, George

1\f. Williams, and Ida Williams-Eddy, heirs of estate of Robert M . Wil­liams, deceased, of the city of Dallas, $1,140.

1\Ir. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer.

The Clerk read as follows : Page 32, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following :

"VER:!IIO~T.

"To Henrietta V. Dale, widow of John J . Dale, deceased, of Win­dom County, $124.06."

Mr. HASKINS. This is a finding which has come in since the bill was printed.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk r ead as follows: To the trusteea of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Lamberts

Point, $780. l\Ir. JONES of Virginia. 1\fr. Chairman, I have an amend­

ment to offer, on page 34, after line 18, by inserting the follow­ing :

To the trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, Fredericksburg, Va., $3,000.

'l'o the trustees of Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., $2,625.

To the trustees of St. George's Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg, Va., $900.

•.ro the trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., $2,125. '

The Clerk r ead as follows : Insert, after line 18 page 34 : -" To the trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, Fredericksburg,

Va, 3,000. u To the trustees of the Presbyterian Church, Fredericksburg, Va.,

$2,62::1 . "To the trustees of St. George's Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg,

Va., $900. "To the trustees of the Christian Church, Fredericksburg, Va.,

$2,125." 1\Ir. 1\IA..!\TN. Let me inquire, does the gentleman offer these

as separate amendments? l\!r. JONES of Virginia. I offer it as one amendment. l\fr. 1\L~. A parliamentary inquiry: Is this one amend­

ment or a number of amendments? I desire to ask if the gen­tleman offers them as an amendment.

l\Ir. JONES of Virginia. I offer it as one amendment, with five items, and the fifth one is "to the trustees of St. 1\Iary's Catholic Church, Fredericksburg, Va., $500."

The Clerk read as follows: · To the trustees of St. Mary's Catholic Church, Fredericksburg Va., $500.

l\1r. HASKINS. I niust object to the insertion of these sev~ eral amendments in this bill. I understand they are findings of the Court of Claims, but they have never been before the Committee on War Claims, ne-ver have been considered by any member of the Committee on War-Claims, that I know anything about or have heard of. Not only that, but I notice that these are findings on S~n~te bills that were referred to the court.

1726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. FEBRU ARY 7,

Now, this bill contains nothing but pure and simple findings upon House bills, and I object for the want of jurisdiction of these claim .

. l\lr. STAFFORD. Do I understand the gentleman to make the point of order on these amendments?

:Mr. HASKINS. I make the point of order against them. :Mr. JONES of Virginia. I do not suppose it is necessary for

me to discuss the point of order. 1\Ir. HASKINS. That they are findings that have been had

on bills sent to the Court of Claims by the Senate and not by the House, and. beyond our jurisdiction.

Tot only that, they ought not to be forced into this bill with­out the committee, or some member of the committee, inspecting these items and examining them.

Mr. JONES of Virginia. The chairman of the committee bas stated two distinct propositions. He has raised a point of order against my amendment on the ground that the claims which it embraces were referred to the Court of Claims by the Senate and not by the House. 'l'hat is one proposition. The other contention of the gentleman is that they ought not to be included in this omnibus bill in any event.

.As to the point of order, I do not believe it is necessary for me to discuss that. 'l'he items in this bill, as well as those in my amendment, are all findings of the Court of Claims, and whether they were referred to the Court of Claims by this H ouse or by the Senate, or, in cases referred under the Bowman Act, by the Committee on War Claims of this House, is wholly immaterial. The claims are all of the same character, and all havibg been pas ed upon by the Court of Claims, it is of no importance as to how they got before that tribunal so they got there properly. It seems to me that ·a mere statement of that fact disposes of the question of order. I should like to ha\e the Chair rule upon that point before I undertake to r eply to the objections urged to the adoption of my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Vermont, chair­man of the committee, state whether this bill contains :my other than war claims?

l\1r. HASKI TS. No; this bill contains nothing but claims growing out of the war-no miscellaneous claims.

Mr. J ONES of Virginia. The claims that I ask to have put on the bill all grew out of the war, are all war claims ; and I further state, in connection with what the chairman of the committee has said, that bills covering these claims were in­t r oduced in the House, and referred by the House to the Com­mittee on War Claims, whether that committee ever examined them or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Vermont state whether there is anything to differentiate these claims from the other claims inclmled in the bill, except the fact that they were referred to the Court of Claims by the Senate?

Mr. HASKINS. I know of none, because I have not seen t hem, and I thiiik it is wrong and highly preposterous on the part of the gentleman to undertake to force into this bill claims which the committee never ha\e passed upon and never ha\e seen, and which no other .Member of this House probably, except himself, ever has seen.

The CHAill~f.AN. The reports on the bills indicate that they are of the arne nature as the claims included in the bill under consideration, and that they were referred to the Court of Claims under the acts known as the Bowman Act and the Tucker Act by the Senate. That being so, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane, and overrules the point of order.

JUr. HASKINS. Then, 1\fr. Chairman--The CHAIRl\IAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. JoNEs]

withheld his discussion on the merits until this decision, so the gentleman from Virginia till has the floor.

Mr. JO~'"ES of Virginia. Now, JUr. Chairman, I understand that one of the objections urged by the chairman of this com­mittee to the payment of the claims embraced in my amendment, or at least to their being incorporated in this so-called "omni­bus bill," is that they have·never been considered by the com­mittee of which he is the honored chairman. 1\Ir. Chairman, a a matter of fact, separate bills were introduced in this House in the Fifty-ninth Congress, bills which had been introduced in a number of Congresses previous thereto, for the payment of each one of these claims, and each of those bills was referred to the Committee on War Claims, and the gentleman knows, what every other 1\fember does-what the difficulty has always been of getting this House to refer these just claims to the Court of Claim . For this reason the almost universal custom

, has been for Members having them in charge to secure their · introduction in the Senate also. The Senate has more than once by a single resolution referred all the claims of this character pending before it to the Court of Claims. It was

under such an omnibus resolution that these claims were re­ferred. The rules of this House do not permit of the reference of war claims to the Court of Claims when the Speaker is op­posed to even the consideration of such claims, and therefore it is that Members must get them referred in the Senate or not get them referred at all. This in no way affects or detracts from the merits of the e claims, and does not, in my opinion, constitute any good reason for opposing their being placed in this bill. They have recei\ed the same examination by the Court of Claims that has been given to the claims embraced therein.

On the contrary, it does seem that bills r eferred by re olu­tion of the Senate have really had more consideration than bills r eferred merely by the Committee on War Claims without any intervention on the part of the House. These claims are as meritor iOl}S as any contained in this bill, and they ha>e re­ceived the same considerat,ion at the hands of the Court of Claims, the Government having been represented in every in­stance by a representati>e of the Department of J ustice. 'l'he Court of Claims has carefully considered eyery . one of them and fixed the amount due by the Government.

1\fr. DRISCOLL. Will the gentleman allow a question? 1\lr. JONES of Virginia. Certainly. Mr. DRI SCOLL. Were there many other claims of the same

character referred by the Senate to the Court of ClaimS! l\lr. JONES of Virginia. There were a great many others. Mr. DRISCOLL. What became of the other claims? · l\fr. JONES of Virginia. I can not answer as to that. I am

not familiar with the history of the war claims repre ented by my colleagues. They were all doubtle s passed upon by the court. It may be that in a number of cases the Court of Claims found that the claims were not well founded . 'l'he claims embraced in my amendment have been favorably re­ported on by the Court of Claims and have been referred back to Congress for payment.

Mr. DRISCOLL. Is it expected that the· claims referred by the Senate to the Court of Claims and passed upon by the Court of Claims will be sent back to the Senate to be pas ed upon by the Senate?

l\Ir. J ONES of Virginia. They may be sent back to the Sen­ate for payment, but it is entirely immaterial, in my judgment, which body first considers them. The fact that claims are re-

. ferred in one body does not preclude, I take it, the other body from first considering the question of their payment. It was perfectly competent, of course, for this House to have pa sed the reference resolution; but the gentleman from New York knows how difficult it is always to secure the passage of a re o­lution of that sort here.

Ir. DRISCOLL. Why can not the gentleman get the claims inserted in the bill after it goes to the Senate, where the com­mittee of that body has had a chance to pa s upon them?

l\Ir. JONES of Virginia . I think that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN] was r ight when he said the probability is that this bill, if it gets to the Senate, will haye these claims put on it there; but the gentleman from Illinoi has also said to the House that if the Senate amends this bill by adding to it any considerable number of claims, it will encounter great oppo­sition when it gets back here. The only rea on which ha been offered for not including such claims a I represent in this bill was that to have done so would ha\e made the bill too large and thus endanger its passage. The same result must follow, no matter where the claims are put on. · -

l\fr. DRISCOLL. Let me ask the gentleman, Are the find­ings of the Court of Claims, when sent to them from the Senate, sent back to the Senate, and those sent to the Court of Claims by the House ref err d back to the Hou e? · .

l\Ir. JO~'"ES of Virginia. I am not sure as to this. I think Senate bills 'are sent back to the Senate and House bills to this body.

l\Ir. DRISCOLL. Those referred by the Senate to the Court of Claims are reported back by the Court of Claims to the Senate, are they not?

Mr. JONES of Virginia. I am not entirely familiar with the cour e which is pur ued, but I can say to the gentleman that the omnibus bills which have been reported by the Committee on War Claims heretofore, and which have been pa ed in this House, have included a great many bills referred to the Cour't of Claims by the Senate. I think the large majority of the claims heretofore embraced in omnibus bills originating in the House were referred to the Court of Claims by the Senate. 1\fy understanding is that after the Court of Claims examines and pa ses on the bills the committees of the two Houses do not look >ery carefully into the . questions passed upon by the court.

The point I make is that these claims are of exactly the

·--- - - --·

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE.

s..'lme character as a number of the clnims embraced in this bill, and the mere fact that the claims embraceU. in this bill wE're referred by the House or by the Committee on War Claims

. to the Court of ClaimN does not, or at least onght not to, gi\e them any better standing in this body than claims re­f rred by a resolution of the Senate. For this reason I think it Yery unjust to exclnde them from this bill. It is beeause I know the claims embraced in my amendment to be in al) re­Etpects as just and meritorious as any .included in the pending bill tbnt I h!l.\e offered my amendment. They are of precisely the same character as the church claims in this bill, and they should, in fairness and justice, receh·e the same treatment. '.fbe objection urged against them is purely technical, and it is not, in my jud!!lllent, a valid one. All daims of like character and merit should receive the same treatment. It is not just to single out a few church bills and give them this advantage over hundreds of others of equal merit.

Mr. HASK~S. ::'IIJ;. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [1\lr. JoNES] for the compliment which he has paid the Committee on War Claims when he informs the House that he under tands that the committee gave but very little attention and examination to these findings of the Court .of Claims. I do not know how it has been heretofore, bl'tt during this ses ion of Congress the Committee on War Claims has not taken as conclusive the findings of the Court of Claims, except upon the subject of loyalty and the amount found due; but they ha >e giyen thorough and careful investigation to every finding that has been reported to the House by the court. Let me say for the information of the gentleman-and he ought to ha\e known it because he has ser-.ed in this Honse much longer than I have--that bills emanating in the Senate that are sent down to the Court of Claims are certified back by the Omrt of Claims to the Vice-President or the presiding officer of the Senate. Bills that originate in the House, after they have been passed upon by the Court of Claims, are certified back to the Speaker of the House. That is the way the Committee on War Claims in the House gets possession of these :findings of the court I think it would be discourteous, to ~ay the least, to the Senate of the United States for this Committee on War Claims of the House to undertake to assume. jurisdiction of claims, bills that origi­nate in that body and were. sent by that body to the Court o.f Claims for the finding of facts.

.Mr. DRISCOLL. Will the gentleman yield 'l 1\fr. HASKINS. Yes. Mr. DRISCOLL. The gentleman stated that this committee

did not recognize as conclusive the reports or certificates of the Comt of Claims in all cases. I would like to ask him whether · in any ca es this committee has rejected the findings or conclu-sions of the Court of Claims in any of these cases? ·

~Ir. HASKINS. I have already stated heretofore in the House that we have turned down several of them because the Court of Claims was· unable to affirmatively find that the prop­erty that was claimed to have been taken went to the use of the Government.

Mr . .MA.~. Is it not a fact that under this law the Court of Claims makes no recommendation as to whether the claim ought to be paid?

Mr. HASKLTS. Yes; they simply make a finding. 1\Ir-. 1\1A1'-.TN. All they do is to find the facts, and sometimes

a case comes before the committee where the court intimates clearly that the clain1 ought not to be paid, although the find­ing of facts is there.

Mr. HASKINS. The gentleman is correct about that, and these bills which originate in the Senate and which were certi­fied back to the Vice-President of the Senate ought not to be embraced in this bill at all. A year ago the omnibus bill re­ported by the Committee on War Claims failed, and one rea­son was that it included in its findings of the Court of Claims those that were reported to the Senate instead of the House, as well as miscellaneous bills also. I would like to in>estigate and examine those claims.

.1\Ir. JO.~.TES of Virginia. Do I understand the gentleman to say that one reason that that bill failed was because claims of precisely the same character as those put on in the Honse "·ere put on in the Senate?

1\Ir. HASKINS. I say it did fail, and it carried such bills. Mr. JONES of Virginia. I understood tile gentleman to say

that that is one of the reasons. · l\Ir. HA.SKL.~S. It did not pass. 1\Ir. JONES of Virginia. I know that, but I do not think the

gentleman will assert that as one of the reasons for its failure. It did not pass because it was. so large. 1

l\Ir. HASIHNS. Since this bill was made up I have been be­sieged by Members of the House who would say, "Why is not such a claim in your bill? There is such a finding of the Court

of Claims." We would look it up and find that it was a Senate bill that had l;>een reported back to the Senate, and I would my to the .M mber that all he hud to do was to go over to the Senate and see Senators or members of the Committee on Claims in the Senate, and when this bill gets o•er there it will be amended by placing in the bill those findings. Anofuer objec­tion that I haye to embracing in this bill the findings the gen­tleman from Yirginia (.Mr. JoNEs] h.: s inh·odnced here is this, that I have _not seen them. 'l'here is not a single :finding there in this bill as reported but TI"hat I have examined once or i'.vice or three times over, so that I know what is in them, and I can stand here in the face of this Honse and affirm that I knew what they contained, and I di~like very much to have these claims that ha•e not been inYestigated by any member of the Committee on War Claims inserted here, and I ask that the committee vote down this amendment.

1\Ir. Sil\IS. 1\Ir. Chairman, I hope the amendment of my friend from Virginia will not be adopted, not out of :my hos­tility to the merits of the claims, because I do not know what they are.

The Committee on 'Var Claims agreed to make up the omni­bus bill containing only findings of the Court of Claims on ref­erences made by the House. Numbers of Members of the Honse, especially on this side, have besought us to embrace in that bill findings of the Comt of Claims on Senate references, and we have refused every one of them. although some I know were from my own State. We did not go into the merits of any of them. They were referred by the Senate, and the pre­liminary in•estigation of those findings should first be by the body which referred them, because, possibly, as liberal as that body is, they may turn some of them down, and we may never haye to consider them, but it would be very unjust to those l\1embers of the Honse who have claims exactly in the shape of those of the gentleman from Virginia should we adopt his amendment and not amend the bill immediately so as to bring all of them in, and we could not possibly do it here on the floor of the H(m e ; if we do, we take the Court of Claims' findings on faith without any examination. I want to say, 1\Ir. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, that any finding from the Court of Claims ·on claims sent there by a Tucker Act resolution I do not think should be binding on this Honse, especially as to whether or not there ought to be an appropriation to pay them, because the court has not expressed any opinion on that matter, has not rendered any judgment, nor ha-ve they been asked to do so. I have seen claims passed by resolutions sent by this House under the Tucker Act limiting the court to finding such facts as the author of the bill wanted certified and leaving the court abso­lutely without expression on anything else~ I think they ought to be examined, each and eyery one of them, and I want to say to my friend from Virginia we do examine these court findings when they come back, especially when referred under a Tucker Act resolution, and if we do not we fail to do our duty, and this House ought to do it. I also want to say that I have not any doubt his claims are correct, in view of his statement of tlle fact~ and in the Senate where they were referred they will be added to this bill and will meet no opposition in this body by the conferees of the House if they are the character of claims that are in this bill, and I take his word that they are. How­ever, he can see where we will be. If we take care of his, we will ha ye to take others in on the statement of the Senate find­ings, which we haye invariably excluded from this bill. For that reason, and for that only, I hope the gentleman's amend­ment will be voted down.

~Ir. ·wALDO. lli. Chairman, I do not think the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia should pass---

hlr. JO.dES of VirginiaL l\1r. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment, if the gentleman will yield to me. lir. Chairman, I was going to say, in view of t.he statements made by the mem­bers of the committee, that these claims and claims of a similar: character will be put on in the Senate and that there will be no opposition to just claims of that character on the part of the House when they come back here, I withdraw my amendment •

The CHAIRl\.IA.l~. The gentleman from Virginia asks unan­imous consent to withdraw his amendment. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

The Clerk read as follows : To Warwick Hutton, administrator of the estate of Samuel Morrison,

deceased, late of Randolph County, $1,340. Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the bill by

striking out lines 1, 2, and 3, on page 35. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: On pa.,!,e 35, lines 1, 2, and 3, strike out the paragraph.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the bill.

-

I•

I

I'

- - - -

1728 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. FI~BRU.AEY 7,

1\Ir. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. A. J., C. C., .A 'D T. W. HODGES.

1\fr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee take up for consideration the bill (H. R . 14446) for the relief of A. J., C. C., and T. W. Hodges.

1\fr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. It does not require any motion from the gentleman from Vermont [1\lr. HASKINS].

The CHAIRl\lA..l'f. The Clerk will report the bill. The Clerk read as follows : Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is

hereby, authorized and direeted to pay A . .T., C. C., and T. W. Hodges, of Gonzales County, Tex., out of any money in the 'l'reasury not other­wise appropriated, the sum of $1,175, being for labor performed for the United States upon the written order of W. T. Wilkerson, colonel in United States Army and commanding a post at Columbus, Tex., during the month of August, A. D. 1865.

Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texn.s [1\Ir. CooPER], who is a member of the Committee on War

· Claims, has charge of the bill. Mr. COOPER of 'l'exas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the re­

port be read, as it gives all the information necessary about this bill .

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the report. The Clerk read as follows : The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred House bill

14446, beg leave to report favorably and recommend that said bill do pass.

The facts in this claim, briefly stated, are these: During the year· 1863, 108 bales of cotton were seized in Gonzales County, Tex., by the Federal troops and were left temporarily in the possession o! A. .T. Dodges.

In the month of August, 1865, Col. W. T. Wilkinson, commander of a post at Columbus, Tex., wrote a letter to A . .T. Hodges, as follows:

HEADQUARTERS POST, OoZumbtM, Tew., August 12, 1865.

Sm: I have been informed by Lieutenant Kook that the cotton in your possession is not in a fit condition to be moved. Upon receipt of this order you will please have the cotton rebaled. If you have teams, send the cotton to this place as soon as practicable, for which you will be paid.

Yours, respectfully, W. T. WILKINSON, • Lieutenant-OoZoneJ, Commanding Post.

. Mr. A . .T. HODGES. The original of this letter, with the envelope, is filed with the com­

mittee. At 'this time there was no railroad, and the cotton bad to be hauled in wagons to Columbus, a distance of about 100 miles. A . .T. IIodges, aided by his two brothers, C. C. and T. W. Hodges, had the cotton repicked and rebaled, purchasing bagging and rope for the purpose, and with teams hauled the 108 bales of· cotton to Columbus from the home of A . .T. Hodges, in Gonzales County. When they got there with the cotton Colonel Wilkinson was away and they were not paid. The cotton was delivered to Lieutenant Kook. After waiting two or three days for the return of Colonel Wilkinson they returned home without having seen him. Several weeks later A . .T. Hodges went to Columbus again to collect his pay. Colonel Wilkin­son was still absent, and soon after the camp was broken up, and they never received pay for the work.

The itemized account is as follows : Labor ~ repicking and rebating 108 bales of cotton ______ ·.:._____ $540 Bagging for same----------------------------------------- 243 Rope for same-------------------------------------------- 90 Hauling said cotton to Columbus_____________ ______________ 302

Total---------------------------------------------- 1,175 The committee is of opinion the work was done and services ren­

dered, and that these men have never received any pay ; that the bill is a reasonable one, for which the Government ought to pay.

1\Ir. 1\IANN. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 1\fr. COOPER of Texas. Yes, sir. 1\fr. MAl'fN. We have just passed a bill having something

over three hundred claims in it which were referred to the Court of Claims for a finding of facts. What is the objection to having the Court of Claims pass upon this bill if it has merit?

Mr. COOPER of Texas. Except that the facts are already found and proven. The testimony has been submitted to the committee, and the committee have acted and reported that the claim be paid.

1\fr. MANN. The only testimony that is stated in the report is what is said to be a copy of an order.

Mr. COOPER of Texas. From a lieutenant-colonel in com­mand.

l\lr. l'dA.NN. Which I suppose was not obtained from the War Department. There was a letter written by somebody, but no finding of facts in reference to the matter at all. The committee will not pretend to say that it has given careful con­sideration to the facts in the case.

1\Ir. COOPER of Texas. 1\Ir. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN] makes tbe statement that the committee certainly ha ye not carefully considered this bill.

1\lr. 1\fA::t\"N. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I said they have had no opportunity to carefully consider the facts in the case.

. .

_Mr. <?OOPER of Texas. On that statement I must dispute With him. The facts have been before the committee. The facts were that the claimants were employed to haul and look after this cotton. They p~rformed this service, and they at­tempted to get their pay. There was no judicial tribunal which' had juriEdiction to which they could go. The officer wn.s the only one who could pay, and he left the counh·y and had no opportunity to pay them, and they came to Congress, showint: by legitimate and competent testimony that the ser-rices were rendered, and that they are entitled to the pay mentioned in the bill~ This bill is in the interest of a constituent of my col­lea~ue [Mr. BuRGEss], and I yield to him for further expla­natiOn to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 1\f.ANN] .

1\Ir. HASKINS. Will the gentleman from Texas [1\fr. CooPER] yield to a question?

1\lr. COOPER of Texas. Certainly. Mr. HASKINS. It is not true that in the consideration of this

bill the old, original letter of Lieutenjlnt-Colonel Wilkinson was presented?

1\Ir. COOPER of Texas. It is true that the original letter was presented, and is now on file with the Committee on War Claims. ·

1\lr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say briefly, not only for the benefit of my friend from Illinois [Mr. l\fA N] but others of my colleagues, that this bill has been considered on the facts by two committees in this House. At a previous session the bill was referred to the Committee on Claim of which my friend from Kansas [Mr. MILLER] was and is 'the distinguished chairman. He 'vas of opinion, and so wa I, and I am yet, that that was the proper committee to- consider this bill. They considered it, made a unanimous report upon tbe facts, almost identical with this report from this commit­tee--identical in substance and fact-favorably recommending the bill, and it went on the Private Calendar. When the bill came up for consideration under the rule, my friend from Illinois [1\Ir. 1\I.A.NN] objected then that it ought to go to the Committee on War Claims, and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole who then occupied the chair sustained the point of order and sent it to that committee. Now, that committee has considered the facts, and they have unanimously made a favorable report upon this bill, and I do submit that in view of such a consideration by two committees, both unanimously and favorably reporting the bill, it would be useless and unfair to protract further settlement of this matter. The facts are brief, and in my judgment will convince a majority of this House that the point of order ought never to have been sustained, in fact, for ·the reason that it is a payment by the Government for work done after the close of the war. 'l'he only fact upon which the point of order could hinge wn.s the one that undoubtedly the cotton upon which the work was done after the war had been taken by the Government during the war.

Cotton in Gonzales County was seized, as it was in a good many other places. This was left in charge of this man A. J . Hodges. After the war closed, as the letter shows date of August 12, 1865, this lieutenant-colonel, then in command of a temporary post at Columbus, about 100 miles by dirt road-and pretty bad ones in those days-wrote this letter asking this man to repick this cotton, rebale it, and haul it to the post at Co­lumbus. In those days we did not have cotton baling down as fine as we have it now. It did not then take \ery long for a bale of cotton to get in very bad shape, especially if it was ex­posed, and there were 108 of these bales. This was done by this man, A. J. , Hodges, with those that are joined with bim in this claim. They repicked the cotton, bought tbe material, and rebaled it, and tied it and hauled it this 100 miles down to Columbus, and delivered it at the post. Now, this is establisheU. by sworn affidavits, which were before both these committees. I have known these three men myself for twenty-fi\e years, and they are as honest and upright citizens as there are in Texas. They performed the work that they were ordered to do by the Government; there is no question about that; the Government got the cotton, and there is no doubt the Government ou , ht to pay what this colonel ordered to be done, and so from my point of view the claim should never have been referred to the Com­mittee on War Claims and has no place before the Soutlleru Claiins Commission at all.

1\Ir. PAYNE. You do not raise any point of order upon that? 1\fr. BURGESS. l am arguing against any point of order. Mr. PAYNE. You are not making the point of order? Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 1\Ir. PAYNE. You do? [Laughter.] Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I am not making the point of

order. I will try t o make the gentleman fi·om New York understand •

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.

1\fr. PAYNE. I think I understand you. 1\fr. BURGESS. The gentleman from Illinois suggests that

this claim ought to go with these other claims to the Court of Claims. I say there is no reason for it to be referred., It only means another delay. These facts are simple and have been established in affidavits before two committees, and I do not know what more we will know if the claim were sent to the Court of Claims arid came back.

1\fr. KEIFER. I am not opposing your bill. You said this cotton had been seized by the Government dnring the war. Was the seizure made under what is called the " captured and aban­doned property act? "

1\fr. BURGESS. Really, I do not know about that. 1\fr. KEIFER. What was the form of the seizure that you

refer to? 1\Ir. BURGESS. I do not know about that. I just really as­

sume that it must have been seized in some way. I never in­quired into it, because in my view that is utterly immaterial.

1\fr. KEIFER. What I am trying to get at is the form in which title was acquired by the Government and what that title was at the time of the employment of these three men.

1\fr. BURGESS. Well, really I do not know, and really, in my view of it, I submit to the gentleman from Ohio that would be immaterial in a question relating to the payment of this claim. _

1\fr. KEIFER. It might be quite different if it turned out the Government had no title at all and this employment was for moving cotton that the Government had no interest in and probably never got any benefit from. It might affect this ques­tion. I do not concede that a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel or general in charge of a military post, unless he had special au­thority from the Treasury Department to deal in such matters, had any right to rriake such a contract. I am not trying to overthrow your bill. but I want to see what foundation there was for it.

Mr. BURGESS. I really do not know what the particular facts of the seizure were. I suppose it was done as that was usually done.

1\Ir. COOPER of Texas. I will state to the gentleman from Ohio that the Government received the cotton. The Govern­ment ordered this done, and the Government received the cot­ton, and these men performed the service for the Government under this contract which is shown by this letter.

1\fr. KEIFER. Have you a letter, pr where is the evidence to show that the Government received the cotton and got the benefit of it?

Mr. COOPER of Texas. I know they got it. Here is the order and the affidavits on file before the committee.

Mr. KEIFER. What is the character of the testimony to show that the Government received it? I will concede that somebody received it.

1\fr. COOPER of Texas. It was shown that it was received by the officer.

1\fr. BURGESS. It is shown by the affidavits of· five different citizens.

Mr. KEIFER. What was the character of the officer? Mr. COOPER of Texas. Lieutenant-colonel. Mr. KEIFER. That is not by any means conclusive, but

suspicious in the sense that very few officers represented the Secretary of the Treasury in seizing cotton during or at the end of the civil war or could take possession and dispose of captured and abandoned property such as cotton and thino-s of that kind. I do not think the Secretary of War could ha~e given that authority to have done what was done in this case.

l\lr. W .A.LDO. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. I am not in control of the time

and have no time of my own, but I will yield. [Laughter.] Mr. WALDO. The gentleman does not mean to intimate that

he believes the lieutenant-colonel got the money himself? l\Ir. KEIFER. I do not mean to say that; but it may be that

nobody got it in the name of the Government. . · Mr. BURGESS. I think the gentleman from Ohio, who as I understand, is a good lawyer, would not say for a mi~ute that we ought to refuse to pay these people because there might have been a failure of title in the Government in the property on which they had worked under the direction of an officer of the Government.

Mr. KEIFER. The officer of the Government must be one authorized to act in such a matter. It seems to be assumed by the gentleman from Texas, and probably by the committee, t~at a lieutenant-colonel in command of a temporary post has authority to act for the Government in the way of taking pos­session of property and handling it and, in the name of the Government, selling it and returning the money to the United

XLli--109

States Treasury. I say that is, as a general proposition, far · from the case. Officers of the Army who did take possession of property always had to have special authority from the Secre­tary of the Treasury in those times; and although they might have been commanders of armies, they did not have authority to deal with property unless it was by special direction and through an agency extended by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. BURGESS. I think technically the gentleman from Ohio is right on the last ground, but he changes his ground rapidly. His first position . was to inquire into the character of the tak­ing of the property as determining liability, and upon that issue I said that there was nothing in it. Now · you make a point of the authority of the officer in the case. I do not think the gentleman is making any captious contest about this little bill of mine. I know he is raot, because he says he is not; but that would be purely technical. It would be bad fai th on the part of the Government to compel people who do work to de­termine technical questions of .. authority on the part of a lieu­tenant-colonel.

1\fr. KEIFER. That is the way it is always, in n ny tr-ansac­tion. You have to find a competent agent to make a conh·act for an individual, a corporation, or the GovernrneJt, and he must act within the scope uf his agency. But if I were satis­fi ed that the committee were right in reaching the conclusio:1 that the Government of the United States got the proceeds of the sale of this cotton, I would not make any point about wllether the agent was authorized to take it or not--

1\fr. BURGESS. There is no doubt about that. 1\fr. KEIFER. Because in that case it would be }leld that

the Government had ratified the action of the party who as­sumed to be its authorized agent, and no proof of original authority to act would be required.

Mr. BURGESS. Two committees have decided that the Gov­ernment did get the money.

1\fr. KEIFER. I have not understood from any person tha~ there was any testimony tenaing to show that this cotton was subsequently sold and that .the money went into the 'l'reasury.

1\lr. BURGESS. We have the testimony of fiye credible per­sons who swear th-at the cotton was delivered to Lieutenant­Colonel Cook, acting at that post. Now, what the officer did with the cotton we do not know, and, in God's name, how could these citizens know that? I do not kno\v whether the officers embezzled it, or sold it, or whether they turned it over to other officers; but they got the cotton, and I think that is sufficient. Both committees say so.

Mr. KEIFER. I think that throws the only serious suspicion that there is against the claim-that last statement of the gen­tleman, [Laughter.]

l\fr. 1\fANN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas, who introduced the bill, . and the gentleman from Texas, who re­ported the bill, both indicate to the House that this bill has received careful consideration from the Committee on War Claims; that the evidence relating to the matter has been presented to that great committee, and that hence the House ought to take the judgment of the Committee on War Claims, based upon the evidence presented to that committee. It is unfortunate perhaps that the record of the bill itself shows that it was introduced in the Honse on the 2 th of January and reported the next day. Everybody in the House knows that it is absolutely out of the question for the committee to have had an opportunity to give carefril consideration to the evidence in the case and report it into the House the day after it was introduced.

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman be fair? Will the gen­tleman kindly yield?

1\fr. 1\IANN. I always am wi-lling to yield to the gentleman, if he will possess his soul in patience until I have finished a sentence. I yield to him with pleasure.

1\fr. BURGESS. I will be patient, and I will present an ex­planation that wi-ll be perfectly satisfactory, even to the gen­tleman from Illinois, and that is putting it strongly. ,

l\fr. 1\IA!\TN. Well, I did not yield for the gentleman to throw slurs on me. The gentleman should ask his question, if he wishes to.

l\fr. BURGESS. There was no idea of a slur in it. 1\fr. MANN. That was -the only idea, of course, I am per-

fectly willing to say. The gentleman and I are good friends. 1\fr. BURGES.S. Let me make my statement. Mr. 1\fANN. I will let you make a speech in my time. l\fr. BURGESS. I do not want to make a speech. The facts

are these : The bill was introduced early in the session. The original documents, which were in the room of the file clerk, and which had been before the Committee on Claims, were gotten out and filed with that bill.

l

II t: I ~

- -,

il730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 7,

The chairman of the committee-who is present on the floor, and will verify the facts as I state them-upon examination of the bill concluded that the phraseology of the bill I had intro­duced was deficient and it was really necessary to change it so that under the ruling of the Treasury officials the money would be paid, and be kindly sent for me and ga>e me a copy which be had drawn with the correct phraseology and which I introduced, as the gentleman from Illinois has stated, and which was reported the next day, the committee having previ­ously passed upon the substance of the facts of my bill and the proof which accompanied it.

Mr. MANN. I should say that the gentleman's explanation was proof satisfactory and fully exonerates the committee. Now, that does not go to the main objection of the proposi­tion in this bill. We have just passed an omnibus bill con­taining war claims with over 300 items in it, which · has been considered by the Court of Claims, where the Government was represented by counsel, where full opportunity was gh·en for the Gov-ernment to put in its side of the case, where the facts are ascertained and reported to Congress, and everyone here knows that it is not within the power of the Committee on War Claims in the House, or any other committee, to give con­sideration to the facts in regard to all the bills before the committee.

Now, why is it sought to take this kind of a claim out of the general rule and send it to the Committee on Claims? My obsenation in the past has been that when a man had a good claim he asked to have it referred under the Bowman Act; if he had a doubtful claim he asked to hav-e it referred under the Tucker Act; and if he had a thoroughly bad claim he asked to refer it to the committee without any reference to the Court of Claims. That is the suspicious fact about this bill. If it is a good claim it can be reported on after it is passed upon by the Court of Claims.

Mr. COOPER of Texas. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist that this claim could be referred under the Bowman or Tucker Act? Is it that character of claim which could have been referred under those acts?

Mr. MANN. Why, certainly; this bill can be referred under the Bowman Act.

Mr. COOPER of Texas. By Congress. Mr. MANN. It can be referred by the committee under the

Bowman Act. Mr. COOPER of Texas. Well, for the purpose -of concluding

the argument, I will admit the fact. [Laughter.] Mr. MANN. The gentleman from Texas is on the Commit­

tee on War Claims; he is a distinguished member of that com­mittee, and a very distinguished Member of the House. I am very glad, by the way, to see him back in the House, because I think he is an ornament to this body. The Bowman Act provides that whenever a claim or matter is pending before any committee in the Senate or House, or before either House, which iilvolves the investigation and determination of facts, etc.-it may be referred to the Court of Claims. Nine-tenths of the claims in the omnibus bill just passed were referred to the Court of Claims under that provision of the law. Why

• does the gentleman seek to take his claim out and give it a more preferential standing, instead of being willing to pass it through the scrutiny of the Court of Claims?

Mr. COOPER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be laid--aside to be reported to the House with a favorable rec­ommendation.

Mr. DRISCOLL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from Vermont, chairman of the committee, a question?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the floor. Mr. DRISCOLL. I wanted to ask the chairman of the com­

mittee if he recommends the passage of this bill? The CHAIR.l\f.AN. The question is on the motion of the gen­

tleman from Texas to lay the bill aside with a favorable report. The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.

WILLIAM WILMOT WHITE.

Mr. BUTLER of Pennsylvania. 1\Ir. Chairman, I move to take up the bill H. R. 4763, transferring Commander William Wilmot White from the retired to the active list of the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania moves to take up the bill H. R. 4763.

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: · Be it enacted, etc., That the President of the United States be, and

he hereby is, authorized to appoint, by and with the consent of the Senate, William Wilmot White, now a commander on the retired list of the Navy, a commander on the active list of the United States Navy, to take rank next above Commander Emil Th.ei.ss, Uni.ted States Navy: Provided, That the said William Wilmot White shall be carried as additional to the number of the grade to which he may be appointed under this act or at any time thereafter promoted~ Ana provided fUt··

ther, That the said William Wilmot White shall not by the passage of this act be entitled to back pay of any kind : And provided ftu·ther, That the said William Wilmot White shall pass a physical examination

. before said transfer, showing his fitness to enter the active service of the Navy.

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with a fa Yorable recommendation.

L. K. SCOTT.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Priv-ate Calendar the bill (H. R. 2756) for the relief of L. K. Scott and consider the same at this time.

The CHAJR.l\f.AN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill, the titl~ of which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read the title· of the bill. The -CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.]

The Chair hears none. The Clerk will read the bill. The Clerk read as follows. Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is

hereby, authorized and directed to pay to L. K. Scott the sum of $7,500 for royalty upon telescopic s1ghts ; and said sum shall be in full satisfaction of all claims in behalf of said Scott. 6r his estate, against the United States arising from the use of s:lld telescopic sights; and there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherWise appropriated, $7,500 fot· the purposes specified in this act.. _

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a parliamen­tary inquiry. For what purpose has this bill been read?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas asked unani­mous consent for its present consideration, and that consent was granted.

Mr. MANN. Before the bill was read_? The CHAIR.l\IAN. Yes. Mr. MANN. That is a v-ery unusual proceeding. The CHAIRMAN. After the title was read the gentleman

obtained unanimous consent for its present consideration. Mr . .MA1\TN. It is a very unusual proceeding to ask that the

title of a bill be read. Mr. W AI,DO. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that that ·

is a parliamentary situation at all. Under the rule, if the Committee on War Claims or anyone interested in war claims waives the right to proceed, the Committee on Claims has pre­cedence, and there is no such parliamentary situation us stated.

.Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the Chair having decided, I think I shall proceed. There will be no objection on the part of this committee, or especially on the part of the chairman, to any Member of this House objecting to any bills that we present. There is no such pride on the part o! the committee that would cause our feelings to be wounded for a single mo­ment if any Member of this House desires to offer any objection to any report that we present. We present only such reports as in our judgment we feel justified in presenting to the Com­mittee of the 'Vhole. House.

In brief, I desire to say, in reference to this bill, that it is a bill for the relief of L. K. Scott. L. K. Scott, in 1800, entered into an agreement or contract with the War Department to furnish that Deparbnent some telescopic sights. At the time he did not want to sell one or two of these sights without having some assurance that he might sell to the Government a large number of sights, so that he might make a large profit out of his invention, and the War Department agreed with him. He went then to the Patent Office and filed an application for a patent, and took out a patent upon his sights, and then he sold to the Wa:t: Department these sights. It was understood at the time that a certain number of sights were to be pur­chased by the Government, but afterwards while a large number of sights had been purchased, not nearly the number that had been agreed upon or talked about were purchased, and the Government finally decided that they could not pay his claim and offered the following as a reason :

The War Department has endeavored to secure payment to Colonel Scott of the sum of $7,500 as royalty of $50 for each of the 150 sights first manufactured in the United States, and such payment has been recommended by the Ordnance Department, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of State ; but as Colonel Scott's claim was not founded u.pon a ·legal contract, payment from existing appropriations has been d1sapproved by the Comptroller of the Treasury.

Colonel Scott was not a citizen of the United States, but was a foreigner, and he entered into a contract with a Depart­ment in this country, a Department of our Government, and we feel, as did the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War, and other officers of the Go-vernment, that we ought to keep good faith, especially with citizens of other countries if we do not with our own people. They have recommended this payment, and I move that this bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. .MANN. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an old familiar friend. I suppose it might get through this time. It has failed

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.- .. 1731

se--reral tilnes before. The facts are-! have not the report before rue, for I did not expect this bill to be called up, but I remember them well enough to state them-the facts are that a gentle­man liYing, I belie"Ve, in England, having a patent on certain kinds of gun sights, sold certain of his sights to this country. lle thought he was going to sell a large number, · and it is very likely that the War Department thought they would purchase a large number of sights. He sold two or three to begin with, took out a patent to protect himself in this country, and afterwards the War Department purchased a large number of additional sights from him, but not as many as he thought they ought to pur~hase. Afterwards his patent ran out, and the Government purchased a number of sights from a firm in Cleveland, Ohio, which sights it was claimed were an infringement, or would have been an infringement, of Scott's patent if that patent had still been in force. 'J:hat is all there is to the claim. There was no promise on the part of the Government to purchase any number of sights. They never purchased additional sights from him. There is no certainty that the sights furnished by the Cleve­land company were e"Ven an infringement upon the patent if it had been in force, but here is a proposition to present a gratuity to a man simply because he is not a citizen . of the United States.

Mr. lliNSIIA W. Is the gentleman ce.rtain that the patent had ceased to exist or had run out at the time of the purchase of the Cleveland firm?

Ur. MANN. Well, I am not certain about that. I have stated my recollection. in regard to it, and the gentleman may correct me about it. I have not -read the report in recent months, but my recollection is that that is the case, and if the patent had not run out there would have been no question of the payment of the claim by the Government or by the company that sold the sights to the Government. If the patent had not run out, Warren & Co., or whatever the name was-Warren was a member, I think, of Cleveland-that furnished these sights were perfectly responsible and good for the infringe-

- ment of the man's patent, i-f there was an infringement of it. Now, what excuse is offered? None has been offered to us for the payment of this gratuity. There is no claim against the Government, there is no promise on the part of the Govern­ment to purchase the sights. .All the sights the Government ever pu_rchased from this man they paid him for, and they paid him for some and they paid him his royalty, but because the Government did not purchase as many as he thought the Gov­ernment ought to purchase from him, therefore we ought to pay the royalty he would have received if we had purchased a much larger number. What justice is there in such a claim? And yet that is the claim before the House.

Mr. MILLER. ·Mr. Chairman, I want- the committee to dis­tinctly understand what there is in this case. This is what the officers say in reference to it: _

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE, UNITED STATES ARMY Washington, Ma'rch 16; 1900.

Sm: I have the honor to transmit herewith an estimate, amounting to $7,500, for compensation to L. K. Scott for his telescopic sights pro­cured by this Department. Accompanying the estimate are the papers on which the estimate is based, the action of the War Department thereon, and the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury (to whom the matter was referred for authority to pay the claim from an exist­ing appropriation), to the effect that if the proposed payment were predicated upon a legal contract, expressed or implied, he would be disposed to give it his approval, but in view of the faCts he finds that resort in this case must be had to the legislative department of the Government. The whole correspondence tends to show that the inventor had reason to believe that he would eventually receive from this Government an order for a further supply of sights or a royalty for sights made in this country. .

Very respectfully, A. R. BUFFINGTON, Brigadier-Geneml, Ohief of Ordnance.

The SECRET AnY OF WAR. Then, again, we have the following :

WAn DEPARTMENT, Washington, Mq.rch 2B, 1900.

SIB: I have the honor to forward herewith, for the consideration of Congress, an estimate ($7,500) of appropriation required to pay L. K. Scott a royalty for telescopic sights furnished the War Department, and to request that the item may be included in the general deficiency bill.

Very respectfully,

The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

ELIHU ROOT, Secretary of War.

Then the matter was referred to the Secretary of the Treas­ury, and h~ referred it to Congress, asking for an appropriation, and then afterwards 1\lr. Hay wrote the following:

The PRESIDENT :

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 11, 1903.

In connection with House Document No. 533, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, I have the honor to lay before the President a copy of a communication from the British ambassador with reference to a claim of Lieut. Col. L. K. Scott, C. B., late of the Royal Engineers, on ac­count of the adoption by the United · States Ordnance Department of a lystem of sighting of which he is the inventor.

The equitable right of Lieutenant-Colonel Scott to payment for the use of his invention is stated in a report made by the Chief of Ord­nance of the United States Army to the Seci·etary of War on May 11, 1903, a copy of which I also submit herewith.

I do not hesitate, therefore, to recommend that Congress be asked to provide for the payment of the claim in the amount stated by the Chief of Ordnance.

Respectfully submitted. JOHN HAY; Then, later, 1\fr. Taft, speaking of the same case in a letter of

January 17, 1V05, said: · WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, January 17, 1905.

SIR: I recommend the passage of the bill appropriating $7,500 to Col. L. K. Scott. ·

It appears to be the general custom in European countries for those who have invented devices in arms for which generally governments are the only customers not to furnish samples of their new devices, though patented, to any government except upon an agreement that the government will take a la rge amount o! the arms.

Colonel Scott was induced to depart from this custom by the under­standing that the Government, if the sample sights proved to be satis­factory, would take a large number within a short time. The Gov.: ernment did take 100 sights, which made a profit to Colonel Scott of about $;),000, but Secretary Root thought that he was entitled to antici­pate a much larger sale than this. As a matter of fact, the 'patent which he took out to protect him expired before the Government used the sights. .

Thereafter the Government did use a large number of the sights, some 250. Secretary Root thought it equitable to allow Colonel Scott $7,500 in addition to that which he had already received, and I concur in that recommendation. There is no legal obligation on the part of the Government; the moral obligation grows out of the · fact that Colonel Scott was induced to part with two sample sights wittll the ex­pectation. which then Lieutenant Crozier and Colonel Scott both had, that if the sights proved to be satisfactory the Government would at once purchase enough to equip all the guns in the artillery with them. The truth is that this is what ought to have been done, but through an unjustifiable delay of the officer charged with the duty . the sights were not then purchased. When the Spanish war came on it was necessary to manufacture them, and we were . enabled to manufacture them quickly and promptly by reason of having obtained the sights from Colonel Scott, when if we had not obtained them we should have had to secure .them, if at all, in some surreptitious way.

Very respectfully, WM. H. TAFT, Secretary of Wat·.

The CHAIRMAN COl\IMITTEFJ ON CLAIMS, United States Senate.

I simply ask tlie committee to adopt the recommendations of Secretary of War Taft, of former Secretary of State, 1\lr. Hay, and of Elihu Root, Secretary of State at the present time, and the President's indorsement and request. -

1\lr. PAYNE. Does the gentleman yield? Mr. UILLER. Certaiiily. Mr. PAYNE. I have been looking at the report, 1\lr. Chair­

man, and the report in this case refers to the report in the Fifty-ninth Congress, which seems to state the facts as they were understood by the committee at that time. I will read:

In 1889 the War Department ordered from Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, of the Royal Engineers, through Lieutenant Crozier, the representative of the Ordnance Department in London, two Scott t elescopic sights for trial. Colonel Scott was unwilling to sell a single sight to the Depart­ment without an assurance that in the event of its proving satisfac­tory the right of manufacture should be purchased or a further supply of sights be ordered to the value of about $100,000. Knowing the diffi­culties in the way of making any such arrangement, Lieutenant Crozier advised Colonel Scott to seek the protection of the United States patent laws, in order that he might sell a single sight without fear that it would be used as a pattern without proper compensation to him. This course was adopted, and having patented his system May 27, 1890, Colonel Scott furnished the Department with two sample sights, for which he received £79.

Instead of making a contract, he told him to seek the pro­tection of the patent laws.

Subsequently, in 1894, a -third sight, slightly modified, was pro­cured. This was subjected to a careful test, as the two . previous sights had been, and was found satisfactory. The War Department there­after purchased 100 sights, for which Colonel Scott was paid £2,500, this price including the royalty of £10 per sight. Pending the delivery of these sights in the spring of 1898 the Spanish-American war broke out and it was not practicable to obtain others abroad.

More sights, however, were urgently needed for the guns in place in the fortifications, and it was found necessary to manufacture them· in the United States: On March 22, 1898, an order was placed with Warner & Swasey, of Cleveland, Ohio, for 125 Scott sights, this num­ber being subsequently increased to 150. These 150 sights clearly em­bodied Colonel Scott's patent, though they differed slightly from sights previously furnished by him.

Colonel Scott's English patent expired November 18, 1895, having run the full term of fourteen years, and his American patent expired contemporaneously with it. No sights, therefore, were manufactured in the United States until after the expiration of the patent, and the War Department, in view of the urgent need for the sights, was justi­fied in placing the order with Warner & Swasey, inasmuch as none of Colonel Scott's legal rights were thereby infringed.

The War Department might have ordered the 150 sights which they ordered at the breaking out of the Spanish war, without paying Colonel Scott anything, because his patent then had already expired. ·

It thus appears that the United States has adopted and made use of 250 Scott sights, embodying the Englisll patent, and of 185 others mod­eled somewhat after the same patent-in all, 435 sights. Colonel Scott received royalties only upon the 100 sights made in England.

•

I

I

I

1:

li

...

~'

'1732 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD--HOUSE. FEBRUARY 7,

Now, it seems to be simply a ease that after a patent has expired and the United States has paid royalty upon 150 of these patented articles, and then, because they could not get them of him and did not continue to pay it, went to somebody else and got them to manufacture them, therefore here is a claim for a royalty of £10 a sight on these sights that were manufactured in the United States. Certainly the man has not the slightest legal or equitable standing. He knew when the patent expired. He knew it expired in November, 1905. He had the benefit of his fourtew years' patent in Great Britain and for the time it was patented here in this country. Mr~ HACKNEY. Would not this also be extending this

patent law if we were to pass this kind of a claim by putting a further time on his patent than what was fixed by the general law?

1\fr. PAYNE. That would amount to an extension of the patent law. Of course the House knows it has been the settled purpose of the House not to extend any patent law for our own citizens or citizens abroad. The time was when we used to do that sort of thing by special act, but that bad practice has been broken up and we have not had a single patent extended in this country, no matter how meritorious the device, no matter how late the patentee was in getting it upon the American mar­ket, no matter how. little money he might have received for the work of his braina. They have established the fact that they will not extend a patent. Then, why come in here and extend this patent?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. WALDo].

Mr. W .ALDO. I must beg leave to differ with the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] who has just spoken, when he says that there are no equitable rights in this case. I am happy to say that our Secretary of State and a former Secre­tary of the •.rreasury and the President of the United States agree with me that this is an equitable claim that the United States ought to pay. The question is not a question of patent at all. This inventor had this invention that eventuallv we were obliged· to use by reason of the Spanish-American war by means of an agreement made by our War Department with Colonel Scott, that got that invention for use in this country for the War Department on the agreement that we would pay for whatever we used of them. And General Crozier got him to go and take out a patent. That had nothing to do with the case. We agreed to pay for that invention. The only thing in it is that General Crozier thought we would try to beat him out of it if he did not get a patent. That is what these gentlemen want us to do. This patent has nothing to do with it. We had his invention. 'Ve could not have got it without the representations that General Crozier and our officers made to him. We got it and we used it, and all the officers of the War Department, th~ Secretary of State, and the President say that we ought to pay him as we agreed to, and that is what I believe, and that is what our committee unanimously believe, and that is why we report that bill here. And that is the reason I think this House ought to vote to pay him.

Mr. MILLER. I move that the bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

The question was ta.ken, and the chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr . .MANN. Division ! The committee divided, and there were-ayes 56, noes 16. So the bill was ordered to be laid aside with a favorable

recommendation. · Mr. HASKINS. I move that the committee rise and report

to the House such bills from the War Claims Committee as have been. laid aside with a· favorable recommendation, includ­ing the bill of the Naval Committee.

'The CHA.IRl\fA.l~. The motion to rise and report under these circumstances has precedence.

The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

1\!r. PAYNE. Division r The committee divided, and there were-ayes 33, noes 64. So the motion was lost.

JOHN P. HUNTER.

Mr. 1\IILLER. I now call up the bill (H. R. 2915) for the relief of John P. Hunter.

The bill was read. Mr. PAYNE. I make a point of order against that bill. It

is not in order at this time. This day has been set apart for consideration of bills on the Private Calendar, giving the War Claims Committee preference. There are other war claims bills on the Calendar.

Mr. MILLER. I only desire to say, in reply to the gentle-

--

man from New York, that I have asked unanimous C(}nsent to take up this, and the House has granted its consent.

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, no. 1\fr. MILLER. I desire to say in reply to the gentleman

from New York, that the chairman of the Committee on War Claims has made his report, and there ar·e a number of other wm· claims bills on the Calendar, and no member of this com­mittee has asked to take those claims up, and when neither the Committee on War Claims nor the members of this committee have ask~d for their consideration, I J::ave the right to call up these clarms, and they have as much l'lght for consideration as any others.

Mr. 1\IADDEN. ~Ir. Chairman~ I want to say that the point of order of the gentleman from New York is not well taken for the reason that the motion made by the gentleman fro~ Vermont in the House this morning was to the effect that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House for for purpose of considering bills on the Private Calendar, and there was nothing whatever in the motion as to the considera­tion of bills of the War Claims Committee on the Calendar.

Mr. MANN. But the rules provide in regard to that. Now this is the situation, it seems to me. I do not think it make~ much difference whether these bills are considered to-oday or not. Under the rules, the Clerk will proceed to report the bills from the Committee on War Claims on this day in the order in which they appear on the Calendar. The gentleman from Kansas asks unanimous consent to take up one bill. He could ask unanimous co~nt to take up another bill, otherwise, as I take it, this committee would have to proceed with the bills on the Calendar in the way in which they appear.

1\Ir. MILLER. Will the gentleman allow me a question? Mr. MANN. Certainly. 1\Ir. 1\IILLER. Is there any person asking permission to call

up an.y bill on the Calendar from the War Claims Committee? . Mr. MANN. The gentleman misstates what I say. It is not

necessary to ask permission to call up a bill on that Calendar from that committee. When the House goes into Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar it is not necessary nor customary for some one to ask unanimous consent to take up or to move to take up a bill. The bill takes up itself in regular order unless otherwise ordered.

l\Ir. FINLEY. I would like to state to the gentleman from Illinois that I understand unanimous consent is ·required to consider this bill. I believe in my nine years' experience in the House I have had but two claim bills of this character, and I know this one is meritorious. The g~tleman who is named in this case is now on his deathbed, and I hope there will be no ob­jection to its consideration.

1\fr. l\1ANN. I can assure the gentleman, so far as I am con­cerned, I am perfectly willing that all these bills from the com­mittee may be considered in that way.

Mr. FINLEY. I . have had only two bills before the Com­mittee on Claims, and I hope this one will be considered, as I have information that the claimant is on his deathbed.

Mr. PAYNE. So far as the point of order is concerned, it is perfectly clear what the order is to-day. It is to take up and give preference to bills from the Committee on War 1Claims on the Calendar in the order in which they appear. Now, that works automatically, and the only way that can be changed is for some gentleman to ask to take up a particular bill. If the gentleman wants to take up this bill on the Calendar, · I have no objection to his asking it; but I want to see the committee proceed in order and not get into a disorderly way, trying to take up these bills out of their order on the Calendar.

1\lr. MILLER. I move that the committee proceed to the consideration of the bill for the relief of John P. Hunter.

The CHAIRl\fA.N. The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] is well taken. The Chair is also of the opinion, however, under the order adopted by the House on March 14, 1000, and re­peated in every Congress since, that to-day we can not take up the bills reported from the Committee on Claims, except by unanimous consent, so long as there are any war claims on the Calendar.

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent to take up the next bill on the Calendar.

Mr. PAYNE. Will the gentleman let the bill be read, to see what it is, before consent is given?

Mr. MILLER. Certainly. The CH.A.IRMA.N. The gentleman asks unanimous consent

to the following bill, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows :

For the relief of John P. Hunter. Be it enacted~ ~to.~ That t!J.e Secretu.1·y of the Treasury be, and he

is hereby, authonzea and directed tc> pay to John P. Hunter, late Unite_d States marshal for the district o! South Carolina, oat of a~y

- --- --- -- - ---- •--~-

1908~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J733 money in the .Treasury not -otherwise appropriated, the sum ofJ308.13, which sum shall be taken and accepted and receipted for in f 1 s.atis­faction of his claim for services performed by his deputy, H. J. Hickson, in the case of the United States against J'. T. Tillman.

The CHA.IRl\fAN. Is there objection? There was no objection. l\fr. MILLER. I call on the gentleman from South Carolina

[l\fr. PATTERSON] to make a statement in reference to this bill. Mr. P .A.T'"_rERSON. 1\Ir. Chairman, this is a claim on the

part of the United States marshal for the district of South Carolina, who executed a bench warrant issued by the circuit judge of that circuit upon one J. T. Tillman. in the State of Texas. He arrested Tilln:tan and brought him to Charleston, and when he made out his account for his fees for that service it was rejected upon the g-:ounds that he was not the proper official to· perform that duty, that the United States marshal of the district in Texas where this defendant was found was the proper person. He did, howeTer, perform the service as required an<l brought the defendant to justice.

Mr. Fil\"'LEY. Had it not been the practice and the under­standing that the law was that the work should be done by Marshal Hunter, and that he should be paid. for it, and is it not true that three or four days before the warrant was issued the Comptroller had made a decision in which he held that that was not the law? At the time Marshal Hunter performed this serv­ice that decision was unknown to him, and it was only when his account was finally adjudicated that he discovered that this ruling had been made. At the time this service was rendered the practice all over the United States was for marshals to do the work just as Marshal Hunter did it in this case.

Mr. 1.\IANN. Is not this a bill to pay a marshal 20 cents per mile for the transport:'ltion of a prisoner?

Mr. FINLEY. Ten cents. Mr. MANN. To pay a marshal and his deputy 10 cents a

mile, most of which is profit and does not represent outlay? Mr. PATTERSON. It is for the mileage' of the deputy who

sen·es the bench warrant. Mr. MANN. This bill has been before the House before! Mr. FINLEY. Never; only it was favorably reported. Mr. ~IAI\'N. But I remember the case in the last session. Mr. FINLEY. It was reported late in the last session. Mr. 1\IAJ\TN. I was sure that I remembered the case. A

marshal and his deputy carried a prisoner across the State line, out of one district into another. If he had remained in the dis­trict the law would give him 20 cents a mile for the distance traveled, although we know that it cost him but 3 or 4 cents a mile. Going out of the district, the law did not give it to him, but he still wants it just the same, for the prisoner, for himself, and for the deputy, most of which would be profit if he had received it under the technical provision of the law.

Mr. FINLEY. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the course followed by Marshal Hunter was followed by all the marshals in the United States up to December 27, 1894. This work was performed in January, 1895, and but for the de­cision of the Comptroller, rendered on th-e 27th of December, there would have been no question about it.

Mr. MANN. Does the gentleman think that so far as equity is concerned a marshal who pays now, in the gentleman's State, , I suppose, 2! or 3 cents a mile railroad fare for himself a.nd prisoner, is entitled to charge the Government 10 or 20 cents a mile? ·

Mr. FINLEY. I will answer the gentleman from Illinois by saying that I think this bill is in every respect entirely equitable and just.

Mr. MILLER. I simply want to say, as chairman of the committee, that the Comptroller who d-ecided against the a.Irow­nnce of this account did so on the ground that a wauant of arrest does not extend beyond the district out of which it issues. This prisoner had got away and the ma.-shal went after him and brought him back, and they disallowed the fees be­cause the warrant of arrest did not extend be:vond the district out of which it was issued. He had to pay· the expenses of bl'inging him back.

:Mr. GAINES of Tennessee. The gentleman from Illinois in­quires about the equity of the 1matteF. The equity is this. The marshal was sent by the district judge after this pl'isoner and he went for him and brought him back. He ought to be paid for his work and his mileage. The horse that draws the plow ought to eat the corn. {Laughter.]

The bill was ordered to be laid aside to be reported to the House with a favora.ble recommendation.

:Ur. MILLER. .M.r. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take up the next bill.

Mr. PAYNE. I want to say to the gentleman that unless this is the last bill I call for the re,.oular order.

Ur. HASKINS. 1\fr. Chairman~ I move that the committee do now ~ise.

The CH.A.IRl\f.A.N. The gentleman fr-om New York moves that the committee do now rise and report the bills to the House with a fa \orable recommendation.

The question was taken, and on a di-vision (demanded by Mr. HAsKINs] there were--ayes 4, noes 62.

So the motion was lost.

L. B. WY AT!'.

The CHAIRMAN. Th-e gentleman from Kansas asks unani­mous consent for the consideration of the following bill, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows : A bill (H. R. 3388) for the relief of L. B. Wyatt.

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pa:v, out of .any money in the Treas­ury not otherwise appropriated, to L. B. Wyatt. late postmaster at New Deeatur. Morgan County, Ala., the sum of $135.60, in full com­pensation for fumigating the mails during the yellow-fever epidemic between September 22 and November 12, 1888, made under proper authority.

SEc. 2. That all the proof heretofore taken and now on file in the -office of the file cl~rk may be used in evidence in support of this claim.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. PAYNE. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the chair­

man of the committee has only six bills that he wants to call up, and that they do not involve a large amount. Inasmuch .as it seems to be the temper of the committee to gi\e the gentle­man a chance, I shall not object.

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure that there are only six; there may be eight. [I,aughter.]

The CHAIRl\llN. Is there objection to the consideration of thehlll? -

There was no objection. 'l1he bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation. POPE & TALBOT, OF SAN FBANCI:SOO.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take up the bill (S. 1256) for the relief of Pope & Talbot, of San Francisco, Cal.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, ·etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is

hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas­ury not otherwise appropriated, to Pope & Talbot, of San Francisco, Cal., the sum o.f $3,179.20, in full for damages to their schooner E•pok.ane. injured by the United States revenue cutter Bear ott thP. port of San Francisco, Cal., on the 4th day of Jrme, 1904.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Mr. Chairman, what is the amount

carried in that bill? The CHAIRMAN. Three thousand one hundred and seventy­

nine dollars and twenty cents. Mr. MILLER. I mo'le that the bill .be laid aside with a fa­

\Orable recommendation. Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The chairman has asked for unani­

mous consent. I suppose it wi11 be essential to find out about that first. ·

Mr. MILLER. I will yield to the gentleman from California to explain it.

Mr. KAHN. Mr. Chairman, the bill has passed the Senate and is a unanimous report. On the 4th of June, 1904, the schooner Spokane, near the port .of Sn.n Francisco, was run into by the renm.ue eutter Bea1·. At that time an investiga.tion was had, and a board of suiTey consisting of three captains of the Revenue-Cutter Service made this report:

CONCLUSIOXS OF THE .BOARD.

The board concludes 'from the testimony as above cited that the responsibility for the collision rests with the Bear for the following reasons:

L The schooner Spokane, under the circumstances and according to the provisions of the Rules of the Road, had the right of way and that she did not violate any of these rules ; that her lights were burning and the ·proper lookout was bei..n;; maintained.

2. Lack of jud_!!iilent on the part of the officer of the deck of the Bear in attempting to haul up and cross the bow of the schooner against a heavy sea and wind when she was practically lying dead in the water, when a little consideration must have convinced him that thi'Jre was .not sufficient room between the two vessels to make such an attempt successful. The state of the wind .and sea and the direction of the Bears head makes it clear, in the judgment -of the board, that had the offi-cer of the deck in-creased the speed of the vessel from "slow" to "full speed .ahead " and put his helm astarboard, the B ear would have fallen otr before the wind and sea and cleared the schooner

3. In th~ .handling of the vessel the office-r of the deck 'ttlrthermore showed la-ck -of decision :as well as lack -of judgment by changing the speed of the vessel from "full speed ahead u (which might ·possibly have cleared them) to •• full speed astern" while still directly in the path of the approaclling schooner. Such action on his part not only

I

.

'

1734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. FEBRUARY 7,

jeopardized the safety of his own vessel, but would tend to confuse the peogle on the approaching schooner and nullify any attempt that they may have made or wished to make to avoid the collision.

Respectfully, yours, F. M. MU~GER,

Captain, Revenue-Cutter Service. F. TUTTLE,

Captain, Revenue-Otttter Service. H . B. ROGERS,

Captain, Revemte-Outter Service. Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Mr. Chairman, I belie\e I ha\e no

objection to offer. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration

of the bill? There was no objection. The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation. J. A. GALLAHER, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH H. GALLAHER.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent· to take up the bill (H. R. 6515) for the relief of J. A. Gallaher, administrator of the estate of Joseph H. Gallaher, deceased.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows : B e it cnactecl, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is

hereby, authorized and directed to redeem, in favor of J. A. Gallaher. administrator of the estate of Jo eph H. Gallaher, deceased, United States coupon 5-20 bonds, act of March 3, 1 65, consols of 1865. Nos. 22421, 22422, 61411, 61412, 61413, 61414, 61415, 61416, 61417, 1378-36, 1 37 37, 137838, 20!)608, each of the denomination of $1,000, with interest from January 1, 1872, to date of maturity of the respective calls in which the bonds were included, said bonds and interest cou­pons alleged to have been- lost or destroyed: P1·oviderl, That the said J. A. Gallaher, administrator, scall first file in the Treasury a bond in the penal sum of double the amount of the principal of said bonds and accrued interest thereon to the date of their maturity, with good and suflicient sureties to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, with conditions to indemnify and save harmless the United States from any claim because of the lost or destroyed bonds hereinbefore described and the interest thereon.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the present consid­eration of the bill?

There was no objection. _ The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation. JOHN V. JOHNSON.

1\Ir. MILLER. 1\Ir. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to tnke up the bill (H. R. 13875) for the relief of John V. Johnson.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas asks unani­mous consent to take up the bill which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows : B e it enacted, ctc., That the said John V. Johnson (doing business

under the name of the Brooklyn Architectural Iron Works) be, and he hereby is, relieved from any penalty, forfeiture, or claim for liquidated damages under his certain contract with the United States of America, dated on or about the 22d day of December, 1906, to install a steel book stack and gallery in the record vault at the United States Immi­gration Station, Ellis Island, New York Harbor.

SEC. 2. That the Secretary of tbe •rreasury be, and he is hereby, au­thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the said John V . .Johnson (doin.,. business under the name of the Brooklyn Architectural Iron Works), the sum of 1,800, the full amount due him under said con­tract without deduction of any penalty, forfeiture, or claim . for liqui­dated damages or otherwise.

With the following amendment: Strike out all of section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 2. That the said John V. Johnson (doing business under the

name of the Brooklyn Architectural Iron Works) shall be paid the sum of 1, 00 from the permanent appropriation 'Expenses of regulating immigration,' in full of the amount -due him under said contract, with­out deduction of any penalty, forfeiture, or claim for liquidated dam­ages or otherwise."

The CHAIR~IAl~. Is there objection? Mr. MANN. 1\Ir. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I

would like to ask to have some explanation of this bill. 1\fr. WALDO. l\fr. Chairm'hn, this bill is for the purpose of

relieving this · contractor from liquidated damages charged against him by the Department under the contract. The prin­cipal trouble that arose was the question as to whether the enamel should be baked upon the stack. The Department in­sisted that it should be, and thereupon the goods were taken back and a delay occurred from having that enamel baked upon it. Then it was sent back. The Department say they suffered no damages really; they got the thing in proper shape, in the shape they desire, and the only question now is whether this man shall be paid his $1,800, which was his contract, or whether nearly the whole amount shall be taken away from him for liquidated damages. This merely relieves him from the penalty that occurred in having this enamel baked upon the- stack, and it is recommended by the Department as being proper. I believe be ought to be paid. It will practically ruin the man if he is not. He is a small manufacturer, and he will receive . no pay at all if the penalty is charged against him.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. 1\fr. MILLER. I now move that tbe bill as amended be laid

aside with a favorable recommendation. The motion was agreed to.

RELIEF OF COPIAH COUNTY, MISS, l\ir. MILLER. 1\fr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to

take up the bill (H. R. 10075) for the relief of Copiah County, Miss., which I send to the desk and ask ·to have read.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is

hereby. authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas­ury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the board of sup_ervisors of Copiah County, Miss., the sum of 164.50, in full com­pensation for costs incurred in defending the suit of the United State against the board of supervisors of Copiah County and the Virginia Bridge and Iron Company in the circuit court of the United Stn.tes for the southern district of Mississippi, at May term, 18!:1'9, held at J ackson, Mis ., aid suit being instituted to enjoin the board of supervisors of Copiah County from constructing a bridge over Pearl River at Rock­port, Miss., which injunction was dissolved by the court and costs ad­judged against the United States.

The CHAIRl\IAN. Is there objection? Mr. PAYNEJ. l\Ir. Chairman, reserving the right to object,

I would like to ask the gentleman from Kansas if he is . sure that this bill was not passed and the amount paid in the last Congress?

Mr. CANDLER. Mr. Chairman, I will state to the gentl -man from New York that it did pass the House at the last session of Congress, but it did not become a law, and the amount has not been paid.

Mr. 1\IANN. I may say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] that this bill did pass the House, but it was so bad after the expose which the gentleman from New York [U-r. PAYNE] and some more of us made in the House that even the Senate would not pass it. [Laughter.]

Mr. CANDLER. Oli, Mr. Chairman, that statement is in­correct, for tbe reason that it did pass the Senate, but did not reach the President in time to receive his signature.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. MILLER. I move that the bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

The motion was agreed to. HENRY RUSTAN.

l\Ir. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask tmanimous consent to take up the bill (H. R. 6902) for the relief of Henry Rustanr. which I send to the desk and ask to have read.

The Clerk refid as follows: Be it enacted, etc. That the Secretary of the TreaRury be, and he

is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Henry Rustan $200, to reimburse him for money paid by him at the direction of the re~ster and receiver of the United States land office at Grand Forks-~, N. uak., for making cash entry No. 17064, dated November :!; , 1!)0-!, when no part of said payment was required, as said Henry Rustan was entitled to patent for the land entered without such payment under section 2291, Revised Statutes, and said sum is hereby appro­priated for said purpose out of any money in the Treasury not other­wise appropriated.

With the following amendment: In line 4, in lieu of the words "two hundred" insert · the words

" one hundred and ninety-six." The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.]

The Chair hrnrs none. . Mr. MILLER. I move that the amendment be agreed to. The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. Tbe bill as amended was ordered to be laid aside with a

favorable recommendation. HERMAN ANDRAE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, MILWAUKEE, WIS.

Mr. 1\IILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (H. R. 8047) for the relief of the llerman Andrae Electrical Company, of Milwaukee, Wis.

The CHAIRMA...L.~. 'J;'he Clerk will report the bill. The Clerk read as follows : Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of tbe Interior be, and be is

hereby, authorized and directed to cause to be paid from the proper In­dian tribal fund, to the Herman Andrae Electrical CompanyA of Mil­waukee, Wis., the sum of 480, deducted by the ecretary or the In­terior as a penalty under contract No. 15042, dated December 4, 1906.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. l\Ir. Chairman, I _desire to have that bill explained. I wish to know something about the facts in connection with this bill.

l\fr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman gets to that I would like to ask the gentleman from Kansas if he is sure there are not more than six more bills?

l\Ir. MILLER. I will assure the gentleman from New York that there are not more than six.

~ - L - _- --~~-- ~-- ~--c=

.CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE' . 1735 Air. STAFFORD. 1\f~. Chairman, this bill is to reimburse

the contractor for an amount which was deducted because the work was not completed within the stipulateu •time. The· con,. tract rn:ovided-for: the establishment of an electric lighting plant at the Green. Bay Indian Reserv.ation and was to ha-re been completed on. 1\IaiTh 1 last, but was n.ot completed until April 2 • Forty-eight days ex.pirecl and. a· p-enalty of $10 a day was exacted as provided in the contract for failure to finish th.e work on the stated. dav. The Comptroller held, the Indian Commi sioner had no discretion whatsoever to relieve the con­tractor of this penalty, even. though. the Govei.:Iliilent had suf­fered no damage through the delay. Under the contracts that are now being executed discretion _is Yested. in the Secretary of the· Interior- to relie>e the contractors of the l)enalty when no injury ls suffered by the Department. Ih the present con­tract no such discretion was lodged with the Department. In. this instance no injury was- suffered by the- Govern­ment at all. The letter from the Secretary of the Tntetior as printed in the report shows that no damage was suffered what­soever- and this bill seeks to reimbm·~ the contra.ctcrr $430, the amount of the penalty.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

The question was taken and the_ motion was agreed to.

J". EDMUND STRONG.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, r ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (R. R. 15070), tor the relief of J"~ Edmund Strong. '

'.rhe CH.A..I.Rl\IAN. The Clerk will report the bilL. The Clerk read as follows : Be it enacted, eto., That the Secreta.r.y- of. the Treasury be, an<I he is

hereby, authorized to pay to J'. Edmund Strong, out of any moneys i.a the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum 9f $434.89.

1\Ir. MILLER. 1\Ir. Chairman, this is a case where- a. con­tractor with the Government to furnish Indian supplies could not fulfill his contract within the time- prescribed, but shortly afte:rwards he did fulfill his contract, so the Government was not damaged. in any way.

1\fr. CRUMPACKER. Did the De-12artment recommend the reimbursement?·

Mr. l\liLLER (reading)-In view of this fact and the statement that no damage was: suffered

by reason of the delay, I am of the opinion that the claim as. presented is meritorious. ·

JESSE N. VVlLSON, Assis:tcmt. Se.cretm1J.

Mr. MANN. I have no disposition to antagonize this bill any more-than the others of this sort, but does the gentleman think it ought to be the policy of the Government to relieve contractors: in all cases where they fail to fulfill their- contracts at the time they agree to do so?

1\Ir . .MILLER. In answer to that, I . will say each case must stand upon its own bottom. I would judge of. the case by the conditions surrounding it. In this case it appears it was im­possible fo1- him to comply with his contract. The Government admits that no harm came to the Indians and the Government has lost nothing by it, and in such a. case I thihk the claim ought to be paid, and I think the Goyernm.ent· ought n.ot to keep out the. amount they kept back.

Mr. MANN. I have no doubt there are equities in this case. There were thi:ee cases of this kind this afternoon.. Does the gentleman's committee have a great many of these claims pend­ing before it, and is it not likely you will have a great many pending if we start out upon the- plan of reliev.ing contractoz:s every time?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, . my attention has not been ~ailed to any other of this class of claims before this committee, but I want to call the attention of tlie committee to the Iast claim which has just been reported, showing the great injustice that might be put upon a man dealing with the Government of the United States:

l\fr. CRUMP ACKER. While the gentleman from Kansas is hunting that, let me ask if this is not the rule now?· I under­stand the contracts made since these contracts emb-ody always discretionary power in the head of the Department to relieve, under proper circumstanc~s, the con.tracting party from for­feiture. These contracts had no such discretion and the De­rmrtment had absolutely no power to grant relief, and the De­)?artment recommends tha.t the relief. be granted. If these con­tracts had contained that provision, relief would have· been granted' by the Department and the parties would not have been compelled to come to Congress·. Upon· the strength of that statement I made no further objection, because I thought it was not establishing a bad precedent, in view of· the statement made of the change of- the characte1~ of the contracts~

.Mr. MANN. Do r understand the cliairman of the Committee on Claims- to• say that the differ: nt Departments- o-f the Gov­ernment now pr.ovide, where liquidated damages are put in a contract, that on failure to perform the contract on tii:ne in any case the head. of the Department> can waive these provisions? Is that the practice?

1\lr. MILL:mR. That is the very- reason these people are here-because the Department could not give them relief.

1\fr:... ~!ANN. I understand· the- gentleman. from Indiana [l\fr. CRUMPACKER] suggests that he has information, acquired on. the ff.oor here,. that the old )2ractice has- changed and now the practice is that any Department can re.Ueve--

Mr. MILLER. No Department of the Government has any such.. authority.

To show the great injustice in claims of this kind, I call attention now to the ·last bill. The amount. of the contract was $~,800, but the amount assessed as penalty was $1,480. There is no question in the world but that the man did everything in his power to fulfill his contract in. acc_ardance with the terms thereof, but it was an utter impossibllty for him to <Lo it, and yet the Government held back $1,4 0 on a contract that- only caned for the payment of $1,800.

l\fr. CRUl\lP.A.CKER. If the gentleman wiiT allow me, in. relation to the other proposition, did_ not the gentleman from Kansas state a· short time· ago that the contracts that are being made now, instead of making the for:feitm:e absolute, gave the head of a Department the discretion to relieve the con­tracting party from, forfeiture unde~ proper circumstances? I think, perhaps, that statement was made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr ~ STAFFORD], h.owe>~.

Mr. 1\IILLER. I have no such in,formation, and did not make any such statement. Mr. Chairman, I move that the bili be laid aside with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. P .A.YNE. I-f the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. MILLER] will allow me for a moment. It has been stated here that this was a penalty and then that it w'as Uquidated damages. If it was. a. penalty., the Government would not have any right to hold on to it. If liquidated damages, they would. hav.e the legal right. And I want to say another. thing to the gentleman from Kansas, that he will haye to keep a wafl': eye on_ these people in the future, because the first thing he knows th.ere will be bills before his committee to pay these gentlemen dam­ages because they were delayed by the Government and could not fulfill their. contract in time. .And I expect to recognize some of these old. friends in the future coming in ih that way.

It is not a good practice .. We had that Eame experience-years ago about the building ot vessels. They would come in here to be relieved from the liquidated damages, and then they would come in for damages because the Government had changed their plans, and things. of that kind, which created a good deal of trouble-and considerable expense. .And I want to warn the gentleman against that sort of thing in the future.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I want_ to say just a word in reply to the gentleman from New York [1\Ir. PAYNE]. There are now in the neighborfiood of 2,000 claims before the Com­mittee on Claims .. It would require many millions of dollars to pay them. Out of. mo.re than 2,000 claims the committee have only favorably reported 10 claims so far in this Congress.

Mr. P.AYNEJ. Ho.w many have they. reported unfavorably? Mr. MILLER. They have considered a large number of

claim& that they will hereafter. report unfa.vorably. Mr. P.AYNEJ. I am glad to have that assurance. I have had

it before through other chairmen of the Committee on Claims and the Committee on War Claims that they would report them unfavorably, and I ha-re not seen a great many of those re­ports. I think we ought to see them. r think it is their duty to the House to do it in order that the House in the future may have at its command the facts which they find out in in­vestigating these claims, that they may guide our great-grand ... children when tliey are. considering these claims many years from now.

The CH.A.IRM.AN. The question is on the motion of the gen­tleman from Kansas [1\fr. MILLERJ to lay the b-ilj aside with a fa v01:able recom;nendationL

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Chaimmn, I move that the committee do

now rise. The motion was agreed· to. The committee accordingly ros.e; and the Speaker having

resumed the chair, Mr. Fos.xER of Vermont, Chairman of the Com­mittee of the Whole House, repoTte-d that that committee had had under consideration sundry bills, under the order of the House, and had directed him to rep-ort some with amendments and some without, with the recommendation that the amend­ments be agreed to, and that the bills do puss.

-- ~-

1736 I CONGRESSION.tYL REQORD-HOUSE~ FEBRUARY 7· '

LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS. Mr. THOMAS of North Carolina. l\Ir. Speaker, I have pre­

pared, with considerable care, some facts and statistics in re­gard to the State of North Carolina, which I desire to print in the RECORD. I ask unanimous consent that I may have leave to print.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 1 [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

BILLS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. . Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the previous question may be considered as ordered upon the bills and amendments, reported from the Committee of the Whole House.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont asks unani­mous consent that the pre>ious question be considered as ordered on the several bills and amendments that have just been reported. Is there objection 1 [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

OMNIBUS CLAIMS BTI.L. The first bill reported from the Committee of the Whole

House was th~ bill (H. R. 15372) fur the allowance of certain claims reported by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the acts approved 1\larch 3, 1883, and March 3, 1887, and com­monly kno·wn as the Bowman and the Tucker acts, with amendments.

The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote demanded upon any amendment? If not, the amendments will be voted upon in gross.

No separate vote was demanded. The question was taken, and the amendments were agreed to

in gross. The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed for a third

reading; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time tmd passed.

HOUSE BILLS WITHOUT .AMENDMENTS PASSED. The following bills, reported from the Committee of the Whole

without amendments, were severally ordered to be engrossed for a third reading ; and being engrossed, were accordingly read

. the third time and passed : H. n. 14446. A bill for the relief of A. J., C. C., and T. W.

Hodges; H. R. 4763. A bill transferring Commander William Wilmot

White from the retired to the acti>e list of the Navy; H. R. 2756. A bill for the relief of L. K. Scott ; H. R. 2915. A bill for the relief of John P. Hunter; H. R. 33 8. A bill for the relief of L. B. Wyatt; H. n. 6515. A bill for the relief of J. A. Gallaher, administra­

tor of the estate of Joseph H. Gallaher, deceased; H. R. 10075. A bill for the relief of Gopiah County, l\Iiss.; H. R.-8947. A bill for the relief of the Herman Andrae Elec­

trical Company, of Milwaukee, Wis.; and , H. R.15070. A bill for the relief of J. Edmund Strong.

HOUSE BILLS WITH .AMENDMENTS .PASSED. In the following House bills, reported from the Committee·

of the Whole with amendments, the amendments were severally agreed to, the bills as amended ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being engrossed, were accordingly read the third time and passed.

H. R. 13875. A bill for the relief of John V. Johnson; and H. R. 6902. A bill for the relief of Henry Rustan.

SENATE BILL WITHOUT .AMENDMENT PASSED. The following Senate bill, reported from the Committee of the

. Whole without amendment, was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. ·

s. 1256. An act for the relief of Pope & Talbot, of San Fran­cisco, Cal.

On motion of Mr. HASKINS, a motion to reconsider the several votes by which the various bills were passed was laid on the table.

INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION !T TOKYO, JAPAN. By unanimous consent, reference of the bill .(H. R. 16511) to

provide for participation by the United States in an interna­tional exposition to be held at Tokyo, Japan, in 1912, was changed from the Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza­tion to the Select Committee on In~ustrial Arts and Expositions.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. Mr. WILSON of Illinois, from the Committee on Enrolled

Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly en­rolled bill of the following title, when the Speaker signed the same:

H. R. 9217, An act amending sections 2533 and 2534 of Re-

vised Statutes, so as to change the name of tlie Fairfield collec­tion district. ENROLLED Bll.L PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR . HIS .APPROVAL.

Mr. WILSON of illinois, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that this day they had presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bill:

H. R. 300. An act providing for second homestead entries. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

By unanimo-us consent, leave of absence was granted as fol­lows:

To Mr. DuNwELL, for ten days, on account of bui:finess en­gagements.

To Mr. BENi.<rnT of New York, for ten days, on account of ab­sence on the business of the Immigration Commission.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. HASKINS. 1\Ir. Speaker, I move that the Hou~e do now

adjourn. The motion was agreed to. And accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 43 minutes p. m.) the

House adjourned until Monday next.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of Rule x.xnr, the following executi>e com­

munications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

A letter from the assistant clerk· of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Andrew L. Garter against The United States-to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Lemuel C. Canfield against The United States-to the Committee on War Claims 11nd ordered to be printed. •

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Hamilton L. Karr against The United States~to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the fmdings filed by the court in the case of John D. Longfellow against The United States-to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of WJlliam C. Brummett against The United States-to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Henry L. Biddle against The United States-to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Alfred G. Parham, as administrator and in his own right, against The· United States-to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation relating to allotments to Indian children on the Rosebu·d-Sioux Reservation-to the Committee on Indian Affairs and ordered to be printed.

A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, submitting an estimate of appropriation for the Naval Service under the Bu­reaus of Equipment and Steam Navigation-to the Commit~ee on Naval Affairs and ordered to be printed .

REPORTS OF COl\11\IITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS Ai~D RESOLUTIONS.

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, bills were severally reported from committees, delivered to the Clerk, and referred to the several Calendars therein named, as follows :

Mr. 1\fALBY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 143 2) to establish a

. United States court at Jackson, in the eastern district of Kentucky, reported the same without amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 680), which said btll and report . were referred to the House Calendar.

1\lr. UONDELL, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 16403) limit­ing and restricting the right of entry and assignment under the desert-land law and authorizing an extension of time within which to make final proof, reported the sa111e without amend- . ment, accompanied by a report (No. 690), which said -bill and report were referred to the House Calendar.

~- ---------- ~ -~ -------- ----~--~--'-~-------=

CONGRESSI()N AL RECORD-HOUSE.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE RILLS AJ\TD RESOLUTIONS.

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, private bills were severally re­ported from committees, delivered to the Clerk, and referred to the Committee of the Whole House, as follows: .

Mr. 1\IOUsmn, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 1081) to pay Thomas P. Morgan, jr., amount found uue him by Court of Claims, re­ported the same with amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 687), which said bill and report were referred to the Private Calendar.

1\fr. BUTLER, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 1199) for the relief of William Parker Sedgwick, reported the same without amendment, accompanied b;y a report (No. 688), which said bill and report was referred to the Private Calendar.

1\fr. GREGG, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the bill of the House (H . . R. 12476) to place the name of William _s. Shacklette on the retired list of the Navy as pharmacist, r eported the same without amendment, accom­panied by a report (No. 691), which said bill and report were referred to the Private Calendar.

1\Ir. DAWSON, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 3822) for the relief of James Behan, reported the same without amendment. accompanied by a report (No. 692), which said bill and report were referred to the Private Calendar.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE. Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, committees were discharged

from the consideration of bills of the following titles; which were thereupon referred as follows:

A bill (H. R. 1914) for the relief of Richard T. Gott, ad­ministrator of Thomas N. Gott, deceased-Committee on Claims discharged, and referred to the Committee on War Claims.

A bill (H. R. 1916) for the relief of the council of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Williamsport, Md.-Com­mittee on Claims discharged, and referred to the Committee on War Claims.

A bill (H. R. 7738) granting a pension to John L. Taggart­Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

A bill (H. R. 7739) granting a pension to Ellis R. Brock­Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

A bill (H. R. 7835) granting an increase of pension to Har­riet V. Gridley-Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

PUBLIC BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND 1\IFThiORIALS. Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills, resolutions, and memo­

rials of the following titles were introduced and severally re­ferred as follows: - By 1\lr. GARRETT: A bill (H. R. 16622) to provide for the

issuance of process from courts of the United States in certain cases-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By l\Ir. REEDER A bill (H. R. 16623) granting pensions to certain enlisted men, soldiers, and officers who served in the civil war and the war with Mexico-to the Committee on In­valid Pensions.

By Mr. BONYNGE A bill (H. R. ;16624) to extend the pro­visions of section four of the act entitled " An act making appro­priations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1895, and for other purposes," ap­proved August 18, 1894, authorizing the Secretary of the In­terior, with the approval of the President, to contract and agree to patent to the States of Washington, Oregon, Cali­fornia, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming; Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, to the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico-to the· Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. FLOOD: A bill (H. R. 16625) to constitute a commis­sion to investigate the purchase of American-grown tobacco by the governments of foreign countries-to the Committee on In­terstate and Foreign Commerce.

By l\Ir. HOLLIDAY: A bill (H. R. 16626) authorizing and empowering rural mail carriers to certify pension vouchers for pensioners who reside upon the routes of said carriers, respec­tive1y, ·and for other purposes-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. SULZER: A bill (H. R. 16627) to promote the con­ttruction of good roads and the efficiency of the postal service in the States and Territories of the United States-to the Com­Jilittee · on Agriculture.

By l\Ir. RIORDAN: A bill (H. R. 16628) to amend an act entitled "An act to e..~tend the free-delivery system of the Post­Office Department, and for other purposes,'~ approved .January 3, 1887-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By 1\Ir. HUFF: A bill (H. R. 16629) to provide for the erec­tion of a public building at Greensburg, Pa.-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16630) to provide for the erection of a pub­lic building at Butler, Pa.-to the Committee on Public Bl.tild­ings and Grourids.

By Mr. DUNWELL: A bill (H. R. 16631) to increase the salaries of the assistant appraisers of merc_handise at the port of New York-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, a bill (H. R. _16632) fixing the compensation of the assistant weighers at the port of New- York-to the Committee on Ways and Means. ·

Also, a bill (H. R. 16633) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to fix the compensation of day and night inspectors_ of customs-to the Committee on ·ways and Means.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16634) to equalize the salaries of ·the deputy collectors, deputy surveyors, and the deputy naval officer at the port of New York-to the ·eommittee on Ways and Means.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16635) fixing the compensation of the assistant gaugers in the customs service at the port of New York-to the Committee. on Ways and Means.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16636) fixing the compensation of the night inspectors of customs at the port of New York-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. · GRONNA: A bill (H. R. 16637) to amend section 5192 and repeal section 5195 of the Revised Statutes· of the United States-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. RYAN: A bill (H. R. 16638) to authorize the estab­lishment of a light and fog-signal ship in Lake Erie, south of Point Abino, Ontario, Canada, in United States waters-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. NICHOLLS: A bill (H. ll. 16639) to amend .an act entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlaw­ful restraints and monopolies," approved July 2, 1890-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

By Mr. HENRY of ·Connecticut (by request): A bill (H. R. 1G6-!0) for the establishment of a 1-cent 2-ounce letter post, and for the simplification of the postal service-to the Com­mittee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

.A.lso (by request) a bill (H. R. 16641) for the improvement of the free rural service-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By l\Ir. BINGHAM: A bill (H. R. 16642) granting pensions to soldiers and sailors confined in so-called Confederate pris­ons-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. KALANIANAOLE: A bill (H. R. 16643) to ratify an act of the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii authoriz­ing the manufacture, distribution, and supply ot electric light and power in the district of Lahaina, county of Maui, Terri­tory of Hawaii-to the Committee on the Territories.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16644) to ratify and confirm an act of the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii authorizing the manu­facture and distribution of electric light and power in the dis­trict of Wailuku, on the island of Maui, Territory of Hawaii­to the Committee on the Territories.

By Mr. BRADLEY: A bill (H. R. 16645) to create in the War Department a roll to be known as the Volunteer retired list, to authorize placing thereon with retired pay certain surviving officers and en~sted men of the United States Volunteer Army, Navy, and marines of the civil war, and for other purposes-· to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. ACHESON: A bilf (H. R. 16646) authorizing the President of the United States to classify the postmasters. clerks, and employees in the various post-offices of the United States-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By .Mr. :McCALL: A bill (H. R. 16647) for the erection of a replica of John Quincy Adams Ward's statute of Washing­ton-to the Committee on the Library.

By Mr. DENBY: A bill (H. R. 16648) to provide for the appointment of an additional judge of the district court of the United States ~or the eastern district of Michigan-to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HARRISON: A bill (H. R. 16649) constituting a commission to investigate consular affairs-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16650) to amend the law of patent tfte­signs-to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. GAINES of Tennessee: A bill (H. R.16651) to aid the Ladies'. Hermitage Association to care for the "Hermitage," the home of Gen. Andrew Jackson, formerly President of the

r

I

,: li

I

lr

I '

li ,, 1:

II l r

II

I' 1·,

l r

1:

I!

r:

~ - - --~ - --- -~ - - ·- - _ -

1738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. F EBRUARY 7,

United States, and collect and purchase the remainder of the Andrew Jackson relics-to the -committee on Appropriations.

By Mr. HAYES: A bill (H. R. 16652l to amend section 11 of an act entitled "An act to establish a Bureau of I mmigration and Katuralization, and to provide for a uniform rnle for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States "- to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

By l\Ir. STEVENS of Minnesota: A bill (H. R. 16653) to pro­vide for the distribution of the reports of the United States circuit courts of appeals and of the United. States circuit and district courts to certain officers of the United States, and for other purposes-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LA..t""\TDIS : A bill (H. R. 16654) permitting the build­ing of a dam across Whi-te River near the village of Decker, in Knox County, Ind.-to the Committee on Interstate and For-eign Commerce. ·

By Mr. WILLIAMS: A bill (H. R. 16730) to further protect depositors in banks, to secure a safe and elastic emergency cur­rency, and to amend the national-bank act and previous amend­ments thereto-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By 1\!r. LAW : J oint resolution (H. J. Res. 133) authorizing the appointment of William L. Waterman as acting third assistant engineer on the retired list of the Navy-to the Com­mittee on Nan1l .Affairs.

By Mr. BUR'.rON of Delaware : Concurrent resolution (H. C. Res. 24) directing the Secretary of War to cause a snney to be made, etc., of Laurel River, Delaware-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, concunent r esolution (H. C. Res. 25) directing the Sec­retary of War to cause a survey to be made, etc., of Christiana River, Delaware-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, concurrent resolution (H. C. Res. 26) directing tb.e Sec­retary of Wu.r to cause a suney to be made, etc., of Nanticoke River, Delaware-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, concurrent resolution (H. C. Res. 27) directing the Sec­retary of War to cause a survey to be made, etc., of Pocomoke River, Delaware-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. BENNFYI' of New York: Concurrent resolution (H. C. Res. 28) deploring certain alleged atrocities in Russia-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOI..UTIONS. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, priyate bills and resolutions of

the following titles were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By 1\fr. ALElc.~DER of .Missouri : A bill (H. R. 16655)" granting an increase of pension to Thomas J. Roberts-to the Committee on In;nlid Pensions.

By 1\fr. ASHBROOK: A bill (H. R. 16656) granting an in­crease of pension to Thomas B. Bukey-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Ur. BEDE: A bill (H. R. 16657) granting an increase of pension to Jerome A. Schutt-to the Committee on Im·alid Pen­sions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16658) granting nn increase of pension to Josiah P . Davis-to the Committee on Invalid Pensjons.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16659) granting an increase of pension to Samuel P. Marlette-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16G60) granting a pension to Amy G. Marvin-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BOOHER: A bill (H. R. 16661) granting an increase of pension to John King-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BOWERS: A bill (H. R. 16662) for the relief of Louis T . Barnes-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16663) for the relief of the heirs of John Fornea-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R . 16664) for the relief of the estate of Nevin Phares-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. BRICK: A bill (H. R. 16665) granting a pension to Andrew J. Bierce--to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BURTON of Ohio: A bill (H. R. 16666) granting an increase of penfiion to Charles F . Keyerleber- to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By l\fr. CHAPMAN : A. bill (H. R. 16667 ) granting an increase of pension to William Inman-to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

By Mr. COOK of Colorado: A bill (H. R. 16668) for the re­lief of John V. Vikers-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Also, a bill (TI. R. 16669) for the relief of William E . Moses­to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. DENBY: A bill (II. R. 16670) granting a pension to John Devlin-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. DIXON: A bill (H. R. 16671) for the relief of the heirs of Wilson Parker, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\fr. DRAPER : A bill (H. R . 16672) referring to the Court of Claims for adjudication and determination the claims of the widow and family of Marcus P . Norton, and the heirs at law of others-to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. FLOOD: A bill (H. R. 16673) for the r elief of Bland 1\Iassie-to the Committee on War Claims.

By l\fr. FORDNEY: A bill (H. n.. 16674) granting an increase of pension to Amos Sawyer-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. FOWLER : A bill (H. n. 16675) for the relief of Commander William S. Hogg, Paymaster Frederick G. Payne, and Civil Engineer Adolfo J. Menocal, of the United States Navy-to the Committee on Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16676) for the relief of the Merchants' Exchange~ ~ational Bank, of the city of New York-to the Com­mittee on Claims.

By Mr. HACKNEY: A bill (H. R. 16677) to correct the muster roll of Company 0, Oj:lage Regiment Missouri Home Guard Volunteers, by adding the name of Hugh P. Conn-to the Committee on l\Iilitarv Affairs.

Also, a bill (II. R. 16678) granting an increase of pension t o Henry Dorman-to the Committee on In;alid Pensions.

By Mr. BAGGOTT: A bill (H. R. 1G679) granting an increase of pension to C. H . Edgecomb-to the Committee on Invalid ~~~ '

By Mr. HALlTI : A bill (H. R. 1G680) granting a pe!ls:.on to William Cooper-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. .

By 1\fr. HELl\l: A bill (H. ll. 16681) granting a peasion to Jennie 1\f. Wortham-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\!r. HIGGINS: A bill (H. R. 16682) granting an incr<*l.se of pension to Betsey l\1. Potter-to the Committee oa Invalid Pensions. ·

Also, a bill (H. R. 1G683) granting an increase of pension to Adoniram J . ·Bowen-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By fr. HOBSON: A bill (H. R. 1G684) to appoint Holmes E. Offiey upon the retired list of the Navy, with the rank of lieutenant-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By 1\fr. HU:t\IrliRP~ of Washington: A bill (TI. R. 16685) granting an increase of pension to John W. Peel-to the Com­mittee on Iu-mlid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16686) granting an increase of pension to Griffith Hunter-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. HUMPHREYS of Mississippi: A bill (H. R. 1G687) for the relief of the heirs of W. N . Hood-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16688) for the relief of the heirs of A. U . Barton-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 1G6S9) for the relief of the Presbyterian Church at Greenville, l\1iss.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By l\Ir. HUBBARD of 'Vest Virginia: A bill (H. R . 16690) granting an increase of pension to Henry C. Shepherd-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16601) granting an increase of pension to Adeline Summerville-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky: A bill (H. R. 16692) grant­in~ an increase o ' pension to 'Villiam I. Curby-to t.he Com­mittee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\fr. JONES of Virginia: A bill .. (H. R. 1G693) to carry into effect the findings of the Court of Claims in the matter of the claim of the trustees of St. George's Episcopal Church, Fredericksburg, Va.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\Ir. KENNEDY of Iowa: A bill (H. R. 16694) granting a pension to Philip Urich-to the Committee on Pensions.

-Also, a bill (H. R. 1GG95) granting an jncrease of pension to John W. Iler-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LASSITER: A bill (H. R . 16600) for the relief of the estate of Peter McEnery, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims.

By :Mr. LAW : A bill (H. R. 1G697) granting a pension to George F . Flinn-to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16698) granting a pension to Adolph \Veil-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16699) to remove the charge of desertion from the military record of Simon Nager-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a l>ill (II. R . 16700) to remove the charge of desertion from the military record of Franz Gochum {also borne as Jochum and Yochum), alias Frans l\Iollna, alias Franz Molina­to the Committee on 1\lilita.ry Affairs.

By Mr. LEVER: A bill (H. R. 16'101)· granting an increase of , pension to Charlotte Nelson-to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

By Mr. LILLEY : A bill (H. R . 16702) granting an increase of pension to Nellie hl. Gaunt- to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

~------ '- - ------- --

1908. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE: 1739 By Mr. LOWDEN: A bill (H. R. 16703) granting an increase

of pension to William H. 1\Iead-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\Ir. 1\IcKINL..<\..Y of California: A bill (II. R. 16704) grant­ing an increase of pension to John Miller-to the Committee on In-valid Pensions.

Al so, a bi1l (H. R. 16705) granting an increase of pension to Andrew J. Dill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16706) granting an increase of pension to Forrester W. D exter-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16707) granting an increase of pension to W. H. Pierce-to the -committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. l\IACON : A bill (H. R. 16708) granting ·an increase of pension to James H. Powell-to the Committee on In-valid Pensions.

By Mr. MALBY: A bill (H.- R. 16709) granting an increase of pension to Newton Martin Curtis-to the Committee on In­valid Pensions.

By 1\Ir. 11IA~TN: A bill (H. R. 16710) granting an increase of pension to Julia E. Hall-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. It. 16711) granting an increase of pension to Sarah J. Curtis-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16712) granting a pension to Andrew J. Clark-to the Oommittee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\Ir. l\IOON of Pennsylvania: A bill (H. R. 16713) to cor­rect the war record of Edward J. Gallagher, late first lieuten­ant Company G, Thirty-third- Pennsylvania Volunteer Infan­try-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By l\fr. l\IURPHY: A bill (H. R. 16714) granting an increase of pension to Orson Wright-to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16715) granting an increase of pension to Robert H. Graham-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16716) granting an iJicrease of pension to 'John F. Whitford-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. PEAU.RE: A bill (H. R. 16717) for the relief of Adam Koogle-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. REEDER: A bill (H. R. 16718) to pension the sur­vivors of the company of Indian scouts known as the Forsythe Scouts-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. RHINOCK: A bill (H. R. 16719) granting a pension to Clara A. Ritter-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. SCOTT: A _bill (H. R. 16720) granting an increase of pension to Franklin H. Huffman-to the Committee on In­valid Pensions.

By Mr. SMITH of Missouri: A bill (H. R. 16721) granting an increase of pension to Carroll J. Harrelson-to the Com­mittee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 16722) for the relief of the heirs of Erd­man Bodenschatz, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\fr. SULZER: A bill (H. R. 16723) making an appropria­tion for the relief of the victims of the General Slocum disas-ter-to the Committee on Appropriations. · ·

AI o, a bill (H. R. 16724) to correct the military record of A. J. G. Kane-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. TOU VELLE: A bill (H. R. 16725) granting an in­crease of pension to Levi Guy-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. UNDERWOOD: A bill (H. R. 16726) granting a pension to Itufus W. Cobb-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. WEEKS: A bill (H. R. 16727) authorizing the pay­ment to the administrator of the late Ephraim Perkins, cap­tain, of the value of his three-quarters of brigantine Eliza and cargo illegally captured by the French, as ascertained by the Court of Claims-to the Committee on Claims.

By 1\fr. WEISSE: A bill (H. R. 16728) granting an increase of pension to Elizabeth Pensene-to the Committee on Invali(l Pensions.

By 1\Ir. WOODYARD: A bill (H. R. 16729) granting an in­crease of pension to Charles Kane-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and

papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: By 1\fr. ADAIR: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Wil­

liam W. Angel-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. By Mr. ASHBROOK : Petition of old soldiers of the war of

the rebellion, for legislation increasing pensions-to the Com­mittee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, paper to accompany bill for relief of Thomas B. Bukey­to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BEDE: Papers to accompany bills for relief of Jerome A. Schutt, Samuel P. Marlette, Josiah P. Davis, and Amy G. Marvin-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions,

By Mr. BOWERS: Papers to accompany bills for relief of Nevin Phares and John A. Fornea-to the Committee on ·War Claims.

By Mr. BURLEIGH: Petition of Portland (Me.) Board of Trade, for legislation to rev~ve the shipbuilding interest-to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By M:r. BUTLER: Petition of citizens of · Pennsylvania, for S. 3152, for additional protection to the dairy interests-to the Committee on Agr-iculture.

By Mr. BURKE: Petition of James M. 1\fartin, of New Castle, Pa., for legislation to protect ·musical composers, as embodied· in the ~rchfeld bill-to the Committee on Patents.

Also, petition of Brown Shoe Company, against H. R. 13447, rela tive to postmasters furnishing lists of names from their offices-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Itoads.

By Mr. CALDER: Petition of National German-American Alliance, for forest reser-vations in White Mountains and south­ern Appalachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Brown Shoe Company, against a parcels­post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. COUSINS : Petition of citizens of Tama County, Iowa, for legislation prohibiting opium traffic in United States terri­tory-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of citizens of Tama County, Iowa, for an anti­polygamy amendment to the Constitution-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of citizens of Tama County, Io~a, for legislation against shipment of intoxicants in original packages into pro­hibition territory-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COOK of Colorado: Papers to accompany bills for . relief of W. E. Moses and John V. Vickers-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. DARRAGH: Petition of H. Oscar Kelley and other members of Bethany Grange, No. 508, of Gratiot County, Mich., against the reduction of tariff schedules as to imports from Philippine Islands-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By 1\fr. DRAPER: Petition of executive committee of nautical schools, for Federal Government to share part of expense of nautical schools-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. DUNWELL : Petition of A. Emerson Palmer, of board of education of New York City, for Federal Government to bear part of expenses of nautical schools-to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Also, petition of National German-American Alliance, for forest reservations in White Mountains and southern Appa­lachian Mountains-to the Committee OI;l Agriculture.

By Mr. ESCH: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Charles Mulvaney-to the Committee on_ Invalid Pensions. ·

By Mr. FASSETT: Petition of soldiers of tlie civil war in Thirty-third Congressional District of New York, for a volun­teer officers' retired list-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. FLOOD: Petition of citi<Zens of Cumberland County, _ Va., for appropriation to improve the upper Appomattox River­to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. GARNER : Papers to accompany H. R. 3890-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

By Mr. GILHAMS: Petitions of Emery G. Melendy and others, volunteer officers of the civil war, and Benjamin B. Campbell and 11 other volunteer officers of the civil war, for a volunteer officers' retired list-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, petition of Jacob Newman and many other ex-soldiers of the civil war, for pension legislation to afford better relief for widows of soldiers-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. GILLESPIE: Petition of Farmers' Union of Erath County, Tex., for Government guaranty of bank deposits and a- parcels-post law-to the Committee · on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. GOULDEN: Petitions of Robert E. Ely, director of­League of Political Education, of New York City, and Ham­burg-Bremen Fire Insurance Company, against clauses in H. R. 75!>7 (Crumpacker bill), relative to employment of census clerical force-to the Committee on the Census.

Also, petition of National German-American Alliance, for for­est reservations in White Mountains and southern Appalachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of .1\Iusical Mutual Protection Union, No. 310, New York City, favoring H. R. 103-to the Committee on Labor.

By Mr. GRAHAM: Petition of officers, directors, and trustees of art museums in United States, for free-art legislation-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of the Brown Shoe Company relative to a par­cels-post law (H. R. 13447), in regard to postmasters furnish-

- ·--~ ,

1740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10,

ing lists of names from their offices-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By 1\Ir. HACKETT: Petition of citizens of Watauga County, N. C., relative to forest reser-vations disturbing land titles in any part of said county-to tbe Committee on Agriculture.

By 1\Ir. HIGGINS: Petition of James Geddes, of Waterbury, Conn., for H. R. 14783, promoting efficiency of the militia-to the Committee on Mill tary Affairs.

Also, petition of Audubon Society of Connecticut, for forest reservations in White .Mountains and southern Appalachian :Mount.ains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Musicians' Protective Union of Wi~antic, Cmm., for House joint resolution 103 (relati-ve to employment of enlisted musicians in competition with loc.al musicians)-to the Committee on Labor.

Also, petition of Oentra1 Labor Union of Connecticut, for con­struction of war vessels in navy-yards-to the Committee on Na-val Affairs.

Also, petitions of Company G, First Infantry, of South Man­chester; Company M, Second Infantry, of Torrington; Com­pany C, Second Infantry, Company A, Second Infantry, of Waterbm·y; and Company G, Second Infantry, of Waterbury, Connecticut National Guard, favoring H. R. 14783, for pro­moting efficiency of the militia-to the Committee on Militia.

By l\fr. HINSHAW: Petitions _ of legal voters of Blauer Crossing, Hubbell, Harbine, and Utica, Fourth Congressional District of Nebraska, against a parcels-post law-to the Com­mittee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

Also, petition of Nebraska State Horticultural Society, for forest reservations in White Mountains and southern Appala­chian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, paper_ to accompany bill for relief of Simon Chapman­to the Committee on lnYalid Pensions.

By 1\Ir. HOBSON: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Holmes E. O.ffiey-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. HULL of Iowa: Petition of 17 old soldiers of Ot­tumwa, Iowa, for change in pension law so that maximum age pension may be received at 65 instead of 75 years of age-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\fr. JOHNSON of Kentucky: Paper to accompany bill for relief of William I. Cm·bey-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. KALANIANAOLE: Memorials to accompany H. R. 6146, for a naval station at Pearl Harbor-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. WILLIAM W. KITCHIN: Petition of Pamela Caro­lina Reade of Person County, N. C., for an appropriation of $500 to perfect a new water system-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors . .

By Mr. LAFEAN: Petition of Manufacturers' Association of York, Pa., for H. R. 10504, for a special parcels-post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

Ry Mr. LAW: Petition of mass meeting of the Poles in New York City, January 23, 1908, against Polish expropriation bill­to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Also, petition of North .Side Board of Trade, for an. annual appropriation for ri-vers and harbors-to the Comnuttee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of National Corps, Army and Navy Union. for equalization of pay and increase of pay for Army and Navy officers and men-to the Committee on 1\Iilitary Affairs.

Also, petition of National German-American Alliance, · for forest reservations in White :Mountains and southern Appa­lachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also petition of Peter Carroll and others, for the Anthony bill (Ii. R. 7691)-to the Committee on Claims.

By l\1r. MANN: PapeTs to accompany bills for relief of ­Andrew J. Clark and Julia E. Hall-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By l\1r. MURPHY: Papers to accompany bills for relief of Orson Wright, John F. Whitford, and Robert H. Graham-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By 1\fr. POLLARD: Petition of sundry citizens of the First Congressional District of Nebraska, for prohibition of intoxi­cating liquors in the District of Columbia-to the Committ'ee on the District of Columbia.

Also, petition of Nebraska State Horticultural Society, for forest reservations in White Mountains and southern Appa­lachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By 1\Ir. RAil\TEY: Petition of Jacksonville (Ill.) Business . :Men's Association, favor-ing currency legislation-to the Com­

mittee on Banking and Currency. Also, petition of Thomas Montgomery and 23 other citizens

of the Twentieth Congressional District of Illinois; J. B. Wat­-son and 30 other citizens of Barry, IlL; and E. S. Marsh and

40 other merchants of the Twentieth Congressional District of Illinois against a parcels-post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By l\Ir. REEDER: Petition of National Association of Retail Druggists, against a parcels-post law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. RIDNOCK: Paper to accompany bill for relief of William H. Mullins-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, paper to accompany !Jill for relief of W. B. May-to the . Committee on Pensions. ··

By Mr. SABATH: Communication from James A. Rose, sec­retary of state of Illinois, transmitting house resolution No. 88, of the State of Illinois, for passage of the Hamilton bill­giving ex-prisoners of the civil war $50 per month-to the Com· mittee on InYalid Pensions.

Also, petition of officers, directors, and trustees of art muse­ums in the United States, tor free art legislation in accordance with H. R. 15268-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of National Funeral Directors' Association, against the practice of burial at sea-to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Also, petition of Chicago Historical Society, for Bureau of Ethnology to collect and publish information relative to lan­guage of the old Indian tribes-to the Com!IHttee on Indian Affairs.

By 1\Ir. SIMS : Petition of citizens of Huntingdon, Carroll County, Tenn., for a postal- savings bank' law-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. SMITH of Michigan: Petition of Gideon S. Smith and 42 other veterans of the civil war, and Phil Kearny Post, No. 53, Grand Army of the Republic, for the enactment of the Sherwood pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, petition of Hinton Miller, for repeal of section 3 of service pension act of February 6, 1907, relative to employment of attorneys-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By .Mr. SPERRY: Petitions of Company A, of New Haven; Company G, of Waterbury; and Company 1\I, of Torrington, Second Infantry; and Company G, of South Manchester, First Infantry Connecticut National Gll.ard, favoring enactme:1t of Senate bill 4316 (militia bill)-to the Committee on Militja.

Also, petition of members of the Maennerchor of Ansonia, Conn., against any pending prohibition of interstate commerce liquor measure-to the Committee on Alcoholic Liquor Traffic.

Also, petition of the Audubon Society of Connecticut, for forest reservations in White Mountains and southern Appala­chian Mountains-to the Committee on Agricultm·e.

Also, petition of W. C. Sharpe, of Seymour, Conn., a gainst order of the Postmaster-General relative to mailing news· papers-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. SPIGHT : Paper to accompany bill for relief of heirs of Jacob Kuykendall-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. SULZER : Petition of National Oerman-Americnn Al­liance, for forest reservations in White Mountains and southern Appnlachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of executive committee on nautical schools, for Federal GoYernment to bear part of expense of nautical schools-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. WEISSE: Petition of officers, directors, and trustees of art museums in United States, for free-art legislation in ac­cordance with H. R. 15268--to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of National German-American Alliance, for for­est resenations in White Mountains and southern Appalachian Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture.

SENATE.

J\.foNDAY, February 10, 1908. Prayer by the Chaplain, ReY. EDWARD E. HALE. The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of the proceed­

ings of Thursday last, when, on request of 1\Ir. CLAPP, and by unanimous consent, the further reading was dispensed with.

r.rhe VICE-PRESIDENT. 'l'he Journal stands approved.

OFFICERS OF THE NAVY ON DUTY IN WASHINGTON.

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communi­cation from the Secretary of . the Navy, transmitting, in re­sponse to a resolution of the 21st ultimo, a list of all line and staff officers of the Navy on duty in Washington, D. C., on JuJy 1, L905, etc., and also a list of all line and staff officers of the Navy on duty in Washington, D. C., and in any navy­yard or naval station in the United States on January 1, 190B etc., which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Cornmitte'e on Naval Affairs and ordered to be printed.