other southern man complain of it; but the complaint comes from our side. It comes from some of the people of the North who claim for themselves to be, par excellence, Union men. They are the men who quarrel with the action of the President in this behalf, and they quarreled with Mr. Lincoln from the very outstart upon the same principle. They passed a bill, which, I believe, authorized Mr. Lincoln to do what he was doing, or pretty nearly that, and he pocketed it. That was their support of Mr. Lincoln; and then, just in the thick of the election, in the very thick of the canvass, some of these excessive party men, some of these men who stand by the Union party at all hazards, as long as it has a big majority at its back, issued a protest charging Mr. Lincoln with being a usurper and a tyrant because he had pocketed this bill of theirs which they had passed, showing their plan by which the thing was to be done. I met à Dutchman in my State during that canvass, and he told me he had just been at a Republican convention, and he had heard one of these protestants make a speech, of course in favor of the Republican nominees. "Well," said I, "what did he say?" "Well," he said, "he was very hard on the President for about an hour, and then he got better." That was the kind of speech in which Mr. Lincoln was supported; the fore end of it, about an hour, was taken to abuse him for his usurpation and his tyranny in attempting to sustain and support these southern corporations for the benefit of their citizens; and then the last part of it was a little better, not so bad.

The honorable Senator from Michigan asks triumphantly, apparently-and indeed words seem to have so little meaning here that anything may be asked and nothing may be answered satisfactorily-where has the President power under the Constitution to confer political rights upon anybody? Nobody ever contended that the President conferred political rights upon any one; and I go further, and fling it back into the teeth of the advocates of this doctrine, that Congress cannot confer political rights upon anybody. What right has Congress to confer political rights upon the citizens of States? Thank God, the citizens of States hold their title by a higher one than Congress can confer. They derive their rights from the fact that they are States, free, independent States, bound only by their constitutional obligations. I have heard about as much balderdash here on the subject of State rights as I ever heard in my life; but have the States no rights? Is any man mad enough to pretend that States have lost all their rights because a few citizens claimed a right of secession, which never was a State right, and which, if it is a right, is a right to travel over a bargain you have made, and to break a law which you yourself assisted in the making of. The right of secession which has been claimed as a State right never was a State right; but the right to say who shall wield political power in a State is a State right. States have rights to make their own laws for the purpose of administering justice between their own citizens, and this General Government has no right to interfere in any way. States have their rights under the Constitution just as well as the General Government has rights over the States under the Constitution.

Then I say the President never pretended that he could confer political rights upon either the rebel States or the loyal States, or upon the people of one or the other; but what he did pretend to do was to stand over these people while they regained their lost rights, rights which they had lost in this war of rebellion; rights which had been in abeyance in that storm which swept over the country. He stood there the faithful guardian of the public weal, in order that they might come back and regain that which had been attempted to be taken from them,

Was that conferring political rights? What did the rebellion destroy? Did it destroy the

States? Did it destroy the rights of the people as States? Did it repeal the Constitution? Did it repeal the laws? If it did not, then what did it do? If it had succeeded, as the gentleman says, might have done all that; but it would have succeeded not in virtue of law but in spite of it. It would have succeeded as a revolution, not as a legal right of secession. Then the suppression of the rebellion, if we are honest, if we are true, if we intend to stand upon the ground upon which we started out, restored the statu quo ante bellum. That is all. It just brought everything to the place of divergence, to the point of departure. What has the President done? Attempted to bring it back there.

This Government has three departments, an executive, a legislative, and a judicial. These three departments are distinct and independent of each other; coördinate. The President, the Executive of this Government, acknowledges the relations of these States to the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of the land, the other day opened its dockets and recognized the relations of these States and their citizens to the Union. The third department, Congress, has refused. Why? Because the honorable Senator from Michigan and certain other honorable Senators say it is not safe to admit them. Although in the bitterest war that ever was waged, in the greatest conflict of arms that the modern world at least has witnessed, we have been their vanquishers, we have compelled them to submission; although we have a population three times as many as theirs, and a representation two or three times as great as theirs, it is not safe to admit them! Would it not have been much more prudent to have taken Democratic advice at the outstart, if that is so? The Democrats said, "Why make war? Do not make war; if you do you will embroil and you will embitter this contest so that it never will be safe to admit them." Why did we make war? Because we believed that? Not at all. We made the war because we believed that men were governed by common sense, that they were actuated by motives of common interest, and that it would be perfectly safe to admit them the moment the rebellion was put down. That is why we made the war, and that is why we avowed the purpose. But times have changed, the tables are turned. Now, that party which was foremost in making the war, foremost in declaring its purpose, is foremost to declare that the war was a failure and that this thing cannot be done, and avows here openly again upon the floor of the Senate, and by a member of that committee who has a right to know, who has taken the testimony and selected the witnesses, I have no doubt, to prove it, that that people are utterly unfit to be restored to their rights, and that it is utterly unsafe that they should come back into the Union. Now, sir, if that is true, that is the most formidable declaration of disunion that I have ever heard; and that establishes disunion as a fact. I think no man I know of is mad enough to suppose that you can maintain a Union at the point of the bayonet. The honorable Senator from Michigan does not pretend that that is union. That may be conquest, but it is not union.

He has adopted another very strange theory. He says that in the committee of fifteen it has been shown beyond all peradventure that the constituencies of these men are disloyal; whether the men themselves are loyal or disloyal, whether they be traitors or whether they be true, is of no consequence; their constituencies are inherently and essentially disloyal; and then, although he talks of non sequiturs, he turns around and triumphantly asks, what are they here in Congress for but to carry out the treasonable will of their constituents? If ever there was a non sequitur in the world, that is one. I care not whether my constituents be treasonable or not treasonable, I am not here to commit treason for them. No man is bound to yield to any such unlawful desire

or further any such unlawful design of his constituents as that would involve.

The honorable Senator has spoken of the Secretary of State. Sir, I should think the patriotism of that man ought not to be impugned here. I think common decency, common respect for the character of a man whose history belongs to the world and to this age, who is known in both hemispheres, and sympathy even for the wounds that disfigure him, ought to entitle him at least in this Senate to a fair consideration, and that he should not be subjected here to misrepresentation and to the imputation of improper motives. It so happens that the honorable Secretary of State, whether wisely as the Senator from Michigan or unwisely ac cording to the lights that he may have before him, holds that the President is right in this matter. Hon. William H. Seward, a name, I venture to say, as high and as proud as any that will grace the Valhalla of American heroes in the future, agrees with the President; and William H. Seward disagrees with the honorable Senator from Michigan.

And then Thermopyle is invoked, Leonidas and his Spartans are told into the pass, and the honorable Senator from Michigan is there in front of them! What for? To oppose Mr. Seward and Mr. Seward's perfect rehabilita tion.

Mr. President, the American people are not going to be frightened out of their propriety about that. I think, and I believe it cannot be disputed, that if there is one voice in this land potential upon this question, poten tial for prudence, potential for moderation, potential for humanity generally, it is the voice of William H. Seward, and as many of your new recruits, as many of your new zealots as you can hatch out of the hot-bed of these turbulent times may come here and attempt to assail his motives and his designs, the American people, nevertheless, will remember him, and abide his counsel, or I am very much mistaken.

William H. Seward has given evidence, evidence such I may say as none of these modern zealots have given-he has given it as well as the President of the United States-that he is in favor of the country, and the whole country; that he is in favor of the freedom of the people, the whole people, not simply the freedom of the negro, but the freedom of the whole people; that he is in favor of giving to the American people their rights, and they can very readily believe that he will not adopt the conquering theory of the honorable Senator from Michigan. No man has ever heard him cry va victis.

Mr. President, this theme is exhaustless; this subject has no limits, it can have none save in the Constitution and the laws. There is no reconstruction, there is no plan of reconstruc tion except that which is involved in obedience of the laws; and the man who supposes there is a hope of it is, in my judgment, still more mistaken than the man who now asserts that the Union is gone, and gone irreparably, from the hearts of the southern people. In either event this doctrine is disunion; in either event this doctrine shuts the door of hope.

Mr. President, I do not believe, I cannot believe, I will not believe now, standing over the graves of two or three hundred thousand American citizens fallen in the strife of the Union, that there can be no Union. What conceivable, what possible interest has any man to disseminate this doctrine among our people? Why is it that men go about from day to day trumpeting the unfitness of the southern people for a Union, and yet calling themselves Union men? Who has made the people of the North believe that this breach has been so widened, that this gulf is so impassable, that we never can be friends again with our southern brothers? Who is it that does it? Are they Union men, I ask? In the case of a quarrel between two men, what kind of a union friend would he be who would go from the one to the other and say, "He hates you, he hates you in the very innermost recesses of his heart," and

then go to the other and say, "He would stab you behind if he had a chance?" Would that be to make union, reconciliation, between these parties? And who does this thing? It is not the President who does it. It is not Mr. Seward who does it. It is not the Army who does it. It is not the Navy who does it. Who does do it? I will tell you, Mr. President, it is a faction in power here, tasting the sweets of power, enjoying its exercise, and they tell you that these people are unfit to come in; and why? Because, come in as they may, there can be no reconciliation with them. That is disunion again. What was said the other day in the House which sits at the other end of this Capitol? "Without some measure like a reconstruction measure, when we come back again these Halls will be filled with yelling rebels and hissing copperheads." What then is to be done? Usurp, grasp power yourselves, remodel the Constitution, remodel the laws, so that the few, not the many, can hold on to power. We may just as well come to it first as last; that is exactly what it means. Are you afraid the Democrats will get the power? If you are, that is disunion. A man who is afraid of the other party coming in, and who believes that that other party will destroy the Government, is a disunion man, because he believes that which is fatal to the very foundation of the fabric. I do not believe it, and I never did believe it. Much as I might belong to one of the great parties of the country, I never believed that the other would destroy the Government if it came into power. I believed it would not, and that is why I was in favor of this Government. That is the difference between us and most other Governments. In a monarchical form of government the people are not trusted; one party will not trust the other, and they set up an intermediate man and attempt to scaffold him around in such a way as to prevent a collision. We formed this Government upon the basis that either of the great parties of the country was safe to intrust it with.

You say that if the Union is restored and you give the people of the South their rights they will come in and they will join the Democrats, and then the Democrats will have a majority over the Republicans. Suppose it be so; I am perfectly willing, if we save the Union. I will execute a release of all my right for office, not only to-day, but in all time to come, if any body will just insure the Union peace and harmony. I trust everybody would. I think there is no man so infatuated, personally and apart from his party ties and party connections, but would be willing to do the same thing. I do not believe a word of it, and I tell you that if the southern States were represented here to-morrow and came back and joined themselves with the Democrats of the North, they would meet with just the same resistance precisely from them that they now meet from the Republicans if they should attempt any further secession; and why? Just because it is as much the interest of one party in the North as it is the interest of the other party to preserve the Union, and nobody but a man who is desirous of making mischief and desirous of fomenting discord would ever take any other view of it. They may have different plans and different policies, but the great end and object of both is to preserve the Government, and what is more and what is better, to preserve themselves and their fortunes and their families, and to preserve a prospect for their chil

dren.

I am a Republican; and I am a Republican because I believe that; and I would as soon undertake to commit personal suicide or any other kind of suicide as to go out and preach among my fellow-citizens that one half of them were utterly diabolical and utterly corrupt, and desirous of overturning the whole of this fair fabric of liberty under which we lived so long and so happily. What is it but a proclamation of political suicide? I do not believe a word of it; and however much I might lament the contingency of a party opposed

to me getting into power, however much I might suppose it would affect in a small way the interests of my State or of my section, yet I am willing to bow to the behests of the people in that behalf. I await the action of their constitutional majority expressed through the constitutional forms; and the man who is unwilling to do that and unwilling to trust it is a secessionist, and belongs to precisely the same school of secession as that which flourished in 1860. That was secession. Had anybody invaded the rights of secessionists? Had anybody trenched upon the rights of the southern States? No; but the secessionists said, "Although you have elected your President by constitutional means and through the medium of a constitutional majority, yet we have a right to anticipate you." Anticipate what? Anticipate what the honorable Senator from Michigan anticipates and what every man who has no faith in the country and no faith in its institutions apprehends. "We anticipate," said they, that your President will not be a constitutional President; that your party will not be a constitutional party. It has got the Abolitionists in it, and they have said that the Constitution is a convenant with death and a league with hell,' and they will abolitionize the whole country; they will destroy slavery; they will do this, that, and the other thing;" and what then? "We will get out before they come." That was secession. They would not trust the Republican party; that was it.

Sir, self-respect for this Government, selfrespect for the American people, self-respect for our institutions and laws all forbid it. We have no terms to offer, we ought to have no proposals to make, except this: obey the Constitution and the laws. That we can compel them to do, but you cannot compel them to adopt new propositions and give new guarantees; and I should say that we have no right to do it, unless this Government is to be entirely changed in its nature, in the nature of its machinery, and in the rights which are to be conferred upon it; and if it is, in God's name, why not let us know it? If there is to be no such thing as State rights, if this is to be a consolidated Government, an actual de facto Government, administering the laws and justice among the people as the State governments now administer them, why not bring in that proposition and let us see it, let us meet it? If, however, it is to be such a Government as the one we have been proud of so long, let us preserve it; and instead of trying to patch it and mend it and change it and pervert it for a mere temporary political purpose, let us all stand by it proudly and strongly, and hand it down to our children with the same injunction with which we received it from our fathers, and then we shall have fulfilled our duties and we shall have performed the functions of American citizens.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois; and the question has been ordered to be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of the amendment.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That no person exercising or performing, or undertaking to exercise or perform, the duties of any office which by law is Senate, shall before confirmation by the Senate receive any salary or compensation for his services, unless such person be commissioned by the President to fill up a vacancy which has happened by death, resignation, or expiration of term, during the recess of the Senate and since its last adjournment.

Now, we are told you cannot trust the Democratic party; you cannot trust either of the parties with the southern fraction of the Union in its place in the legislative Halls of the country. What are we going to do? Instead of standing upon the Constitution and the laws, for which we made the war, and standing or pered to be filled by the advice and consent of the there honestly, as brave men should, we have now a scheme to make a new Constitution and new laws. Is not this the same thing precisely that the secessionists said in the winter of 1861? Did they not say we must have new constitutions, we must have new laws, we must have the Constitution amended here, and the Constitution amended there? Why? Because they apprehended difficulties. Now, in the process of time, in the revolutions of the wheel of fortune, the very extreme northern radical party find themselves in the position of the secessionists, distrusting the Constitution, distrusting the law, distrusting the people, apprehending some difficulty; and that is to be mended by new constitutions and new laws and new guarantees. That is the word, I believe. That is a very fashionable word now.

Mr. President, how absurd is all this. Suppose that we pass these bills requiring new guarantees and imposing new conditions. Of course, as they do not now exist in the Constitution and in the laws, they are to be proposed to the southern States for their acceptance, and if you make a proposal to any onefor his acceptance, in that is involved the right that he has to refuse, if he chooses. I put it to honorable Senators, suppose to-day you make your proposal to South Carolina to accept your new Constitution and your new series of laws, and suppose she refuses. What then? What are you going to do? Suppose the whole eleven refuse; what then? How are you going to make them do it? I agree, if they will all take up guns and attempt to shoot you, you might take up a whole parcel of guns and shoot a great many of them, and compel them to lay down their guns; but you cannot make them accept your proposition. Then, if you cannot compel it except by war, and you cannot compel it by war, unless they make war by way of resistance, what are you going to do? Just nothing. Then you have your trouble for your pains, and you will enjoy the delightful satisfaction of being backed down and backed out by those whom you proclaim to be conquered people, and whom you proclaim, upon the floor of the Senate, you hold by the point of the bayonet.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 16, nays 23; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morrill, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, and Wade-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis. Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wilson-23. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Grimes, Hendricks, Kirkwood, Williams, Wright, and Yates-10.

So the amendment was rejected.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time, and passed.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. NORTON. I desire to call up Senate bill No. 263, to authorize the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river and to establish a post route.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busi

ness.

That bill will create some discussion, and the hour is rather late, and there are some nominations that I think ought to be confirmed to-night.

Mr. NORTON. If the Senator from Maine will allow me, this bill has been reported from the committee with some amendments. It is quite short, and I do not think it will involve any discussion.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is hardly a proper hour to take up a railroad bill.

Mr. NORTON. It is a short bill, and will involve no discussion, I think.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot withdraw my motion.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in the consideration of executive business, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, May 14, 1866.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of Friday last was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented to the Senate a memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Montana on the subject of a territorial library, setting forth that they

have learned from reliable information that an appropriation was made by Congress for a territorial library for Montana, and that the library was purchased and put in charge of a Government official appointed for that Territory, and that, although that official has arrived in the Territory and departed from it again, the library has not come to hand; and they therefore ask the action of Congress in the premises. The memorial was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore also laid before the Senate a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Montana, protesting against the proposed division of that Territory; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

sioner in the years 1851 and 1852, in the State of California, to supply an expedition to the Klamath country to settle difficulties with the Indians; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the petition of William A. Phillips, late commanding officer of the Indian brigade, and others, praying that bounty may be allowed to the first, second, and third Indian regiments under the act of July 22, 1861, reported a joint resolution (S. R. No. 87) to provide for the payment of bounty to certain Indian regiments; which was read, and passed to a second reading.

Mr. CONNESS, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred a joint resolution (H. R. No. 77) for the relief of Ambrose L. Goodrich and Nathan Cornish for carrying the United States mail from Boise City to Idaho City, in the Territory of Idaho, reported it with an amendment.

BILL INTRODUCED.

Mr. WADE also presented a memorial of many colored persons, praying Congress to enact a law by which all able-bodied loyal male citizens over eighteen and under forty-five years of age shall be drilled and inspected in each judicial district of the rebellious States once in three months without regard to color or race, that life, liberty, and property may be made secure; also, praying Congress to enact a law by which no naturalized citizen of the United States who has levied war against the Government shall be permitted to occupy any position under the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. RAMSEY presented the memorial of Commander B. M. Dove, protesting against the action of the Naval advisory board, and praying to be restored to his proper rank in the Navy; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I present a memorial from citizens residing in and near the village of Tabor, county of Frémont, Iowa, who represent that they have approved the decision of Congress not to receive any persons as representatives of the States recently in rebellion until Congress shall declare such States entititled to representation, and asking that no one of those States be declared entitled to representation until impartial suffrage is secured to all its loyal citizens. I ask the reference of this memorial to the joint committee of fifteen on reconstruction.

It was so referred.

Mr. SPRAGUE presented the petition of the Franklin Institution for Savings of Providence, Rhode Island, and the petition of Providence County Savings Bank of the town of North Providence, praying that savings banks having no capital, and whose banking is confined to receiving deposits and loaning the same for the benefit of depositors only, and which are now subject to a duty of five per cent., may be exempted by law from paying any further internal revenue tax; which were referred to the Committee on Finance,

Mr. WADE presented a memorial of voters and property holders in Alexandria city and county, Virginia, praying that that city and county may be reannexed to the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. CONNESS presented the petition of Martha A. Estill, administratrix of the estate of James M. Estill, praying for the payment of a balance claimed to be due for beef furnished to the United States Indian commis

ceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. RECOMMITTAL OF A REPORT.

Mr. NYE. I move, by the consent of the chairman of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to recommit the report that was made in the case of Frederick Vincent, administrator of James Le Caze, late of the firm of Le Caze & Mallett, for the payment of money advanced during the revolutionary war, to that commit

tee.

The motion was agreed to.

COURTS IN MISSISSIPPI.

Mr. HARRIS. I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 310) to change the place of holding the courts of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi, to report it back without amendment, and I ask that the bill may be considered now.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which provides that the district courts of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi now required to be held at the town of Pontotoc shall hereafter be held at the town of Oxford.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to know from the Senator from New York the reason for this proposed change.

Mr. HARRIS. The place for holding the courts for the northern district of Mississippi is now Pontotoc, which is a dilapidated town, inaccessible, with no railroads running through it, and with no convenience for holding a court there. It is proposed to change it to some town on the railroad, a convenient place where the courts can be accommodated. It is the desire of the new district judge that this change should

be made.

The bill was passed.

RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. STEWART. I desire to offer, for the purpose of amendment to the joint resolution (S. R. No. 78) reported by the committee of fifteen, the proposition which I now submit. It defines what is meant by "citizens," in the first article of the proposed constitutional amendment, and strikes out the third section as reported by the committee.

I also desire to offer, as a substitute for the two bills reported by the committee, a bill embodying both of those bills in one'; and providing, further, that when the constitutional amendment, as I propose to change it, shall

have been adopted by the requisite majority, and any State lately in insurrection shall have consented to the conditions named in the bill, that State may be admitted, with an alternative offering them, as I proposed before, with a slight limitation, amnesty for an extension of suffrage by themselves in their State constitutions. I propose, in other words, to give them the alternative of enfranchising or disfranchising of disfranchising as proposed by the committee, or of enfranchising and receiv ing amnesty.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that the bills and joint resolution to which the Senator proposes to offer amendments, are not now before the Senate; but this will be regarded by the Chair as notice that the Senator will, when these questions come up, propose the amendments which he has now submitted.

Mr. STEWART. I desire now simply to have an order for their printing.

The proposed amendments were received informally, and ordered to be printed.

SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' ORPHANS' FAIR.

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 88) authorizing the Secretary of War to grant the use of certain lumber for the fair for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home; and there being no objection, it was read three times and passed. It proposes to authorize the Secretary of War to grant the use of lumber, not demanded by the Department for immediate use, for the erec tion of temporary buildings in the city of Washington for the national fair for the benefit of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home.

LAW LIBRARY OF J. L. PETIGRU.

On motion of Mr. HOWE, the joint resolu tion (S. R. No. 79) to authorize the purchase, for the Library of Congress, of the law library of the late James L. Petigru, of South Carolina, was read the second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to authorize the Joint Committee on the Library to contract with the heirs of the late James Louis Petigru for the transfer of the law library left by him to the Library of Congress; and to appropriate the sum of $5,000 to carry into effect the purpose of the resolu

tion.

Mr. WILSON. I should like to hear an explanation of this resolution. I do not know why this library should be bought. There may be a good reason for it; if so, I should like to hear it.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, it is a collection of books amounting to nearly sixteen hundred volumes, collected by the late James L. Petigru, of South Carolina. There is a need for more books in the Law Library; they are especially required for the use of the Court of Claims, which makes very heavy drafts upon the present Library, so that when the Supreme Court and Congress are both in session it is very difficult to get books from the Law Library to supply the demand made. There are a great many calls upon it, and very often books required by parties in Congress are in use by parties employed in the Supreme Court.

The possession of these books would be of great value to the Library, and that is one reason why we sought to make this purchase. The purchase has been urged upon us by a great many individuals for another reason. It has been thought by a great many very desirable that the United States should own the library formerly possessed by Judge Petigru. I never had the advantage of a personal acquaintance with Judge Petigru, but I believe it is known to very many members of this Senate and to the country at large that Judge Petigru was, in his lifetime, not the one, but almost the only one friend which the United States had in the city of Charleston holding the social position that he did. I hear it said on all hands that through all the difficulties which have occurred

between the State of South Carolina and the United States Judge Petigru has uniformly been found on the side of the United States; that while almost everybody about him proved disloyal, he was uniformly found loyal; and I ⚫ have seen testimony, not open to controversy, that at different times during the history of the Government, he rendered most signal services to the United States. I have seen a letter from a former President of the United States testifying to the fact that during his AdministrationI refer to the Administration of Mr. FillmoreMr. Petigru was the only man he could find, of sufficient attainments, who would venture to take the office of district attorney of the United States in that district.

Moved by these considerations, a great many gentlemen have urged upon us the propriety of putting the library collected by him on the shelves of the Congressional Library. The purchase is not a very large one. It has been reported that Judge Petigru died in impoverished circumstances; that he left his widow nearly destitute. The money to be paid for the purchase of this library would be of essential help to her in her old age, and I am informed that it is really all that she has to maintain herself during the remainder of her life, which cannot be very much protracted. I hope, therefore, there will be no objection to making this purchase.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to inquire how much it is proposed to give for this library. Mr. HOWE. The price is not to exceed $5,000.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I was consulted with reference to this proposition privately before it was acted upon in committee, and I gave my opinion very decidedly against it. I was not present when it was considered in the Committee on the Library, and therefore I do not feel bound by anything that was done there, because I gave no opinion in committee on the subject. Had I been there, I should have opposed the measure. I admit the merits of Mr. Petigru. He was unquestionably a good Union man, a very distinguished man, a very true man to the Union; a very independent man, who incurred risks on account of his Union sentiments; and so far I recognize his merits; but, sir, my objection to this resolution is twofold. In the first place, because a man remained true to his duty, whatever might be the circumstances under which he remained true and under which he was situated, living in the southern States, where, to be sure, it required a great deal of virtue, I do not think it would be safe to recognize the principle that therefore, because he had happened to be an eminent man, we are to provide for the support of his widow or family in any way. There were a great many people in the South who were not in eminent positions who made as great sacrifices, because they sacrinced all they had, being poor persons, not eminent persons, not distinguished persons, but having an equal degree of public virtue, who have remained true to the Union, and who have lost all. I do not see the propriety, unless you mean to go through with it and apply it to all, of picking out one particular person, because he happened to be more eminent and more distinguished than the others, and making provision for the support of his family, he being in civil life, and rendering no active service, but simply remaining true to his duty and refusing to concur in the rebellion. The precedent would be a bad one. recognize no more merit in him than I would in an humbler person, one of less distinction, perhaps of none, but yet who sacrificed all he had rather than desert the country to which his allegiance was due; and I see no reason why, if we begin this, we should not go through with it. I regard this proposition as simply a mode of doing indirectly what we could not constitutionally and properly do directly.

I

In the next place, we know nothing about this library. If it is worth $5,000 it will sell for that; but unquestionably it is just like other lawyers' libraries-a library that probably cost, him $5,000, but would sell for very little. It is

39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 161.

perfectly well known that law-books which cost a man five dollars originally may, in the course of time, be bought very readily at auction for half a dollar or a dollar. It is very difficult for many of them to be sold at all. A library that is picked up by a lawyer in the course of practice in a great many years is really of but very little money value. New books have taken the place of old ones; new editions have taken the place of old ones; and the older editions are really good for nothing in a money point of view, except as waste paper, at the end of the time when the lawyer terminates his business. That is the ease with my library. It is not very valuable, but it cost me some money; it would not sell for the sixth part of what gave for it; and that is the case with all the libraries of old lawyers. We know nothing about the value of this library. No inquiry has been made on the subject. That is probably the character of it; it is the character of the library of every lawyer who has taken the trouble to acquire one that I ever saw. They are of but little money value. They were of value to the individual who owned them while he lived, because he was accustomed to the books, they served him in place of others.

States to appropriate a sum not exceeding $5,000 to purchase these books, this library. I do not discover any sham in that.

Mr. FESSENDEŇ. Do you know anything about its value?

Mr. HOWE. I never have seen the library. I have seen a catalogue of the books. I have seen appraisals put upon them by book men in New York. They differ in their estimates. They value them at from $3,000 to $5,000.

The

Mr. FESSENDEN. Did they see the books? Mr. HOWE. I do not know whether they have seen the books or not. It was supposed by the committee that $5,000 would be the full value of the library. I think it was the disposition of the committee to pay the full value of the library; it is my disposition. We could get along without these books. Library does not ache for them. If it did, we could get them in other quarters. I concede all that; and I confess that my desire was stimulated to make this purchase by what I had known of the political relations and conduct of the former owner of the library. I do not propose to the Senate to make a direct approandpriation to reward Mr. Petigru for his fidelity to the Government under which he lived and whose protection he enjoyed. That is not my purpose. But if that man, who was true while he lived, when almost everything about him was false to the core, left anything of value to this Government which it is desirable to us to own, I do think the fact that he was true, the fact that the purchase of that value would be a benefit to her whom he may fairly be supposed to have loved better than anything else on earth-that fact, I say, seems to me not a sham, but a real additional reason why we should make the purchase.

In the next place, this being a miscellaneous library of that sort, picked up in that way, it can clearly be of no value to us. It would not be fit to put into the Congressional Library, and probably would not be worth the room it would take in the Law Library. We unquestionably have different copies of all the books we own. It is not pretended that these volumes are rare ones or of the best editions; and it would only be lumbering the shelves probably with mere waste paper if we had them.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask the Senator what proof there is that we want it.

Mr. HOWE. Well, Mr. President, the Librarian who has charge of the Congressional Library did say to the committee that it would be of great convenience; it was composed in the main of a class of works which were very convenient for reference in the practice of the Court of Claims, and would relieve the books now on the shelves very much of the demands made by those practicing in that court.

This is, then, merely an indirect way of giving $5,000 to this widow for what is really of The reasons why we should make the purno value to us, what we do not want, and should chase are, first, that it will supply not a sham consider of no value, perhaps, if we had; books but an actual want in the Library; second, that that would not be purchased by us from other it will give as value for the money we appropersons to put into the Library, either the Law priate; third, that it will furnish relief to the Library or any other. I disapprove of the prin- wife of one who while he lived the Governciple of the thing, and I especially disapprovement had great reason to be grateful to. It of the way in which it is done. If we have furnishes no precedent whatever that will be any power to do it, let us do it directly, and of any danger. It furnishes simply a precegive her $5,000, rather than attempt to do a dent in which we purchase property that we thing of this description. That it is brought want. to us, and we are asked to give this money for it, only proves that it is perfectly well known that the works are not worth anything of any consequence to be sold in any other way. On these grounds I think the proposition is a very improper one. We cannot begin to support the families of persons in the southern States or elsewhere, however eminent they may have been, who simply remained true to their duty and died poor. We have no proof whatever that Mr. Petigru suffered anything or lost any property particularly on account of the difficulties that occurred. I believe, as he was a very old man, a very eminent man, and a non-combatant, the general understand-gratuity to every one who under adverse ciring and agreement was that he was to be let alone. I have not heard of any outrages being practiced upon him or upon his family in any way; and with regard to his family themselves, his children are not all very loyal persons. Some of them may be. One of then, at any rate, I have good reason to believe is not so. I dare say the widow is a very estimable woman; but taking it on the whole I think the thing is very improper, bad as a precedent, founded on no principle, and the way in which it is done is a mere sham. I do not like it in any shape and shall vote against it.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I am sorry to hear the Senator from Maine say that he will vote against this proposition. It is true he was not in the committee when this matter was considered; but the proposition received the assent of every member of the committee who was present, and I was in hopes it would receive his assent, though I had not an opportunity of consulting him about it. I hope the Senator will at least reconsider his opposition, so far as to concede that this is not a sham way of doing anything. It is a real, actual, bona fide way of asking the Congress of the United

That is the evidence upon which I made the remark that we needed it. It is not a precedent which calls upon us to vote a bounty or a

cumstances shall have been true to the Government of the United States. No such thing is proposed, and I must deprecate the remark thrown in by the Senator from Maine that not all the family of the late Judge Petigru are loyal or have been loyal to the Government. I never have heard any imputation upon the loyalty of his widow. It is for her benefit, and her benefit alone, as I understand, that the money which is proposed to be paid for this library is to go. If his children were less faithful than he, one or all of them, it is enough to say that they are not to be benefited in any way by this purchase, or I am greatly misinformed.

I must say, Mr. President, in conclusion, that I do think it is well enough for the Government of the United States to show a little gratitude for any exhibition of distinguished fidelity. I can myself subscribe to the truth of what the Senator from Maine has said, that his fidelity is no more to be commended than that of a person less distinguished in social life than himself, less eminent in position than himself; and yet I am not sure that it is entirely correct as he states it. I think I can under

stand that the temptations thrown about a man in Judge Petigru's position, that the inducements to him to be untrue and unfaithful to the Government, might be stronger than those around a person less eminent than himself; and if so, he is to be distinguished and commended for his fidelity in proportion to the temptations he had to go astray. Without entering at large upon the merits of Judge Petigru, for I am in no position and in no mood to attempt any eulogy upon him, if the Senate do not feel-any gratitude I cannot invoke any or create any. If they do feel any disposition to be grateful for such services as he rendered, here is an opportunity to show the gratitude of the Senate in as cheap a way as gratitude was ever exhibited to a man in the world. You can do it without much cost to yourselves, and I think, under the circumstances, you had better do it.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the joint resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the honorable chairman of the committee if there is any catalogue of the books.

Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir. There was a catalogue shown to the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. They are all old editions, are they not?

Mr. HOWE. The editions were not given upon the catalogue.

Mr. JOHNSON. If they are old editions, as I am rather fearful they are, they are comparatively worth little or nothing. Their places are occupied by new editions with additional notes. No one thinks now of buying the older editions, what may be called the classical lawbooks. I would ask the honorable chairman also to whom the money is to be paid.

Mr. HOWE. To the widow,

Mr. JOHNSON. It says "the heirs." Who are the heirs?

Mr. HOWE. to the widow.

It was intended to be made

Mr. JOHNSON. She certainly cannot be entitled to the whole.

Mr. GRIMES. The resolution does not propose to buy them.

Mr. JOHNSON. It authorizes the committee to contract with the heirs.

Mr. GRIMES. Not to purchase but to "transfer" the library.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no proof whatever in regard to it. The catalogue was sent to New York. It is an old lawyer's law library. The Senator from Maryland and I know very well that they are worth very little.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have some reason to know. I was unfortunate at one time to lose the whole of my own, and I had to buy a library, and I purchased Mr. Wirt's law library, more recent than this, and I think I gave for the whole of the library he had $3,000.

Mr. HOWE. How large a library?

Mr. JOHNSON. Four thousand or five thousand volumes. I know he kept his library full up to the day of his death, was in the habit of buying all the books, and all the editions I got from his estate were good editions; and I only gave $3,000. I am satisfied it was twice as large a library as Mr. Petigru's. Although Mr. Petigru was one of the most eminent men at the bar, he was so situated for the last twenty I think, that he was not buying modern years, books. I believe there was a law library in Charleston where he resided, and I suppose he used that. It is a very common thing now in all the cities for the courts to have a library of their own, or for the bar to have a library to which all resort; and there are very few lawyers who keep up with the books; and I rather fear it will be found that that was the case with Mr. Petigru.

No man in the Senate could be more anxious to show respect for his name than myself. I think the last letter he wrote he addressed to me, and I published it after his death in the

Intelligencer, in which he regretted what his State had done, her determination to secede, and spoke with all the love and devotion to the Union that any of us could feel, and stated that he really had hoped, as he was living when the Constitution was adopted, that he should not die after the Union formed by the Constitution was at an end. As far, therefore, as personal motive could animate any member of this Senate-and I am sure every member of the Senate is willing to do all he can to show respect for a like that-I should

influenced, but I cannot agree to buy a library like this on the same ground on which I would give $5,000 to the family.

Mr. HOWE. If the yeas and nays can be withdrawn I should like to have the resolution

laid over. I see the purchase is to be made

of the heirs.

Mr. CLARK. It can be laid over without withdrawing the call for the yeas and nays. Mr. HOWE. Let it lie over; it will have to be amended I see.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed until to-morrow.

Mr. HOWE. Perhaps the vote ordering the resolution to be engrossed for a third reading ought to be reconsidered.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In order to amend it, it would be necessary to reconsider that vote. The Chair will put that motion to reconsider now if the Senator makes it. Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is now moved that the further consideration of the

joint resolution be postponed until to-morrow. The motion was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I desire to submit a motion that my colleague, Senator ANTHONY, be granted leave of absence for one week.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to granting the leave, but I wish to know what is the effect of it. It seems to be a new habit which has sprung up recently, or else an old habit revived.

Mr. SPRAGUE. It is, as I understand, a simple courtesy of the Senate. That is all.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection if it has no other effect.

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is my understanding.
The motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. LLOYD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had passed, without amendment, the bill (S. No. 310) to change the place of holding the courts of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi.

The message further announced that the House of Representatives had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. R. No. 66) relative to the courts and post office of New York city, and the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 397) to authorize the coinage of five-cent pieces.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolutions; which were thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 511) imposing a duty on live animals;

A bill (H. R. No. 567) to amend an act to establish the grade of vice admiral in the United States Navy; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 133) relative to the attempted assassination of the Emperor of Russia.

BRIDGE AT WINONA.

Mr. NORTON. I move to take up Senate bill No. 263. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate,

as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 263) to authorize the Winona and St. Peters Railroad Company to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river, and to establish a post route, which had been reported by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads with amendments.

The first amendment was at the end of section one to insert the following words:

And in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to the free navigation of said river, the cause may be tried before the district court of the United States of any State in which any portion of said obstruction or bridge touches.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out section two, as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any bridge built under the provisions of this act shall be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, and with a span over the main channel of the river, as understood at the time of the construction of the bridge, of not less than one hundred feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw; and one of the next adjoining spans shall not be less than two hundred and twenty feet in length: Provided, That said pivot draw shall be constructed at an accessible and navigable point in the river, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river, as near as practicable: And provided also, That said draw shall always be opened promptly, upon reasonable signal, for the passage of boats whose construction may not at the time permit of their passing under the permanent spans of said bridge, except that said draw shall not be required to be opened when engines or trains are passing over said bridge, or when passenger trains are due; but in no case shall unnecessary delay occur in the opening of said draw after the passage of such engines or trains.

And to insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw.or with unbroken and continuous spans: Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme high-water mark as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the span over the main channel of the river shall be three hundred feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a drawbridge, the same shall be constructed as a pivot drawbridge with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than one hundred and sixty feet in length in the clear between piers on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet; and said spans shall not be less than thirty feet above low-water mark, and not less than ten above extreme high-water mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided also, That said draw shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats, whose construction shall not be such as to admit of their passage under the permanent spans of said bridge, except when trains are passing over the same; but in no case shall unnecessary delay occur in opening the said draws after the passage' of trains.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I should like to inquire of the gentleman who has this bill in charge whether the description of the draw and spans of the bridge is the same in this amendment as was inserted in the bill allowing the construction of bridges at Quincy and Hannibal.

Mr. RAMSEY. This bill was considered by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, who had the other bridge bills in charge; and since. The bill, however, is in charge of my it is similar to the one we passed a few days colleague.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. draw?

The same width of

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. Mr. DOOLITTLE. The same height above high-water mark?

Mr. RAMSEY. The same height and the