appropriation, and I must say that I cannot construe the bill as he does. Therefore I object. Mr. ALDRICH. I regret extremely that the bull dog of the Treasury should object to having these claims inquired into. Mr. HOLMÅN. I object to the bill myself. ELIZABETH Oodell and OTHERS. A bill (H. R. No. 276) for the relief of Elizabeth Odell, Mary Woodbury, and others, halfbreed women of the Sioux tribe of Indians. The bill was read. Mr. HOLMAN. I object to the consideration of any private bill. Mr. DELANO. I understand there is a permanent objection to all private bills, and it is useless to go any further. I move that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole House had had under consideration the Private Calendar, and had directed him to report sundry bills to the House with a recommendation that they be passed. Mr. DAWES. I move the previous question upon the passage of the bills. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; and under the operation thereof, the following bills were passed: A bill (C. C. No. 108) for the relief of John Skirving; A bill (H. R. No. 163) for the benefit of the heirs and legal representatives of John McLaughlin; A bill (H. R. No. 166) for the relief of the surviving children of Israel Frisbie, a revolutionary soldier; A bill (H. R. No. 194) for the relief of Joseph B. Eaton; A bill (H. R. No. 195) for the reciprocal extinguishment of certain claims between the United States and the representatives of Robert Brent, deceased; A bill (H. R. No. 218) for the relief of the legal representatives of Frederick F. Brose, deceased; A bill (H. R. No. 272) for the relief of Brigadier General Joseph G. Totten; A bill (H. R. No. 273) for the relief of Thomas Forster; and A bill (H. R. No. 274) to pay B. Y. Shelley for his claim and improvements taken from him by the Omaha reservation, in the Territory of Nebraska. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the votes by which the several bills were passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. For the first time in my life, Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to make a personal explanation. No objection being made, Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, said: A few days since I offered a resolution, requesting the President to strike from the rolls of the Army any officer guilty of habitual intoxication. That resolution embraces no name, but it pointed so directly to an individual that the public attention was particularly fixed upon him, and it is but just to say properly fixed, as I understood at the time. I allude to General W. F. Smith. It is proper for me to say that rumor has charged that his confirmation as brigadier general had been for a long time suspended in consequence of charges as to his habits in this respect; although I did not know personally whether well or ill founded. After the conflict on the 16th of April, at Yorktown, wherein the Vermont troops were so conspicuously engaged, those rumors were more particularly revived, and especially in this city. In the course of a day or two a gentleman was introduced to me from New York, by the name of H. L. Suydam, who was present on that occasion upon the battlefield, standing in the rear of one of the chimneys of a house which had been burned by the rebels a few days previously; and while he stood there, as he informed me orally, General Smith came to him and he had a conversation with him, and he was enabled to make observation as to General Smith's condition at that time. I do not think it necessary to repeat all the details which made him believe, and which made me believe also, that the general was at that time intoxicated. But in order to secure myself with a proper voucher, the next day I asked this gentleman to put in writing the main points of his charge against General Smith. And I will say here now, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman was vouched for to me by the member from the Geneva district of New York, [Judge CHAMBERLIN,] now in his seat, as a man of the most respectable character, and I call upon the gentleman from New York to say whether that is not so. Mr. CHAMBERLIN. The gentleman referred to, Mr. Suydam, is a resident of Ontario county, a man of standing and character, and I should fully rely upon all which he might say upon any subject. I have recently seen many of Mr. Suydam's neighbors and friends, and they inform me that he is a man to be relied upon as a man of character and veracity. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I now send to the Clerk's desk the letter from Mr. Suydam, that it may be read. The letter was read, as follows: WASHINGTON, April 23, 1862. DEAR SIR: In answer to your inquiry of this morning relative to the conduct of General Smith in the battle of the 16th instant, near Yorktown, I am sorry to have to say that I was an eye-witness of the battle, and that General Smith was too much under the influence of liquor to command a devoted band of volunteers, he having fallen from his horse during the afternoon, which is well known by the sixth and third volunteers of Vermont. The fact is, there is no use trying to keep it from the men, for they saw it, and the wounded in the hospital talked to me during the night, as I was taking care of them. In fact the remark was made that he (Smith) should be shot. Hoping that justice may be done to General Smith, the volunteers, and the country, I remain, sir, very truly, yours, H. L. SUYDAM. JUSTIN S. MORRILL, Esq. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I will merely add one single fact in relation to this matter which was given to me orally by Mr. Suydam, but not stated in the letter, and that is that General Smith, at that time was too drunk to sit upon a horse. Mr. Speaker, now, so far as I am concerned, I do not expect that our officers in the Army are to be teetotalers, or that they are to be entirely saints. I will not criticise them for indulging in their usual habits. I know that, exposed to all the hardships, excitements, and perils of the camp and in the field, we ought not to expect that they will be better than the average of mankind. But upon the information which I received, and as it is now before the House, I felt it to be my duty, call public attention to the matter. I have done as one of the Representatives of Vermont, to so, but with no malice against any individual whatever. And in relation to this gentleman in particular, knowing these rumors to exist, I exerted myself at the time of the communication said to have come from General McClellan asking for the confirmation of General Smith as a brigadier general, by conferring with some members of the Senate, to remove any difficulty that might exist in the way of his confirmation. But vouched for, as this statement was to me, by a man who was introduced to me, as I have related, as a gentleman of the highest respectability, I felt it to be my duty to do no less than what I have done. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to send to the Clerk's desk, to be read, a letter from General Smith received since I came into the House this morning. The letter was read, as follows: CAMP NEAR YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA, SIR: You have seen fit, in your place in the House of Representatives, to utter a foul slander against me. You have offered to the country no evidence in support of your naked assertion. You have, so far as I can learn, taken no public steps to collect testimony to substantiate your charges; and the indignant denials which have gone from officers of this division to yourself and colleagues have failed to elicit from you an open and frank apology. It is now my turn to speak; and here face to face with a brave foe, I turn back to you, an assassin, and tell you you must prove your charge against me, or make your retraction as public as the libel; and I am certain that throughout the length and breadth of this great land every manly heart will say I have demanded no more than I have a right to compel. WILLIAM F. SMITH, Commanding Division in the Army of the Potomac. HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL, Member of Congress. P.S. I shall endeavor to have this letter published where ever your slander has been circulated. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Now, Mr. Speaker, as it will be seen that this letter is to be published, and probably is already published in the papers, waiving all comments upon its charac ter, I propose to offer the testimony sent to one of my colleagues yesterday, and which I saw yesterday for the first time, of the officers of our Vermont brigade under the command of General Smith, who flatly contradict the testimony of Mr. Suydam, and I do it for the purpose of doing justice to the case and to myself. Mr. DIVEN. If the gentleman will allow me, I desire to ask him a question. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Wait until that paper is read. Mr. DIVEN. I should rather make it now." Mr. WASHBURNE. No doubt other gentlemen will be heard upon this question. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I prefer to conclude what I have to say; and I presume the gentleman from New York will not object to testimony furnished in behalf of General Smith. Mr. DIVEN. Then I object to having the paper read. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont has a right to have it read as a part of his remarks. The Clerk read, as follows: CAMP WINFIELD SCOTT, VIRGINIA, NEAR YORKTOWN, April 26, 1862. To the Vermont Congressional Delegation: The undersigned, field officers of the several regiments composing the Vermont brigade commanded by Brigadier General W. T. H. Brooks, and attached to the division commanded by Brigadier General W. F. Smith, having noticed in the proceedings in the House of Representatives, April 23, that a resolution was passed to this effect: "That the President be requested to strike from the rolls the name of any officer who has been known to be habitually intoxicated by spirituous liquors while in the service;" and knowing from the context of such report of proceedings that General W. F. Smith, commanding this division, is the officer referred to, beg leave to state that the charge of the drunkenness of General W. F. Smith upon the occasion referred to in the said report is entirely and unequivocally false. We beg leave further to state that the information upon which the charge of drunkenness of said officer is based, in our opinion, was given by some person or persons who were actuated by a willfully malicious and unworthy motive, who, to gratify a personal animosity or a selfish ambition, have, at the expense of truth, sought to defame the character and destroy the good name of one of the bravest and most vigilant and skillful generals in the service of the United States. We beg leave further to state that, in our judgment, the confirmation of the appointment of William F. Smith as brigadier general of United States forces would be an act that is justly his due, and that his services in that capacity will greatly aid in the suppression of this rebellion. We would further state that this memorial has been prepared and is forwarded to you without the knowledge or consent of General Smith, and is but a feeble expression of the confidence which we, as subordinate officers in his command, entertain towards him, and in whose abilities and success we personally and in our official capacity have so much at stake. II. A. SMALLEY, Colonel Fifth Vermont Volunteers. H. N. WORTHEN, Lieutenant Colonel Fourth Vermont Regiment. J. H. STOUGHTON, Colonel Fourth Vermont. THOMAS O. SEAVER, Major Third Vermont. Colonel Sixth Regiment Vermont Volunteers. Lieutenant Colonel Fifth Vermont Volunteers. Colonel Third Vermont Volunteers. Lieutenant Colonel Sixth Vermont Volunteers. My duties on the afternoon of the fight did not bring me within observation of General Smith; but I am satisfied by others that he was not intoxicated. As to the preceding statements regarding the prudence, skill, bravery, and confirmation of General Smith, I concur. HENRY WHITING, Lieutenant Colonel Second Vermont Regiment. Major Second Vermont Volunteers. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, desiring to do full and ample justice to all concerned in this matter, I have felt it to be my duty to present these papers to the House, as I have done; and I have nothing further to add. Mr. BIDDLE. If there is no objection, I would like to say a word or two. There was no objection. Mr. BIDDLE. As this explanation has a little the air of a reiteration, so far as that part of it is concerned which comes entirely from the gentleman from Vermont, I would say that a distinguished officer, not of the regular Army, but fresh from civil life, on the staff of General McClellan, a day or two after this statement was made in the House, came here and told me that he had been 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. in a position to observe the conduct of General Smith during the period when something is supposed to have occurred to give rise to this aspersion, and that he, from his personal knowledge, was able to say that the charge was utterly unfounded in fact; that the conduct of General Smith, on that day, was marked by particular zeal and intrepidity, and that, in endeavoring to force his horse through a bog, where it was difficult standing ground, the horse fell, and an accident occurred which was misinterpreted by a distant observer. When the resolution offered by the gentleman from Vermont came before the House, on the feeling of the moment I voted against it. I voted against it as one of the instances of precipitancy through which gallant soldiers in the field may have an irreparable injury done to them which can by no subsequent explanation be removed. This charge against General Smith has flown far and wide on the wings of the telegraph-far wider than this tardy explanation will ever follow it. Though the name of General Smith was not put in that resolution, it was mentioned by the gentleman from Vermont, or by somebody who, I derived it from him, on the floor of the suppose, House in such a way that, in fact, the motion was to empower the President to strike the name of General Smith from the rolls of the Army. I did not see any reason to give the President that right in the case of General Smith, or in the case of any other officer. I think it is a very dubious question whether the President has the authority in any case, although it has sometimes been exercised, without objection, in very flagrant cases, to strike an officer from the rolls without a trial. He has a right to arrest him; he can strip him of his command; he can dishonor him; but I do not see why he should also take away from him the hope that at some day, however distant, he may have the chance of a fair trial before some competent tribunal. I should be sorry to admit that our soldiers have forfeited the rights which are guarantied to citizens of the United States, in or out of the Army. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to think that what I have already said is but a reiteration of the charge. I think the House has arrived at the conclusion that what I intended to do and have done is this, and no more: to give the authority upon which I based the resolution. I have made no charge, and reiterated no charge. I have merely given the authority upon which I introduced the resolution. I have also, in exculpation of General Smith, given the testimony of his entire brigade, or nearly so, of Vermont officers. I think the gentleman will hardly say that that is a reiteration of the charge. It was merely giving the evidence pro and con. in the case. Mr. BIDDLE. I am very happy to interpret it as an entire retraction instead of a reiteration of the charge. BATTLE OF PITTSBURG LANDING. Mr. WASHBURNE. I desire, with the consent of the House, to say a few words upon a subject kindred to the one just touched upon. There was no objection. Mr. WASHBURNE. Mr. Speaker, I will only trouble the House for a few moments, but when justice claims to be heard, it is said that a nation should be silent. Lamartine, in his celebrated History of the Girondins, speaking of one of those incidents so characteristic of the French revolution, says: "The news of the victory of Hondschoote filled Paris with joy. But even the joy of the people was cruel. The convention reproached as a treason the victory of a victorious general. Its commissioners to the army of the North, Hentz, Peyssard, and Duquesnoy, deposed Houchard, and sent him to the revolutionary tribunal." * * * The unfortunate Houchard was condemned to death, and * "It was met his fate with the intrepidity of a soldier and the calmness of an innocent man." shown that even victory was no protection against the scaffold." It may be inquired, whether in this rebellion history is not repeating itself. I come before the House to do a great act of justice to a soldier in the field, and to vindicate him from the obloquy and misrepresentations so persistently and cruelly thrust before the country. I refer to a distinguished general who has recently fought the bloodTest and hardest battle ever fought on this continent, and won one of the most brilliant of victories. I refer to the battle of Pittsburg Landing, and to A native of Major General Ulysses S. Grant. Ohio, he graduated at West Point, July 1, 1843, with the brevet rank of second lieutenant, and was appointed second lieutenant, September 30, 1845. Though but forty years old, he has been oftener under fire and been in more battles than any man now living on this continent, excepting that great chieftain now reposing on his laurels, and on the affections of his countrymen, Lieutenant General Scott. He was in every battle in Mexico that it was possible for any one man to be in. He followed the victorious standard of General Taylor on the Rio Grande, and was in the battles of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, and Monterey. He was with General Scott at Vera Cruz, and participated in every battle from the Gulf to the city of Mexico. He was breveted first lieutenant September 8, 1847, for gallant and meritorious conduct at the battle of Molino del Rey, and on the 13th of the same month he was breveted captain for gallant and meritorious conduct at the battle of Chapultepec. He has received the baptismal of fire. No young officer came out of the Mexican war with more distinction than Grant, and the records of the War Department bear official testimony to his gallant and noble deeds. He resigned in 1855, and afterwards settled in Galena, in the district I have the honor to represent on this floor. I will read from reports in the War Department. In the report of Captain Horace Brooks, second artillery, of the battle of Chapultepec, he says: "I succeeded in reaching the fort with a few men. Here Lieutenant U. S. Grant, and a few more men of the fourth infantry, found me; and by a joint movement, after an obstinate resistance, a strong field work was carried, and the enemy's right was completely turned." The report of Major Francis Lee, commanding the fourth infantry, of the battle at Chapultepec, says: * * "At the first barrier the enemy was in strong force, which rendered it necessary to advance with caution. This was done, and when the head of the battalion was within short musket range of the barrier, Lieutenant Grant, fourth infantry, and Captain Brooks, second artillery, with a few men of their respective regiments, by a handsome movement to the left, turned the right flank of the enemy, and "Second Licuthe barrier was carried." tenant Grant behaved with distinguished gallantry on the * "I cannot refrain from 13th and 14th." * calling the attention of the major general commanding to the fact that there has not been since the landing of the regiment at Vera Cruz a single captain on duty with it. When a regiment has behaved so well, and when its young officers have uniformly displayed such gallantry, this should be taken into consideration," &c. * The report of Brevet Colonel John Garland, commanding first brigade of the battle of Chapultepec, says: "The rear of the enemy had made a stand behind a breastwork, from which they were driven by detachments of the second artillery, under Captain Brooks, and the fourth infantry, under Lieutenant Grant, supported by other regiments of the division, after a short but sharp conflict." * "I reorganized the command as it came up, mounted a howitzer on the top of a convent, which, under the direction of Lieutenant Grant, quartermaster of the fourth infantry, and Lieutenant Lendrum, third artillery annoyed the enemy considerably." * must not omit to call attention to Lieutenant Grant, fourth infantry, who acquitted himself most nobly upon several occasions under my own observation." In this particular mention of officers for gallantry and good conduct, besides the officer of his own staff, he names but one other officer besides Lieutenant Grant out of his whole brigade. General Worth's report, September 16, 1847, Mexico: of the battle of Chapultepec, "I have again to make my acknowledgments to Colonels "And to LieuGarland and Clark." * "and Grant, fourth tenants Lendrum" infanry, especially.” He was among the first to offer his services to the country at the commencement of hostilities, saying that as he had been educated by the Government, that Government was entitled to his services in its time of peril. Early made a colonel of one of the Illinois regiments, he went into actual service in Missouri. His commands there were important, and he discharged every duty with great fidelity and advantage to the public service. With a military head and a military hand, he everywhere evoked order from chaos. Military discipline, order, and economy traveled in his path. In time he was made a brigadier general, and intrusted with the important command of the district of Cairo, and how diligently, how faithfully, how satisfactorily he discharged all his duties is well known to the country. While in that command, learning of a movement about being made by the rebels at Columbus to send out a large force to cut off Colonel Oglesby, who had gone into Missouri after that roaming bandit, Jeff Thompson, by a sudden and masterly stroke he fell upon Belmont, and after a brilliant and decisive action, in which he and all his troops displayed great bravery, he broke up the rebel camp with great loss, and then returned to Cairo. The expedition was broken up, Ogleby's command was saved, and everything was accomplished that was expected. source, In time came the operations up the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, and I state what I know. By a singular coincidence, on the 29th day of January last, without any suggestion from any General Grant and Commodore Foote, always acting in entire harmony, applied for permission to move up those rivers, which was granted. The gunboats and land forces moved up to Fort Henry. After that fort was taken, it was determined to attack Fort Donelson. The gunboats were to go round and up the Cumberland river, while the army was to move overland from Fort Henry to Fort Donelson. move. The roads were the worst ever known, and almost any other general or any other troops would have despaired of moving. But they did If General Grant had been told that it was impossible to move his army there, he would have made a reply like to that of the royal Pompey, when he was told that his fleet could not sail: "It is necessary to sail, not necessary to live." It was necessary for this western army to march, but it was not necessary to live. The country knows the result-Donelson fell. The enemy, twenty thousand strong, behind his intrenchments, succumbed before the unrelenting bravery and vigor of our troops, no more than twenty-eight thousand engaged. We took there, not twelve thousand, not fifteen thousand, but more than sixteen thousand prisoners. I have it from General Halleck that we have actually paid transportation for more than sixteen thousand prisoners. That, in most countries, would have been called a most brilliant military achievement. Napoleon surrounded old Mack at Ulm, and captured twenty thousand or more prisoners, and that exploit has filled a great space in history. While the capture of Donelson filled the country with joy, there was a cruel disposition to withhold from the commanding general the meed of gratitude and praise so justly his due. Captious criticisms were indulged in that he did not make ently the work might have been better accomthe attack properly, and that if he had done differplished. It was not enough that he fought and gloriously conquered, but he ought to have done it differently, forsooth. Success could be no test of merit with him. That was the way the old generals spoke of the young Napoleon when he was beating them in every battle, and carrying his eagles in triumph over all Europe. He did not fight according to the rules of war. But there was a more grievous suggestion touching the general's habits. It is a suggestion that has infused itself into the public mind everywhere. There never was a more cruel and atrocious slander upon a brave and noble-minded man. There is no more temperate man in the Army than General Grant. He never indulges in the use of intoxicating liquors at all. He is an example of courage, honor, fortitude, activity, temperance, and modesty, for he is as modest as he is brave and incorruptible. To the bravery and fortitude of Lannes, he adds the stern republican simplicity of Guvion St. Cyr. It is almost vain to hope that full justice will ever be done to men who have been thus attacked. Truth well said that "falsehood will travel from Maine is slow upon the heels of falsehood. It has been to Georgia while truth is putting on its boots." Let not gentlemen have any fears of General Grant. He is no candidate for the Presidency. He is no politician. Inspired by the noblest patriotism he only desires to do his whole duty to his country. When the war shall be over he will return to his home and sink the soldier in the simple citizen. Though living in the same town with myself, he has no political claims on me, for, so far as he is a politician, he belongs to a different party. He has no personal claims upon me more than any other constituent. But I came here to speak as an Illinoisian, proud of his noble and patriotic State; proud of its great history now being made up; proud above all earthly things of her brave soldiers, who are shedding their blood upon all the battle fields of the Republic. If the laurels of Grant shall ever be withered, it will not be done by the Illinois soldiers who have followed his victorious banner. Those pose of concealing some lack of valor or courage Mr. WASHBURNE.. I said if there were any Mr. COX. Let me say to the gentleman just this in regard to the Ohio regiments, about which a great deal has been said Mr. WASHBURNE. The gentleman will pardon me. I did not say anything against Ohio troops. Mr. COX. I want to say to the gentleman that there were twenty-six regiments from the State of Ohio in that battle. I want further-for I desire to vindicate, as the gentleman is doing, a matter where no charge is made-to refer to a slander upon an Ohio regiment for lack of bravery at that battle. That slander has been repelled and the falsehood of the charge is well understood, but as it came from some Illinois correspondent, [laughter,] I desired to refer to it. Mr. WASHBURNE. I rejoice as much as my friend from Ohio can that any such slander which may have been circulated has been completely answered. But to the victory at Pittsburg Landing, which has called forth such a flood of denunciation upon General Grant. When we consider the charges of bad generalship, incompetency, and surprise, do we not feel that "even the joy of the people is cruel?" As to the question of whether there was, or not, what might be called a surprise, I will not argue it; but even if there had been, General Grant is in no wise responsible for it, for he was not surprised. He was at his headquarters at Savanna when the fight commenced. headquarters were established there as being the most convenient point for all parts of his command. Some of the troops were at Crump's Landing, between Savanna and Pittsburg, and all the new arrivals were coming to Savanna. That was the proper place for the headquarters of the commanding general at that time. The general visited Pittsburg Landing and all the important points every day. The attack was made Sunday morning by a vastly superior force. In five minutes after the first firing was heard, General Granting. I have kept my eye upon the letters in relaand staff were on board a steamboat on the way to the battle-field, and instead of not reaching the field til ten o'clock, or as has been still more falsely represented, till noon, I have a letter before me from one of his aids who was with him, and who says he arrived there at eight o'clock in the morning and immediately assumed command. There he directed the movements, and was always on that part of the field where his presence was most required, exposing his life, and evincing in his dispositions the genius of the greatest commanders. With what desperate bravery that bat⚫tle of Sunday was fought! what display of prowess and courage! what prodigies of valor! Our troops, less than forty thousand, attacked by more than eighty thousand of the picked men of the rebels, led by their most distinguished generals! Mr. COX. A good deal has been said about tion to it. My colleague, from whose district the Mr. WASHBURNE. I am very glad to hear Now, sir, I have a little more to say about the generals and the soldiers who fought in that battle. I have a word to say about the brave McClernand, so lately our colleague here, who, as I learn from a man who was on the battle-field on that Sunday, and who saw him ride at the head of his division, holding his flag in the face of the enemy, daring them to come on. I would say something in relation to the bravery and skill of Hurlbut, from my own district, who commanded another division there and won great glory. I would say something in defense of another man who has been charged with having his division surprised, and having been taken prisoner at the time. I mean General Prentiss. I have a letter But it is gravely charged by these military critics After fighting all day with immensely superior numbers of the enemy, they only drove our forces back two and one half miles, and then it was to face the gunboats and the terrible batteries so skillfully arranged and worked by the gallant and accomplished officers, Webster and Callender, and which brought the countless host of the enemy to a stand. And when night came, this unconquerable army stood substantially triumphant on that bloody field. I am not here to speak disparagingly of the troops of any other State, but I will speak in praise of the troops of my own State. No Illinois regiment, no Illinois company, no Illinois soldier, fled from that battle-field. If any did flee, they were not from Illinois, and they would be the ones who, after their own flight, would seek to cover up their own disgrace, but only add to it, by attacks upon an Illinois general. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Mr. WASHBURNE. Yes, sir. surprised on Sunday morning, the writer saw him Sir, if I had time I would like to speak of others; Mr. COX. I had no idea that the gentleman from Illinois, when he came here for the purposeened, and were at last carried from the field badly of vindicating his fellow-citizen, General Grant, from an attack not made at all upon him in this House, would launch out into an attack on soldiers from other States. I do not think there was any necessity for that. Mr. WASHBURNE. I beg my friend's pardon. I made no attack on the troops of other States. I said I did not come here to disparage anybody. Mr. COX. The gentleman said that these attacks were made on General Grant for the pur wounded. And of Colonel Chetlain, of the old I see before me my friend from Pennsylvania, off, waved his sword in defiance to the enemy. But who shall attempt to do justice to the bravery of the soldiers and the daring and skill of the of ficers; who shall describe all the valor exhibited on those days; who shall presume to speak of all the glory won on that blood-stained field? I have spoken of those more particularly from my own part of the State; but it is because I know them best, and not because I claim more credit for them than I know to be due to the troops from all other parts of the State. They all exhibited the same bravery, the same unbounded devotion, the same ardor in vindicating the honor and glory of the flag, and maintaining the prestige of our State. Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he denies that the army was surprised at Pittsburg on the morning of Sunday? Mr. WASHBURNE. I state that I have the fullest authority for making a substantial denial of that charge. I said, however, that I did not intend to argue that question; that it was not necessary for the defense of General Grant. But I say, no matter whether there was a surprise or not, the manner in which all those gallant troops fought on that day has conferred upon them and upon the country imperishable renown. Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask, admitting that it was a surprise, whose fault it was? Mr. WASHBURNE. I suppose if there had been a surprise it would have been the fault of the man who commanded the division surprised. I come not here, however, to speak of the faults of anybody, but to do justice. Mr. WILSON. I desire the gentleman to fol low that a little further. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I want to say a word before the gentleman from Iowa proceeds. My colleague [Mr. WASHBURNE] has defended his friend well. I regret the disposition to find fault with our generals in the field, who have done so nobly, so bravely, and so well. Let us remember only their prowess and their glory, and let there not be crimination and recrimination. Let us rather glory in the success of our arms in our brilliant achievements on the well-fought field, and say all have done well. I regret that this matter of crimination of officers in the field should be brought up. Mr. WILSON. I will state that I fully concur in the remark of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLOGG] last on the floor, that this matter ought not to have been brought up here, and I for one do not intend to join in any crimination or recrimination. I have thought the whole thing out of taste. I have thought it improper and uncalled for. There was no occasion for it at all that I can discover. No charge has been made here against General Grant or any other officer engaged in that contest, although there are very grave differences of opinion in relation to certain matters connected with the fight. Mr. WASHBURNE. I cannot yield further. Whatever may be my friend's ideas on the subject, I say to him that whenever I find a general from my own State at the head of an army attacked as General Grant has been, I will feel myself called upon, in all places and upon all occasions, to defend him, and I think this is the best occasion I shall have, and I intend to avail myself of it. I believe, notwithstanding the desperate fighting on Sunday, and the partial repulse of our troops, that, aided by the fresh troops of the brave Lew. Wallace, that army could have whipped the enemy on Monday without further reinforcements. That army could never have been conquered. But I would not detract from the glorious fighting of Buell's troops on Monday, for they behaved with great gallantry and fought bravely, successfully, and well. Justice must be done to all. By a general order, General Halleck, now on the spot and cognizant of all the facts, has publicly thanked the generals, Grant, Buell, and Sherman, indorsing their bravery and skill. Sir, I have detained the House too long, but I have felt called upon to say this much. I came only to claim public justice; the battle of Pittsburg Landing, though a bloody one, yet it will make a bright page in our history. The final charge of General Grant at the head of his reserves will have a place, too, in history. While watching the progress of the battle on Monday afternoon, word came to him that the enemy was faltering on the left. With the genius which belongs only to the true military man, he saw that the time for the 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. final blow had come. In quick words he said, manding officer, General McClellan, betraying no evidence in any respect, whatever, of having disguised his faculties, mental or physical, by the effects of liquor. A signal, which had been concerted between him and the officers leading the Word was sent by his body-guard to the diftroops, was displayed, and an orderly officer, unferent regiments to be ready to charge when the derstanding its meaning, rode up and told General order was given; then, riding out in front amid a Smith that the signal had been given. He restorm of bullets, he led the charge in person, and Beauregard was driven howling to his intrench-sponded at once, "Then my boys are at their ments. His left was broken, and a retreat commenced which soon degenerated into a perfect rout. The loss of the enemy was three to our two in men, and in much greater proportion in the demoralization of an army which follows a defeat. That battle has laid the foundation for finally driving the rebels from the Southwest. So much for the battle of Pittsburg Landing, which has evoked such unjust and cruel criticism, but which history will record as one of the most glorious victories that has ever illustrated the annals of a great nation. Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, if there be no objection, I will say a word in connection with this matter. After the explanations which have already taken place, I trust that this House, during its session, will have no more occasion to investigate the battles which have been fought, or the conduct of our officers, but that the members will leave that where it properly belongs, to the officers who are placed in command of our armies. 1 rise only to say to my colleague, as kindly as possible, that I regret that this thing has been brought to the attention of the House this morning. During a short service here of eight or ten years, I have never found it necessary to vindicate upon this floor the conduct of any of our citizens upon the battle-field for the want of either skill or courage; and I trust that the time never will come when I shall feel obliged to defend them against any such imputation, and especially when I am satisfied that none such has really been made, or intended to be made, against them. I desire to say, further, that the impropriety and the impolicy—if I may use the word-of gentlemen upon this floor criticising the ability, skill, and strategy of our armies and our generals are most manifest. In my judgment, sir, it is about the poorest business that this House can be engaged in. And I will say another thing-and I say it kindly, intending in no way to be offensive-that I feel, this day, that our armies would do better and gain more and greater victories if the "riot act" could be read, and both Houses of Congress dispersed to their homes at the very earliest possible day. [Laughter and applause.] Mr. VOORHEES. Mr. Speaker, the House will bear witness that I seldom occupy the floor, and I do not take it now for the purpose of engaging in the latter part of this discussion. I see no propriety in canvassing the relative merit of western troops, who all deserve every encomium which each Representative is disposed to bestow on those of his particular State. I desire to call the attention of the House, however, to a matter in which every just and fair-minded man must feel an interest. I allude to the subject brought to the attention of the House by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL;] and in that connection I will say that I am possessed of a piece of information regarding General Smith's conduct on the occasion of the fight at Lee's Mills before Yorktown which I would deem myself unjust and criminal not to give him the benefit of, by placing it before the House and country in connection with the cruel charge of drunkenness which has been made against him. A few days after the affair at Lee's Mills, Colonel Key, the judge advocate upon General McClellan's staff, was in this city. He is known to most of the members of this House as a man of great eminence in his profession; and he is known to them also as a man of the highest sense of honor, whose word is equal to a bond. With feeling and with great particularity he detailed that affair to me, which the gentleman from Vermont has connected with the resolution he brought up for the action of the House. He told me that he was sitting on a log with General McClellan and General Smith as the troops were marching to the place where the action was commenced. While sitting there the probable result of the movement was discussed by General Smith, with the utmost clearness and coolness, with his com work," and, mounting a high-spirited animal, he then going on. In every respect, Colonel Key I feel it due to a brave and gallant officer, in the Mr. FISHER. I wish to submit to this House The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the Mr. FISHER. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, The SPEAKER. It is not in order to refer, in the House, to anything that has taken place in the Senate. Mr. FISHER. I do not speak of Mr. SAULSBURY as Senator of the United States, but of Mr. SAULSBURY, a citizen of the State of Delaware. This Mr. SAULSBURY, a citizen of the United States of America, has been pleased to submit some observations which he has published to the country, in which he has undertaken to denounce the arrest of certain persons in the State of Delaware, most of them residing in my own town, as the arrest of loyal men. Mr. RICHARDSON. I call the gentleman to Mr. FISHER. The remarks to which I shall Mr. ALLEN. But where were they made? Mr. ALLEN. Were they not published in the Baltimore Sun as having been made in the Mr. FISHER. They are not to be found in Mr. RICHARDSON. I would like to know from the gentleman from Delaware where the remarks were made to which he proposes to advert. Mr. FISHER. They were made somewhere in the city of Washington, I presume. Mr. RICHARDSON. I call the gentleman to order. He clearly proposes to refer to remarks made in the Senate. Mr. FISHER. I will waive all allusion to the Senator from Delaware. In some remarks published in the Sun this morning, purporting to have been made by a would-be distinguished gentleman from Delaware, charging that arrests have been made in the State of Delaware, which I have the honor to represent on this floor, of loyal citizens of the United States, and the names of some of those "loyal" citizens, and among them I find the name of John B. Pennington, a citizen of my own town. Mr. VOORHEES. I rise to a point of order. It is that the remarks of the gentleman are not in the nature of a personal explanation. The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot control that matter. Mr. FISHER. My remarks are in vindication of the loyalty of my State, and I trust that in her behalf I may be heard. I know there are tenderfooted gentlemen on this floor whom my remarks may touch upon the other side of the House, and I know they do not wish the matter to which I desire to advert should be ventilated here, but I hope the opportunity may be afforded me of discharging my duty to my loyal constituents and ot making this explanation here, that I may separate between the sheep and the goats. Mr. VOORHEES. I rise to a point of order. It is that the gentleman makes a personal application of his remarks. His remarks do not affect me in the slightest degree, but the House should preserve its own decorum. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana is not in order now. Mr. VOORHEES. The gentleman from Dela ware The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VOORHEES. It is that the gentleman makes his remarks personally offensive to this side of the House. The SPEAKER. The Chair would state that remarks applying to a whole side of the House have never been considered as personal. He therefore overrules the point of order. Mr. FISHER. If the gentleman will permit me to explain what I think should be explained, he may then make any remarks he pleases. I am going to speak of facts which I know, and facts in reference to which I shall produce the evidence here and now. Let the gentleman, or let any other gentleman in this House, or in the counAll I ask is to be try, gainsay them if he can. heard. Now, in regard to this man McWhorter, it has been said by this would-be distinguished gentleman to whom I have referred, that at this time McWhorter is "A most highly respectable citizen of my State, residing near the capital, was dragged away from his home and carried into the State of Maryland by the military authorities, there detained for a week or more, and then dischargedno fault found in him." Mr. ALLEN. Will the gentleman from Delaware undertake to reply here to a speech made by a Senator? The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order by the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. ALLEN. The gentleman has no right to read an extract from a Senator's speech for the purpose of referring to him in violation of the rules The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman raise a point of order? Mr. ALLEN. I do. It is that the gentleman is out of order in reading an extract from a Senator's speech, which I understand him to be now reading, for the purpose indicated. The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know what the gentleman is reading from. Mr. FISHER. I was saying what has been said about this man McWhorter. It has been said that this McWhorter "Was one of that unfortunate class of people of this country who at the present day seem not to awaken much interest, and to whose interests not much attention is paid. He, too, was white." Yes, sir, he is white; but I assert here, and I assert it upon my responsibility as a man and as the Representative of a loyal State-the State of Delaware, though small she may be-that he is a disloyal white man, and that as such he is not of as much consideration as a loyal nigger. [Laughter.] That is my sentiment, and I hold myself bound to answer, here or elsewhere, for my expression of it. And now for the testimony. I have it here in writing. This same Charles H. McWhorter, about the latter part of October, 1861, procured materials and made a secession flag, and in company with others—and I will say that one of those others was, as I have been informed, a nephew of one of the Senators of the State of Delaware, Gove Saulsbury, jr.-attempted to hoist it about midnight upon a flag pole which had been erected for the flag of the Union. These, sir, are some loyal white men of the State of Delaware, are they If they are I claim no fellowship with them, and I scorn to be regarded here as the Representative of such loyal men. Being the owner of a fast horse which he called "Jeff Davis," after the so-called president of the confederate States, [laughter,] and after exhibiting said horse at the agricultural fair in Dover at a trotting match, he called for a Union flag which was floating near by, and said, "take that damned old rag and wipe out the horse's mouth-it is all it is fit for." This is one of the loyal white citizens of the State of Delaware, is he? During the autumn of 1861, he said, in reply to a remark addressed to him by a gentleman in Dover-and I will here say that the gentleman in Dover to whom allusion is made is my law partner-expressive of a desire to have but one government from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, "that he, too, wanted one government, and that government to be Jeff Davis's government, and that he wanted the confederate flag to float over every State in this Union." This is Mr. McWhorter, and he is one of Mr. WILLARD SAULSBURY's loyal white citizens of the State of Delaware. Sir, I claim no fellowship with that man McWhorter, nor with any man who stands up here or elsewhere to defend him. In another conversation he said that he would make the privilege of killing President Lincoln the only atonement for the sins of his life. Further than that, at a party given at his house, McWhorter, about the 7th day of March, 1862, immediately before his arrest-to which allusion was made by the gentleman whose remarks are now printed in the Baltimore Sun of this morningwore a secession badge. And yet this Mr. McWhorter is a loyal white citizen of the United States, a loyal citizen of the Union. Now, sir, a remark has been made elsewhere in regard to other gentlemen, and among others in regard to the arrest of John B. Pennington, of my own town, whose law office is next door to my own, the captain of the company called the Hazlitt Guards. As captain of that company he was arrested by Colonel Wallace, under orders of General Lockwood, because of the disloyalty of that company, and their refusal to give up the arms in their possession to the United States authorities. Now, sir, I will quote a few remarks made by one of the members of that loyal white company, who was not arrested, but ought to have been; and who, I undertake to say upon this floor, upon my responsibility as the Representative of the State of Delaware, and upon my own responsibility as a man, is the nephew of WILLARD SAULSBURY, who now represents in part the State of Delaware in the other end of this Capitol. The evidence is that this nephew of the Senator from Delaware, Gove Saulsbury, jr., in drilling as a member of the Hazlitt Guards, wore the letters U. S. upside down, and drilled so publicly, stating that in that form the letters would stand for confederate States or southern union; and that he wore upon his person a secession badge. This is another of the loyal white citizens of the State of Delaware who have not been dragged from their homes into another State by the military authority of the United States Government. Robert C. Justis, another member of the Hazlitt Guards-this loyal company named in honor of old Colonel John Hazlitt, who fell at the battle of Princeton in the revolutionary war-on Hazlitt Guards, of which company he is a mem At the time of the first meeting held by the Union men of Kent county in favor of the Union, in May, 1861, this same Gove Saulsbury, jr.,hearing that the guns in the possession of the declared that he would be glad to see the United States flag torn down from the staff whereon itber, would probably be demanded by the United was floating, and trampled in the dust. This is a loyal citizen of the State of Delaware, and the loyal nephew of a loyal Senator now representing the State of Delaware in the Congress of the United States. In a conversation had in Dover, he expressed joy and satisfaction over the defeat of the Union army at Bull Run, and expressed his hope that every one of the Union troops that went South might share the same fate as those who had fallen in that battle. Here is another evidence of the loyalty of this Senator from Delaware and his "loyal" nephew! Nehemiah Lofland, another member of the same company, on the occasion of a wedding party in Dover, when a portion of the company were singing the patriotic song "Columbia the gem of the ocean, "instead of the words in the chorus "three cheers for the red, white, and blue," sang "three cheers for the red, white, and red," thus adapt ing that chorus to the confederate flag. In the spring of 1861, when patriotic citizens were purchasing and wearing the star spangled banner, he sold from his store, and himself wore, the confederate flag with seven stars on it. In him we have ing to judgment recently set up for loyalty to the another loyal white citizen of Delaware, accord Union. Another member of the Hazlitt Guards was John C. Craig. In divers conversations in Dover he rejoiced, and admitted that he did rejoice, in the success of the rebels over our forces at Bull Run in the most public manner, and when two young gentlemen, members of the Hazlitt Guards, to which he belonged, were engaged in raising a company for the United States service, and wished to drill with said company, he told them they had no business to engage in raising a company for the Government, and objected to their drilling with the Hazlitt Guards for that reason. Here is another sample of the "loyal" citizens of Delaware, whose defense has been attempted by Mr. WILLARD SAULSBURY! John A. Nicholson is another member of that company. In a conversation during the summer of 1861, at the county buildings, in Dover, he said openly that the South had cause to secede, that they had a right to secede, and that they were now doing right, and just what they ought to do. Martin B. Hillyard, about the time when the Union forces went into Virginia, in a conversation on the public square in Dover, said he hoped that the Federal troops that invaded the seceding States would die by disease, or by bullets, or by steel. And this is another one of the loyal citizens of the State of Delaware whose defense has been attempted by WILLARD SAULSBURY! James M. Wise, another member of the Hazlitt Guards, of the town of Dover, in which I have the honor to reside, in a conversation in a store in Dover, in the autumn of 1861, while looking at some hats, and having his attention directed to a representation of the United States flag in the hat, and told that he ought to buy it on that account, remarked "damn the stars and stripes," and upon being told that he lived under them, replied, "damn the stars and stripes; I do not want to live under them any longer." And this is another one of the "loyal" citizens of the State of Delaware whose defense has been attempted by my loyal friend, WILLARD SAULSBURY, of the State of Delaware! William A. Atkinson, whose name has been mentioned as one of the oppressed "loyal” citizens of the State of Delaware, declared in a public bar-room in Dover, in the month of January, 1862, that he would sooner have the Emperor of France to rule over this country than the present Administration. I, sir, have heard with my own ears this same man Atkinson, ex-sheriff of the county of Kent, where I reside, singing to the tune of Dixie, this song: "The Union, the Union I once loved so well, And that, sir, is one of the "loyal" citizens of the State of Delaware, of whose arrest so much complaint has been made. States authorities, said, "if they come to take my gun, they will damned soon get the bullet in it, and that is all the gun they will get. "This is another of the "loyal" citizens of the State of Delaware! John L. Pratt, whose name has also been paraded by this Mr. WILLARD SAULS BURY The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that reference to a Senator, by name, is not in order. Mr. FISHER. I am not alluding to any Sen ator. The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot permit the gentleman to mention a Senator by name. Mr. FISHER. I will say, then, that this man Pratt, who is Secretary of the Senate of the State of Delaware, and to whom allusion has been made as a good and loyal citizen of that State, when, in the summer of 1861, a proposition was made by a Union member of the Hazlitt Guards that said company should escort a company raised for the United States service from the town of Dover to the railroad depot, replied that he was opposed to escorting men who were recruited to fight men who had his sympathies. What men had his sympathies? Why the men over here in the land of Dixie, who had raised, and were at that time prosecuting, the most wicked and gigantic rebellion that history has yet made record of. This man was arrested for hurrahing for Jeff Davis on the visit of Colonel Wallace at Dover, in March last. That is another of these "loyal" citizens of the State of Delaware. Thomas O. Culbreth, another member of this loyal company, declared, on learning of the fall of Fort Donelson, that he would sooner have heard of the death of his only brother, the latter being a warm Union man. Outten L. Hill, in the post office at Dover, in the winter of 1862, openly hurrahed for Jeff Davis. William W. Luders, in divers conversations, has expressed himself in favor of the rebellion, and hoped the South would gain their independence. James Todd has been frequently heard to hurrah for Jeff Davis, and in a conversation, the question having been propounded to him whether he was or was not a secessionist, replied, "if I must say what I am, I am compelled to acknowledge myself a secessionist and Jeff Davis man." There are a few other members of the Hazlitt Guards, whose members were arrested by the military authority, and whose arrests, as loyal men, are so loudly and bitterly complained of. Joseph G. O. Harrington, some time in the latter part of February, 1862, in the Washington Hotel, at Dover, drank this toast: "Here's to General Beauregard, whose voice was heard in thunder-tones on the plains of Manassas, when the Yankee hordes, like whipped hounds, were driven howling back to their kennels." Mr. COX. Will my friend please inform us whether there are any other people in the State of Delaware, besides those he has named? [Laughter.] Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir; I am proud to say there are. I had just got through with this list. I know it hurt the gentleman from Ohio. [Laughter.] Mr. COX. Oh no; not at all. Mr. FISHER. I know it pained the gentleman. But "let the galled jade go wince, my withers are unwrung. [Renewed laughter.] Mr. COX. The gentleman misunderstands my point. Mr. FISHER. No, I do not; not at all. [Laughter.] Mr. COX. I was under the apprehension that he had already made out a majority of the people of his State to be secessionists. Mr. FISHER. Oh, no, sir; not a majority. Mr. COX. I do not sympathize with the class of people the gentleman has named, and the gentleman knows I do not. Mr. FISHER. I do not know any such thing. [Much laughter.] I know that Mr. Cox is a gen |