Page images
PDF
EPUB

and unsettled regions of the West. And, sir, we cannot do better for this citizen soldier than to give him a homestead upon the soil he may have saved, and protect him by the Government he has defended; and settlements founded by these men, who have had the discipline and devotion of soldiers, will be safe depositories of the institutions of free government. The savage on the one side, or the traitor on the other, will never invade his quarters. So then I say that while we are preparing for the exigencies of war, let us not forget the condition of peace.

For my own part, I begin to see, at least, the beginning of the end. We have just passed the anniversary of the President's first proclamation for troops. He will never need to issue another. The loyal heart of the nation is beating. The real cause of the rebellion begins to be seen, and when fairly discovered it will be struck; whether that uplifted arm which deals the blow be loyalist or rebel, it matters not. Some threatening edifices have crumbled of their own weakness and weight; some have melted away before the force of an invading foe; but others, still, have stood in towering magnificence until swept away by the breath of the Almighty.

Slavery has had its day and run its course. It once triumphed in these Halls of legislation, in the press of the country and in the literature, ay, the religion of the land. But neither Congress, the press, or the pulpit will ever come again to the rescue of slavery. It must be buried in a dishonored and hopeless grave. Let it go, "unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

[ocr errors]

Between freedom and slavery there is now a great gulf fixed; and while the one is ascending in prosperity and triumph over the arch that spans the chasm that divides it from the other, there will be written in dissolving views, "the rebellion was the suicide of slavery!"

But freedom shall live, the brighter by contrast, and flourish here as perpetual as the ages! Our country is yet but in the infancy of its being, not yet three centuries old. And our settlements are but specks dotted round upon the edge of the map of the continent. The great heart of America, with treasures as precious as the life-strings, is yet unexplored, and almost unknown.

This bill, enacted into a law, shall give civilization and life throughout the silent gorges and genthe sleeping valleys, faraway into the deep recesses of the continent. Where leads the way, there shall go in triumph the American standard, the old flag of the Union. And when once thus planted, it shall never again be trailed in the dust. The proudest bird of the mountain is upon the American ensign, and not one feather shall fall from her plumage here. She is American in design, and an emblem of wildness and freedom. I say again she has not perched herself upon American standards to die here. Our great western valleys were never scooped out for her burial place. Nor were the everlasting, untrodden mountains piled for her monument. Niagara shall not pour her endless waters for her requiem; nor shall our ten thousand rivers weep to the ocean in eternal tears. No, sir; no. Unnumbered voices shall come up from river, plain, and mountain, echoing the songs of our triumphant deliverance, while lights from a thousand hill-tops will betoken the rising of the sun of freedom, that shall grow brighter and brighter until a perfect day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The further consideration of this bill is set aside by the special order of the day-the confiscation bill.

CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 151) to confiscate the property and free the slaves of rebels.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont moves an amendment to the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting a new and entire bill. To that amendment the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] moves an amendment striking out the sixth section of the proposed substitute, and inserting new matter in its stead; and upon that question the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. HOWE addressed the Senate. [His speech will be published in the Appendix.]

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I propose making any remarks

[ocr errors]

upon the bill now before the Senate. I will not
say that I am as reluctant to speak as those who
are here may be to listen. Their reluctance to
hear may be greater than mine to speak; and I
should certainly remain silent but for the length-
ened discussion that we have had, during which
certain assertions have been made, opinions ex-
pressed, and principles advocated on which I feel
bound to make some comments before I give my

vote.

In as brief terms as I can command, I will address myself to the matter in hand without any apology for so doing. It seems to me as much the right of those who are postponed to a late period of the debate to be heard, as it is of those who may chance to get the ear of the Senate earlier in the discussion; and those gentlemen especially who have favored us with lengthened remarks from day to day, ought not to be very impatient if one who has hitherto said nothing says a few words now.

An indifferent spectator who had attended our
debates for days and weeks past would, I think,
naturally have arrived at the conclusion that there
were two parties in the Senate upor this question,
and that the division was made on very strange
principles, the one of those parties made up of the
supporters and defenders of the Constitution of
the country, the other of those who love the coun-
try and who are prepared to defend it, to hold as
enemies and to do battle against all who are try-
ing to overthrow and destroy it; in other words,
that here was a strife between those who loved the
country and those who loved the Constitution,
between patriots and constitutionalists; a most
strange and unnatural antagonism, not merely
strange and unnatural, but an impossible antag-
onism, for no such antagonism can exist between
those who love our country and those who love
its Constitution. The man who loves our coun-
try must love its Constitution; the man who loves
our Constitution must love the country. The two
principles are inseparable. Where the one exists
in the heart the other is near to it, and bound to
it by a tie too strong for man to sever. They are
joined together by the Hand that made us, and
let us strive as we will, we cannot put them asun-
der. Away, then, with the idea which seems to
have been entertained here that we have one class
of Senators who are standing by the Constitution
and another class who are devoted to the country.
The men who are standing by the one are devoted
to the other, supporting and defending the other;
we cannot really sustain either alone. The Con-
stitution surely would be worthless without the
country; the country would have no protection,
no shield, no salvation without the Constitution.
I say then, sir, that this antagonism is not only
strange and unnatural, it is an impossible antag-
onism.

My honorable friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE]
is a patriot; he loves his country; no man who
knows him doubts it; he loves it with all his heart,
and he is ready to put his life in peril for it. My
honorable friend from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER]
loves the Constitution of the country with all his
heart, and is ready to put his life in peril to sup-
port and defend it. But is not the honorable Sena-
tor from Ohio just as ready to put his life in peril
for the Constitution as the honorable Senator from
Vermont, and is not the Senator from Vermont
just as ready to put his life in peril for the country
as the Senator from Ohio? Surely there is no an-
tagonism between these Senators on this subject,
nor between those who represent these principles.
There is none, there can be none. When there-
fore the honorable Senator from Ohio remarked,
as he did the other day, that he was a little tired
and a little restive under some intimations that he
or those who were voting with him might not be in
favor of supporting the Constitution, and repelled
with some indignation, not improperly, any such
idea, the Senator from Vermont might, had he
taken occasion to make the remark, with equal
propriety and justice have repelled any idea that
he was not as strongly attached to the country and
as hostile to its enemies as the Senator from Ohio.
But, sir, I do not propose to pursue this thought;||
I merely allude to it to show on what strange
grounds we have drifted in carrying on this dis-
cussion, for here we really seem to be divided by
this strange line-a line which cannot be drawn.
We can as readily separate a man's personal iden-
tity as to separate those who love the Constitu-
tion from those who love the country.

There are various measures here before us.

There are four original bills, four substitutes for those original bills, and five amendments to those bills, or to the amendments of those bills, making thirteen distinct propositions pending before the Senate when they shall be severally in order. Five of them have been printed and laid on our tables to-day for the first time. Two only out of the whole thirteen were ever investigated or examined by any committee of this body, leaving eleven of the thirteen propositions here that have never been examined by a committee, and five of them never printed by order of the body until to-day. Under these circumstances Senators ought not to complain that any one who may deem it proper to offer a few remarks, it having been determined by the Senate that it was not best to refer this subject to a committee, but to discuss it here, should occupy a few moments in discussing these several propositions. I am not, however, sir, by any means going to comment upon these several bills to which I have alluded, being the bill of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL,] the bill of the Senator from New York, [Mr. HARRIS,] the bill of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. COWAN,] and the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.] The amendments are the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] and the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. COLLAMER.] Then the amendments to amendments are those of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr.WILSON,] the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. CLARK,] the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL,] the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] and the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.] The immediate question before the Senate is upon the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, his amendment being to the bill proposed by the Senator from Illinois. I propose to compare together the bill of the Senator from Illinois and the substitute of the Senator from Vermont, with the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, as proposed to the substitute of the Senator from Vermont; and I assert in the outset that I make this comparison with the design and desire of voting for that measure which shall seem to be most efficacious for putting down and crushing out this rebellion. That is my honest purpose in comparing these two bills, with the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts annexed to them; and when my judgment is satisfied which bill will best effect that object, it is that bill to which I wish to give my voice and my vote, because at this time that is the object paramount to all others in my mind.

Those who have attacked the bill of the honorable Senator from Illinois have found a great deal in it which in my judgment never belonged to it. It is natural perhaps for those who are opposed to a measure, to make it as odious as possible, and the opponents of this bill have represented it as one unworthy of the Senate, and which ought not to be passed. I think many have for this reason misunderstood this bill, and have imputed to it features and characteristics which never belonged to it. The Senator from Illinois himself has replied to those charges with sufficient point and clearness to leave me nothing to say on that topic. While those who have attacked this bill have thus endeavored to make it very obnoxious, while those who have defended it have endeavored to make it very harmless, those who have proposed amendments to it have endeavored to show that the amendments were not subject to the objections made to the original bill, and were still of sufficient force to accomplish all that the original bill would accomplish. Then the opponents of those amendments, the advocates of the original bill, have in turn undertaken to show that the proposed amendments were nugatory and worthless, when they were arguing to the friends of the original bill, and when arguing against the amendments, to the friends of the amendments, they have insisted that the amendments were more obnoxious, had more harsh and repulsive features than even the original bill.

The amendment of the Senator from Vermont has been attacked and defended upon very much the same principles as the original bill of the Senator from Illinois, on which I have commented.

Comparing these two measures together is my task; and in the first place, the claim made for the bill of the Senator from Illinois, as stated the other day by the Senator from Maine, [Mr. MORRILL,] is that this bill is particularly fitted for the suppression of this rebellion at this time, and that the bill of the Senator from Vermont is nothing but a bill to punish those connected with it after the rebellion has ceased, and is of no efficacy at the present time. Now how is it? What does the bill of the Senator from Illinois propose to do in the way of confiscating property in the possession of those who are now in rebellion against the Government? It makes it the duty of the President of the United States, as often as in his opinion the military necessities of the Army or the safety, interest, and welfare of the United States in regard to the suppression of the rebellion shall require, to order the seizure, by such officers, military or civil, as he may designate, of the property of certain classes of persons, described in the first section of the bill, confiscated by the act, who are out of reach of process, and make sale or other disposition of the property or so much of it as he shall deem advisable.

That is what the confiscation bill proper of the Senator from Illinois-if I may so call it-proposes to do; and that, so far as anything to be effected in the rebellious States, during this rebellion, is concerned, except in the single matter of slaves, about which I shall say a word by and by, is all it proposes to do. I think the Senator from Maine, in his very effective speech the other day, misapprehended the effect of the bill in saying that nothing could be done under it except what the President should by seizure direct to be done, and that all power under the bill would cease when the rebellion ceased. Such is not the meaning of the bill. The honorable Senator from Illinois will not accept that construction of the bill. It contemplates action on property in the loyal States. But lagree that so far, perhaps, as the immediate effect upon the rebellion is concerned, it is true, as was stated to be generally true by the Senator from Maine, that this is all that the bill of the Senator from Illinois proposes in respect to property other than slaves. It makes it, said the Senator from Maine, the duty of the President to act; and he laid great stress on that; but who is to be the judge of his duty, and how is that question of duty to be ascertained and determined? The bill answers that question by saying that it shall be the duty of the President to do thus and so when, in his opinion, it shall be necessary to do thus and so, so that the bill of the honorable Senator from Illinois, so far as the seizure and disposition of property are concerned, depends entirely upon the opinion of the President.

Not one legal hand is to be laid upon the property of rebels except where the President is of opinion that it may be best to lay a legal hand upon it. It as much depends on opinion as legislative enactment can make it depend on opinion. He is to give the order to such officers, military or civil, as he may designate, and his opinion is the law; and he is to take not the property of all the rebels as the bill originally proposed, and as I think it should be to be consistent with itself, but he is to take the property of certain classes of persons, guilty, I grant you, but no more guilty than others; and, indeed, I think it might be shown that many of them may not be as guilty as some who were alluded to by the Senator from Wisconsin, who has just closed his speech, who escape punishment altogether. I think he alluded to classes of persons whose property would not be touched by the provisions of the first section of the bill as it now stands, who are as guilty and as deserving of punishment as those upon whom its hand will fall. But in regard to the persons who are thus designated, officers and others, the President, after all, is to exercise his opinion. When he has taken the rebel's property, he is not bound to sell it. He is bound, after seizing it, to sell or dispose of it in such manner as he may judge best, or he may dispose of such parts of it as he thinks proper. That is certainly not a bill as severe as some of those who have argued against it have claimed it to be.

I agree that the terms of the first section of the bill, especially as it originally stood, were much more broad and comprehensive, for that took within its sweep all property, real and personal, belonging to all the rebels and confiscated it to the

it is surely weaker than the bill of the Senator from Vermont, because in that there is no restriction; he may take the property of every man in rebellion, and it is to be presumed, I think, that he would take the property of those who are most obnoxious, and who most richly deserve the punishment provided by the law.

General Government, vesting the title in the United States. This takes a particular class of persons, and confiscates their property, vesting the title in the United States; but still no provision is made for making this available, except in the mode which I have suggested, which is by the President appointing officers, civil or military, to make seizures when in his opinion it shall be advisable, in order that the rebellion may be crushed out and speedily ended. Then the whole amount of this bill, so far as taking the property of rebels in situations where legal process cannot be served, is to have the President seize such property and sell and dispose of such portions of it as he may deem best. I was wrong in saying that this should be where judicial process cannot be served, because, of course, he cannot seize it unless he has possession, at least by the military power. He must have military possession of the country; he must then direct his officers to seize such property as belongs to those described in the first section of the bill, as he shall judge best to take, and it shall be sold or otherwise disposed of as he shall determine. As to slaves, it provides that the slaves of those persons who shall, after the passage of the act, take up arms against the United States, or in any manner give aid and comfort to the rebellion, shall be freed and discharged from any servitude which they may owe to such persons. That is the provision of the confiscation bill proper, and that is all. It depends, I say, abso-victed, every slave belonging to him is then made lutely upon the will of the President, the opinion of the President. It leaves the whole matter to that; and without that, although you may say that title is changed and vested in the United States, the Government gets no avails until the President thinks it best to take the property. The opinion of the President controls.

I now come to the question as it affects the slaves. This is an important matter, and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] the other day very explicitly avowed that this was more important to him than any other feature of the bills. Comparing the two on that point, is the bill of the Senator from Illinois or the substitute of the Senator from Vermont the more effective? I have already suggested what the bill of the Senator from Illinois proposes on that subject. What does the bill of the Senator from Vermont propose? In the first place, all those slaves-he does not call them by that name, perhaps, but we understand very well what is meant-all those slaves who belong to persons who shall be convicted under the act are made forever free. Provision is made in another section for the prosecution and conviction of those ho shall be guilty of treason. When it comes to making provision in regard to setting slaves free, it sets free the slaves of every man convicted under the bill in the first place, so that if there is a prosecution against any man under this bill for the crime of treason, and he is confree forever. What more does it provide? As to all other slaves in any State, after six months have expired beyond the period when the President has declared the State to be in insurrection, which I may remark applies to the whole country that is in rebellion now, for more than six months have expired, the President, if he shall

of the insurrection, may, by proclamation, fix and appoint a day when all persons holden to service or labor in such State, by law or custom, to any one who after the day fixed by the proclamation shall levy war or participate in the insurrection, shall be forever free.

Now, sir, what is the amendment of the hon-judge it necessary to the successful suppression orable Senator from Vermont? What does that propose to do on this subject of property? It authorizes the President of the United States whenever he shali deem it necessary to the speedy and successful termination of the rebellion, to sequester and seize all the property of all insurgents, by such commissioners as he shall appoint, who shall hold, occupy, rent, and control the same for the United States, selling all such personal property as is perishable or expensive in keeping, paying over the avails into the Treasury of the United States. This is to continue until judicial proceedings are restored, and in all cases is to continue until the owner can be proceeded against by legal prosecution.

That is the amendment of the Senator from Vermont on this subject of seizing and disposing of rebels' property. Now, which is the more stringent and effective of these two measures? I say that of the Senator from Vermont most decidedly. In the first place, it takes all the property of all the rebels, subject, I grant you, in regard to its enforcement, to the decision of the President of the United States, the expression being that the President is authorized to seize it whenever he shall deem it necessary to the speedy and successful termination of the rebellion. When he deems that exigency to have arisen, he may then take all the property of all the rebels and dispose of it as I have stated; sell the personal property that is perishable, or expensive to keep, and hold, occupy, or rent the real estate until judicial proceedings are restored to the district, and under all circumstances, until the owner of the property can be proceeded against by a legal prosecution.

I say that is a more effective measure; it accomplishes more. It is dependent upon the same hand, I agree, for the exercise of the power conferred, but that is an infirmity or an advantage, whichever it may be called, that attaches to both bills in common. In both the seizure and disposition depend upon the will of the President; but when the President wills to exercise the power granted in the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, he is not restricted as regards the persons whose property he may take, nor is he restricted as to the property he may take; the only point is that the owner shall be a rebel; and therein it goes beyond the present position of the bill of the Senator from Illinois, that bill having been amended at the instance of the Senator from Ohio, by striking out "all persons," and inserting certain classes of persons, which, as the Senator from Illinois suggested at the time, and has since suggested, in his opinion, weakens the bill. In that

That is the provision in regard to slaves that may not belong to rebels who may be convicted under the act, and I ask if it is not broad enough and sweeping enough. It takes all the slaves of all the rebels who may not be convicted of treason under the act, who are previously provided for; and so broad and sweeping was it that the Senator from Maine, in his speech the other day, alleged that the bill of the Senator from Vermont proposed to free the slaves of everybody, no matter whether owned by loyal or disloyal masters. He averred that most emphatically. This was when he was on that side of the argument to show that the amendment was obnoxious to all the objections urged against the original bill of the Senator from Illinois; but when he was on the other side of the argument, he showed that this bill of the Senator from Vermont was perfectly toothless, could seize nothing, and was intended to seize nothing, during the rebellion. On this point, however, he so impressed the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. CARLILE] that he had occasion to rise up and say that it was the speech of the honorable Senator from Vermont and not the bill that he meant to eulogize, apparently being alarmed at a feature in the bill which he had not discovered, and which, if the honorable Senator from Maine, who is always acute and generally accurate, had studied a little more closely, he would have seen was not in the bill at all.

The bill of the honorable Senator from Vermont does not propose to touch the slave of a loyal man in any way. It proposes to allow the President by proclamation to fix a time when all the slaves belonging to those who shall be in rebellion after a given day shall be set free, and I ask if that is not as broad and as comprehensive even as the terms of the bill of the honorable Senator from Illinois? It goes as far, with this difference only, that this is left to the discretion of the Pressident, as the other parts of the bill are. It might have been or might not have been an oversight on the part of the honorable Senator from Illinois to make the will of the President necessary in order to take any other property than slaves, and to exclude the will of the President in taking slaves; but there is no reason for it. If we trust the discretion of the Executive in the one case, we ought to trust it in the other. Neither is justified But

on the ground of military necessity; it is not pretended to be justified in the bill of the honorable Senator from Illinois, unless the President shall be of opinion that it will tend to suppress the rebellion. That is the ground on which he touches the personal and real property of rebels, properly so called.

When he comes to slaves, if the discretion of the President does not apply to them, why does it not apply? Do we undertake to judge of a military necessity in regard to slaves, and not judge of a military necessity in regard to other property? To be consistent, we should settle the question of military necessity as well for the one as for the other. I agree with the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] on that subject, that to judge of a military necessity is not a legislative prerogative, it is an executive prerogative; but I think if we are not to decide the military necessity as applied to lands, houses, and other property, but to say in regard to them that the President shall exercise his judgment and be the judge of the necessity, there is the same reason why he should be the judge in regard to the necessity of taking slaves.

who owned it descended to his children, the purchaser under the President would have no title. I do not see how we by act of Congress could help it. The Senator from New Hampshire not now in his seat, [Mr. HALE,] I know has a remedy for that by abolishing the Supreme Court, a favorite measure of his, but I apprehend that would hardly be efficacious for this purpose.

In view of these facts I do not believe the President would undertake to sell the real estate of a rebel which he might under the circumstances seize, not perhaps for the reason that he would have any doubt upon this subject-for I know nothing about that-but because he would know that it would affect the price of the property when sold. It would be sold under a cloud. Very few men would want to buy it, and buy as they would know an interminable law-suit. They would not, therefore, give the value of the property, nor anything near it. Hence, the President, as a discreet and prudent manager of this property, would feel himself bound, as I believe, under the bill of the Senator from Illinois, to hold it from year to year, and collect the avails of it for the benefit of the Treasury without a sale, because in that way he could make it most available to the Government.

Therefore, I say, practically there is no difference in this respect between the operation of these two bills; and inasmuch as the passing of one asserts a power in us which at all events is questionable, and by very many most experienced and judicious men in this Chamber is held not to belong to us, although it may be said that other men of equal ability and equal learning contend that it does belong to us, it is better, it seems to me, to avoid questions so situated, unless there are very strong reasons for asserting and exercising the

Then, Mr. President, as between the bill of the Senator from Illinois and the substitute of the Senator from Vermont on this subject of slaves, there is no difference except that by the substitute of the Senator from Vermont the President is required to issue his proclamation fixing the day when all those who own slaves, if they shall continue in rebellion after the day so fixed, shall lose their slaves and have them set free. These are the two points on which these two bills are important the taking of real and personal property generally, and the taking of slaves, not as property, but for purposes of humanity and jus-power. There is no such motive at the present tice, and, if you please, as a punishment to their rebel owners. I repeat what I said earlier in my remarks, that the bill of the Senator from Vermont, it seems to me, is more effective, will accomplish more, is better adapted to the end than the other bill, especially as it is now amended.

There is, however, one point of difference between these bills which is a difference of principle, though I do not believe this difference affects the practical result of either so far as the Treasury of the United States is concerned. The bill of the Senator from Illinois contemplates such a state of things as a sale of the real property of a rebel seized by the President under the bill and disposed of, and of course goes upon the ground that such sale would pass an absolute title to the purchaser. That necessarily involves the question whether we have the right to change the title of real estate belonging to a traitor or rebel so as to divest his heirs of that property after his death. The bill of the Senator from Illinois goes upon the ground that we may do that. The bill of the Senator from Vermont does not, at least by assertion, go upon the ground that we can do it. The bill of the Senator from Illinois, however, does not by any means impose upon the President the obligation to sell this property, and therefore, as I said, this question of principle does not affect the result of the measure, in a pecuniary point of view, to the Treasury; it simply touches the abstract question of our right to affect the property of a rebel beyond his life. I must confess, however anxious I am to punish rebels, that I do not believe under the Constitution of the country we can affect the title to the real estate of a man, however steeped in rebellion, longer than his life. Wisely or unwisely as it may be, that power is I believe denied to us by the Constitution.

On this point the bills do not differ as I say, practically, inasmuch as under the bill of the Senator from Illinois the President may hold this property and occupy it from year to year, renting it without selling it, just as he is required to do in the bill of the Senator from Vermont. There is no difference in the requirement; it is all left to his judgment; and it being left to his judgment, I have no doubt how he would decide it, because it is perfectly apparent that it is a question which would almost inevitably get before the judicial tribunals. A question would be made which would get to the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the title to the property after the decease of the traitor or rebel; and if the Supreme Court of the United States should hold that notwithstanding this act of Congress, and this sale by the President, the property after the death of the man

time, so far, at least, as providing means for crushing out the rebellion is concerned, for the property can be made just as available without a sale as with, and I think more available.

The amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, which is the direct question pending, has been commented upon both by the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Wiscon

sin in such manner as satisfies my mind entirely, without detaining the Senate on that proposition.

On the whole, then, comparing together the confiscation bill proper, the bill of the Senator from Illinois, Senate bill No. 151, with the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont, without the adoption of the amendment to that amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, it seems to me that the substitute will be more valuable to attain the end which we all have in view than the original bill. It strikes more fully and more fairly upon those engaged in the rebellion. It takes everything which the original bill takes, and more. It disposes of it in such a manner as to make it fully as available. It leaves nothing undone which the original bill proposes to do, and it does that which it proposes to do more effectually, more positively, more surely, than the original bill.

Under these circumstances, taking, as I avowed in the outset, that rule as my guide in regard to these bills, to support that which was most effective, I prefer to vote for the amendment rather than the original bill, not because it is temporizing, not because it postpones all action until after this rebellion is ended, not because it is a bill imposing penalties on traitors when the rebellion is over, but because it goes into the field with as sharp, as long, and as penetrating a sword, and strikes at the vitals of this rebellion as deadly a blow as any bill before the Senate, except the bill of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] which is, I agree, more sweeping than any one, much more. The difference, however, between his bill and this is that he confiscates all property, real and personal, and slaves of rebels, not to the Treasury of the United States, but for the benefit of those who may suffer from the rebellion, or who may have borne arms to quell it, a proposition not unworthy of consideration by any means; but I will not discuss it. His bill does not propose to free the slaves.

Aside from that bill, which I agree is more sweeping than either of these, as between the two before the Senate, I think the bill of the Senator from Vermont is, as I have said, the most effective, and I shall therefore give it my vote.

||

Mr. CLARK. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. If the Senator will withdraw that motion, I wish to give notice that I shall move an amendment to the bill, which I desire to have printed.

Mr. CLARK. Very well.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I submit my amendment, and move that it be printed. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire to allow me to move an executive session. I desire an executive session merely to make a motion to reconsider a vote.

Mr. CLARK. I shall make no objection. On motion of Mr. CHANDLER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER stated the regular order of business to be the call of the States and Territories for bills on leave, beginning with the Territory of Dakotah.

BREECH-LOADING CANNON.

Mr. WATT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to provide for testing breech-loading cannon; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. KANSAS DEPREDATIONS.

Mr. ALDRICH, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution in reference to the claims for losses and depredations sustained by the people of Kansas; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims.

ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL.

appropriation bill made a special order for WedMr. STEVENS. I ask leave to have the Army nesday next.

It was so ordered.

PUNISHMENT FOR TREASON.

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the punishment of treason, and for the more effectual suppression of rebellion; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

RUFUS L. HARVEY.

Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I desire to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill granting a pension to Rufus L. Harvey was referred to a Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar.

The motion was entered.

ENROLLED BILL.

Mr. GRANGER, from the Committee on Enrolled bills, reported as truly enrolled an act (S. No. 177) for the relief of Sylvester Crooks; when the Speaker signed the same.

The SPEAKER stated the next business in order to be the call of States for resolutions.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

yield to me for a moment. Mr. STEVENS. I hope my colleague will

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

ACCOUNTS OF STATES.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to discharge the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union from the further consideration of a bill to amend an act entitled “An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved August 5, 1861, and that the same be put upon its passage.

The motion was agreed to.

The bill was read. It extends to the 30th of July next the time for filing with the proper officer the accounts of States against the General Government for expenses incurred in enrolling,

equipping, and transporting troops, and allows the amount of such accounts to be set off against the taxes to be paid by such States, with an abatement of fifteen per cent.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

CALIFORNIA ELECTION CASE.

Mr. DAWES. I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to call up the election case of the State of California.

The SPEAKER. It is not a question of privilege during the pendency of the motion to suspend the rules.

Mr. DAWES. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to give way to me for this purpose.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have been very liberal in giving way to gentlemen on all sides of the House. I hope the House will now dispose of this Pacific railroad bill.

Mr. DAWES. There cannot be anything quite so interesting to members, I think, as their right

to seats.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Members are all satisfied with their seats. I insist on my motion to suspend the rules.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 56, nays 49; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Arnold, Ashley, Beaman, Biddle, Bingham, Blake, Campbell, Chamberlin, _Clark, Cutler, Davis, Dunlap, Edgerton, English, Fenton, Fessenden, Franchot, Granger, Gurley, Hail, Harding, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, William' Kellogg, Lehman, Moorhead, Auson P. Morril, Justin S. Morrill, Noell, Norton, Patton, Timothy G. Phelps, Porter, Price, Richardson, Riddle, Edward II. Rollins, Sargent, Sinks, Shellabarger, Shiel, John B. Steele, Stevens, Tramble, Vallandigiam, Van Valkenburgh, Verrec, Wallace, Ward, Wheeler, Wilson, Windom, and Worcester-56.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Ancona, Joseph Baily, Baker, Jacob B. Blair, Buffinton, Calvert, Clements, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Cox, Cravens. Dawes, Delano, Duell, Dunn, Eliot, Gooch, Grider, Hanchett, Harrison, Holmau, Johnson, Knapp, Loomis, Lovejoy, MePherson, Mallory, Maynard, Menzies, Morris, Nixon, Noble, Pike, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Robinson, Sheffield, William G. Steele, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Voorhees, Wad-worth, Charles W. Walton, Washburne, Wickliffe, and Woodruff-49.

So the rules were suspended.

During the vote,

Mr. DAWES stated that Mr. WALTON, of Vermont, was detained from the House by illness.

Mr. WILSON stated that Mr. POTTER had been called from the city on important public busi

ness.

The vote was announced as above recorded. The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. CRISFIELD in the chair,) and resumed, as a special order, the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 364) to aid in constructing a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other pur

poses.

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. Mr. Chairman, with a view to moving that the further consideration of this bill be postponed till the second Monday in December next, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. LOVEJOY. I move to amend that motion by adding to it the words, "and report the bill to the House."

The CHAIRMAN. The motion is not amendable.

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. I rise for information. I propound to the Chair this question: if the committee rises without reporting the bill, will a motion be then in order in the House to postpone it?

The CHAIRMAN. That will be a question for the House to decide.

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. Such a motion would leave the bill in committee, and the motion to postpone would not be in order.

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. Then I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House,

with a view of testing the sense of the House on the motion to postpone.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his motion that the committee rise?

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. I do not. On the contrary, I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order while there is an amendment pending.

Mr. F. A. CONKLING. Then I move that the committee rise.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. COLFAX, and PHELPS of California, were appointed.

The committee divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 34, noes 61.

So the committee refused to rise.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In order to make the seventh section conform to the amendments already agreed to, I offer the following amendment:

Strike out the words "western boundary of Kansas to the castern," and insert in lieu thereof the words "one hundred and second meridian of longitude aforesaid to the western;" so that it will read:

And shall complete said railroad and telegraph from the one hundred and second meridian of longitude aforesaid to the western boundary of Nevada Territory before the 1st

day of July, 1874.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ARNOLD. I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the end of it as follows:

Provided, That in fixing the point of connection of the main track with the eastern connections it shall be fixed at the most practicable point for the construction of the Iowa and Missouri branches, as hereinafter provided.

I will state that the amendment I have now proposed has been submitted to the chairman of the committee on the Pacific railroad, and to the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BLAIR,] and that it has their concurrence. So far as I am aware there is no objection to it.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend the eighth section, in the second line, by striking out after the word "commence," " in the second line, the words "on the western boundary of Kansas or. The amendment was adopted.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend in line nine-before the word "boundary" strike out the word "eastern" and insert the word "western," so that it will read, "to the western boundary of the Territory of Nevada."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend in line ten, by striking out after the word "the" the words "Nevada railroad line across the Territory of Nevada," and to insert in place thereof the words, "line of the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California."

The amendment was agreed to.

The section, as amended, would then read as follows:

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the line of said railroad and telegraph shall commence at the one hundred and second parallel of longitude west from Greenwich, at the termination of the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western railroad and telegraph line, as herein provided, to meet and connect therewith as herein provided; thence running westerly upon the most direct, central, and practicable route, through the Territories of the United States, to the western boundary of the Territory of Nevada, there to meet and connect with the line of the Central Pacific railroad of California.

Mr. ALDRICH. I move to amend the ninth

section by inserting in the forty-ninth line, after the word "California," as follows:

And any companies organized or to be organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, or Territories of Dakota or Nebraska, are hereby authorized to construct a railroad and telegraph line upon the same terms and conditions in all respects as are contained in this act for the construction of said railroad and telegraph line first mentioned, from St. Paul, Minnesota, westerly to the "Union Pacific railroad," east of the one hundred and sixth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich.

Mr. STEVENS. That is inaugurating another very long railroad. They have already a connection with an Iowa road provided for in the bill, to meet the main line somewhere in Nebraska Territory. Now, if there are friends enough of this bill who desire sincerely to accomplish its passage, they must not clog it or load it with any further incumbrances. I should be very glad to see roads made at the proper time from anywhere in the gentleman's district to any where he may desire them to connect, but I think an amendment at this time, such as that now offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, would so load the bill as to put it beyond the power of the friends of the

bill to pass it. If we are to pass it, the road should have as few branches as will accommodate the general trade of the central route. At present, I think we are not prepared to go any further, and I hope the gentleman, who I know is a friend of this bill, will not insist upon his amendment. Mr. ALDRICH. I propose to say a single word in reply to my friend from Pennsylvania. The CHAIRMAN. No debate is in order. Mr. ALDRICH. I desire to say but a single word with the consent of the committee. say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that there is no provision made in the bill by which a connection can be made from my own section of the country to the main trunk of the road.

Mr. STEVENS. I said a connection with an Iowa railroad.

Mr. ALDRICH. I understood the gentleman to say Nebraska Territory.

Mr. STEVENS. I said the Iowa road was to connect with the main line somewhere in Nebraska Territory.

Mr. ALDRICH. There is no provision in the bill for any connection with the section of country from which I come. I hope the amendment will be agreed to.

The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In order to perfect section nine, and make it conform with the amendments which the committee have already adopted, I move to amend in line five, by striking out after the word " to," the words "the western boundary of Kansas or to," so as to make it read, "from the Missouri river at Kansas City to the one hundred and second meridian of longitude from Greenwich.' ""

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend the same section in line seven, by inserting after the word "Greenwich" the words "as herein provided." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend the same section in line ten, by striking out the words "upon the western boundary of Kansas or.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from California if this retains the road within the limits of the boundaries of the State of Kansas?

Mr. SARGENT. It makes it harmonious throughout.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I propose to strike out in lines fifteen and sixteen of the ninth section the words, "western boundary of Kansas," and insert in place thereof the words, " meridian of longitude aforesaid."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend the same section further, by striking out in the nineteenth line the words, "the western limits of the State

[merged small][ocr errors]

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to amend, in the twenty-sixth line, by striking out the words "Secretary of War," and inserting the word "President."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move to strike out of the ninth section, after the word "act," in the thirtyfirst line, to and including the word "Nevada," in the thirty-ninth line, as follows:

And the Nevada Railroad Company, a corporation created by the enactment of the Territorial Legislature of Nevada, are hereby authorized to construct a railroad and telegraphi line, in conformity with their charter, across said Territory, upon the same terms and conditions, in all respects, as are provided in this act for the construction of the railroad and telegraph line first mentioned, and to meet and connect with the same on the eastern boundary of Nevada. The object of this amendment is to provide that there shall be in all the Territories but one railroad company.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SARGENT. I move, in line forty-seven, to strike out the word "last" and insert "first." The last company named in the act was the Nevada Company, which we have stricken out. The word "first" should therefore be inserted. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ARNOLD. I move to amend the section further by striking out the word "or" where it occurs in the twenty-fourth line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend the section by striking out all after the word "act" in the fifty-first line to the end of the section, as follows: Provided, That any companies hereafter to be organized by law by the States of Oregon and California for that purpose, are hereby authorized to construct within the limits of their respective States a branch railroad and telegraph line of the said Central Pacific railroad and telegraph, connecting therewith at a point at or near Sacramento City, and extending thence, by the way of Rogue river and Umpqua and Willamette valleys, to or near Portland, in Oregon, by the most direct and practicable route, upon the same conditions and terms as are prescribed in this act for the construction of said Central Pacific railroad and telegraph: Provided, That not more than eight thousand dollars per mile shall be granted for the construction of said branch.

This proviso is one simply authorizing the construction of the Oregon branch of the road to Sacramento City. This road I shall be glad to see constructed at some subsequent time, but I do not think we are prepared to build it now.

The section, as amended, would then read as follows:

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Railroad Company, of Kansas, aré hereby authorized to construct a railroad and telegraph line, in conformity with their charter from said State, from the Missouri river, at Kansas City, to the one hundred and second meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, as herein provided, upon the same terms and conditions in all respects as are provided in this act for the construction of the railroad and telegraph line first mentioned, and to meet and connect with the same at the meridian of longitude aforesaid; and in case the general route or line of road from the Missouri river to the Rocky mountains should be so located as to require a departure northwardly from the proposed line of said Kansas railroad before it reaches the meridian of longitude aforesaid, the location of said Kansas road shall be made so as to conform thereto; and said railroad through Kansas shall be so located between Kansas City and the one hundred and second meridian of longitude, that the several railroads from St. Joseph and lowa, herein authorized to connect with the same, can make the connection within the limits prescribed in this act, without deviating from the general direction of the whole line to the Pacific coast. The route in Kansas to the one hundred and second meridian of longitude to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War of the United States. And said Kansas company may proceed to build said railroad to the one hundred and second meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, upon such general route adopted, through any territory on which said general location inay be made, under the conditions named in this act. The Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, are hereby authorized to construct a railroad and telegraph line from the Pacific coast, at or near San Francisco, or the navigable waters of the Sacramento river, to the eastern boundary of California, upon the same terms and conditions, in all respects, as aré contained in this act for the construction of said railroad and telegraph line first mentioned, and to meet and connect with the first mentioned railroad and telegraph line on the eastern boundary of California. Each of said companies shall file their acceptance of the conditions of this act in the Department of the Interior within six months after the passage of this act.

Mr. SHIEL. Any one, Mr. Chairman, looking at the geography of the Pacific coast, must discover that the terminus of Sacramento City or San Francisco is not the proper terminus for the main trunk of a railroad to the Pacific. We have an extent of sea-coast of some seven hundred miles from Sacramento City to Portland, Oregon, entirely unprotected-not a single national defense. It is at the mercy of any foreign Government that may involve us in war. And I do contend that the considerations which should at the present time urge upon this committee to pass this bill, are of two-fold weight in favor of an extension of the road to Portland, Oregon.

But there is another consideration springing up within the last two or three years to which I desire to call the attention of the committee. The new mines which have been discovered in British Columbia have attracted a large number of our citizens from California, Oregon, and Washington Territory, and they are a different class of people from those who were formerly residents there. Occasions have already occurred when there have been serious difficulties-at 4th of July celebrations, and on other national holidays of Americans, the chief factor of the Hudson Bay Company has had to call out the military to aid in quelling the disturbances. These difficulties have already engendered a very bitter and intense feeling of dislike; and it is very probable, if these things continue, that it will not be many years be fore we will be drawn into a great war with England that will overwhelm all mere considerations of the amount of money this will cost in view of the importance and even the necessity of the construction of this road.

The construction of the road will cost about five millions of dollars. You have some seven hun

dred miles of coast to defend; and with no ironclad steamers and no forts there, we are at the mercy of any foreign Power, and especially at the mercy of England. This defenseless portion of the country demands the earnest consideration and care of this Congress.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the distance from Portland to Sacramento?

Mr. SHIEL. Seven hundred miles. There is another consideration which I will urge upon the attention of this House. By providing for the construction of this road you will avoid the necessity of subsequent legislation. This road cannot be commenced at once, for there is contemplated the organization of two companies by California and Oregon, which may take two or three years before they can be put into successful operation. The gentlemen who are anxious for the passage of a Pacific railroad bill at this sessionand I confess that there is nobody more anxious for it than I am-would, with a more accurate and extensive knowledge of that coast, I think, urge, in order not to be inviduous and unjust, that the western terminus of the road should not be either at Sacramento or San Francisco, but that the road should penetrate the Territory of Oregon.

It is not necessary to add any further remarks. I have called the attention of the committee to the true important points.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. STEVENS's amendment was adopted.

Mr. JULIAN. As some question has been raised as to the authority of the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Railroad Company to construct this road through Kansas, I desire to have the Clerk read the letter I hold in my hands from Mr. CONWAY, who is still prevented by indisposition from personally representing his constituents on this floor.

The Clerk read, as follows:

WASHINGTON, April 30, 1862. DEAR SIR: I understand a question has been raised by some members of the House as to the sufficiency of the authority of the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Railroad Company to construct through Kansas the several lines of road which the bill of the special committee on the Pacific railroad authorizes them to build.

Will you please say to the House for me that I am familiar with the charter of that company and its amendments, and that they are ample to authorize the company to construct the lines proposed, and are carefully framed to protect the interests of the stockholders and the people of the State.

The company has spent much time, labor, and money in procuring the right of way, making surveys and estimates, and is now fully prepared to enter on the construction of the road. It is composed of and controlled by many of the best citizens of the State; and my constituents greatly desire that the construction of the lines through Kansas shall be given to it, instead of being given to a corporation created by the Pacific railroad bill, and composed chiefly of strangers.

I will add that the Legislature of Kansas, at its last session, almost unanimously instructed me to support a bill giving the right to construct the Pacific road through Kansas to this company; and I feel that a compliance by the House with the wishes of the Legislature in that respect is due to the people of my State, and is necessary to the protection of their interests.

I am, very respectfully, yours,

M. F. CONWAY.

Hon. GEORGE W. JULIAN, House of Representatives. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I move to strike out the ninth section with all of the amendments made thereto.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the attention of the committee to the object which I have in view in making that amendment to this bill. I am in favor of the passage at this session of Congress, if it can be done, of a proper and just bill for the construction of a railroad from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean. Whenever such a bill shall be presented, and on its face in good faith provide for the construction of such a road, I will vote for it in almost any shape; but when a bill declares, clearly and distinctly, that the purpose is not to provide for the construction of an entire and complete Pacific railroad, but a road through California and through Kansas, leaving the mountain portion a separate and independent line of road, and that bill is presented here, I cannot be expected to vote for it. That is not the object which the nation has in view. This bill provides, first, that the mountain portion of the country shall be spanned with a railroad, commencing on the western side of Kansas, and ending on the eastern side of California. A charter is granted and provision is made for the organization of a company; and to that, sir, I have no objection. So far the

bill seems to contemplate the construction of a Pacific railroad; but the section which I have moved to strike out dissipates and and dispels the illusion.

What is it? It proposes to build, separately and independently, a line of road from the Missouri river to the western boundary of Kansas, and through that country the road can be built for the bonus which the Government will bestow. It also proposes to build, separately and independ. ently, a road through the State of California to the eastern boundary of that State; and with the donation of $16,000 a mile and the land grant, that line of road may be built. Mark you, these branches are to be separate and distinct from the main line of the Pacific railroad, which may be known as the mountain part of the work. On that part of the road I expect that the Government will have to bear the heaviest burden. But here is my objection: instead of making this a continuous line of road from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, the bill provides for three separate and distinct branches. Under the bill, and the large bonus that it is proposed to give, the California and the Kansas branches of the road may be built, but there is no provision to prevent the work stopping there. After the Kansas company has taken the money of the Government and built the road to the western boundary of that State, there is no power in Congress or anywhere else under this bill, to make them continue the work through the mountainous district. And the same thing is true of the California branch of the road. The branch roads at either end will take the $16,000 a mile and build those branches, but there will be no power to compel the connection of those branches and make a complete Pacific railroad. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. CAMPBELL obtained the floor. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Let me finish what I have to say.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not see the necessity of any more discussion on this amendment, which the House, I think, understands very well. The gentleman from Illinois says that he has a pet scheme for the construction of a road from the Missouri river to the ocean.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman stated that he had a bill to offer for the construction of a Pacific railroad, which he would offer at the proper time.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The gentleman is utterly mistaken. I said no such thing.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman's denial, but I was strongly under the impression that he had made such a remark.

I

I wish, Mr. Chairman, that members would give this subject the attention that its magnitude and importance deserve. The gentleman from Illinois rises in his place and says that this bill provides for the construction of three roads. It shows that the gentleman is laboring under a misapprehension in regard to this measure. Perhaps he has not deemed it of sufficient importance to give it that consideration to which I think it is entitled. He is directly, and it may be well for his constituents to understand it, the gentleman is directly and pointedly opposing the interests of his own great State by opposing this great measure. propose to state how he is opposing the interests of Illinois. This bill does not provide for two or three roads, but only one road, with two eastern branches. If the gentleman will turn to the map he will find that the great lines of railroad running along the lake shores to the city of Chicago, in his own State, require a northern branch, and it is but right to give that great commerce a means of transit to and from the Pacific; and if he will turn his attention to this map still further, he will find that the great lines centering at St. Louis require an eastern branch to give them transit to the Pacific. Those two branches will unite at a point two hundred miles west of the Missouri river, and from that point the bill provides for only one road to the Pacific.

Now, in regard to the other point that the gentleman made. These two eastern branches will have a gratuity of $16,000 a mile only when the road is completed and in running order, with locomotives and all the other equipments. Those eastern branches can be constructed and equipped for not less than $60,000 a mile. No responsible men

« PreviousContinue »