Page images
PDF
EPUB

to furnish, or their widows and children who weep for the dead and look to the nation for sympathy, will I consent that such soldiers, if living, or their families, if dead, shall be subjected to this discrimination, by which the Government bestows a higher bounty upon the officers than it bestows upon those who fought in the ranks.

Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. I would inquire of my colleague if the colonel whose inhumanity he witnessed was from the State of Indiana? If so, I desire to know his name.

bered? But that does not meet the point I make. ing the previous question upon the amendment,
The soldier suffers the hardships and privations, but I will yield for a few moments to my friend
and incurs the danger, while the laurels gather from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JOHNSON,] with the un-
around the brows of their commanders, not less|derstanding that he shall demand the previous
but no more gallant and deserving than themselves.
This is a bounty, not compensation. It should be
equal to all.

Mr. MCPHERSON. The gentleman, in the excitement of the moment, said more than that, and it is to the excess of his statement that I object. He said that our general officers had driven their men, instead of leading them, into the post of danger.

Mr. HOLMAN. I have referred to the comparative danger. I know that as many meritorious men have fallen in the ranks as in command

Mr. HOLMAN. He was not from Indiana. I need not mention his name; it is not important that I should. I presume every gentleman understands the inequalities of war; but what I protest against, in the name of my constituents, and in the name of the rank and file of the Army-of-more, because their numbers are greater. I am the homes which war has made desolate-is that that discrimination shall not be continued in the bounty which the Government proposes to give to those who have fought its battles. I trust no gentleman will misapprehend the fact, that if you pay this thirteen dollars a month as bounty for full disability, you will pay about the same sum you would pay if you pay according to this graduation of the bill, running from eight to thirty dollars per month.

Mr. HARRISON. I desire to ask the gentleman from Indiana how the statement that he has just made comports with his statement in regard to the conduct of these same officers in time of battle? He has represented them as always occupying positions in battle where they do not receive any of the disability which would alone entitle them to pensions.

Mr. HOLMAN. I am sorry that I have not been able to make myself understood, or to convey my ideas distinctly. So far as the officers of our Army are concerned, I am proud of them. They are to be found fighting in the lead or side by side with the soldiers, sharing their perils and meeting many of their hardships. I said that the general viewed the battle from a secure position, a thing eminently proper-and through the serried ranks of his soldiers. I do not detract from his just claims to the gratitude of his country. But the soldier who does his duty is equally entitled with him to the favor, gratitude, and bounty of his country.

Mr. GRIDER. I desire to correct an error into which the gentleman has fallen. I understand, from reading the accounts of the battle of Shiloh, a battle fought by the officers and soldiers of the West, that there was not a man in command on that occasion, from him who commanded a division to the lowest officer in the ranks, who was not in the very front of the battle all day.

Mr. HOLMAN. I have not questioned it. I am glad to bear my testimony to the truth of that statement. No eulogy can exceed the merit of their gallant deeds or of the gallantry of their men. There is no question of this, but it is not inconsistent with the idea I have advanced. My friend talks about the front of the battle. You are mighty apt to find more bayonets than swords flashing defiance in the eye of the advancing foe. Mr. McPHERSON. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman to the brilliant charge of Major General Smith at Fort Donelson, to the brilliant charge of Brigadier General Hancock at Williamsburg, and to many other displays of bravery by general officers of our Army. As an humble Representative here, I protest against any sweeping reflections upon the general officers of our Army. I think they are entitled to kinder and better treatment.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

question.

Mr. JOHNSON. I accept the condition. Mr. OLIN. Has not the time of the gentleman from Indiana expired?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has ten minutes left yet.

Mr. OLIN. I object to his yielding the floor unless it be unconditionally.

The SPEAKER. The floor must be yielded unconditionally if objection be made.

Mr. HOLMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. I intend to vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, and I put the reasons for my vote on a different ground from those alleged by my colleague, [Mr. BIDDLE.] I do not regard these pensions and bounties as compensations for pecuniary losses sustained by the parties. They were never so regarded in the history of the country. The early pensions granted to the soldiers of the Revolution were placed on a different ground entirely. If my colleague will look at the pension laws of that date, he will find that the party applying was required to make oath that the pension or bounty applied for was necessary for his or her support, or for the support of his or her family. It was given for the purpose of guarding against the reduction to want of those who had been wounded in the service of their country, and were disabled from maintaining themselves and families. Nothing more, nothing less. It never was intended to com

asking justice for the soldiers in the ranks. I am
attempting to destroy the discrimination between
the citizen soldiers and the officers in command in
the bounty which the Government may grant. I
undertake to say that it will cost no more to feed
and clothe the wives and children of the officer
than to feed and clothe the wives and children of
the private soldier. The widow and orphan child
of the one has the same claim upon your bounty
and justice and gratitude as the other. This is a
mere bounty or gratuity from the Government-
just and reasonable, but still a bounty. I demand
justice, and nothing more. At the suggestion of
several gentlemen around me, I will modify my
amendment, by striking out " thirteen dollars"
and inserting "eleven dollars." That will be
eleven dollars a month for full disability, to be
graduated according to the extent of the disabil-
ity, diminishing the pension of the officer and in-pensate them for losses sustained and the sacrifice
creasing that of the soldier three dollars per month,
placing them and their widows and children on
the same footing as equally entitled to the just
consideration of their country.

of their positions at home. It never was intended as a compensation for talents. It never was intended for anything else than simply this: that these meritorious persons should not be suffered

to come to want.

Mr. HARRISON. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will yield for a moment. Mr. HARRISON. I agree with the gentleman in regard to his statement as to what the pension laws have heretofore been. If he has read this bill, he will have seen that there are two sections in it which introduce a new principle in this class of laws. This bill proposes that where a deceased soldier dies not leaving a widow or minor chil

Mr. BIDDLE. Mr. Speaker, I will venture to state this proposition, that a pension is a compensation for a pecuniary loss. You do not compensate a man for his patriotism or his valor. His compensation for that must be the approval of his conscience and the approval of his country. You establish different grades of pay in your Army; you have never been able to obtain an Army upon any other principle. Take, for illustration, a gentleman whose name was just mentioned by my colleague, [Mr. MCPHERSON,] my distinguished townsman, General Charles F. Smith. Forty-dren, but does leave a widowed mother depending five years ago he devoted to the military service those talents and that education which might have been devoted to professions affording a much larger compensation, which would, of course, have been greatly to the advantage of the widow and children whom he leaves behind him. But he did give himself up to the military service of his country, receiving a very moderate stipend; no doubt, however, consoling himself with the reflection that should he be suddenly cut off in the course of his duty, his wife and children would be provided for in accordance with the usual principle upon which such provision is always made.

Now, sir, let me apply the proposition with which I started, that a pension is to make up a pecuniary loss. One man is in the receipt of $1,500 a year from this Government; another man is in the receipt of a much less sum-say thirteen dollars a month. Kill them both to-day, and do you not perceive that necessarily the loss to the families of the two is very disproportionate?

Mr. HOLMAN. If that is the ground upon which the gentleman puts this pension, which I regard as a mere gratuity and bounty, will he tell me how many private soldiers there are in the ranks from his own State whose salaries or compensation before they entered the Army far exceeded that of the illustrious General Smith ?

upon him, in whole or in part, or if no mother, then a sister or sisters under eighteen years of age, depending upon him in whole or in part, they shall be entitled to receive the pension to which he would have been entitled. Now, I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether he is in favor of this principle or not?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am in favor of the new principle on which this bill is based-that is, giving the pension to those who may be left without provision for their maintenance and support by the death of the soldier. That is within the original purpose of all the pensions and bounties granted by the Government. But I cannot, for the life of me, see how that rule is to be applied to this graduation of pensions, because one man has held a higher rank in the service than another. Are the wants of an officer and his family supposed to be greater than those of a private and his family? Does it cost more to maintain the widow of an officer than it does to maintain the widow of a private soldier? I will not discuss the point already referred to in this argument-namely, that there are many men from the higher ranks of life, as they are called, who are serving in the ranks as privates. I have seen wintering here on Meridian Hill a private soldier whom I knew personally as a Senator in the Pennsylvania Senate for three years, and afterwards as a principal officer in a bank.

Mr. HOLMAN. I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that he cannot dodge the question|| before the country in that way. He cannot assert that I have undertaken to assail any officer in the service of the Republic. I have not thought of doing so. The gentleman has mentioned the names of brave officers. I could mention a whole catalogue of them, many from my own gallanting to the usually accepted principles. Experi-of granting this bounty because I think the Gov

State. Why, sir, if the names of the generals and colonels and majors and captains who have distinguished themselves in this war were arrayed together upon the panels of this Capitol, they would present a history which generations hereafter would and will read with applause. The historian will do justice to the brave men who have led our armies. But do not the bayonets gleam in the gallant charge? Are the men who made it to be forgotten, and only their leaders remem

Mr. BIDDLE. I cannot, of course, answer that question; nor can any bill be framed, that I can see, to meet it. You must frame a bill accord

ence has shown that for very high rank in the
Army you require high talents and very consid-
erable education, and, therefore, you must tempt
to it that talent and that education which is highly
compensated in every other branch of life. I say,
therefore, that if you have a service in which you
give compensation unequal in degree, it follows as
a consequence that you should give pensions in a
proportionate degree.

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise for the purpose of mov

I am against all these distinctions. I am in favor ernment should not suffer these persons to come to want; and I do not believe that it takes any more to maintain the family of an officer than it does to maintain the family of a private. Why, then, should Government give more to the one than it does to the other? That is the position on which I place my vote on this amendment. According to the promise which I gave to the gentleman from Indiana, I move the previous question on his amendment.

Mr. OLIN. I hope the previous question will be voted down.

The previous question was not seconded.

Mr. ŎLIN. I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, to engage in this debate; but after this most extraordinary exhibition made in this House, I think it high time that some one in the House should take occasion to rebuke it, and perhaps it might as well be done by me as by any other person. 1 think, with all due deference to some who have engaged in this debate, and without intending any personal disrespect to any one, that we have just listened to the most extraordinary exhibition of demagogism that this House has ever witnessed, whether it be considered in regard to ability exhibited or the subject-matter of remark. This bill has evidently been prepared with great care and consideration. It embraces in its general principles substantially the provisions of every bill of the same kind enacted since the system of pensions was commenced in any civilized country.

Mr. JOHNSON. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman has remarked, very kindly I should say, that he has just witnessed the most extraordinary exhibition of demagogism that he ever witnessed; and, I understood him to say, "by the gentleman who has just taken his seat." I wish to know if he applied that to me?

Mr.OLIN. Certainly not. Ofcourse I could not. Mr. HOLMAN. I ask the gentleman from New York if he applies these unparliamentary remarks to me? If he does, I will most assuredly resent them.

[ocr errors]

taken, the difference between the pay of an officer of high command in the American Army and a private soldier is not so great by far as the difference between the pay of an officer of equal rank in the French or English service and the common soldier.

Mr. HOLMAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question?

Mr. OLIN. Oh, certainly.

Mr. HOLMAN. I understood the gentleman to say that the practice had been uniform in the payment of bounty heretofore, to discriminate between officers and soldiers. I ask him whether in the grants of land made in the shape of bounty to officers and soldiers, any such discrimination has been made; whether the private soldier does not receive his one hundred and sixty acres of land precisely as the major general receives his? Mr. OLIN. Yes, sir; I believe that is so. Mr. HOLMAN. And yet I am told that in the present bounty paid to our soldiers under existing laws, a discrimination is made between officers and soldiers.

Mr. OLIN. I was about to remark that the leading idea of this bill was to regulate not only the pay but the pension of the private soldier and of the officer to some extent proportionate to their ability, just as all compensation in civil life is regulated as near as may be according to the ability and services of the person employed.

Now, it is true, as I have already observed, that many persons who have volunteered in the service as privates in the Army could command a higher salary in civil life than they are receiving from the Government for their services; but neither the pension bill nor the pay of the soldier is regulated in reference to these exceptional cases. They are regulated according to the average abil

Mr. OLIN. I think the gentleman will be satisfied upon that point before I get through. I rose principally to protest here against this novel doctrine just advanced, of its being a great outrage, that an officer commanding a brigade or a division, or the head of the Army, is not, by the pro-ity of the private soldier. And now, if you take visions of this bill, placed on the pension roll at the same rate as a private soldier, especially as it is said that in almost every engagement such of ficer retires to some convenient position out of danger, while the private is sent to the front of battle. And this sort of twaddle is to be addressed to the country, and an American Congress is compelled to listen to it.

the average compensation of ordinary laboring men throughout the country, you will find that the compensation the private soldiers receive is about equal, to say the least, to the amount they could obtain for their labor in civil life.

Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, the defect of the existing Army regulation as to the pay of privates and officers in the Army, arises from the fact that the amount of compensation to be paid officers and privates was adopted without reference to the existing state of facts.

[ocr errors]

are killed and wounded in battle in this hellish rebellion than privates, in proportion to their respective numbers.

I was about to remark further that even the pay of the Army during this rebellion will be a grievous burden upon the country. I trust that burden will be cheerfully borne.

But, Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the West Point Academy and the Naval School, the men who have gone into the Army or Navy as officers, have, from the necessity of the case, been men of more than ordinary ability. No one could graduate at either the Military or Naval School who did not exhibit more than an ordinary degree of capacity. As a general thing, when a man graduated at either of these institutions, he could step into the walks of civil life and obtain a compensation much above that paid him by the Government as lieutenant of the Army or midshipman in the Navy.

And such a state of things arose that many of your northern men, including some of the best officers now in the Army, were induced to throw up their commissions in the Army and enter upon civil employments, the inducement being the high compensation they could command, notwithstanding their obligation in honor to serve the Government in the capacity of officers of the Army. Some of our best officers thus left the service. But I am happy to add that most of these men who thus left the service rallied to the support of the old flag, and among them the man who now stands first on the Army Register.

Simply as that was one applied to the volunteer service, and the officers engaged in it, it afforded oftentimes a compensation which I say they never could have obtained, a great majority of them, in civil life. It is a high compensation now; nevertheless it was an unavoidable condition of things which the country, in its justice, saw fit to submit to, and in its desire to rally around the old flag the support of every loyal citizen. So far as this bill is concerned, in my judgment, it makes a munificent provision, munificent for the common soldier and for the officer, and certainly not more for the officer than for the soldier.

But little is to be made here or elsewhere, I trust, Mr. Speaker, by attempting to denounce the measure simply on the ground that it makes a distinction between a private soldier and an officer of the Army. That distinction is an obvious, just, and proper one, and will, in my judgment, be approved

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the gentleman to allow me to say that he is addressing his argument now to the matter of pay, and for one I should not dis-by the country. agree with him as to the line of gradation which he mentions, so far as the pay is concerned; but it is the matter of bounty that we are now considering, and I hold that a different rule should

Now, almost every one knows, and I suppose that, at least, members of Congress know, that if your higher commands in the Army were suitably filled, they would require the highest endowments ever vouchsafed by God to man. Look at the annals of history. Who have been the men who have successfully, beyond all comparison, conducted military operations? They have been men competent to all the walks of civil as well as of military life. They have been men of the highest intellectual endowments and of the greatest attain-regulate the distribution of that. ments-men like Cæsar, who could write history as well as fight battles-as Napoleon, who could govern the world as well as lead armies, and whose loftiest monument now is his code of laws-a code of which he may be justly called the author, though the greatest statesmen and jurists of France were assigned to the labor of its framing.

But we are now told that men competent for the highest commands in your armies, and who in all the walks of civil life would occupy the highest and most lucrative positions, should be placed on the pension roll precisely in the same place as the private soldier. And this speech of the gentleman is to be cited and quoted as some kind of evidence that great injustice has been done the private soldier, and that the gentleman who opposed this bill must be an exceedingly clever fellow; and if he could have his way, every private in the Army would be pensioned at a rate at least of a major general. Now, sir, it is known, I suppose, to the world, that a great many good men, that a great many men in all the walks of civil life, standing in the front rank, have volunteered as privates who, in most of the avocations of civil life, would command a compensation for their services more than this Government can afford to pay or does pay to the private soldier. But while that is known, it is equally well known that privates in our Army are paid better, are paid a much higher compensation than is paid to the privates in any army in the world.

A gentleman near me suggests that the generals also of our Army receive proportionately high pay, and the remark to a certain extent is true, though not to the same extent the gentleman's remark would seem to imply. If I am not greatly mis

Mr. OLIN. The same principle which governs and regulates the pay of the private soldier and officer, should, of course, govern and regulate the gratuity by way of pension, the gentleman speaks of. It should obviously be in proportion to the services and capacity of the recipient.

Now, the gentleman from Indiana has remarked that these officers are not at the post of danger as is the private soldier in battle. The gentleman has doubtlessly carefully read the history of our late Mexican war. If he has done so, he will have discovered from that record that more officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, in proportion to the number of privates engaged in that war, were slain or wounded. This fact does not show, in my poor judgment, that the officers shrunk from the post of danger.

Mr. HOLMAN. What I said was that the officer was not more exposed to danger than the private, and that so far as the generals were concerned they were comparatively exempt from danger and hardship.

Mr. OLIN. I understood the gentleman to say more than that.

Mr. HOLMAN. I know the gentleman did not desire to misquote me. It may be that in the heat of debate my language would bear a construction stronger than I intended.

Mr. OLIN. I am very glad that the gentleman retracts what he said.

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not retract at all. I merely state what I did say or intended to say,

Mr. OLIN. Unquestionably it is true, not only in the Mexican war, but I venture to say when the history of this rebellion comes to be written | the same fact will be proven, that more officers

Mr. ELY. I think that we have had discussion enough on this bill, and that its passage ought not longer to be delayed; and I therefore demand the previous question on the pending amendment and on the passage of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can only call the previous question on the pending amendment at this time.

Mr. ELY. Then I make that demand. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

Mr. HOLMAN demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. HOLMAN demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. HOLMAN and ELY were appointed.

The amendment was rejected; the tellers having reported-ayes 28, noes 70.

Mr. ELY demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; and under the operation thereof 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. FENTON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-AGAIN. Mr. WHITE, of Indiana. I was absent when the vote was taken on the motion to lay on the table the bill establishing a Department of Agriculture, and I ask the unanimous consent of the House to record my vote in the negative. There was no objection.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I desire to make a personal explanation. It would seem from the re

1862.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

port in the Globe this morning, that I refrained from pressing the resolutions which I submitted yesterday, because there was objection to it. I desire to state that I did not press it at that time because it was offensive to members on the other side of the House to act on it at that time; but I did not mean to intimate that I would not call it up at the proper time, and ask for its adoption by the House.

BOARD OF FORTIFICATIONS.

The SPEAKER. The next business in order is the consideration of House bill No. 416, authorizing the appointment of a board of fortifications to provide for the sea-coast and other defenses of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODWIN. I move that the further consideration of that bill be postponed until Thursday next.

Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I hope that the bill will not be postponed, but that the sense of the House will be taken on it at this time.

Mr. GOODWIN. I desire that the bill may
In the first place
be postponed for two reasons.
I want to have a call of committees for reports;
and in the second place I desire to be heard on
the subject, and am not now prepared to make
the remarks which I design for want of docu-
ments which I have not yet been able to get. I
hope, therefore, that the motion to postpone will
be agreed to.

The motion was agreed to.
TRANSFER OF THE PENITENTIARY BUILDINGS.

Mr. TRAIN. I am directed by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds to report back House bill No. 221, to transfer the penitentiary buildings of the District of Columbia to the War Department, to be used as an arsenal, with the recommendation that it do pass.

The bill was read.

Mr. DAWES. I do not desire to interfere with my colleague in passing this bill, but I would like to ask him whether it can be done consistently with the sentences which have been passed and entered up touching the prisoners now confined in that penitentiary? I see that the bill provides that the prisoners now under sentence in the penitentiary of the District of Columbia shall be transferred to the jails and prisons of the several States wherever the Secretary of the Interior may be able to make contracts with the State governments; and that they are to be kept or confined in those jails or prisons in accordance with the I think that those pristerms of those contracts. oners have been convicted under a law which established certain penalties, and that they should serve out their time in the penitentiary of the District of Columbia. I suppose they have been convicted under the provisions of a statute made and provided for such cases, and that, on conviction, judgment has been entered up that they shall serve out their imprisonment in the penitentiary of the District of Columbia. I ask my friend whether he is quite certain, when a man has been convicted and sentenced by the court to spend five years in the District of Columbia, you can take him out of the District of Columbia and make a contract to confine him in the penitentiary of Massachusetts, or in the penitentiary of any other State, according to such rules and regulations as they prescribe? Now, if these prisoners are transferred to the warden of the State prison of Massachusetts, after they have been convicted and sentenced to serve out their time in the penitentiary of the District of Columbia, I would like to know whether you do not release them from punishment? Could they not, in other words, be taken from the State prison of Massachusetts under a writ of habeas corpus because of that transfer, and be relieved from further punishment? This is a question which dermands the serious consideration of the House.

Mr. TRAIN. This matter has been discussed at length in the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and the committee have made every investigation of what exactly would be the result in reference to holding these prisoners if the arrangement suggested in the pending bill were carried out. It is the opinion of distinguished lawyers in the District of Columbia, as well as the opinion of the distinguished lawyer now at the head of the War Department, that this bill would not at all affect these prisoners and their confinement under the different sentences, as my colleague seems to fear that it would.

In regard to the transfer of these prisoners to
the State prison of Massachusetts, my colleague
on my left suggests, in reply, that that transfer
would be simply in mitigation of the sentence, and
that the convict could not claim under it.

Mr. DAWES. There was a case in point de-
cided in England, to which I will call the atten-
tion of the House. A man who was sentenced to
be hung, under the statutes of England, had his
sentence mitigated to transportation to Botany
Bay; and on the case being brought before the
court, he was released upon the ground that the
change was not in accordance with the law. It
was undertaken in Massachusetts to do this very
thing while they were rebuilding a jail; and they
broke down in the attempt, for the reason that those
sentenced to confinement in a particular county
cannot be released from confinement when taken
out of that county. But this is a much stronger
case. Under the law a man may be convicted by
the court in the District of Columbia to serve out
a certain term of imprisonment in the District of
Columbia. Now, sir, by what authority can you
pass an act and make him serve out his time in
any other place than the District of Columbia? I
have no opposition to make to the passage of this
bill, but I do suggest to my colleague in the House
whether it will not have the effect to cause a gen-
eral jail delivery of the prisoners now confined in
the penitentiary of the District of Columbia, and
permit them to be relieved from all further pun-
ishment? The House ought to have information
upon the subject at all events.

Mr. TRAIN. In reply to the argument of my
colleague, I will say that I was not aware of the
case which he puts from my own State, but I do
know that the supreme court of Massachusetts
has held that, where a subsequent statute has mit-
igated a sentence, it does not affect the condition
of the prisoner; and I am informed by my friend
from Pennsylvania that this has been twice done
in that State in the city of Philadelphia, and that
it was held there not to affect the term of confine-
ment of the prisoner.

Now, in regard to this bill I venture to say that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of War, who have been pressing us to make this arrangement, would not allow it to be done in such a way as would discharge the convicts in the penitentiary. In the judgment of the committeeand they were unanimous upon the subject-the War Department require this penitentiary. It is absolutely necessary for them.

But to come back for a single moment to the question put: suppose the penitentiary were blown up by the explosion of the powder, shells, and other inflammable substances near there, would that relieve these convicts from serving out their term? Must they not be confined somewhere?

Mr. DAWES. My answer is ready. The law does not require that the convicts shall be confined in any particular brick building in the District, but that they shall be confined in the penitentiary, and that is the penitentiary of the District which the District authorities make a penitentiary.

Now in reference to the other question. It is true that you could move around in a particular district; it is true you could in Massachusetts confine a man in the State prison whether it be in Charlestown or in any other town. My difficulty is in reference to transferring a man from the District of Columbia penitentiary, where the law says he shall serve a given number of years, within the District, and remove him to a State, and in broad terms, as specified in this bill, subject him to just such sort of punishment and to just such hard labor as the Secretary of the Interior may be able to contract for with any warden of any State prison of any State.

Mr. TRAÍN. He is now obliged to do any work which the warden of the prison chooses to put him to.

Mr. DAWES. But here you propose to take him out of the hands of the warden of the penitentiary of the District of Columbia, and put him into the hands of another person. If my colleague is satisfied with the legality of that, I will not raise any objection.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I desire to call the attention of the House to some of the laws upon this subject. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] has, I think, raised a fatal objection to this bill. The convicts confined in the peni

tentiary of this District are of two classes: those convicted of offenses committed within the District of Columbia; and, secondly, those convicted of offenses against the laws of the United States, committed in the several States of this Union, the Territories, and upon the high seas. Now, let us see what the law says upon this subject. The statute of 1825 provides that where persons are convicted of an offense for which the punishment is imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor, either committed in the States, Territories, or on the high seas, he may be confined in any of the penitentiaries of the several States of this Union, where the authorities are willing to receive him.

But when you come to the criminal code of the District of Columbia, I desire to call the attention of the House to the act of 1831, which reads as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act every person who shall be convicted in any court in the District of Columbia, of any of the following offenses, to wit: manslaughter, assault and battery with intent to kill, arson, rape, assault and battery with intent to commit rape, burglary, robbery, horse stealing, mayhem, bigamy, perjury, or subornation of perjury, larceny, if the property stolen is of the value of five dollars or upwards, forgery, obtaining by false pretenses any goods or chattels, money, bank note, promissory note, or any other instrument in writing for the payment or delivery of money or other valuable thing, or of keeping a faro bank or other common gambling-table, petty larceny upon a second conviction, committed after the pas sage of this act, shall be sentenced to suffer punishment by imprisonment and labor, for the time and times hereinafter prescribed, in the penitentiary for the District of Columbia."

Now, it is proposed by a committee of this House, by a bill recommended and indorsed by that committee, that you shall make a general jail delivery of every convict in the penitentiary here, who has been confined in that penitentiary by a court of competent jurisdiction. I admit that, so far as those are concerned who are convicted for offenses committed on the high seas, or within the several States and Territories of this Union, by the laws upon the statute-book we may transfer them to the penitentiaries of the States and Territories where the authorities are willing to receive are concerned, this bill works a general jail delivthem; but so far as the convicts of this District ery; and upon a writ of habeas corpus they would be discharged from custody if taken elsewhere.

Mr. TRAIN. I will offer an amendment which, I think, will relieve this bill of any difficulty. Mr. WICKLIFFE. I do not believe this penitentiary building is adapted for the purposes of an armory or an arsenal. It will cost as much to fit it up as an arsenal as it would be to build a building at the public expense specially adapted for that purpose. And by the way of trying the sense of the House upon that subject, I move to strike out the enacting clause, that the House may have an opportunity to say whether they will have any bill at all.

The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order, as the gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.

Mr. TRAIN. I move to amend the first section of the bill, in line eleven, by inserting after the word "discharge," the words "provided that the same can be done without affecting the legality of the commitment or sentence.

I now ask the Clerk to read a letter from General Ripley, which I send to him. The Clerk read, as follows:

ORDNANCE OFFICE, WASHINGTON, January 6, 1862. SIR: The commanding officer of the Washington arsenal has on several occasions represented the insufficiency of the storage room at that place. The absolute necessity of keeping on hand large supplies of ammunition and other materials of war, requiring careful storage and shelter, calls urgently for the adoption of some measure to secure at least the temporary use of additional buildings adjacent to the arsenal. By far the most if not the only convenient and suitable building for the purpose is that now used as a penitentiary, and situated within the limits of the arsenal grounds. It is suggested that other arrangements for taking care of the convicts may be made of a temporary or, probably to greater advantage, of a permanent character, whereby the penitentiary may be made available for ar

senal purposes.

In view of the present importance of the matter, I respectfully call attention to this suggestion, with the recommendation that measures be taken for an examination of the subject in the proper quarter, and the adoption of such measures, cither legislative or executive, as inay be considered best to attain early action in the case. Respectfully, your obedient servant, JAMES W. RIPLEY, Brigadier General. Hon. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.

The foregoing was indorsed as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT, January 6, 1862. Respectfully referred to the honorable Secretary of the Interior. Could not the prisoners be transferred for the present to the Maryland penitentiary at Baltimore?

SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. We have now some buildings used by the Ordnance Bureau, at the extreme point of land formed by the junction of the Eastern Branch and the Potomac. Some few years ago we purchased, if I mistake not, some seven or eight acres of land adjoining the arsenal buildings there, extending up to the penitentiary and east of it, and according to my recollection, up to last August, when I was there, no additional improvements had been put upon that ground for the benefit of that arsenal. Now, I submit, when we have purchased an outside tract of land adjoining the arsenal, whether it would not be better to erect additional buildings upon ground which we already own, instead of buying this penitentiary and turning that into the uses of the arsenal. Until you change the penal code of this District, a penitentiary must be maintained within the District,

because the criminal court of this District can

sentence convicts to no other place but the penitentiary of the District. The only effect of the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. TRAIN] with a view of obviating the objection taken by his colleague [Mr. DAWES] and myself, will be to keep this property as a penitentiary until the criminal code of the District can be changed. It may provide a place of confinement for convicts hereafter to be sentenced, but how will it be with those who have been sentenced for twenty or thirty years or for life? There are, perhaps, some such, and you must therefore still maintain a penitentiary building in this city and retain all your officers. Persons hereafter convicted by the United States courts held in the several States and Territories of the Union may be confined in the penitentiaries of the several localities, but those convicts who are now here must be kept here until either they are pardoned or their term of service expires. I think, therefore, that it would be unwise to pass this bill.

Mr. SHEFFIELD. It seems to me that this is a very important bill, and that there are questions raised that ought to be considered. I therefore move that it be recommitted to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, with leave to that committee to report it at any time. The motion was agreed to.

WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK RAILROADS.

Mr. MALLORY, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, bill of the House (No. 426) to facilitate the transportation of troops and mails from Washington city to New York.

The bill was read. The first section declares the several direct lines of railroad leading from New York to Washington, and passing through the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, together with their connections in said cities, and such branches or change of location as may be necessary to complete said connections, to be military and postal roads in the service of the United States.

The second section provides that for the purpose of obtaining and securing the more safe, speedy, and economical transportation of troops, munitions of war, and the mails of the United States over said roads, the several railroad companies owning the same are authorized under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of War, and under such regulations and restrictions as he may prescribe, to enjoy and exercise all the rights and powers to make and construct such branches and changes of location as may be necessary to improve and complete their connections in said cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, and for the establishment of ferries, the construction of bridges, and the use of steam power on some, any, or all portions of said roads and their connections; provided that full compensation shall be made to any person or corporation for any damage caused by the taking of property for any of the purposes aforesaid, which compensation shall be made by the company taking such property according to the laws of the State in which such property may be located.

The third section provides that on the roads or branches of roads herein provided for in the cities of Baltimore and Philadelphia, locomotives shall not be run at a rate of speed exceeding eight miles

per hour, and that every precaution shall be used against injury to person and property.

these cities would make them entirely destructive to the great interests of these cities.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. Speaker, this bill ex- Mr. MALLORY. I would say to the gentleplains its object; and I suppose it is unnecessary, man from Pennsylvania that the bill does provide in order that the House shall arrive at a full un- for the construction of bridges, but I think it is derstanding of its purpose, that I should say any- well settled by the decision made in the Wheeling thing in relation to it. It is, as it purports to be, bridge case, that where a post road is authorized a bill to facilitate the transportation of the mails to cross a navigable stream, draws have to be so and all military materials between the cities of constructed as that the bridge will not interfere Washington and New York. It springs from the with the navigation of the river. The power concomplaint made by the Government during this ferred by the bill upon these companies would not, war of the difficulty it met with in the transporta- in my estimation, authorize the companies in any tion of materials of war from New York to the instance to build a bridge that would obstruct the city of Washington, at a time when the rapid navigation of any navigable stream; but in order transportation of materials of that sort was very to meet the objection of the gentleman from Pennmuch needed. The committee came to the con-sylvania, I would be willing to insert a proviso clusion that the power on the part of the various that where the roads authorized to be constructed railroad companies on the route between this city by this bill do cross navigable streams the compaand the city of New York to construct their roads nies shall be required to construct draws so that through the cities of Baltimore and Philadelphia, the bridges shall not interfere with the navigation so as to run locomotives on the roads so con- of those streams. I will offer that proviso as an amendment now, if the gentleman will allow me. The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield for that purpose?

structed in those cities, would be conferred by this bill beyond all doubt, and that the transportation of mails, materials of war, and passengers would be greatly facilitated by the passage of this

bill.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CRISFIELD. I do not wish to oppose the bill, nor do I wish to speak to it; but I desire to offer one or two verbal amendments. I move to insert in the sixth line of the first section, after the word "branches," the word "extensions." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CRISFIELD. I move to amend the second section by striking out in the sixth and seventh lines the words, "and under such regulations and restrictions as he may prescribe." The bill authorizes these improvements to be made under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of War, and I do not see any necessity for the words which I propose to strike out.

Mr. MALLORY. I do not know that there is

much objection to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maryland. I do not see that it will change the meaning of the bill at all. If these changes are to be made under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of War, I do not see how that supervision and direction can be exercised except by regulations to be made by the Secretary of War. I do not regard the expression as tautology, as the gentleman from Maryland suggests. I think it is only an indication of the mode intended by the framers of the bill in which this supervision shall be exercised by the Secretary of War, that it shall be done by regulations. I hope the amendment will not prevail, because it proposes to strike out what is perhaps important to the bill in the way of explanation of the power conferred on the Secretary of War by it.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I am a member of the committee which has reported this bill, I desire to say that while I myself held when the bill was referred to us, and still hold, that Congress has not the authority to confer these powers upon these companies, I did not interpose any objection to the reporting of the bill. If it meets with opposition in the House, I shall vote against it, but if other gentlemen do not think proper to make objections to it, I shall not.

||

Mr. HICKMAN. Not at present. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky will please reduce his amendment to writing. Mr. HICKMAN. Mr. Speaker

Mr. CRISFIELD. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?

Mr. HICKMAN. Certainly.

Mr. CRISFIELD. While my friend from Kentucky [Mr. MALLORY] is preparing the amendment he intends to propose, I desire to have one or two other verbal alterations made in the billnot changing any of its powers or any of its objects. My purpose is simply to perfect the bill, not to embarrass it. I move to insert, after the word "construct," in the second section, the words" or lease;" so that it will read:

The several railroad companies owning the same are hereby authorized, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of War, and under such regulations and restrictions as he may prescribe, to enjoy and exercise all the rights and powers to make and construct or lease such branches and changes of location as may be necessary.

Mr. HICKMAN. Do I understand the genamendment now? I prefer not having a vote taken tleman from Maryland to desire a vote upon his upon it at this time.

The SPEAKER. The amendment will be regarded as pending.

Mr. CRISFIELD. I also desire to bring one other amendment to the attention of the House. It is to insert after the word "branches," in the ninth line, the word "extensions;" so as to make it read:

To make and construct or lease such branches, extensions, and changes of location.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the amendment will be regarded as pending.

There was no objection.

Mr. HICKMAN. Mr. Speaker. It will be seen that the great object of the bill is to make a perfect connection between the cities of Washington and New York, to shorten the time, and to give increased facilities to travel. The committee, when it prepared this bill, had undoubtedly these great objects in view; they could have eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth lines of the sechad none other, and consequently you find in the ond section, this remarkable language:

To improve and complete their connections in said cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, and for the establishment of ferries, the construction of bridges, and the use of steam power on some, any, or all portions of said roads and their connections.

It is therefore, I should say, undeniable from the plain reading of the bill, that these companies could connect their lines by bridges, as well as by ferries on any and all parts of these different lines, thus bridging the Susquehanna at any point they may chose; thus bridging the Delaware at any point they may chose; and also bridging the Hudson at New York.

Mr. CRISFIELD's amendment was disagreed to. Mr. HICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think the attention of the House should be called to some of the principal features of this bill. To my mind it is one of the most remarkable bills that has ever been presented to this House. It authorizes these railroad companies to construct their roads as they may choose, through the cities of Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, and to bridge the navigable waters between this city and New York, at any points they may choose, without constructing draws, and so as not merely to interfere with, but utterly to destroy the navigation. Mr. MALLORY. I would say to the gentle-privilege of bridging it at a particular point, if I man from Pennsylvania that no such power is conferred upon these companies by this bill. They are simply authorized to cross streams by ferries.

Mr. HICKMAN. I do not so read the bill; and even if that were the case, I think the fact that they are authorized to run as they may choose through

Mr. CRISFIELD. The company have already the privilege of bridging the Susquehanna.

Mr. HICKMAN. Yes, sir, they have the

recollect aright; but not at any point where the combined companies may choose to select. But it is enough for me to know that there is no one or more companies that have yet received a chartered right to bridge the Delaware at any point they might select, or to bridge the waters at New

1862.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

York. It will be impossible to put into this bill, now upon its passage, with the haste we are required to act upon it, any provision that can guard against the destruction of the great interests involved in these cities.

Mr. HICKMAN. I should like to inquire of western gentlemen, and of the gentleman from Kentucky how they would like to give to these chartered companies the right to build bridges at different points on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, so as not materially to interrupt the navigation of these rivers?

It is therefore, I suggest, in every aspect, a most remarkable bill. It authorizes connection across Mr. MALLORY. I should say to the gentlenavigable rivers by bridges, without any guards man from Pennsylvania that that right is univeragainst obstructions of navigation. And then, sally given to them in every case that it is applied again, it enables these companies to run their cars for, except in the case of the Wheeling bridge, to through any part of these cities that they may sewhich I called the attention of the House just now. lect. But it goes further than that: it enables these I think it was decided in that case that the bridge companies to construct their road through the city could be built, and that no law of the State or of Washington, on, as I presume, to Georgetown; corporation could be allowed to interfere with the for the point in Washington from which they are construction of a bridge across the Ohio, provided to start is not indicated, nor is the point in New the bridge did not materially interfere with naviYork at which they are to end indicated. They may therefore begin their line at the remote limitsgation, if the road across the river was declared a post road. of the city of Washington, run it through the city, on and through the streets of Baltimore, on to the Susquehanna; bridge that at any point, on through the city of Philadelphia, through Chestnut street, if they please, bridge the Delaware, also bridge the waters at New York, and end at the remote northern limits of that city. The very idea is enough to defeat this bill; and therefore I make the motion that it be laid upon the table.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania yielded to the gentleman from Kentucky to offer an amendment by way of a proviso.

Mr. HICKMAN. I did not understand that. I gave way to him at the time that he might make a suggestion, and present the amendment which he had not then ready; but I am perfectly willing he should present it now, I retaining the floor to make my motion.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. Speaker, there is a misconception of this matter, as I understand. When I reported the bill I stated expressly that I would yield the floor to any person who desired to debate the bill, or to offer any amendment to it, but with the understanding that I retained the floor so that I might have control of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair could not recognize any such understanding.

Mr. HICKMAN. I should like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky whether in his opinion an act of Congress authorizing the construction of bridges across navigable rivers will give the right to erect a bridge without reference to navigation?

Mr. MALLORY. That is a question, to answer which would require an argument longer than the gentleman from Pennsylvania or myself would be ready to enter into on this occasion. I have confined myself in the opinion I have stated on the subject to the decisions of the courts.

Mr. HICKMAN. I do not think the decision the gentleman has cited covers the subject at all. Mr. MALLORY. I think it does.

Mr. MAYNARD. With the permission of the gentleman, I will state an instance in support of the view taken by the gentleman from Kentucky in regard to a river in my own State. I refer to the Cumberland, which is navigable for a considerable distance above Nashville. Yet it was bridged until a few weeks ago, when the bridge was burned by a railroad company, and remained bridged by General Floyd and the rebel soldiers under him. I presume the people of Nashville were not only willing but glad to have it bridged, for the bridge was not only a great convenience to the railroad travel, but to the people in passing by

Mr. MALLORY. Then I offer this amendment to cover the objections raised by the gentle-other conveyances; and overland transportation is man from Pennsylvania.

The SPEAKER. The amendment can only

be received by unanimous consent.

There being no objection, the amendment was received, as follows:

Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to authorize any of the railroad companies therein named to construct bridges over navigable streams or waters, so as to materially obstruct the navigation of said streams.

Mr. HICKMAN. I do not think that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Kentucky obviates the difficulty at all. The language is, materially obstruct the navigation of said streams." It leaves the mode of construction and the place of construction entirely to these railroad companies. They are to say, in the first instance, whether their construction will materially interfere with the navigation of the rivers. I do not desire to invest these companies with such a power.

quite as important as water transportation.

Mr. HICKMAN. However that may be, the people of the State of New York entertain a very different opinion. They are not willing to have their navigable streams so bridged, and I am quite satisfied that the people of Pennsylvania would not be willing to have the Delaware river bridged at or below the city of Philadelphia.

Mr. OLIN. I ask the gentlemen to yield me the floor for one or two minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that a measure of this
importance should be attempted to be passed
through the House without having that ordinary
consideration which the customary forms of legis-
lation in this House secure. It involves a variety
of considerations most important in their char-
acter, more important, I am persuaded, than the
gentleman from Kentucky who reported this bill
is at all aware of.

Now, in my judgment, the last thing in the
world that Congress ought to do is to authorize
like the Dela-
the bridging of a navigable stream,
ware or Hudson river, for the accommodation of
a railroad company. I am persuaded that if this
House had the necessary, I will not say ordinary
information on the subject possessed by any indi-
vidual who has given the question but a casual
examination, such a proposition would never be
entertained for a moment.

Mr. MALLORY. The gentleman has put his objection in another form entirely. While I was preparing the proviso, I heard him object to the fact that this bill would authorize, perhaps, the construction of bridges across the Delaware, the Susquehanna, and even the Hudson. I do not suppose that bridges could be constructed across those rivers. But the gentleman says, that even admitting this proviso to be attached to this bill, yet still the right is given to construct bridges at any points that these companies may select. I admit that, and I respectfully suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that perhaps it is as material that we should guard what a celebrated gentleman in my State calls "the navigation of land by locomotives," as that we should guard the navigation of streams by vessels. I do not know but that it is as important to facilitate travel and transportation between the cities of Wash-igable stream. ington and New York by expediting the movement of locomotives over railroads, as it is that the Susquehanna, the Delaware, the Hudson, and all these navigable streams and waters should be kept free for navigation by vessels. If the gentleman refers simply to the matter of public convenience and expediency, I think the gentleman gains nothing by his objections or his argument.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MALLORY. The gentleman from New York will permit me to say that he misconceives entirely the object of the Committee on Roads and Canals in reporting this bill, and the purport of the bill itself, if he supposes that it is introduced for the accommodation of any railroad company at all. I would not be willing at any time to give authority for the accommodation of a railroad But I tell the gentleman that this company to build a bridge anywhere over a navbill was introduced in response to what, in our and the Government for increased facilities in the judgment, was a pressing demand of the public of war between the cities of Washington and New transportation of mails, passengers, and munitions York. It was for the accomodation of the great traveling public who have now for years been delayed for from two and a half to three hours in

crossing the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore
by horse cars, in passing to and from Washing-
ton and New York.

Mr. OLIN. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have
a right to say that my habitual good nature gen-
erally subjects me to the loss of most of my time
whenever I get the floor of the House.

Mr. MALLORY. I am sure I am very much obliged to the gentleman' for yielding to me.

Mr. OLIN. I believe I understand perfectly well what is the professed object of this bill. The ostensible object is to accommodate the great traveling public. It is to meet a great public necessity. But I want to call the attention of the gentleman to one fact: were you to bridge the Hudson river at New York, you would interrupt more commerce in one day by your infernal bridge than you would accommodate the public in the way of railroad travel in a year.

Mr. MALLORY. Oh, no; I want no infernal bridges. [Laughter.]

Mr. OLIN. I say infernal, because the obstrucare properly characterized by no other term. tion to commerce and navigation it would produce

Let me say to the gentleman that the Erie canal, running from Lake Erie to the Hudson river almost side by side with the Central railroad of New York, a railroad that does more business in a day than almost any other four roads in the United States-I say that the Erie canal will transport more produce over it, and will accommodate to a greater extent the commercial interests of the State and country, than four such roads as that. But when you compare the capacity of the Hudson river with the Erie canal, you must multiply its importance a hundred fold. To speak, as does your bill, of substantially interrupting navigation by a bridge, is the sheerest folly that ever emanated from the brain of a lunatic just out of Bedlam. [Laughter.]

Mr. MALLORY. I must be permitted to say that no such idea ever entered my brain in reporting this bill, and the gentleman does not therefore charge me with the folly of a lunatic out of Bedlam.

Mr. OLIN. Of course I do not apply the remark to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MALLORY. I will suggest to the gentleman from New York that there is nothing in the bill about a bridge over the Hudson, and therefore I cannot conceive the alarm he has taken on that I will suggest to him that it is only the streams between the cities of Washington and New York that are embraced in this bill.

score.

Mr. OLIN. Of course, I did not attribute anything of the kind to the gentleman. He knows as well as man can know that I respect and admire him.

Mr. HICKMAN. Let me suggest to the gentleman from Kentucky that it may be as important to bridge, the East river as the Hudson.

Mr. MALLORY. The only waters near New York which this bill could affect constitute an arm of the sea, and could not be bridged. Neither the gentleman from New York nor the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I presume, supposes for a moment there would be any danger of a railroad bridge being built across there.

Mr. HICKMAN. I am not sure that they might not attempt to put a pontoon bridge across there.

Mr. MALLORY. Oh, no; that would obstruct navigation.

Mr. OLIN. I am speaking of the Hudson as illustrating the principle of this bill. Now, I do not know that a bridge across the Delaware, opposite the city of Philadelphia, would prove as serious an obstacle to commerce and navigation as a bridge across the Hudson; but the principle involved is precisely the same, if Congress is now to commence the legalizing of the construction of bridges across navigable streams for the accommodation of railroads, or for the accommodation great traveling of what the gentleman calls the " public." And yet, Mr. Speaker, this is really a question whether all the interests of commerce shall be subjected and subordinated to that of the accommodation of railroads, and not of the great traveling public; for the interests of the tavprivate railroad corporations. It is, I repeat, for eling public require no such thing. These railroad corporations can avoid these obstructions of navigable rivers by crossing the streams where their navigation would not be interfered with.

« PreviousContinue »