suffer. The lumberman in the woods will not get any less for what he does, whether you obstruct the navigation or not. That, however, is no argument with me for obstructing it. I do not for that reason argue that the stream should be obstructed; and I say it will not be sensibly obstructed; and if it were, I should have as much reason to oppose it as the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am persuaded, in view of the compromise agreed upon by all the interests concerned, by the enlightened, intelligent men who have reflected upon it, and have an interest in it, that they are right in the conclusion that this will be no injury to any of them, and that we can subserve the interests of all by confirining what they have agreed to.

I will not detain the Senate further. I will only say again that if the Senator's amendment shall prevail, I suppose the ability to erect a bridge over the Ohio river will be destroyed.

Mr. DIXON. Some allusion has been made to the width of the bridge between the piers. It must be evident, I think, to everybody that nothing ought to be left to hazard with regard to the safety of public transportation across such a bridge. The consequences of any defective building of a bridge would be, of course, terrible; and as the Senator from Ohio has said, the committee thought that this width of two hundred and seventy feet was as great as could safely be allowed. I believe it is too great; but it is apparent to every one without much knowledge of mechanics, that every foot of extension after that adds greatly to the risk, and, I may say, to the weakness of the bridge. I hope, therefore, that whatever we do in regard to this matter we shall see to it that the transportation across the river, if permitted, shall be safe to the public.

So

Mr. SHERMAN. In regard to the single point of the cost of a bridge, I have been informed that the cost of a bridge of two hundred and seventy feet span is more than double the cost of a bridge of two hundred feet span; the piers have to be higher and heavier, and all the wood work has to be very largely increased; all the bracings and supports have to be very much increased. If you double the base of a cube, instead of doubling the capacity of it you make it eight times as great. A cube of two feet base would only contain one eighth the space of a cube of four feet base. when you lengthen a bridge you add to the cost of the bridge, and to the weakness of the bridge also, in about the same proportion as the cube would bear to the square root; that, I believe, is the general rule. A bridge of fifty feet span may be built of comparatively light timber. I do not know in this country a bridge of two hundred and seventy feet span; there may be, but I do not know of one but the iron bridges and wire bridges. The celebrated tubular bridge across the Menai Straits must be two thousand feet long, if I recollect aright-very long indeed, but it is built entirely of iron. The longest iron bridges are built where the supports are above the piers; in all the wooden bridges, as a matter of course, you have to rest the support on the base of the piers and make long curved stretches-I cannot give the technical term. The addition of thirty feet more to the span of this bridge of two hundred and seventy feet, in my judgment, will not only endanger the safety of the bridge, but add vastly to its expense, and it will make the elevation greater. I think, therefore, it is a very serious matter. I have been told by persons interested in this bridge, and therefore, I suppose, you must take it with some grains of allowance, that they cannot build a bridge of three hundred feet span with the elevation they have, especially at Parkersburg, where the ground is low on the Virginia side of the river where they must build, and where if you require more than two hundred and seventy feet span it will be impossible for them to build the bridge so as to make it practicable. That is what they say. To be sure, it is the testimony of interested parties, and I give it to you for what it is worth.

Mr. GRIMES. I concur in very much that has been said by the Senator from Connecticut that this is a very important question. Whichever way we decide it, human life may be hazarded. If we allow a bridge to be built here improperly, where it will obstruct the current and destroy boats as they pass through, we thereby hazard human life. Some of the citizens of my own town have lost their lives by attempting to pass in a steamboat through the draw at the Rock Island

bridge on the Mississippi river. It seems to me that there is not that information before the Senate which we ought to have in order to pass upon a question of such magnitude as this. We have at the head of the Topographical Bureau at this time Colonel Long, who has been for the last forty years, I believe, one of the most eminent bridge builders of the country. I should like the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads to have a conference with him before we are called upon to pass the bill. He is not only eminent as a bridge-builder and engineer, but he has for many years had charge of the western river improvements, and been stationed at Louisville, so that he is perfectly familiar with the Ohio river. I desire to move, therefore, that the bill be recommitted, or that it lie on the table, it is immaterial which, until we can have some understanding on the subject, and get more accurate information than we have.

Mr. GRIMES. I move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Those gentlemen who have been before the committee may be engineers or may not be; I do not know who they were; but they do not speak to us with that authority which some of our own engineers, men of eminence and skill in that department, could speak. I am one of those who do not want to throw the slightest obstruction in the way either of commerce by the way of the railroad or commerce by way of the river. I want to do whatever is right; but I should like to have some more accurate information than I now have on the subject.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. In the State of Wisconsin we have had a little experience in building railroad bridges over a navigable stream which is navigated by rafts-I refer to the Wisconsin river and the building of three railroad bridges by the Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad Company, as it crosses that river three times. In our experience one very important thing was found-that the piers of these bridges must be built in the line of the current of the river. While our Legislature imposed upon them a restriction as to the width between the piers, which I do not now remember, they did not, I believe, in the bill itself, provide that the piers should be in the line of the current, or that the bridge should go directly across the river. Perhaps the latter point was impossible, but the main point is that the piers should be on a line with the current of the river. We have had some considerable difficulty with the rafts in passing down the Wisconsin river being broken on these piers, and considerable damages have been paid from time to time by the railroad companies.

I desire simply to say that I find myself in the position of the Senator from Iowa. I have not sufficient evidence on which to form my judgment and to decide between these two propositions, whether this draw should be two hundred and seventy feet or three hundred feet wide. If it were possible that a bridge could be built and made safe, of three hundred feet span, even if the railroad company were required to build it of iron at an additional expense of fifty or one hundred thousand dollars, I would not consent that it should be any narrower. While I agree that the modern demands of commerce and transportation require that we shall have the privilege of crossing rivers, as well as navigating them up and down the stream, I still

insist that where railroads undertake to cross them with substantial bridges they shall make the least possible obstruction to the navigation of the rivers; and if it be practicable that by the building of an iron bridge they can give a span of three hundred feet, I would insist upon their doing it if it was at an additional expense of fifty or one hundred thousand dollars, even at every crossing, for $100,000 is not any very great matter to a railroad company in building an important bridge.

I hope the motion to recommit will prevail, that the Post Office Committee on that subject may take the testimony of eminent engineers, that the Senate may be informed and know the difference between the expense of a wooden bridge and an iron bridge, and how large the span can be made with safety to a railroad bridge.

Mr. WADE. I shall not resist this motion, because I have no doubt that I am right, and that the bill is right; but I hope it will be returned as soon as it possibly can be; for there is a necessity, if we are to act on this subject, that we act

as speedily as possible. This bridge is in process of construction; and it is necessary to avail ourselves of that season of the year in which alone it can be constructed. It will be necessary to change the piers; and it will be exceedingly detrimental to the company if it is not determined for or against them at an early period. I do not resist the motion to recommit; but I shall insist on the bill being brought back as soon as possible.

Mr. COWAN. I have a single word to say. I am in favor also of recommitting this bill. I feel its importance, and I desire that what we do shall be done knowingly and wisely in the premises. I desire as well, however, to inquire whether a wooden bridge can be built over a three hundred feet span. I desire also to have the opportunity of bringing before the committee testimony as to the necessities of the stream in the width of the passage to be allowed, because even if three hundred feet should be allowed it may be too small, and I want an opportunity to inform the committee thoroughly upon that subject by men who are engaged in the actual practical navigation of the river and who know its wants and requirements. I hope, therefore, that the bill will be recommitted, and an opportunity given to produce testimony on these points.

Mr. POWELL. I am in favor of the recommitment of this bill, but I shall oppose the passage of any bill that allows a pier to be placed in the Ohio river. I regard the Ohio river and its free navigation as of more importance than all the railroads in America, and every pier that is placed there will stand in all time, or as long as it does stand, an impediment to the free navigation of the stream. I had drawn up a resolution that I had intended to propose; but I will not do it, as the Senator from Iowa has made the motion to recommit. I will read the resolution, however, to indicate my judgment on the subject-matter:

Resolved, That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, with instructions to report a bill authorizing railway companies to build suspension or tubular bridges across the Ohio river, bridges to span the river, and to be not less than ninety-five feet above low water mark.

I have no objection to building bridges across the Ohio river; I think the demands of commerce require them; but in my judgment those bridges, should be either tubular or iron suspension bridges such as to span the entire stream. Gentlemen talk of two hundred feet being sufficient for the purposes of navigation. We should have the whole river. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] says tubular bridges must have piers. I understand tubular bridges have been built with a span of nine hundred feet. I know but little of bridges. My object is to have a bill reported that shall require the entire river to be spanned by a bridge. can be done we know with iron suspension bridges, and these are the only description of bridge in my judgment that Congress should allow to be built over that stream. If you have a space of two hundred feet, I venture to say that nine rafts out of ten going through, if the wind is high, will strike on one or the other of the piers. Steamboats can get through much more readily; but every Senator must know that these rafts are not only very large and very sluggish, but they are very difficult to control, and the winds and currents take them almost at pleasure, and any pier you put in that river will forever interrupt its navigation, and such will be the loss of life and property if these bridges are built at many places across the river, that the whole country will be startled. Bridges can be built which will span the entire stream, and companies should be compelled, if they build at all, to build bridges that will span the entire stream. I will go for the motion of the Senator from Iowa and will not now offer the resolution; but if the committee report anything that does not come up to the indications of this resolution, I shall move to send it back to them with these instructions.

The motion to recommit the bill was agreed to.

PAY OF ARMY OFFICERS.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. We acted yesterday upon the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 175) to define and regulate the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes, and appointed a committee of conference upon it. It is found to-day, on examination, that the printer made a mistake in printing the amendments, and

that the House of Representatives proposed an amendment to the first section of the bill which was overlooked at the Clerk's table. I hope therefore, by general consent, we shall now act upon the first section of that bill, which the House propose to strike out, and correct the error of yesterday, which was occasioned by a mistake of the printer. I move to take up the bill for that pur

pose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts will be regarded as before the Senate. The House of Representatives propose as an amendment to strike out all of the first section of the bill after the enacting clause, in the following words:

That officers of the Army, to whom brevet commissions shall hereafter be given, shall not be entitled to any increase of pay or emoluments because of the exercise of command according to their brevet rank.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I hope the Senate will not concur with the House of Representatives in that amendment. I think the section a most excellent one. It applies only to future

brevets.

The amendment was non-concurred in.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. The bill, I believe, is now disposed of. It goes to a committee of conference under the vote of yesterday. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir.

OATH OF OFFICE.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask the Senate to take up House bill No. 371, which I think may be disposed of in a few minutes. I desire to suggest an amendment that I think will obviate an objection that was made the other day by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY.]

Mr. HALE. I hope that bill will not be taken up. There is an unfinished bill which was under consideration at the expiration of the morning hour yesterday that requires the action of the Senate and of Congress immediately. If Congress do not mean to repeal the law which that bill proposes to repeal, it will become the duty of the Naval Committee and of the Military Committee to introduce bills appropriating some ten or twelve thousand dollars to each of those Departments for new clerks. It is important that we should know whether that bill is to be passed or not, because the session is drawing to a close. I hope the Senate will adhere to that bill, which is the unfinished business and properly in order.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The bill to which I have called the attention of the Senate is a bill prescribing an oath of office. It was considered in the morning hour some days ago, and the final disposition of it was interrupted at that time, and there was some objection made to it as embracing the President of the United States and some other officers. I propose to suggest an amendment, which I think will obviate that difficulty; and I hope the Senate will consent to take it up. We can get it out of the way in a few minutes. We lose more time in this discussion, I think, than it would take to act on the bill It is a bill to require persons elected or appointed to office under the United States hereafter to take oath that they have not been disloyal to the Government during this rebellion. It has passed the House of Rep- || resentatives, and I think it will meet the general favor of the Senate. I trust the Senate will take

it up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Illinois.

The motion was agreed to-ayes twenty, noes not counted; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 371) to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I believe the bill was ordered to a third reading the other day, and in order to amend it that vote will have to be reconsidered. I inquire if that is so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill has been read three times, and the question is upon its passage, and on that question the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. With a view of suggesting an amendment I move to reconsider the vote ordering the bill to a third reading. I suppose it will not be in order to move an amendment in the present stage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is not amendable in the present stage.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to reconsider the

vote which the bill was ordered to a third reading.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Now I move to amend the bill by inserting after the word "service," in the sixth line the words, "and for whom the form of the oath of office is not prescribed by the Constitution," so that if the amendment is made the bill will only require this oath of office from those persons for whom the form of oath is not prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. As the form of oath is prescribed for the President of the United States, of course it will not embrace him.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I ask the Senator from Illinois whether this bill relates to State officers as well as to officers of the United States.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Only officers of the United States.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I ask that the bill be read as it will stand when amended.

The Secretary read, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That liereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, for whom the form of the oath of office is not prescribed by the Constitution, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the Government of the United States; that I have neither voluntarily renounced my allegiance to the Government of the United States, nor yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or atfirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;" which said oath so taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the court, House of Congress, or Department, to which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.

Mr. DAVIS. I like the bill and I like its principle

Mr. TRUMBULL. You do not object to this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I move to amend the amendment by adding the words "except the Vice President and Senators and Representatives in Congress." My reason for doing so is this: I think that the qualification of these officers is prescribed by the Constitution, and it is utterly inadmissible for Congress either to diminish or to add to those qualifications.

Now suppose, when the secessionists were here in power, and when they passed the fugitive slave law, they had added a clause to that law that every officer thereafter should be required to take an oath that he would support that law, and suppose the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE,] or any other Senator, after such a law had passed, had been elected a member of this body and he had come here and presented himself to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution and qualify as a member of this body and he refused to take the oath prescribed by the fugitive slave law, which required him to swear that he would aid in executing that law, would any gentleman contend that his refusal to take that oath would exclude him from his right to a seat in this body? Not at all. He would have answered to the requisition to take such an oath as that, "here is the Constitution. It prescribes the qualifications which a Senator shall have. Here is an oath in addition to the constitutional qualifications which I, as a member elected to this body, am required to posI therefore refuse to take the oath." Suppose, sir, that a law of Congress required members of Congress to take an oath that they had not been concerned in a duel, and required || them to take that oath before they should be admitted to their seats; we can well suppose that a

sess.

law of that character might be passed by Congress; it has been passed by many Legislatures; and suppose, after a law of that character had been passed by Congress, a member was elected to one. of the Houses, and he was confronted with that law, and told, "before you are allowed to qualify as a member of this House, you must take an oath that you have not been concerned in a duel; that is, that you have not either given or accepted a challenge, or acted as second to either party in a duel." He would say, "I refuse to take that oath; here is the Constitution, which prescribes the qualifications that I shall possess when I am elected, and when I offer myself to qualify as a member of the House to which I have been elected, you affix a qualification imposing an oath upon me not prescribed by the Constitution but by a law of Congress, and Congress has no power whatever to add a qualification which I shall possess as a member of the House." I make this objection in no captious spirit, not in the least hostility to the bill or its principle. I am altogether in favor of its principle.

I say furthermore in addition, that although we cannot as a legislative body add to the qualifications of members of either House, yet as the two Houses act judicially and not legislatively in relation to the elections and returns and qualifications of their members, if I should be a Senator at the next session of Congress, and a man should present himself here to qualify as a member of the Senate, and it should be clearly, distinctly proved that he was disloyal to the Government, in the exercise of my function as a judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of the members of the Senate, I should feel myself at liberty and I would not hesitate to vote, that he should not be admitted to qualify and take his seat as Senator. But I would do that as a judicial act; I would do it as a member of the Senate having the constitutional power to pass upon the question of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members; but i say that because I could do that judicially, I would not be authorized legislatively to vote for a law that would prescribe an additional qualification to a member of the House of Representatives or a member of the Senate either.

I hope the amendment which I submit, to except the Vice President and the members of the two Houses of Congress, will be adopted, because the cases of members of either House could be reached whenever they presented themselves to qualify as members. If they were found to be disloyal, the House to which the gentleman presenting himself || claimed to be elected a member could, in passing upon the question of his election, returns, and qualifications, exclude him if it was proper to exclude him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to call the attention of the Senate for a moment to the form of the amendment as presented by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That amendment excepts only the cases where the form of oath is prescribed in the Constitution. Now, the form of oath in no case is prescribed in the Constitution

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is for the President. Mr. SAULSBURY. I know it is for the President; but in the case of Senators and members of the House of Representatives in Congress, members of State Legislatures, and judicial officers both of the States and of the Union, the form of oath is not prescribed, but it is declared in the Constitution that they shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Why cannot the chairman of the Judiciary Committee place his amendment in such a form as to exempt from the operation of this bill all cases where an oath is required to be administered by the Constitution? Take a Senator or a Representative, the form of the oath which he shall take is not prescribed in the Constitution, but the Constitution does prescribe that he shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Under the wording of his amendment, this requirement would apply to Senators and Representatives, although I apprehend that if a Senator were to come here and tender himself ready to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, he would have a clear right to his seat here, and this body could not refuse his demand except in the mere exercise of arbitrary power; they would not have the rightful power and authority to exclude

him. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois goes further than it ought, for it brings within the range of the bill every case where the form of oath is not prescribed. In only one case, I believe, is the form prescribed, and yet in || many cases the Constitution requires that the party shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I submit that, having taken that oath to support the Constitution of the United States, he would be entitled, if he were a Senator or a Representative, to a seat either in the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is not within the constitutional competency of this body, or of Congress, to say that he shall not be allowed to take his seat as a Senator or a Representative, or to enter upon the discharge of his judicial functions, unless he takes something in addition to what the Constitution prescribes.

But, sir, there are so many of these things presented here in the form of oaths and test oaths, and I have objected to them so frequently that it may seem rather ungracious and unbecoming to interpose these objections; but really the public good certainly cannot require such legislation as this, and you will find if you adopt it, embarrassment constantly meeting you in the future. All this system of test oaths will at a future day be regarded, I apprehend, as having arisen from an imperfect consideration of the circumstances in which we are placed, and as not dictated by sound policy or sound reason.

Mr.TRUMBULL. This is the old question over again, and we have had the argument of the Senator from Kentucky repeated as to the dueling law. On a former occasion, when we had a discussion as to the admission to a seat in this body of the Senator from Oregon, I brought to the notice of the Senate a judicial decision in the State of New York, which is reported in the twentieth volume of Johnson's reports; the case of Barker against the People. It was first decided by the supreme court of that State by Chief Justice Spencer, and subsequently taken to the court of errors and the judgment affirmed upon this very question. I will not occupy the time of the Senate by reading the decision, but will only read the syllabus of the case, which will show what the point decided was:

"The act to suppress dueling, passed November 5, 1816, (sec. 40, chap. 1,) which declares that any person convicted of challenging another to fight a duel, &c., shall be incapable of holding or being elected to any post of profit, trust, or emolument, civil or military, under this State, is constitutional; and a conviction and judgment of disqualification under it are, therefore, legal and valid."

That is the syllabus of the case; and the judge delivered an opinion somewhat at length, in which he showed conclusively that such a law was constitutional; and so far as the court could decide the question, the court of errors affirmed it. In the same opinion the court said that if one of those persons thus convicted were to be elected a member of the Legislature of New York, it would be in the power of the Senate or House of Representatives of the State of New York, which, under the constitution of that State, is vested with the power of determining, each body for itself, as to the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, to admit such person to a seat, notwithstanding he had been convicted of this crime,which, by the statute, prohibited his holding any office. The court said that because the exclusive authority to judge upon that question is vested in the two branches of the Legislature; but, at the same time, the court said that in all other cases where the judicial power could reach, the law would be enforced through the courts. The courts could not enforce it upon the Legislature; and each branch of the Legislature might violate what the courts regarded as a constitutional law, ifit thought proper to do so; and so may this body. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that when a person who has been disloyal to the Government, and who has fought against it, presents himself here to be sworn in as a member of this body, it would be in the power of the body to receive him as a member notwithstanding the law; but I do not think they would do it; I think they would pay some respect to this law.

Let me say to my friend from Kentucky, that this is not a law of the first impression. The statute-books of the United States have several such laws upon them. It is now a law of Congress that no judge who is convicted of bribery shall ever be elected or appointed to or hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under this Government. Suppose

that a judge who has been convicted of bery comes here and presents himself as a member, we could receive him; but how many of us would do it in the face of the law? Would the Senator from Kentucky do it? In the face of a solemn act of Congress, which declares that a man who has been convicted in his judicial position of bribery and corruption, shall never hold an office; would you allow him to take a seat here? You would not, though you could do so; you have the power to do so.

PPROPRIATION FOR VOLUNTEERS' BOUNTY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to take up the bill referred to by him for the purpose of reference.

Mr. HOWE. I was not aware that the bill was before the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. I introduced it yesterday, and it was laid over under the rules.

Mr. HOWE. I understood its introduction was objected to yesterday.

Mr. SHERMÁN. That only lays it over one

ment; but there is another statute of more recent date, which declares that any member of Congress convicted of receiving a bribe in order to affect his vote, shall never hold any office under this Government. Would the Senator from Kentucky allow such a man to come here-a member of Congress who had been convicted of being bribed to give his vote? Would any of you sit with such a man or allow him to take his seat here, in the face of the act of Congress that no such man should hold any office? I do not believe you would. So in regard to the case provided for in this bill. This bill declares that a person who has voluntarily taken up arms against this Government shall hold no office of honor, trust, or profit under the Government, or rather requires that he shall take an oath, before he takes possession of the office or receives its emoluments, that he has not taken up arms against the Government. That is the substance of the bill. We have excluded from it, or I propose to do so by the amendment which I have offered, all persons for whom the form of the oath of office is prescribed in the Constitution. The form of the oath is prescribed by the Constitution for the President, and therefore it will not apply to him.

I promised the Senate when this bill was called up that so far as I could it should not occupy time, I do not propose to reargue this question. It is not a bill of first impression at all. There have been such statutes passed from the early organization of the Government as to judicial officers, and more recently as to members of Congress. I think Congress would respect the law and would not admit a person to a seat as a member who would not take the oath, just as the Senator from Kentucky would not admit a person as a member who had all the qualifications, if he was a traitor to the Government.

Mr. DAVIS. A single word. I remember the case from New York. It was read by the honorable Senator from Illinois some weeks since in the Senate; and if I recollect aright it establishes this principle: that inability to hold an office may be prescribed by the Legislature as a part of the punishment of crime. I agree to that; but that does not touch the question that is now under consideration. The question under consideration is this: when the Constitution has defined and enumerated the qualifications for office, have the Congress of the United States the power to add to those qualifications? I say they neither can add to nor subtract from them. The question decided by the New York court, which was simply that a legislative body may prescribe an inability to hold an office as a part of the punishment of crime, does not touch the question that is now under consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DAVIS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. KING. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he will not let this bill go over till Monday. We want to have a brief executive session.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is a quorum here. ["Oh, no!"]

Mr. SHERMAN. Before that vote is taken I trust that, by general consent the Senate will allow the bill introduced yesterday to be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. KING. I shall move an executive session, and then the Senator from Ohio can have his bill referred.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the bill I introduced yesterday, appropriating bounties for soldiers, may be read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. KING. I move an executive session.

It will go to a committee of which we are both members, and if he desires to amend it there, he can do so.

Mr. HOWE. I do not propose to offer an objection to the introduction of this bill, nor to the passage of it, nor to the reference of it, if the Senator from Ohio who offers it here sees fit to ask for a reference.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will state to the Senator from Wisconsin that I ask the reference simply to facilitate its passage, so that he and other Senators may have an opportunity to look at it.

Mr. KING. The bill should be referred. That is very proper.

Mr. HOWE. Very well, sir; the motion then is to refer the bill, is it?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is to take it up. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate to take it up while another measure is pending. If no objection be made, by common consent the bill may be taken up.

Mr. HOWE. I do not object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, then, is before the Senate, and will have its first reading.

The bill (S. No. 364) making appropriations for the payment of the bounty authorized by the sixth section of an act entitled "An act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the July 22, 1861, and for other purposes was read laws and protecting public property," approved the first and second times by its title by unani

mous consent.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President

Mr. KING. I made a motion to go into executive session, and I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will allow us to do that.

Mr. HOWE. I hope the Senator from New York will allow me a very few remarks on this question of reference.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think I have the right to insist on the bill regularly before the Senate being acted on before we go into another subject.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This bill was taken up by common consent, and is now before the Senate on the motion to refer. It can only be laid aside by general consent.

Mr. TRUMBULL. What has become of the House bill No. 371.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was laid aside

by common consent. The Chair asked if there was any objection to taking up this bill, and it was taken up.

Mr. TRUMBULL. other bill?

Does that displace the

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This bill being taken up, it must be disposed of by the Senate. It can only be disposed of by a vote, except by com

mon consent.

Me. KING. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will let this go over.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Wisconsin has no objection to the reference, and he will probably state his reasons in less time than has already been consumed.

Mr. KING. I am willing to hear them.

Mr. HOWE. There is a motion to dispose of this bill; and in view of what was said yesterday in the Senate, I think I have a right to a few moments' indulgence of the Senate in offering a few remarks upon it. I believe some half-inspired moralist has made the remark that

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

I am not about to controvert that proposition, but I feel bound to say that from what little observation I have had, a little learning is not more than halfas dangerous as too much learning. Some time since a bill like this, as I understand, in its general

at it. First, here is the report signed by the committee and presented to the Senate yesterday:

"The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses to the bill (H. R. No. 413) making appropriations for the payment of the bounty authorized by the sixth section of an act entitled 'An act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property,' approved July 22, 1861, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, report that they are not able to agree upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses."

The chairman of the committee on the part of the Senate, who presented the report, immediately accompanied it with this statement:

say, of any attempt or intent on the part of the Senate to rebuke the committee. I did not accept their simple vote against this amendment as a rebuke of that committee. If it were so meant, I wish simply to notify the Senate that if I were composed of that doubly-damned material which cannot suffer a wrong without doing one in return, it would be quite as much in my power to rebuke the Senate to-day as it was in their power to rebuke the committee the other day. They could defeat the passage of that bill, and they did by voting down this amendment; and I can delay the passage of this bill by simply standing upon the rules of the Senate, and insisting upon their observance. I do not see fit to do so. The Senate was asked the other day by the first committee of conference simply to give unanimous consent to an amendment of a single clause in a bill to which it was assumed no one had an objection. To-day the Senate is challenged to give unanimous consent, or was yesterday, to the adoption of a new bill incorporating that feature, when the Senate, by a deliberate vote, declared against the amendment, for that was the effect of the vote of the Senate the other day.

Mr. DAVIS. And smelt. [Laughter.] Mr. HOWE. Yes; if I might form an opinion from the sea of up-turned noses about me, I should be inclined to say that it was a body which smelt about as bad as his was supposed to have smelt. I tried to explain to the Senate as well as I could that the committee claimed no authority under the vote of this body or under the vote of the other House to change the text of the bill in any portion to which the two Houses had agreed; they simply sought to recommend such a change, and leave it to the two Houses whether they would concur in that amendment or not.

As I said before, no member raised the question of order; no one stated that it was out of order for such an amendment to be proposed in that stage of the bill; but a modification of the motion submitted by the Senator from Kentucky was presented, which was, not to agree to the amendment recommended by the committee of conference, to non-concur in the report, and to ask for another conference. That motion could only be submitted to a vote of the Senate; and that motion, I submit, presented to the Senate just the merits of the amendment, and nothing but those merits. It did not present the question of order.

If I or any other Senator had risen here and proposed the identical amendment which was recommended by the committee of conference, either it would have been adopted by the common consent of the Senate, or some Senator would have objected to it as out of order, and the Chair would have ruled it out of order or in order. If he had ruled it out of order, that would have been the end of the motion, except upon an appeal taken to the Senate. That course was not taken, but a motion was submitted which called upon the Senate, which compelled the Senate, to vote directly upon the merits of the amendment. That vote was taken by yeas and nays, and the Senate by a decided majority voted down the amendment, voted not to agree to the report, and to ask another conference. That request was agreed to by the House of Representatives. The committee has been raised and has reported. That report was presented yesterday, and I desire to call the attention of the Senate to that report, and to some remarks which were submitted to the Senate accompanying it by the chairman of the committee; and I call the attention of the Senate to this as an illustration of the remark with which I set out, that too much learning is decidedly more dangerous than a little.

The Senate seemed to feel the necessity of having the amendment. If the Senate had given their consent to the consideration of that amendment when recommended by the committee of conference, it was in their power to do so, and they would have had it, and you would have had a law just as you wanted it, long before this time. That they could not do; but after all, relying upon getting the unanimous consent of the Senate to just such a modification of the bill, the second committee of conference adopted the method to which

"There was no difficulty between the two Houses upon the disagreeing votes, but both Houses desired to correct the text of the bill."

So the evidence before the Senate stands in this shape: the committee report in writing that they cannot agree, and the Senator who presents the report says, in his place, that they could agree perfectly well. It is a question, then, upon the balance of testimony, it seems to me, whether they could or could not agree-the committee reporting that they could not agree upon the disagreeing votes and the chairman informing the Senate that they could agree upon them, but that they wanted to amend the text of the bill; and to amend the text of the bill, they adopt the expedient of drafting and presenting here a new bill, and the chairman of the committee appealed to the Senate for its unanimous consent to consider and to pass that new bill-not to adopt a single amendment, not to consent unanimously to a change of a single clause, but to consent unanimously to a new bill.

Now, sir, upon the strictest letter of any parliamentary law that I ever heard of, the only rule that was disregarded by the first committee of conference which reported upon this subject was that they proposed to amend a bill in a stage of the proceedings when by your rules it is said an amendment could not be made; but the second committee of conference appeal to you to allow a bill to be introduced without notice, to receive its first, its second, and its third readings upon the same day, almost in the same instant of time, when by your rules it could not be introduced even without giving a day's notice; it could be read only once on the same day. By your rules it would have required one day's notice to introduce it, one day to give it its first reading, another day to give its second, and another at least to give it its third reading; and yet you are asked to consent to waive all those rules.

Now, I do not find the slightest fault with this bill; I do not offer the slightest objection to it; and I should not have offered, and I do not to-day offer, the slightest objection to waiving every one of those rules, and giving to the bill the immediate and present consideration of the Senate; because I do not stand here to obstruct the public business with any mere technicality. But there was a remark made during the debate yesterday, by the chairman of the committee of conference, which I did not think quite gracious. He assumed to inform the former committee and to inform the world of a fact of which I do not think the committee was aware before, and probably the world was not, which was that the Senate had taken upon itself to rebuke that committee of conference for its attempt to evade the rules of the Senate. I shall not go into the question how far that was a violation of established parliamentary law. 1 content myself with saying now that when the question is fully considered and discussed, the law will not be found nearly as well settled as was assumed on the part of many Senators the other day. I simply say now, that so far as I am aware the committee did not intend to evade any rule of the Senate. They meant no such thing. They did not venture to recommend an amendment except in a clause and in a particular to which they supposed there would not be the slightest objection on the part of any member either of the House of Representatives or of the Senate.

I may be allowed to state that while the committee did desire to make further amendments in that bill, they deliberately refrained from doing so because they anticipated that those further amendments might be objectionable to some members of the body. And while I was not aware of any attempt on the part of the committee to evade the rules of the Senate, I was not aware, allow me to

Now, Mr. President, I felt that I had a right to say this much in vindication of the action of that committee. I disclaim on its behalf any attempt or any intent to evade the rules of the Senate, and I disclaim all knowledge of an intent on the part of the Senate to rebuke the committee. I think I had a right to say so much as this, and having said this, I do not propose to offer the slightest objection to the enactment of this bill into a law at the earliest possible moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. CLARK in the chair.) The question is on the motion to refer this bill to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Tdesire simply to say, as I took part in the discussion the other day and thought the report of the committee of conference ought not to be agreed to for reasons which I gave, that certainly it never occurred to me that we were administering any rebuke to anybody, and never intended anything of the sort in the world. I merely wished to preserve what I thought was the proper order of business, in which I do not profess to be infallible. I supposed I was right. I thought that was not the proper way to do business, and I think this is the better way. I can only say, as I took some part in the discussion and the Senator from Wisconsin looked at me several times, that I certainly had no right to rebuke the committee, and had no such intention.

Mr. HOWE. Certainly not. I distinctly said I did not believe the Senate itself, or any Senator, intended it as a rebuke.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will say that the remark I made was simply in reply to the observation of the Senator from Connecticut, that this new committee had sought to evade the rules. I so understood the remark, and in my reply to that remark I certainly did not intend anything offensive to

them.

Mr. FOSTER. I certainly did make the remark, and I reiterate it, and the evidence before the Senate now most entirely verifies the remark. The second committee of conference, besides, in the first place, saying in their report that what the chairman of the committee says orally here is not true, have gone on to report a bill in regard to a subject-matter connected, it is true, with the bill before them, but having no reference at all to the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and they propose to lay the bill, in regard to which they were asked to confer with the committee of the House of Representatives and agree upon the amendments if they could agree, on the table, and kill the bill, and to introduce another bill in lieu of it. That, I say, is clearly an evasion of the rules of the Senate, so far as the action of committees of conference is concerned.

If the attempt by the committee of conference of which the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HowE] was chairman was an evasion of the rule, because that committee recommended an alteration of the text of a bill-if that is an evasion of the rules, and in the opinion of the Senator from Ohio called for and received the rebuke of the Senate, I want to know what the Senate should do in regard to a committee which makes a double report, a report in writing one way and an oral report the other; which attempts, instead of reconciling the differences between the two Houses

to aggravate them, to destroy the bill and to bring forward another in lieu of it? I wish to know what such a committee deserves if the former committee deserves the visitation which the Senator from Ohio says was visited upon the first committee? The Senator from Wisconsin has very properly commented upon the direct issue in fact made up between the written report of the committee and the statement made in his place by the honorable Senator from Ohio, and says it depends upon the balance of proof. There is no question upon the balance of proof or anything else on the fact that the present committee have, as I say, agreed to destroy the bill if they can do it; and they propose to lay it on the table and never have any action upon it, and to introduce another in lieu of it. That is the result of the action of the committee that was appointed to correct errors and see that no attempt was made to usurp jurisdiction!

The motion to refer was agreed to.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

on

Mr. ANTHONY. I notice in the Globe that the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HALE] yesterday to reconsider the vote by which the Senate concurred in the amendment of the House to strike out the section in regard to mileage in the bill regulating the pay of the Army, I am recorded as voting with the majority against the motion. I did so vote; but I desire to state that I came into the Chamber while the Senate

was voting, and misapprehended the question. As it would make my vote inconsistent with those I have heretofore given, I wish to make it right on the record. I intended to vote the other way. EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. KING. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

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

The Senate adjourned.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, June 23, 1862.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND. The Journal of Saturday was read and approved.

PETITIONS.

Mr. WADE. I present a petition from citizens of Sciota county, Ohio, stating that the petitioners have witnessed with astonishment and feelings of deep humiliation the tender regard shown by the military authority of the Federal Government for the property of notorious traitors in arms against the United States, and that of their aiders and abettors. They therefore pray that a confiscation bill may be passed, and that property applied to the expenses of the Government. I also present a like petition, numerously signed, from citizens of Darbyville, Pickaway county, Ohio, praying for confiscation. I move that these petitions lie on the table, there being bills on that subject pending. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KING presented a petition of seed-growers and dealers in seeds, praying that no part of the appropriations for the purchase of seeds be applied to the purchase of such varieties of flower and garden seeds as have previously been distributed by the Agricultural Bureau, or seeds of any description which may be readily obtained at the seed stores of the Union; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. TRUMBULL presented a petition of citizens of Fulton county, Illinois, praying for the confiscation of the property of rebels, and that the'r slaves may be emancipated, and, as far as practicable, employed in suppressing the rebellion; which was ordered to lie on the table.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. WADE, from the Committee on Territories, to whom the subject was referred, reported a bill (S. No. 365) providing for the admission of the State of West Virginia into the Union; which was read and passed to a second reading.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. The Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 342) for the establishment of certain national arsenals, authorize me to report it back without amendment, although they are not unanimous in their opinion in reference to its pas

sage.

BILL BECOME A LAW.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. NICOLAY, his Secretary, announced that the President had approved and signed, on the 21st instant, a joint resolution (S. No. 88) to encourage enlistments in the regular Army and volunteer forces.

GUN CONTRACTS.

Mr. POWELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved, That the Public Printer be directed to print for the use of the Senate ten thousand extra copies of the report of Hon. Joseph Holt and Hon. Robert Dale Owen, commissioners on ordnance and gun contracts, communicated to the Senate on the 21st instant by the Secretary of War. EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.

Mr. CLARK submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to communicate to the Senate any information he may have in regard to the exchange of prisoners, or of negotiations therefor, not incompatible with the public interest.

GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY.

Mr. GRIMES. I move to take up the bill (S. No. 348) for the better government of the Navy

of the United States.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We had a bill under consideration which we were about to vote upon on

Saturday, and I should like to have it disposed of. I refer to the bill prescribing an oath of office. We had some discussion upon it, and I think the Senate is ready to vote. This bill, I suppose, will Occupy some time.

Mr. GRIMES. I presume it will, but it is very | important that it should pass at as early a day as possible. It relates to prizes and matters of great importance to the Navy.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Iowa to postpone all prior orders and proceed to the consideration of the bill indicated by him.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to know how long it will probably take.

Mr. GRIMES. I cannot say how long will be required for its disposition; if the Senate adopt my suggestions, it will not take any longer than it will to read the bill. The reason I desire to have it taken up to-day is that the House of Rep- || resentatives have set aside to-morrow as a special order for the transaction of business relating to the Navy, and it is therefore important that this bill should pass to-day, that it may be acted upon if by the House of Representatives to-morrow, they see fit to act upon it. It is a bill, I think, of very great importance, and is so considered by gentlemen who are connected with the Navy.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry to object to a bill that the Senator from lowa desires to bring up; but this is bringing up a new question in regard to the organization of the Navy, and will undoubtedly occupy a very considerable time, probably all day. The confiscation measures which have been before this body from the beginning of the session are now in a condition to be acted on, and we certainly ought not to allow them to be postponed longer if we intend to pass any bill at all. The House has passed bills on that subject and the Senate has a bill on the subject, and I think we ought not to suffer them to be pushed out of the way longer. I will not object to this bill coming up to be laid aside at twelve o'clock; but I do object to proceeding to the consideration of this bill, which will necessarily postpone the confiscation measures.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. They should be postponed.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not think so. If the Senator from Massachusetts regards the confiscation measures of so little importance that they should be postponed, I disagree with him; that is all. I think they are the most important measures, and will do more to put down this rebellion, and would have done a great deal more to put down this rebellion, than a great many laws we have taken up the time of the Senate in passing at the present session. I feel bound to call.for a division, in order to test the sense of the Senate on the subject. If this motion fails, I shall move to take up the confiscation bill. If the Senate chooses to take this up, that decides that they prefer to go on with this.

Mr. GRIMES. I am not going to be placed in any such condition as that. I am just as anxious to have a confiscation bill as the Senator from lilinois; but I am unwilling that he should attempt to antagonize every proposition that comes up with the confiscation bill. He first wanted to take up the bill in regard to oaths.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That was in the morning hour.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not know that it will take more than the morning hour to get through with this bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I shall not object to it.

Mr. GRIMES. It may run over a little while; and if it does, it will be better to go on and finish it if it takes half an hour longer. I apprehend there are no particular objections to the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair having been obliged to retire from the chair on Saturday, was not in at the time of adjournment, but is now advised that the unfinished business of Saturday was a bill (H. R. No. 371) to prescribe an oath of office and for other purposes, which will come up at twelve o'clock as the unfinished business of Saturday, and supersede any other business pending in the morning hour. The question now is on the motion of the Senator from Iowa.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 348) for the better government of the Navy of the United States.

The Secretary proceeded to read the bill as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That from and after the the following rules and regulations be adopted and put in force for the government of the Navy of the United States

Mr. GRIMES. In order to obviate the necessity of reading the bill twice, I propose to amend it as it goes along if there be no objection.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be taken.

Mr. KING. I think it had better be read at length.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read at length, but the reading will be suspended at the end of each section until amendments are proposed, the same as was done with the tax bill. The clause which has just been read is now open to amendment.

Mr. GRIMES. I propose to insert "1st day of September next" in the blank.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRIMES. In the fourth line, I move to strike out the words " rules and regulations,” and insert "articles of war."

The amendment was agreed to.

The Secretary continued the reading, as follows: ART. 1. The commanders of all fleets, squadrons, navyyards, or vessels belonging to the Navy, are strictly enjoined and required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all who may be placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and iminoral practices, and to correct all who may be guilty of them, according to the laws and usages of the Navy, upon pain of such punishment as a general court-martial inay think proper to inflict.

66

Mr. GRIMES. I move to strike out the word usages," in the fourteenth line, and to insert the word" regulations."

The amendment was agreed to.

The Secretary read article two, as follows: ART. 2. The commanders of vessels and navy-yards to which chaplains shall be attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances will allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service, diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God. Any irreverent or indecent behavior during divine service shall be punished as a general or summary court-martial shall direct.

Mr. GRIMES. In the twenty-third line I move to strike out the word "indecent," and to insert "unbecoming."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That modification will be made, no objection being interposed. The Secretary read article three, as follows:

ART. 3. The punishment of death, or such other punishment as a court-martial shall adjudge, may be inflicted on any person in the naval service: First, who shall make, or attempt to make, or unite with, any mutinous assembly, or knowing of the same, or of any intended mutiny, shail not forthwith communicate it to his superior or commanding officer; or being witness to, or present at, any mutiny, shall not do his utmost to suppress it; second, or shal! disobey the lawful orders of his superior officer, or strike or