The bill was read.

The committee reported sundry amendments to the bill of a verbal character, which were agreed to.

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

Mr. MORRIS 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.

TESTIMONY OF A. H. STEPHENS.

Mr. BOYER, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, and referred, under the law, to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved. That there be printed for the use of the members of the House of Representatives for distribution fifty thousand copies of the testimony of Hon. Alexander H. Stephens before the committee on reconstruction.

Mr. ROGERS. I move to amend that resolution so as to make the number seventy-five thousand.

The SPEAKER. The resolution has gone, under the law, to the Committee on Printing. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to the introduction of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The objection comes too late. The resolution has already been referred to the Committee on Printing.

DEPOT FOR IRON-CLADS.

Mr. LYNCH, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution authorizing the appointment of examiners to examine a site for a freshwater basin for iron-clad vessels of the United States Navy; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES.

Mr. LYNCH, also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to provide military instruction in agricultural colleges established under the act of July 2, 1862; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. WHALEY. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make a personal explana

tion.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the regular order of business.

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, no; let us hear the gentleman's explanation.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Well, I will not object.

Mr. WHALEY. I learn that yesterday, during my absence, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. EGGLESTON] asked to have a letter read from a gentleman in the reporters' gallery, but the reading was objected to. I hold in my hand a letter from the same gentleman which I am informed by his friends he desires to have read to the House. That is my excuse for offering it, and I ask that it be read.

The Clerk read the letter, as follows:
REPORTERS' GALLERY,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 16, 1864. SIR: I sincerely regret that I was not present to hear your eloquent, severe, and well-merited rebuke of some anonymous correspondent, who had the ill manners to intimate that you did not know the elements of the Latin language; and that what all now know you intended as a joke was in any sense considered as in earnest by yourself.

Will you do me the justice to state that I did not write the article you caused to be read, or procure its writing, or even know that it had been written, until the Gazette, in which it appeared as a selection, reached Washington?

You will at once perceive that the force of your remarks against the real offender will in no degree be broken by the correction which your own keen sense of justice and appreciation of the ridiculous will prompt you to make.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. V. N. BOYNTON.

Hon. KELLIAN V. WHALEY.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I suppose the gentleman from West Virginia is satisfied, as I have no doubt the House is, of the good faith in which that letter was written.

Mr. SPALDING. I demand the regular order of business.

PUBLIC PRINTING DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported a bill making appropri ations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the public printing for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the bill be made the special order for to-morrow. This money is needed for the payment of the hands during this month.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would ask the gentleman how the business of the House stands in regard to the ordinary appropriation bills.

Mr. STEVENS. With the exception of the Indian appropriation bill, all the general appropriation bills have been passed and sent to the Senate, and only one or two of them have come back. We have, besides the ordinary deficiency bill, which is always kept to the end of the session, only the miscellaneous appropriation bill back. All the other general appropriation bills have been reported to the House and they have all been passed with the excep tion of the Indian appropriation bill, which has been kept back in order that provision may be made for several new treaties.

Mr. ROSS. I object to the bill being made a special order.

The SPEAKER. A majority vote can make the bill the special order for to-morrow, it being an appropriation day. The Chair will put the question to the House.

The motion to make the bill a special order was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. McRUER asked and obtained leave of absence for one week for his colleague, Mr. HIGBY.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PENSION BUREAU.

Mr. SPALDING. I call for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business during the morning hour is the call of committees for reports. At the close of the morning hour of yesterday the House had reconsidered the rejection of House bill No. 278, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, in amendment of the several acts relating to the organization of the Pension Office. The question now is, Shall the bill pass?

Mr. PERHAM. This bill has been pretty fully discussed, and I desire that it shall be put upon its passage now. I call the previous question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman from Maine [Mr. PERHAM] will not do that. He himself proposed yesterday to have this bill recommitted to the Committee on Pensions. I hope he will have the letter of the Secretary of the Interior upon this subject of salaries read to the House. I think the gentleman did not state to the House what that letter was.

Mr. PERHAM. I have seen no letter of the Secretary of the Interior upon the subject of this Pension Bureau.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Well, I hope the House will understand that this is but a stepping stone to raising the salaries of all these officers.

Mr. PERHAM. I think this House is as well prepared to act upon this subject as it ever will be.

Mr. SPALDING. I hope the gentleman will allow me to say a word.

Mr. PERHAM. Very well.

Mr. SPALDING. I would as soon vote to raise the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions as to raise the salary of any other officer; but I want to know if this is to be a stepping-stone to raising the salaries of all those officers. If it is, let us know it.

Mr. PERHAM. That question was asked yesterday and answered as fully as it could be.

Mr.SPALDING. Ionly desire that the House shall act understandingly upon this subject.

Mr. CONKLING. With the permission of the gentlaman from Maine, [Mr. PERHAM,] I desire to say that I voted yesterday in the first instance against this bill. I did it, I confess, without much knowledge of the bill, for I happened to be out of the House and unavoidably occupied otherwise when the explanation of the bill was made. I voted against the bill from my general opposition to the increase of salaries. For one, I have great respect for the officer whose salary is in question here. I believe him to be a very pure man and a very excellent officer; but if the gentleman from Maine will take the trouble I will thank him to state, for my benefit and for the benefit of others similarly situated who did not hear his explanation, what is the particular reason for raising the salary of this officer. If it is really a case of hardship, my inclination would be to go with him although I am generally opposed to raising salaries.

I

Mr. PERHAM. On the first day this question came up I presented, as fully as I could in the very brief period I occupied the reasons which governed the committee in making this recommendation. I stated the fact of the very large amount of business now before that bureau; that it had increased perhaps tenfold since the commencement of the late war. also stated that the salaries of these bureau officers were formerly fixed at half the salaries of the Cabinet officers. The salaries of the Cabinet officers have now been raised to $8,000 a year, and we propose by this bill to increase the salary of this officer so that it shall correspond to the salaries of Cabinet officers, as it did before those salaries were raised.

I also stated the further fact that many other officers of the Government, heads of bureaus having much less work to do and much less responsibility, are receiving salaries equal to and in some instances greater than that which the committee propose to give to this officer. Those arguments are set forth more fully in the columns of the Globe than I feel willing to take up the time of the House in now stating.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would ask the gentleman from Maine if the duties of the Second Auditor have not increased within a few years in a greater proportion than those of the Commissioner of Pensions. And the duties of the Third Auditor have also been increased. And I know that the duties of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs have been increased nearly twofold, in consequence of troubles among the Indians of late. The same reasons which operate in favor of increasing this salary will operate with equal force in favor of increasing the salary of every bureau officer of the Government. And if we increase the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions, I do not see how we can refuse to increase the salaries of other officers. As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] has very well said, this is merely a stepping-stone to a general increase of salaries.

Mr. RICE, of Maine. I understand that the Secretary of the Interior has written a letter explaining his views upon the question of raising this salary as well as other salaries in his Department.

No man in this House feels better disposed toward the Commissioner of Pensions than I do; and I have seldom given a vote with so much reluctance as that which I gave yesterday against the increase of the salary of this officer, because I am fully aware of his great merit and the immense labor he has to perform. I only voted as I did for the reason that I believed the increase of this salary would be a precedent for the increase of other salaries. If a letter from the Secretary of the Interior on this subject is before the committee, I believe it due to the House that the letter should be read. I have just this moment understood that there is such a letter. I ask my colleague [Mr. PERHAM] whether such is

the fact.

Mr. PERHAM., I will state, in reply to my

colleague, that no original letter from the Secretary of the Interior has come before the committee. There is before the Senate a proposition for the reorganization of the whole Interior Department, and in connection with that proposition a letter from the Secretary of the Interior has been communicated to the Senate. I believe that that proposition provides for a similar reorganization of the pension department to that originally proposed by this bill; in other words, it provides for an increase of the salaries of the higher grades of clerks in that department. A copy of that communication from the Secretary of the Interior was sent to me as chairman of the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

I now demand the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, which was upon the passage of the bill.

Mr. SPALDING called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. KASSON. I desire to inquire whether the bill as it now stands makes any change touching the salary of the chief clerk of the Pension Bureau.

The SPEAKER. It does not.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 61, nays 51, not voting 71; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Anderson, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Benjamin, Blaine, Boyer, Buckland, Reader W. Clarke, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Farquhar, Glossbrenner, Hale, Hayes, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, James M. Humphrey. Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kelley, Kelso, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Marvin, McRuer, Mereur, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Newell, Nicholson, O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Plants, William H. Randall, Rogers, Rollins, Smith, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Van Acrnam, Burt Van Horn, Warner, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-61.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Baker, Beaman, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Chanler, Conkling, Cook, Deming, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Goodyear, Grider, Aoner C. Harding, Henderson, Edwin N. Hubbell, Julian, Kasson, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, Longyear, Marshall, McClurg, McKee, Moulton, Orth, Paine, Phelps, Price, John H. Rice, Ritter, Ross, Schenck, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Wentworth, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Wright-51.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baxter, Bergen, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Brandegee, Bundy, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Dumont, Eliot, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marston, McCullough, McIndoe, Miller, Myers, Niblack, Noell, Pike, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rousseau, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanklin, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Robert T. Van Horn, and Winfield-71.

So the bill was passed.

During the roll-call,

Mr. VAN AERNAM stated that Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, was confined to his room by sickness.

The result was announced as above stated.

SHIP-CANAL AROUND NIAGARA FALLS.

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported back, with amendments, the bill (H. R. No. 344) entitled "An act to construct a ship-canal around the falls of Niagara." Mr. PAINE. The gentleman from New York yields to me; and I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, and ask that it may be printed.

The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and the substitute will be ordered to be printed.

Mr. JENCKES. I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN HORN] to yield to me that

I

may offer a substitute for the amendment. Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I cannot yield any further at present.

Mr. Speaker, owing to quite severe indis position I will not this morning occupy the time of the House at any great length in discussing this measure; but after a few remarks, stating the objects and features of the bill, I will yield

the remainder of my hour to several gentlemen who desire to be heard upon this subject. The bill is reported by the committee with several amendments which I propose the House shall act upon hereafter; and I reserve the right to conclude what I have to say when the previous question shall have been ordered, if the House shall see fit to order it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure of great national importance, and I propose to enter upon the discussion of the question in that light. This project has received the favorable action of the Government on several occasions

desirable for the construction of this canal. The President is to locate the route after these surveys which will best secure the greatest benefit to the commercial interests of the country, and at the same time the greatest naval and military advantages.

It provides further for a commission which shall take into consideration the advantages derived from such a work and adjust the damages. The commissioners are to hear all cases that arise and settle them upon their merits.

After the route is thus selected the President is authorized to contract with any company that may be incorporated by any State, or

in the past. Surveys for such a work have on several occasions been made under the direc-organized in any State-in New York no more tion of the Government by competent engineers. Reports of those surveys have been made, and are on file for the examination of all gentlemen who are interested.

Several years ago Captain Williams, one of the most distinguished of our engineers, made a survey under the direction of the Government for the construction of this work. He surveyed several routes and made his report. That survey and report were made in a time of peace. He said in that report it was a work of great military necessity, and that the Government should enter upon the construction of the canal as a military work. Of course we all admit it is a work of great commercial importance and benefit to the country. It is the only link wanted in the communication between the great lakes and rivers as it proposes to connect Lake Erie with Lake Ontario. Then we shall have a continuous line of communication from Lake Superior to Lake Ontario and the river St. Lawrence.

than any other State-for the construction of this work on the plan prescribed in the bill.

It further provides that this company shall proceed at a certain time with this work, and shall complete it within a given time, and that the Government shall loan bonds to the amount of $6,000,000 in aid of the construction of this work. The company is, however, to pay all the expense for survey and damages assessed up to the beginning of this work; but as fast as the company expends $300,000, upon the certificate of the engineers the Government is to issue $200,000 of bonds, and so on for every additional $300,000 expended, until the whole $6,000,000 of bonds are exhausted.

It further provides that ten per cent. of all the tolls received from this canal after paying the expenses and keeping up the repairs, is to be paid into the Treasury of the United States, on the 1st of January in each year, to reimburse the Government for the money thus loaned.

And I may say here that the Government, in consideration of this, is to have control, so far as its own use is concerned, in all time to come, of this canal. It is to have the supervision also with reference to its being kept in good condi

during the whole time it may be in possession of the company.

It further provides that the Government may at any time purchase this canal by paying to the company what it has expended in its construction, and in addition thereto ten per cent. on the actual cost of the canal, and take possession of it itself.

Now, sir, I am sorry to say that the chief opposition to this project comes from my own State. During the last few days some documents have been circulated and laid upon the desks of members, issuing from the canal authorities of the State of New York, urging upon the Representatives from that State to opposetion the passage of this measure as being against the interests of New York. I say I am sorry the opposition to this great national project should come from my State. I have no sympathy with such opposition, and I take no part in it whatever, because I believe this is a measure of national importance and utility, and as a member of Congress legislating for the whole country, I am not disposed to throw obstacles in the way of such a measure although it may seem to some small extent to interfere with the interests of New York. Being a measure of great national importance and utility to all sections of the country, I think I should make no opposition to it.

What has been the position of New York in regard to the measure heretofore? On four or five occasions New York has gone in favor of this proposition. As early as 1798 a company was incorporated called the Niagara Canal Company, which looked directly to the construction of a ship-canal like that proposed by this bill. Again in 1823 the Legislature of the State of New York took similar action and again incorporated a company for the construction of this work. In 1858 similar action was

taken; only recently, within the last two weeks, the popular branch of my State has passed a bill providing for the incorporation of a company to construct this work, by the large vote of 85 to 30. I am aware that measure failed in the Senate, or will doubtless be lost. I am not certain whether it has been lost in the Senate, but I understand it has been loaded with amendments to such an extent that its friends do not desire it to pass. Nevertheless, the popular branch of the Legislature, representing immediately the people of my State, has acted on the proposition, and passed the bill

to which I have referred.

What does this bill propose? In the first place, it provides that the President shall ap point engineers who shall go upon the ground and make surveys and report their views, and upon those surveys and facts so reported he shall locate the route of this ship-canal. I may say there are several routes spoken of as

This is what the bill proposes. As I said before, this is a work of great national importance. There is now already a canal upon the Canada side, called the Welland canal, connecting the lakes. But three fourths of all the shipping of the upper lakes is American shipping. It is American enterprise which has built the Welland canal, and which keeps it up; and if we do not have a canal of our own on our own side there will soon be an enlargement of that canal, for measures are already taken to secure it, so as to accommodate the largest vessels that float on our lakes.

It is therefore a question whether we are to have the benefit of this great work, or whether Canada shall have it.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to ask the gentleman a question right here.

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. Very well. Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to know what benefit this canal will be to the American com merce after this large expenditure, so long as the control of the St. Lawrence river is with the English Government.

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. It will be the same benefit to our commerce that the Welland canal now is.

Mr. TAYLOR. What benefit will that be since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty?

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I do not understand that the abrogation of that treaty deprives us of the use of that canal. In the year 1862 I understand that over thirty millions of commerce passed through the Welland canal into Lake Ontario, and more than three fourths of it went into American ports and did not go into the river St. Lawrence. We want a communication for the benefit of our commerce, and if we do not furnish this communication

Canada will do it.

I repeat, that it is a question whether we shall control this commerce or whether Canada shall do it. The records of the past show very clearly that more than three fourths of all the commerce that has gone through that canal has gone into our ports, and not down the St. Lawrence river; and so it will be hereafter. And if such is the fact, while that canal is under the control of a foreign Government and while our commerce between the lakes is not under our own control fully, it becomes a very important question whether we shall not have a canal of our own on our own side over which we shall have entire control, and thus direct the trade through our own ports and to the benefit of our own citizens.

appropriations have been constantly made for the purpose of aiding in the construction of works of this character down to the very present time.

Now, sir, I hold it to be the duty of the Government to afford reasonable facilities for commerce between the States. How is it with reference to the western States to-day? I may say of those States that they are in their infancy as regards development. In the State of Illinois, not one tenth part of her area has yet been developed and cultivated; and the com||plaint of the great West to-day is that there are no sufficient facilities afforded to that section of country whereby the immense surplus products there raised can reach a market at reasonexpense.

It is conceded upon all hands, I think, that the Erie canal and the railroads connected therewith afford no adequate facilities for the transportation of the products of the West.

As I stated at the opening of my remarks,able there are several gentlemen who wish to speak this morning; and, as I am very much indisposed and propose to discuss this measure hereafter, I yield to gentlemen who desire to speak. Í yield now for fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. MOULTON.]

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, in common with the people of the great West, I, as well as my State, feel a very great interest in this project; indeed I may say that for more than twenty years the people of the great States bordering upon the lakes have looked forward to the time when this great national work shall be completed, and have regarded it as absolutely necessary for their prosperity and the develop ment of the States bordering upon those waters. And I will say here that there is no single question to-day in which the people of that part of the country which I have the honor in part to represent feel so great an interest as in the question now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I will not occupy the few moments allotted to me in a discussion of the details of this bill. I believe they are substantially what are desired by our people, with a single exception, and that is that the bill provides that the depth of the canal shall be twelve feet. I think that the interests of the commerce of the West require that that canal shall at least be of the depth of fourteen feet, so that we can load a vessel at Chicago of twelve hundred tons and without breaking bulk convey the products of the West either to the eastern sea-board or to Europe.

Now, sir, the Government has contemplated this work almost ever since its foundation. It has been looked upon as an absolute necessity, at least in a military point of view. I shall make no remarks at this time as to its importance in that point of view. But no one who is acquainted with the topography of the western States, and the important connection that this work will accomplish, can doubt its great importance in that regard. It is to its commercial importance that I wish particularly to call the attention of the House at this time.

Before I do that, however, allow me to say a single word with reference to the power of the Government to construct works of this character. There was a time when the power of the Government to make appropriations for works of this character was disputed, but that time has long since passed by. The distinc tion is that whenever a work is national in importance and has reference to more than one State, connecting important navigable waters, as does this work, it may be regarded as entirely competent, and within the power of Congress under the Constitution, to make appropriations for the work. And such has been the practice of the Government upon this subject. Let me quote the language of President Monroe, touching the authority of Congress upon this point. Mr. Monroe said in reference to a work of a similar character to this: "That Congress have unlimited power to raise money, and that in its appropriation they have a discretionary power, restricted only by the duty to appropriate it to purposes of common defense, and of general, not local, national, not State, benefit."

This construction of the Constitution was adopted by General Jackson, and I believe it has been the settled rule from that time to this with reference to works of this kind.

From the earliest period of our Government

The value of the products of the West annually seeking a market in the East is more than five hundred million dollars.

There are over three thousand steam and sail vessels upon our western lakes, and all this immense commerce has to be crowded

through a single channel to market, and we of the West are at the mercy of an overgrown corporation and monopoly.

Now, sir, the objections that are made to this work, as I understand the gentleman from New York, [Mr. VAN HORN,] come principally from the State of New York. Now, what are those objections? Let us look at them for a moment. It is said that this canal would deprive the State of New York of a portion of its tolls and ruin and destroy the business of the Erie canal. Now, I do not admit that fact. And even if the completion of this canal should deprive that State of a portion of its tolls, is that any reason why this great national work should not be completed? The answers to this objection

are:

1. The present canal and railroad connected with it cannot now do the business required by the growing interest of the West.

2. The West has been enormously taxed by these monopolies in New York, and has annually paid tolls to that State the sum of $10,000,000.

3. It saves to the West one hundred and fifty miles of artificial travel and about seventy-five cents on each ton of freight.

Besides, New York is estopped from setting up the plea that the completion of this great work will injure her canals and railroads, because, as has already been stated here to-day, the Legislature of that State has on two or three occasions, and also very recently, granted to a company the right to construct this very work, thereby yielding up that entire question so far as it may affect her existing railroads and canals.

This action of the people of New York concedes the fact that the construction of the shipcanal would not injure the other canals and railroads of New York. I would ask, what right has the State of New York to place herself in the highway of commerce and monopolize the tolls upon all the products raised in the West?

It is further said that the canals and railroads of the State of New York will be ruined and destroyed if this work is completed. Now, if in the infancy of the development of the West, so far as its productions are concerned, with hardly one fifteenth of the whole western country developed, these canals and railroads are insufficient to transport the products of to-day, how much more so would they be when the West shall be more extensively developed.

Sir, what are the benefits to the West to be derived from the construction of this canal? What is the great want of the West to day? It is the want of facilities for transporting their products to market. In the first place, this ship-canal will enable us to load our products on vessels at the southern ports of Lake Michigan, in fact all around Lake Michigan, and upon Lake Erie, and from there to have them

transported without breaking bulk at all, or more than once, to the eastern sea-board. It overcomes an artificial travel of one hundred and fifty miles, thus saving from seventy to seventy five cents upon every ton of produce transported. And that amount is saved as well to the consumer in the East as the producer in the West. It will develop all the interest of the West, increase the value of all kinds of property, encourage immigration, and stimulate industry of every kind.

Another objection to this canal is, that it appropriates a considerable amount of money from the Treasury of the United States. The sum to be appropriated by this bill is only $6,000,000; a very small sum, indeed, when compared with the great advantages that are to be received from this expenditure. And besides. it is provided in the bill that this appropriation shall be reimbursed to the Government by reserving ten per cent. of the tolls as they shall subsequently accrue. But, sir, without the means for transportation the interest of the West will be paralyzed and its prosperity greatly retarded.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] has asked what advantage it will be to American commerce to construct a canal of this character. It seems to me that the advantages are so obvious that that question need not be asked. It enables us, as I have already remarked, to overcome at least one hundred and fifty miles of artificial travel, at a saving of at least seventy-five cents on each ton of produce transported. The gentleman says, however, that since the expiration of the reci procity treaty between the United States and the British Provinces we will not have the use of the St. Lawrence river. It is true that we would not, independent of some arrangement with the Canadas, have the use of the St. Lawrence river below the town of Ogdensburg. We certainly have the right to the use of the river to Ogdensburg, for it is American waters that far.

Now, I assume that it will be for the interest of Canada to provide means and facilities of commerce to the great West through their canals. We pay tolls on the passage of our vessels through the various canals constructed for the purpose of overcoming the obstacles and obstructions in the St. Lawrence river. If we desire to ship to Europe the products which we load at Chicago, what objection would Canada have to allowing our vessels to pass through her canals, paying reasonable tolls, as they have done heretofore? Indeed, I am informed that Canada will afford every facility in her power for this purpose. She desires us to pass through her canals for reasonable toll.

But it is said that if that is done the State of New York would lose the benefit of those tolls. It is true she would to that extent. But I assume that in the future development of the productions of the West, there will be suffi cient commerce from west to east to tax to the utmost every means of communication that can possibly be established between the West and the eastern sea-board for the next fifty years. To-day not more than one tenth part of the productions of the West can be taken to market for want of transportation. Thousands of bushels of corn have been used in the West for fuel during the past year, because it was worth less than other fuel and it would cost more than it was worth to transport it to market. What inducement is there for the western farmer to exert himself to raise productions that are of no value to him? The West to-day is overflowing with surplus productions of every kind which are comparatively valueless for want of means and facilities for market.

Now, sir, this canal will permit us to reach the city of New York almost without breaking bulk. We load at Chicago or at Detroit, and we take our vessels without breaking bulk to Ogdensburg at least, connecting at Syracuse with the Erie canal and thus reaching New York. It seems to me that it is the interest of New York to encourage this very work, whereby New York and the other eastern seaports may control the commerce of the West.

Mr. STEVENS. I will modify my amendment accordingly. I move to strike out the words as before, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "so far as practicable."

Mr. CHANLER. I would ask for information from the gentleman who offered this amendment, or the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, what bearing this section will have upon the forces raised by the so-called loyal States from the States in rebellion. As I understand it, no States which, under the operation of the Freedmen's Bureau, and under the regulations of the service during the war, fitted out regiments which were called by the name of States in rebellion, will be entitled to the proportion under this section of officers for the troops which were actually raised for themselves, though nominally raised in the southern States.

For instance, during the occupation of Port Royal regiments of colored troops were raised there, and called the first, the second, &c., South Carolina regiments. Now, do I understand the effect of this section to be to give to the State of South Carolina a proportion of the officers to be appointed from officers of the colored regiments in this reorganization of the Army? I understand that to be the effect, and it may be the intention of the section.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. ANCONA.]

Mr. ANCONA. As our friends on the other side of the House may be a little delicate about making a motion to adjourn on this occasion, I will do so for them. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion to adjourn was not agreed to. The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. STEVENS to strike out the words "as far as may be consistent with the interests of the public service" and substitute the words "so far as practicable.'

The amendment was agreed to. Section seven was then read, as follows: SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That cach regiment of infantry provided for by this act shall have one colonel, one lieutenant colonel, one major, one adjutant, one regimental quartermaster, one regimental commissary, ten captains, ten first lieutenants, ten second lieutenants, one sergeant major, one quartermaster sergeant, one commissary sergeant, one hospital steward, two principal musicians, and ten companies, and each company shall have one captain, one first lieutenant and one second lieutenant, one first sergeant, four sergeants, eight corporals, two artificers, two musicians, one wagoner, and fifty privates, and the number of privates may be increased to one hundred, at the discretion of the President, whenever the exigencies of the service require such increase. The adjutant, quartermaster, and commissary of a regiment shall be an extra first lieutenant, appointed for their respective duties.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I move to strike out the words "two artificers" in the clause relating to the organization of the companies. I make the motion more for the purpose of asking the members of the Military Committee what are the duties of these artificers, especially in the infantry regiments.

Mr. SCHENCK. This provision has been made in accordance with suggestions by the military council that assembled here, comprising Generals Meade, Sherman, and others. It was urged that at least two men in each company should be skilled artificers. That would constitute for each regiment what might be termed a corps of pioneers to aid in building bridges, and doing all other duties appropriate to such service. And we thought it not inap. propriate to allow that number to each company, according to that suggestion. I think myself it is a good provision.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. Would not the same propriety require ambulance men?

Mr. SCHENCK. It might or might not be. They are connected with the surgical department, and can be detailed for that service.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. And these artificers are connected with the quartermaster's department, and can be detailed as well as the others.

Mr. SCHENCK. There is always something for artificers and pioneers to do in time of peace, about forts, &c. And I trust we

shall for a long time be in such a condition that we shall not require ambulance men.

Mr. KASSON. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] what reason there is for the last clause of this section? That clause is:

The adjutant, quartermaster, and commissary of a regiment shall each be an extra first lieutenant, appointed for their respective duties.

I am not sufficient of a military man to be an authority, but I suppose we have not hitherto had any extra officers for the purpose of doing these duties.

Mr. SCHENCK. I suppose we better dispose of one amendment before another is offered. Mr. VAN AERNAM. I desire to move to amend this section by striking out the words "regimental commissaries."

The SPEAKER. That would not be in order, pending the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. WASHBURN.]

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I will withdraw my amendment for the purpose of allowing the gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN AERNAM] to offer his amendment.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to strike out of this seventh section the words "regimental commissaries." I do so because I deem the office of regimental commissary entirely unnecessary and useless. In the history of this country, ever since the first organization of armies, there is to be found no instance of such an officer being employed as the commissary of an infantry regiment. There has been developed in time of peace no necessity for any such officer; nor in time of war, during the war of the Revolution, the war of 1812, the war with Mexico, and the great war of the rebellion through which we have just passed. And now, when we are organizing our Army upon a peace establishment, I can see no necessity for creating officers to do no service whatever that cannot be done by those we now have.

There are to be fifty-five regiments of infantry, according to the organization proposed by this bill, cach regiment to have a commissary with the pay of a first lieutenant. According to the bill proposed to establish the pay of the Army, a first lieutenant is to receive $1,500 a year as pay proper. In addition to that, this commissary is to receive $120 a year for responsibility money. In addition to that, if you look at the next section of the bill, he is to be a mounted officer; that means nothing more nor less than that the Government shall furnish forage and shoe his horse, which will be an additional expense of at least ten dollars a month to the Government. That will make the cost of one of these officers $1,740 a year. When multiplied by the number of regiments provided for, it makes the expense levied on the over-taxed energies of the people $95,700 a year for no purpose whatever, because this same service has been performed through peace and through war by commissary sergeants, who have twenty-one dollars a month. The bill does not do away with the commissary sergeant at all, but continues him and makes this an additional office.

As I said before, the whole expense in these infantry regiments will amount to $95,700 a year. And not only that, but we are creating a tax on the labor of the country to continue for all time. I hope the amendment will prevail.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I believe that in time of peace the number of the officers of the Army should be reduced as low as possible, and that all useless officers should be dispensed with. In this case, during the war, when we have had marches of extreme length, it has sometimes been necessary to detail an officer to act as regimental commissary, but it was only in extreme cases that such was the

case.

Now, you will hardly find a single regiment stationed as an entirety at one post, and the post commissary distributes rations to the company at the post. I can see no use of a regimental commissary when you have a quarter

master who, during the war, has done this duty and done it.well. This bill proposes, at the enormous expense of $95,000 a year, to add another officer to each regiment. Instead of reducing the expenses of the Army, we are proposing to add an officer to each regiment at an expense of $95,000. I am opposed to any such motion unless there can be some good reason shown for the increase.

Mr. SCHENCK. I think that the only motive that the committee had in adopting this provision was this: it has been thought by many, both in time of peace and in time of war, an imperfection in the system that one officer should combine in himself two characters, and thus mix his accounts, being responsible to two different departments, the Quartermaster General's department on the one side and the commissary department on the other. Therefore, in following the recommendation made by the principal officers of the Army, who sat in council upon all these subjects, the committee assented to an arrangement by which the two distinct offices should be created in the infantry as in the other arms of the service.

The difficulty is obviated to some extent by having a commissary and a quartermaster sergeant. I am not disposed to insist, myself, very strongly upon this provision for an additional officer. I am willing that the House shall decide the question.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. Will the gentleman tell me how it happens that in only one branch of the service an officer of this kind has been found necessary?

Mr. SCHENCK. Well, I think it is as necessary in one as in the other. It is questionable whether the office is necessary in one arm of the service or in the other. I trust the House will come to a vote.

The question was taken on Mr. VAN AERNAM'S amendment, and it was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. I now move to strike out, in lines four and five, the words "ten captains, ten first lieutenants, ten second lieutenants."

The section already provides, in regard to these regimental officers, that each company shall have one captain, and one first, and one second lieutenant. This is only a repetition. These officers are provided for in the regimental organization.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HALE. In order to perfect the section, I move to strike out the word "commissary" in the fourteenth line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to strike out, in line eleven, the words "fifty privates" and to insert in lieu thereof "one hundred privates."

The object of creating an army is to have one that will be of some practical use. I have no hesitation in iudorsing the letter which was presented from Generals Grant and Sherman, and other general officers in the field, asserting the fact that there are always in field operations thirty per cent. of the men sick. I think those military men have understated the fact. My experience as a medical officer in the Army would lead me to believe that fifty per cent. of men are disqualified by physical disability, whether during actual campaigns, or on ordinary duty. In October, 1862, I landed here with a regiment of five hundred and sixty-two enlisted men. We were sent to the army of the Potomac; we were engaged in no active campaign, in no battle; the regiment suffered from no epidemic disease, no disease of a contagious character. Yet just seven months from the day when we arrived here at Washington we went into the battle of Chancellorsville with four hundred and thirty-eight enlisted men. The regiment had been depleted to that extent during those seven months, though we had no active campaining, and were not subjected to the casualties of battle or to contagious or epidemic disease.

My observation leads me to the belief that what was true of that regiment was true of all the new troops that entered the Army in 1862,