The next amendment was in line three of section ten, to strike out "Kansas City," and insert "the mouth of the Kansas river."

Mr. HENDERSON. Add "as aforesaid." The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be so modified, in accordance with a previous amendment of a similar character.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. The next amendment was in line twenty, after the word "telegraph," to strike out the words "to said meridian of longitude," and insert" with the consent of the said Kansas company;" so as to make the clause read:

And the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, the Pacific Railroad Company of Missouri, and the first-named company, or either of them, on filing their assent to this act, as aforesaid, may unite upon equal terms, under this act, with the said Kansas company in constructing said railroad and telegraph, with the consent of the said Kansas company.

Mr. HARLAN. I think that changes the meaning of the whole paragraph. It now reads:

And the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, the Pacific Railroad Company of Missouri, and the first named company, or either of thein, on filing their assent to this act, as aforesaid, may unite upon equal terms, under this act, with the said Kansas company in constructing said railroad and telegraph to said meridian of longitude.

The committee propose, as I understand it, to strike out the words "to said meridian of longitude," so that the "said railroad and telegraph" would seem to me to include the main railroad line to the Pacific, and I suppose it was not the intention of the committee so to amend the bill as to enable the roads in Missouri to take control of the Union Pacific railroad. I call the attention of the chairman of the committee to the fact, and ask if that was the intention?

Mr. McDOUGALL. It certainly was not the intention of the committee.

Mr. HARLAN. Then this amendment evidently ought not to be adopted so far as the striking out is concerned.

Mr. McDOUGALL. The words should not be stricken out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will regard the proposition as two separate amendments; the first to strike out the words, "to the said meridian of longitude."

Mr. HARLAN. I hope that amendment will not be adopted.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next question is on inserting the words, "with the consent of the said Kansas company.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line twenty-two of section ten, to strike out "western" and insert "eastern;" so as to read, "eastern boundary of California."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section twelve, to strike out the words "agreed upon by said companies," and insert" determined by the President of the United States;" so as to read:

The track upon the entire line of railroad shall be of uniform width, to be determined by the President of the United States, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line twenty-five of section twelve, to strike out "one hundred and second," and insert "aforesaid point not further west than the one hundredth."

Mr. CLARK. The same modification should be made there as before, by striking out "not further west than," and inserting

"on.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be made.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. The next amendment was in line four of section thirteen, to insert "via Atchison;" so as to make the section read:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company of Missouri may extend its roads from St. Joseph, vía Atchison, to connect and unite with the roads through Kansas, upon filing its assent to the provisions of this act, upon the same terms and conditions, &c.

Mr. WILSON, of Missouri. I object to the amendment, and I suggest that it be passed over for the present. I shall ask for a separate vote on it in the Senate,

Mr. CLARK. I think we had better take the question now.

Mr. McDOUGALL. It is proposed to reserve it until we come into the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will pursue the regular course in calling upon the Senate to act on each amendment in its order, unless by common consent it be passed over.

Mr. CLARK. I think it can be adopted now, and then we can take the question in the Senate. All these amendments will come up again in the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It cannot be passed over, except by order of the Senate. It is now before the body for consideration, and the question is on agreeing to it, and inserting these words; but by common consent, as a matter of convenience, it may be passed over; and it will be passed over, if there be no objection.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. The proposition is, that it be adopted, and that the Senator from Missouri call for a separate vote on it when the bill shall be reported to the Senate.

Mr. WILSON, of Missouri. I object to the adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nevertheless, the question must be put. It is for the body to decide whether it shall be adopted or not.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line five of section fourteen, to insert after "route," the words "to be subject to the approval of the President of the United States;" so as to make the section read:

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That the said Union Pacific Railroad Company is hereby authorized and required to construct a single line of railroad and telegraph from a point on the western boundary of the State of Iowa, westject to the approval of the President of the United States, erly, upon the most direct and practicable route, to be sub

so as to form a connection with the lines of said company at some point not further west than the one hundred and second meridian of longitude aforesaid.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line eight of section fourteen, to strike out "one hundred and second," and insert "one hundredth." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CLARK. There should be a modification in line seven of that section; and if the Senate will allow, it might as well be made now. It now reads, "at some point not further west than the one hundredth meridian." It should be " point on the one hundredth meridian."

some

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That modification will be made.

The next amendment was in section fourteen, line thirty, to insert the words "Iowa branch or," before "main line," and in the thirtieth and thirty-first lines to strike out "within three hun

fifteen, after the word "upon," to insert "such;" so as to read, "upon such just and equitable terms," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line five of section fifteen, after the word "terms," to strike out" or such as Government may from time to time prescribe," and insert "as the President of the United States may prescribe;" so as to make the section read:

SEC. 15. And be it further enacted, That any other railroad company now incorporated, or hereafter to be incorporated, shall have the right to connect their road with the one provided for by this act, at such places and upon such just and equitable terms as the President of the United States may prescribe, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I would suggest an amendment to the text here, lest I may forget it. The word "one," at the end of line three, should be stricken out, and the words" road and branches" inserted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The section will be so modified, if there is no objection. The Chair hears no objection.

The next amendment of the committee was, in line three of section seventeen, to strike out the word "in," and insert "by."

The same

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendment is to be made in the fourth line. If there be no objection, it will be considered as adopted.

Mr. HARLAN. I will suggest an amendment to the text, in the fourth line of the same section, after the word "telegraph," to insert the words "and branches."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment will be made, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none.

The next amendment of the committee was, in line twelve of section seventeen, after the word "provided," to strike out the words "that if a road from the Missouri river to the city of Sacramento is not completed on the 1st day of January, 1876, the entire road or roads built under the provisions of this act shall be forfeited to the United States," and to insert in lieu thereof:

That if said roads are not completed, so as to form a continuous line of railroad ready for use from the Missouri river to the navigable waters of the Sacramento river, in California, by the 1st day of July, 1876, the whole of all of said railroads before mentioned and to be constructed under the provisions of this act, together with all their furniture, fixtures, rolling stock, machine shops, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and property of every kind and character, shall be forfeited to and be taken possession of by the United States.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seventeen of

And whenever there shall be a line of railroad completed through Minnesota or Iowa to Sioux City, or a point opposite the same on the Missouri river, then said corporation shall construct a branch road from Sioux City, to connect with said lowa branch or main line, to a point not further west than the one hundredth meridian of longitude aforesaid, and it is hereby authorized to construct the same upon the same terms and conditions as are provided in this act for the construction of the main line aforesaid.

Mr. CLARK. The same modification should be made there.

Mr. HARLAN. I think on looking at this more closely the Senator from New Hampshire will see that the modification is not required in this amendment. This is the Sioux City branch, and if they should be able to connect with the Iowa branch at them to do it. a nearer point, perhaps it might be well to allow

Mr. MCDOUGALL. The Senator from Iowa is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from New Hampshire does not move an amendment to the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment as reported.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out the following proviso at the end of the fourteenth section:

Provided, That no more than $7,500 in bonds per mile shall be issued for the construction of said branch road: And provided further, That if said corporation shall fail to construct the branches provided for in this section it shall forfeit the privileges provided for by this act. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line four of section

out the following words:

And the better to accomplish the object of this act, namely, to promote the public interest and welfare by the construction of said railroad and telegraph line, and keeping the same in working order, and to secure to the Government at all times (but particularly in time of war) the use and benefits of the same for postal, military, and other purposes, Congress may, at any time, having due regard for the rights of said companies named herein, add to, alter, amend, or repeal this act.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line three of section nineteen, after the word "act," to insert the words "except mineral lands."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. At the proper time I shall move to strike out that whole section. If it is in order I make the motion now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not now in order. The next amendment of the committee will be read.

The next amendment was in line four of section nineteen, to strike out the words "territorial laws," and to insert "laws of Congress."

The last amendment of the committee was to insert as an additional section:

SEC. 20. And be it further enacted, That the several railroad companies berein named are authorized to enter into an arrangement with the Pacific Telegraph Company, the Overland Telegraph Company, and the California State Telegraph Company, so that the present line of telegraph between the Missouri river and San Francisco may be moved upon or along the line of said railroad company as fast as said roads are built; and if said arrangement be entered into, and the transfer of said telegraph line be made in accordance therewith to the line of said railroad, such transfer shall, for all purposes of this act, be held and con

sidered a fulfillment on the part of said railroad companies of the provisions of this act in regard to the construction of said line of telegraph. And in case of disagreement, said telegraph companies are authorized to remove their line of telegraph along and upon the line of railroad herein contemplated without prejudice to the rights of said railroad companies named herein. And the railroad companies' telegraph shall be confined to the business of the railroad companies, and the transmission of messages for the Government of the United States, and shall not cuter into competition for the commercial business: Provided, Said telegraph companies shall furnish proper and sufficient facilities for the transaction of their proper business.

Mr. LATHAM. I do not know exactly the order to be pursued, but I am opposed to the latter part of that section, commencing after the word "herein," in line seventeen, and I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after said word. The Senate will observe by glancing at the section that it vests a somewhat extraordinary power in the present telegraph company; a power that I am unwilling to see it possess. It puts it in their . power to dictate to the railroad company the terms and conditions on which they shall use the present telegraph line, and if they do not accept their terms, the railroad telegraph is limited in the use of their line to their own messages and such messages as the Government may desire to send over the wires.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator will permit me to say that I was just going to call the attention of the Senate to this provision. I was not present in the committee when it was adopted, though I strongly objected to its adoption to the president of the telegraph company at whose instance it was proposed; but, instead of striking it out, I think we can adopt a better provision, and I have prepared a proposition authorizing the President to appoint a board of arbitration to determine the terms on which the lines of these companies shall be united, and we might perhaps have some useful provision in that.

Mr. LATHAM. That does not reach what I want. I should like very much to see another telegraph across the continent; and as the railroad company in this bill will be compelled to construct a telegraph line, I should like to see the two lines in competition.

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator thinks that wise, very well.

Mr. LATHAM. I think so, decidedly. Mr. CLARK. I am decidedly opposed to this proposition as it stands here.

Mr. LATHAM. I have still another reason that induces me to make this motion. I regret very much that when the bill was passed giving the present telegraph company across the continent its subsidy and privileges, more stringent provisions were not put in the bill, for I have no hesitation in saying, and I think I speak the voice of the people I represent, when I say that a more illiberal company-not to use a harsher termdoes not exist on the face of the earth. Congress has given them a subsidy of $400,000; the State of California has given them a subsidy of $60,000; and they will not send a dispatch on public business from the Governor of California to the delegation upon the floor of Congress without compelling us to pay the full price. During the past winter, it became necessary for the Governor of the State, under instructions of the Legislature, to send a dispatch to the delegation, and after it got to this end it was copied four times, and a bill brought against my colleague here and each of my colleagues in the other House and myself, and we were required to pay five times for a single and the same dispatch to the delegation jointly. Not one of us can send a dispatch across that line relating to the public interests of all the constituents whom we represent, and who are taxed now $60,000 as a subsidy to the line, without paying the full price in advance, or guaranteeing the same, as if it was a private dispatch.

There are other instances to which I might call the attention of Congress, showing that this company does not deserve at the hands of the Government any additional special privileges beyond those they already possess, and if I had it in my power, I would curtail what they already possess, and I certainly am not willing in this bill to give them authority to dictate to the railroad company, and to say, "accept our terms, buy us out, or else you have got to confine your telegraph which you must build, to the Government dispatches and to your own private business, and we will monopolize the whole commerce that is to be brought

Mr. LATHAM. I accept that suggestion, and move to strike out all after the thirteenth line. The words which I propose to strike out are:

And, in case of disagreement, said telegraph companies are authorized to remove their line of telegraph along and upon the line of railroad herein contemplated without prejudice to the rights of said railroad companies named herein. And the railroad companies' telegraph shall be confined to the business of the railroad companies, and the transmission of messages for the Government of the United States, and shall not enter into competition for the commercial business: Provided, Said telegraph companies shall furnish proper and sufficient facilities for the transaction of their proper business.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am not in favor of the amendment to the amendment. The existing telegraph company entered upon a great experiment, and have expended some five or six hundred thou sand dollars, and whether it will be a paying investment or not is altogether an uncertain thing; and if now in creating this railroad you authorize them to run a telegraph precisely over the same line, and not only to do business for their own road and for the Government, but to enter into competition for private business, it will destroy the existing company. There is a want of that kind of faith which the Government ought to keep with that company. We gave them the privilege for ten years. They have had the enterprise and perseverance to go through with it, and bind the two parts of the continent together by a telegraphic line, and although you may say that they got some advantages and some privileges and some monopoly of the business

Mr. LATHAM. Allow me to state to the Senator that the president of the company informed one of my colleagues in the other House, now by my side, that the line was already a remunerative one, and there is no reason why it should not be, for they take nearly the last cent a man has got in his pocket to pay for their dispatches. They make the most extraordinary charges, and the most singular dodges are resorted to, I am credibly informed, for the purpose of increasing their charges. The law limits them to three dollars for a dispatch of ten words. If you send a dispatch to the town of Placerville, one of my colleagues tells me, at the foot of the mountains, instead of delivering the dispatch there, and getting three dollars, they send it clear through to San Francisco, and then send it back from San Francisco to Placerville, so as to get an additional charge on the dispatch. So if you send a dispatch to Nevada Territory, my colleague [Mr. MCDOUGALL] says, for which the law limits them to three dollars, they send it to San Francisco, and then send it from San Francisco back to Nevada Territory, so as to get eight, or ten, or twelve dollars out of the individual to whom the dispatch is sent. If they cannot make money at that rate, I should like to know on what basis they can. They are making money now. It is a remunerative company, quite as much so as any telegraph company on this continent, comparatively speaking.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The line has only recently been completed, and so far, I understand, the stockholders have received but one return from the receipts of this route. I remember that when the bill was before the Senate I struggled to put a limitation on the company, and I did succeed in putting on a limitation that they should not charge more than three dollars for a dispatch across the continent, because I was afraid of the monopoly at the time; but when the privilege has been granted, and you have given them a monopoly of the business for ten years, when you are creating another great monopoly, a great overshadowing monopoly, the greatest ever conceived in this country, and with powers greater than any other monopoly ever had in this country, will you give them the power also to wipe out the existing telegraph company which has been constructed, for that will be the effect of your amendment?

Mr. LATHAM. I will state to the Senator that the bill which gave the subsidy to the present company contains no provision that no other tel| egraphic company should subsequently be char

tered. They have not got a monopoly, but on the contrary, if I recollect aright, there was an express provision that any other company might build a line. They sought a monopoly such as is contained in this section, but Congress would not give it. Congress gives them the $400,000, even if fifty other lines should be constructed across the continent; and so the State of California gives them $60,000, no matter how many other lines may be constructed, but there is nothing to prevent the construction of other lines.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment as amended.

Mr. HARLAN. I move to strike out the word "company" in line seven, and insert “and branches. I suppose the word "company" has been inserted inadvertently.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I think it should be "railroads;" add the letter "s" to the word "railroad," and strike out the word " company.' There is evidently a mistake in the printing. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY.) The amendment of the Senator from lowa is in line seven, to strike out "company" and insert "and branches."

Mr. HARLAN. And also in line eight, after the word "roads" to insert "and branches." The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modifications will be made if there be no objection.

Mr. HARLAN. I also propose in line ten, after the word "railroad" to insert" and branches." The PRESIDING OFFICER. That modification will be made.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. FOOT. The amendments reported by the committee are now passed upon, and it is in order for individual members to move such amendments as they see proper. I desire to move an amendment: to insert two additional names on the commission. I move, on the 2d page, in line twentyeight of the first section, after the name of " Henry H. Baxter," to insert "George W. Collamer" and "Henry Keyes.'

Mr. McDOUGALL. I have no objection.
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER. I have a similar motion to make. In line twenty-six, of section one, among the names from Massachusetts, I move to insert "Edward Tinker."

The amendment was agreed to.

After "ArmMr. WILSON, of Missouri. strong Beatty," in line fourteen, I move to insert "John Corby."

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. In line twenty-eight, after "Dunning," I move to insert "John M. Wood, Edwin Noyes, and Joseph Eaton."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I believe we are through with the committee's amendments, and I think we had better now adjourn.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Let us insert the names that Senators desire to add.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection, but I think these individual amendments had better come in to-morrow.

Mr. FOSTER. I have two names to propose. Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not insist on my motion now if the Senator from Connecticut wishes to offer an amendment of that kind.

Mr. FOSTER. I move to insert the names

of "Augustus Brewster and Henry P. Haven," of

Connecticut.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I move after "Davis," in line thirty-seven, to insert "Josiah Miller." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOWARD. After "Carver," in line six, I move to insert the name of "Benjamin F. Camp."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. I move to insert the names of "Walter S. Burgess, of Rhode Island, and Benjamin H. Cheever, of the District of Columbia." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOWE. On the thirty-first line I move after "Sterling " to insert John Thompson, Elihu L. Phillips, and Walter McIndoe."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KING. Some names have been handed to me by gentlemen who desire them to be inserted, and I can vouch for the character and respectability of the gentlemen whose names are proposed to be inserted. I know them both. I move to insert "Orville W. Childs, Alexander J. Bergen," of New York.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LATHAM. I move to insert the names of "Louis McLane and George W. Mowe," of California; and Benjamin Holladay, D. N. Barney, and S. De Witt Bloodgood," of New York. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I move to amend the bill on page 13, section eight, by striking out the words commencing in line six, after the word "and," to the word "thence, in line nine. The words which I propose to strike out are, "at the termination of the Leavenworth, Pawnec, and Western railroad and telegraph line, as herein provided, to meet and connect therewith as herein provided;" and in lieu of these words I move to insert, "at a point to be fixed by the President of the United States.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. There is a verbal amendment in line four, section nine, on the same page. I move to strike out" in conformity with their charter from said State."

Mr. POMEROY. I hope that will not be adopted. If they are going to build a road, I hope they will build it according to their charter.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish to state that a copy of the charter as read by me provides for various branch roads, provides that the road shall commence in the city of Leavenworth, on the Missouri river, and run to the western boundary of the State. It provides for a southern road to run down towards the Gulf, as well as a northern road, and gives them the power to build branch roads, I believe, in every county in the State through which the line may be located. I do not know how much may be granted, or what may be conferred by Congress requiring them to build a railroad in conformity to that charter. There are some limitations in the charter, also, which I think the Senators themselves would not desire to have become the law of the land by an act of Congress. For example: they are only entitled to one hundred feet, I think, along the line of the road, while this bill contemplates that four hundred feet shall be given, two hundred on each side of the road. It seems to me it is not the province of Congress to provide for the execution of the laws of Kansas.

those words, but I would propose to insert in addition, and perhaps the Senator from Iowa will agree with me," obtaining the consent of said State to build this road as herein provided," because we go into the State and undertake to authorize them to do it within the State. I presume the State of Kansas will give them leave, and that will avoid all question as to interference of jurisdiction. Mr. POMEROY. I agree to that. Mr. McDOUGALL. I do not think it is necessary for us to legislate on that subject.

Mr. CLARK. I think you had better have the provision in, for I am sure you will have a discussion in the Senate whenever that question comes along, and this will obviate all such difficulty.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I have no objection to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa; but this company desire to commence the road at Kansas City before our Legislature meets, and they cannot get consent until the Legislature

meets.

Mr. POMEROY. They do not want the consent there. It is at the other end.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I hope the Senator from New Hampshire will withdraw his portion of the amendment.

Mr. CLARK. I do it now because the Senate is not full, but I shall move it to-morrow when the Senate is full.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from lowa, to strike out certain words. If that is carried it will be competent to move to insert other words. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CLARK. I suggest to the Senate that unless there is some important amendment, or some amendment they desire to have voted on in committee, we let the bill now be taken out of committee and come into the Senate, and the amendments that there is no dispute about be concurred in, and then adjourn, and to-morrow when we have a full Senate, bring up the amendments which are disputed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to say that I will yield to the suggestion of my friend from New Hampshire, but there is an amendment which I intended to offer in the committee, but I can wait and offer it in the Senate.

Mr. CLARK. I have several amendments, some of them important amendments, but I do not propose to take the time of the Senate with them now.

Mr. SUMNER. I desire to ask the Senator from New Hampshire whether it would not be advisable to have the bill printed to-night, with all the amendments that have been made?

Mr. CLARK. The amendments have been printed.

The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Foor.) The question is on concurring with the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. The question will be put upon all the amendments in the aggregate, unless certain amendments are indicated for a separate vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As the question is about to be put, the bill being now out of committee, I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. CLARK. I suggest that we might as well adopt now those amendments about which there is no question.

charter.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I concur with the Senator from lowa. There is no meaning in this provision after all. Our authorization to build in conformity to their charter gives them no privilege. It is only a limitation at best.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not care much about it. Mr. CLARK. I agree with the propriety of the amendment, not because I think there is no meaning in it, but because I fear there may be too much and it may hinder and impede the progress of this road. I would propose not only to strike out

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It will take some time to I insist on my motion. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TUESDAY, June 17, 1862.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. THOMAS H. STOCKTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House the following communication from the Secretary of War:

men (fugitive slaves) and appointed the colonel and other officers to command them. 2. Was he authorized by the Department to organize and muster into the Army of the United States as soldiers the fugitive or captive slaves? 3. Has he been furnished with clothing, uniforms, &c., for such force? 4. Has he been furnished by order of the Department of War with arms to be placed in the hands of those slaves? 5. To report any orders given said Hunter, and correspondence between him and the Department." In answer to the foregoing resolutions, I have the honor to inform the House

1. That this Department has no official information whether General Hunter, of the department of South Carolina, has or has not organized a regiment of South CaroJina volunteers for the defense of the Union, composed of black men, fugitive slaves, and appointed the colonel and other officers to command them. In order to ascertain whether he has done so or not, a copy of the House resolution has been transmitted to General Hunter with instructions to make immediate report thereon.

2. General Hunter was not authorized by the Department to organize and muster into the Army of the United States the fugitive or captive slaves.

3. General Hunter, upon his requisition as commander of the South, has been furnished with clothing and arms for the force under his command, without instructions as to how they should be used.

4. He has not been furnished, by order of the Department of War, with arms to be placed in the hands of "those slaves."

5. In respect to so much of said resolutions as directs the Secretary to report to the House any orders given said Hunter, and correspondence between him and the Department," the President instructs me to answer that the report, at this time, of the orders given to, and correspondence between General Hunter and this Department, would, in his opinion, be improper and incompatible with the public welfare.

Hon. GALUSHA A. GROW,

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. WICKLIFFE. I move to lay the communication on the table. I shall call it up at some convenient time and show the evidence upon which I predicated the resolution calling for this information. I have a list of all the officers.

The communication was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

LAND DISTRICT IN NEVADA.

Mr. CRADLEBAUGH. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discharge the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union from the further consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 442) to establish a land district in the Territory of Nevada, and for other purposes, and that the same may be put upon its passage.

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

Mr. CRADLEBAUGH. I hope the gentleman will allow this matter to be attended to, as it will consume but a few moments.

The SPEAKER. Objection is made. The regular order of business is a call of the committees for reports.

PATENT OFFICE.

Mr. DUNN, from the Committee on Patents, reported back, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a bill (H. R. No. 365) to amend an act entitled "An act to promote the progress of the useful arts." 99

The substitute was read, as follows:

That from and after the passage of this act the three examiners-in chief created by the act of March 2, 1861, to which this is additional, shall not constitute an independent tribunal in the Patent Office to revise and determine upon the validity of the decisions made by the Commissioner of Patents in the refusal of letters patent, or in interference cases, but that the duties of said examiners-in-chief shall be only advisory to the Commissioner of Patents, who shall prescribe rules for their action. And after the second rejection of an application for a patent, or after one decision by the Commissioner, in cases of interference, the party who may be dissatisfied with such decision may appeal therefrom to either of the judges of the circuit court for the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That every patent shall be dated as of a day not later than six months after the time at which it was passed and allowed, and notice thereof sent to the applicant or his agent. And if the final fee for such patent be not paid within the said six months the patent shall be withheld, and the invention therein described shall become public property, as against the applicant therefor: Provided, That in all cases where patents have been allowed previous to the passage of this act, the said six months shall be reckoned from the date of such passage.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That so much of section seven of the act entitled "An act to promote the progress of the useful arts," approved July 4, 1835, as requires a renewal of the oath, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That whereas the falling off of the revenue of the Patent Office required a reduction of the compensation of the examiners and clerks in the office after the 31st day of August, 1851, that the Commissioner of Patents be, and he is hereby, authorized, whenever, in his opinion, the revenue of the office will justify him in so doing, to pay them such sums, in addition

to what they shall already have received, as will make their compensation the same as it was at that time.

Mr. DUNN. The bill is printed, and has been before the House for a month or more. The first section is intended to facilitate the settlement of controversies in relation to the issuing of patents. Under the existing law and practice application for a patent is first submitted to an examiner. From his decision an appeal can be taken to the examiners-in-chief, and from them to the Commissioner of Patents, and from thence to the circuit court.

This bill was prepared under the advice of the Commissioner of Patents. Its first section provides that instead of the board of examiners-inchief, being, as it were, a tribunal of itself, it shall hereafter be merely advisory. In most cases the Commissioner will undoubtedly be governed by the advice of that board, but the Commissioner should have a general authority.

It also provides that after the second rejection of an application, or after one decision by the Commissioner, in cases of interference, the party who may be dissatisfied with such decision may appeal therefrom to either of the judges of the circuit court for the District of Columbia. The object is to prevent these repeated appeals, and give the party interested an opportunity to test the validity of the application as speedily as possible.

The object of the second section of the bill is to require successful applicants for patents to take out their patents within a reasonable time after they are granted, and pay the fees due the office. The funds of the Department have suffered very materially in past years in that way. I believe, under the present law, applicants may wait two years before they take out a patent. This amendment requires a patent to be issued in six months after the application has been favorably reported upon; and in case of failure to do that, the application shall become public property. The bill compels applicants either to avail themselves of the labors of the officers who have examined the application, by taking out a patent, or abandon the invention to the public.

There is another section of the bill which waives the necessity of renewing an oath in certain cases. That section covers difficulties which sometimes arise in cases where applications are made from abroad or from distant sections of the country.

Another section relates to the compensation of examiners and clerks in the office, and authorizes the Commissioner of Patents, under certain circumstances, to increase the salaries to what they formerly were.

These, I believe, are all the main points of the bill.

Mr. CALVERT. I hope this bill will not pass unless it is very materially amended. In the first place, I think experience has shown that these examiners-in-chief are useless appendages to the office; and I think they should be abolished altogether, and thus save much to the Department.

Another very great objection to this bill is that it provides for an increase of salaries of those gentlemen whose salaries have been reduced. By whom? By the Commissioner of Patents himself, without any law or authority. If the Commissioner of Patents has the power to reduce salaries, I suppose he wants no additional power to raise them. I deny that he has any power to reduce the salaries of any officer under him. He has, however, reduced them, and he now applies for power, or this bill gives him power, to raise those salaries, in these words:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That whereas the falling off of the revenue of the Patent Office required a reduction of the compensation of the examiners and clerks in the office after the 31st day of August, 1861, that the Commissioner of Patents be, and he is hereby, authorized, whenever, in his opinion, the revenue of the office will justify him in so doing, to pay them such sums, in addition to what they shall already have received, as will make their compensation the same as it was at that time.

Now, sir, I hope that we shall be rid of this incumbrance of an advisory board to the Commissioner of Patents. The Commissioner ought to be able to determine these questions without the aid of an advisory board. If he needs advice, there are examiners enough in the office without having these three examiners-in-chief turned over to him as an advisory board. Of course, they will be mere tools of his. I hope and trust that the bill will not pass in its present shape, but that it will be so amended as to do away with the office of examiner-in

chief, and to provide that the Commissioner shall not be authorized to raise and lower salaries at his discretion.

Mr. DUNN. If the gentleman from Maryland thinks that this board of examiners, which was established by the last Congress, is an unnecessary part of the Patent Office force, and will move to repeal the law organizing it, I will vote with him. The Commissioner of Patents, inasmuch as the law had been in operation for so short a time, did not feel at liberty to recommend its repeal. I believe, however, that it would, perhaps, be in accordance with his views that there should be no such board, constituted as it now is. The law was passed at the close of the last Congress, and the salaries of the examiners-in-chief were fixed by the act itself, over which the Commissioner has no control.

There

pay out of the fund of the Patent Office to Rose M.
Harte, widow of the late Edward Harte, $274 80
in full for certain papers prepared by him, by the
direction of the Commissioner of Patents, illus-
trative of the progress of agriculture in the United
States during ten years, and also for an article enti-
tled "the Railroads of the United States in 1850."
Mr. DUNN. I ask for the reading of the report
of the Committee on Patents of the Senate.
The report was read.

Mr. DÜNN. If the House has attended to the reading of the report, I do not know that this bill needs any further explanation. I will simply say, however, that it appears that Mr. Harte, who deceased in January last, leaving a widow and children, was a clerk in the Census Bureau in 1852, and discharged his duties as a clerk in that bureau during the regular business hours. The Commissioner of Patents, in getting up his report, wanted certain facts in regard to the agricultural and railroad interests of the country, and applied to Mr. Harte for them. Mr. Harte understood at the time that he would be compensated for his services. He performed them out of office hours, as has been stated to me in a letter by the Superintendent of the Census, Mr. Kennedy. The committees of the House and of the Senate have heretofore reported in his favor, and I believe myself that his widow is entitled to this amount. I move the previous question.

The House will remember that since the establishment of this department, it has been the effort of Congress to make it, as far as possible, a selfsustaining department of the Government. In prosperous times I believe that it has fully sustained itself. After the breaking out of the present war, the operations of the inventors of the country were to a great extent suspended. was less interest felt in inventions than formerly, and, moreover, one great field for the sale of "Yankee notions," which constitute a considerable part of these patents, was taken from them. Inventors could make no sales in the South. The business of the Patent Office has thus fallen off. From an average of $4,000 a week it fell off to about eight hundred dollars a week; but I am happy to say that recently the business of the department has increased in a very encouraging manner, and I think the time will soon come when the Commissioner of Patents will be able to pay the salaries as they formerly were in his office. It was simply because he desired to reduce the expenses of his department that the changes referred to by the gentleman from Maryland were made. I should be sorry to see any alteration of the bill in that respect. I believe that if the prosperity which now seems to be returning to the department continues, it will not be many months before the past salaries of these officersley of the Ohio and the Mississippi. can be paid. I do not understand exactly by what authority of law the Commissioner of Patents has changed the compensation of parties in his office, but I believe that it was done by reducing the parties to a lower grade of office and assigning to them duties pertaining to a higher grade. I now move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

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

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

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The substitute reported by the Committee on Patents was agreed to.

Mr. SHELLABARGER. I appeal to the gentleman from Indiana to allow me to offer an amendment.

The SPEAKER. It can only be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. SHELLA BARGER. I wish to move to strike out that portion of the bill which provides for an increase of the salaries of officers.

The SPEAKER. It can be done by unanimous

NATIONAL FOUNDERIES, ETC.

Mr. MOORHEAD, from the select committee on national armories, reported a joint resolution providing for the establishment of a national foundery east of the Alleghany mountains, and a national_foundery and national armory and manufacturing arsenal west of that line, and in the val

The joint resolution was read.

Mr. RIDDLE. I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether he regards the southern margin of the great lakes as within the valley of the Mississippi or Ohio.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Undoubtedly it is so regarded.

Mr. DELANO. I wish to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether there is not already a joint resolution reported by the select committee, or rather two joint resolutions, one reported by the majority and the other by the minority of the committee, in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, sir; there is such a resolution there, but it is not the same as this. It contains an appropriation, but this does not.

Mr. DELANO. I would ask the gentleman whether he considers that what is proposed to be done by this resolution can be done without an appropriation?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, sir; I do. This subject has been before the House for a long time, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has several times given us notice that we have not used due diligence in bringing it before the House. It has been sufficiently ventilated, I think, by petitions and memorials presented to the House, and referred to a select committee. That committee

held a large number of meetings, examined the subject thoroughly, and was satisfied that the great difficulty in establishing an armory or foundery was in reference to the points of location. It therefore, I think wisely, adopted the plan of leaving the whole matter to a commission, to be appointed by the President of the United States. This joint resolution provides for a commission of five gentlemen, citizens, to be selected by the President of the United States, to designate the places.

Mr. DELANO. I rise to a point of order. The select committee appointed on the subject of armories and founderies, has heretofore made its report. That report has been in the hands of the House for a month, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and I submit that with the making of that report its

functions were exhausted, and that it is not in order now for the chairman of that committee to make another and a different report.

The SPEAKER. The Chair asks the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MOORHEAD,] whether this subject has been referred to the select committee since the report was made?

Mr. MOORHEAD. There have been petitions referred since that.

The SPEAKER. This is a question of fact. If, in open House, anything has been referred to the select committee since its report was made, that revives it. If not, the making of the report discharges the committee.

Mr. MOORHEAD. There has been.

The SPEAKER. The Chair asks when? Reference of petitions under the rules is not sufficient to revive a select committee. It is a simple question of fact. The Chair desires to know whether, in open House, anything has been referred to the select committee on this subject, since it made its report.

Mr. MOORHEAD. There have been petitions presented and referred since then.

The SPEAKER. Under the rules?

Mr. MOORHEAD. I do not know whether under the rules or not.

The SPEAKER. The Chair must sustain the point of order raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts, unless assurance be given that anything has been referred to the committee in open House since the report was made.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I know that delegations have been heard by the committee informally. The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of order raised by the gentleman from Massachu

setts.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Before the Chair decides, I ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRIMBLE] whether he has not had some petitions referred to the select committee since the report was made to the House?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Some petitions have been referred by me.

Mr. MOORHEAD. The difficulty about the decision of the Chair is this: if the rules provide for petitions being referred in a particular way, I think that their going in the channel directed by the House ought not to preclude a committee.

The SPEAKER. That is the gentleman's construction of the rule, not the Chair's. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I must express my astonishment that the gentleman from Massachusetts, who appeared so anxious to have the question brought before the House, should raise a point of this kind.

Mr. DELANO. I am very glad the gentleman has made that suggestion.

The SPEAKER. This debate is not in order. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. If I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is probably right, and I do not want to find fault with it. I did present, in open House, resolutions of our convention in. reference to the subject, and had them referred.

The SPEAKER. Since the committee reported? Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The Chair will wait one moment. I am not now prepared to say whether it was before or since. My impression is that it was since, but I will not state it so, because I do not recollect. I ask the Chair not to decide the question until I can look at the facts.

The SPEAKER. Then, if there is no appeal, the decision of the Chair will stand, on present information.

Mr. MOORHEAD. What further information does the Chair require?

The SPEAKER. According to all the information that the Chair has, nothing has since been referred, except under the rules. The Chair cannot debate the question.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, I suppose there is an appeal from the decision of the Chair. I would be sorry to take an appeal if I did not think it an improper decision, while the Chair is satisfied that petitions have been presented and referred in the manner ordered by the rules.

on the information which it has, namely: that nothing has since been referred to the committee in open House, and that a reference, under the rules, is not sufficient to revive the committee. From that decision the gentleman from Pennsylvania appeals. The question is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the || House?"

The question was taken; and the decision of the Chair was sustained.

CONFISCATION.

Mr. ELIOT. The select committee on confiscation has been directed to report back, as a substitute, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. PORTER.] In accordance with the instructions of the House, I am directed by that committee to report back the bill which they were instructed to report-with several amendments. These amendments, I wish to say are in accordance with the judgment of the friends of the bill and of my friend from Indiana. The amend ments do not enlarge at all the classes affected by the bill, but simplify it in its operation. I report it in the form of a substitute.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I rise to a point of order. This committee was directed by a vote of the House to do one single thing. That was, to strike out the original bill, and to report what the House decided should be its substitute. I deny that the committee has a right to report anything else as an amendment to that substitute.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman from Massachusetts as reporting from the select committee what the gentleman from Kentucky states, and then as proposing amend

ments.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I understood him to say that he reported amendments with the substitute. He may offer amendments after the substitute comes into the possession of the House; but I deny his right to report any amendments.

The SPEAKER. The committee was directed to report back a certain bill with a substitute, which it reports back. The gentleman from Massachusetts, while on the floor, proposes to amend the substitute. The Chair decides that that can be done.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. The question is if he can make it as a part of the report. He may offer amendments, but cannot report them. That is the objection I make.

Mr. MALLORY. I appeal to the gentleman from Massachusetts to say whether he did not state that he reported these amendments by order of a majority of the committee, and that these amendments met with the approbation of the friends of the bill on this floor? That I understood to be the language of the gentleman.

Mr. ELIOT. The whole is reported as a substitute.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the points of order raised by both gentlemen, [Messrs. WICKLIFFE and MALLORY.] If the committee reports back what it was directed by the House to report back, the Chair sees no objection to the committee also reporting an amendment to it.

Mr. ELIOT. That is just what I have done. Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. This is a question of the report of the committee, and whether the committee has complied with the order of the House.

The point was made by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKLIFFE.] The Chair overruled the point of order. From that decision, in

my opinion, it does not relate to the priority of business, but that it relates to a matter of fact, which is debatable.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Missouri is right.

not report the amendment. The Chair overrules the question of order, and the gentleman from Missouri takes an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I differ with the Chair in reference to this matter. I do not deny the right of the gentleman from Massachusetts, as an individual member of the House, to submit the amendments which he proposes; but I deny that he by authority of the committee, or that the committee has the right to report any other matter than the bill and substitute referred to them. In this connection, I ask that the order of the House referring the bill back to the committee may be read, so that we may understand precisely where we are. The SPEAKER. The order entered upon the Journal was, that the bill be recommitted to the committee, with instructions to report back the following substitute.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. Which was the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. PORTER.]

The SPEAKER. To report back the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Indiana was the instructions sent to the committee.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I ask that the order may be read as it was entered on the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk has sent out for the Journal.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. In connection with this matter, I desire to present to the House the fact that when the committee had reported the bills presented by them on the subjects of confiscation and emancipation, it ceased to exist as a select committee of the House until revived subsequently by action of the House. The Speaker has this morning so decided on the question of order raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DELANO,] that the report proposed to be presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD] could not be received, for the reason that when the select committee had once reported upon the subject-matter referred to them, the committee itself ceased to exist, and could only be revived by the action of the House.

Now, sir, this committee on confiscation might have been revived generally with general jurisdiction over the subject-matter originally committed to them. But the House did not revive the committee with general jurisdiction. The committee was merely made the organ of the House to bring before it the bill formerly reported by the committee with the substitute proposed by the gentlemen from Indiana, and under which mandate the committee was revived and directed to report that bill with the amendment, and no other-nothing else.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now read the order, entered on the Journal, to which the gentleman refers.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"Mr. PORTER moved that the bill be recommitted to the select committee on the confiscation of the property of rebels, with instructions to report the same with the following amendment, in the nature of a substitute therefor."

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. So that original bill was recommitted to the committee, and that recommitment revived the select committee, but the only authority the committee had, and the only duty it had to perform, was to execute the order, and nothing else. That order was to report the original emancipation bill, which was House bill No. 472, together with an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, proposed by the gentleman from Indiana. I therefore contend, Mr. Speaker, that this committee has no right and no authority to submit any other amendment as emanating from the the committee itself. The gentleman from Massachusetts has the right, if he desires, to submit an amendment as an individual, but that is another matter.

I do not desire to detain the House; but, sir, here is a precedent about to be established. think if the decision of the Speaker is adhered to, it is in violation of the decision made and not ob

case of the report sought to be presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MOORHEAD.]

of rebel property, reports back the bill referred to them, and the substitute directed by resolution of the House. He then reported an amendment to that substitute. The point of order is that he could

Mr. COLFAX. I concur in the main in the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri. I do not know what these amendments are, but I hold myself bound in good faith to my colleague, [Mr. PORTER,] and to the majority of the House which