tution which would confer the power, but I deny most respectfully that it is conferred. I deny that any man who is supporting the Constitution can vote for an appropriation in aid of any subject, no matter how important and generally useful, that is not committed to the jurisdiction of the General Government."

Mr. Garland: "Mr. President, the objections urged by the Senator from Wisconsin have been urged before, and a great many more. Some two years ago, when a similar question was up, everything that is said by him to-day and much more was said. He was not here at the time, I believe, to participate in that argument. The question was argued by a number of Senators on both sides for and against the general proposition, and every case was referred to and commented upon, from Gibbons vs. Ogden, in 9 Wheaton, down to the celebrated cattle case in 5 Wallace, on the subject of commerce between the States. The general power to take care of the health of the country was put upon three different clauses of the Constitution, one of which the Senator from Wisconsin has not referred to: first, the commercial clause, which was referred to by the Senator from Tennessee; second, the general-welfare clause; but clause No. 2 of section 10 of Article I was also referred to and commented upon to some extent by myself, and I was supported in that by Judge Story, the authority that has been referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin. That clause is as follows:

"No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

"Judge Story said in the second volume of his Commentaries' on the Constitution that there was ample authority for the exercise of this power. It is now late in the day to urge an objection of that character. We have had sanitary regulations or a quarantine law, so to speak, ever since 1790 upon the statute-book of the country. In 1879 that statute was considerably enlarged by the Congress of the United States by an act entitled 'An act to prevent the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States.' That act was passed April 29, 1879. The following year that statute was considerably enlarged by a general health bill, which was reported from the special committee by the Senator from Tennessee, and which received the sanction of the two Houses of Congress with some amendments. On the 14th of May last Congress passed the following joint resolution:

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to call an international sanitary conference to meet at Washington, District of Columbia, to which the several powers having jurisdiction of ports likely to be infected with yellow fever or cholera shall be invited to send delegates, properly authorized, for the

VOL. XXI.-10 A

purpose of securing an international system of notification as to the actual sanitary condition of ports and places under the jurisdiction of such powers and of vessels sailing therefrom.

"As I understand, in pursuance of that joint resolution this conference was invited, and in pursuance of that invitation the conference has met.

"It is now in session in the city of Washington. Now the question comes up, Shall we simply discharge an obligation upon us to meet the exigencies of this conference, which we have solemnly invited by three laws, and the constitutionality of every one of which was discussed, if I may be permitted to use such an expression, ad nauseam? The question now is, Shall we defray the expenses of that sanitary conference that we have invited to meet here? I do not see that at this day there is any argument left in respect to that matter." Mr. Carpenter: "That is not the question I

put. The question I put was whether the Constitution authorizes us to do it?" Mr. Garland: "I think it does."

Mr. Carpenter: "Then I do not see that the other is the question. I agree with the Senator that if we ask a man to work for us, if we can pay him we ought to do it; but the question with me was, Where do we get the authority to do this? We are not giving our That would be own money to pay these men. very proper, and I should be very willing to contribute half of all I have got (and I should not be out more than the price of a cigar at that), but the question is whether I have got any right to vote the money of the people of New York for such a purpose."

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, and read the third time.

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced as follows:

YEAS-Allison, Anthony, Beck, Booth, Burnside, Call, Coke, Davis of West Virginia, Dawes, Ferry, Jonas, McMillan, Morgan, Morrill, Platt, Pugh, RanGarland, Groome, Hampton, Harris, Hoar, Johnston, dolph, Rollins, Slater, Voorhees, Wallace, "Whyte, Williams, Windom―30.

NAYS-Brown, Carpenter, Cockrell, Farley, Ingalls, McPherson, Pendleton, Plumb, Saulsbury, Saunders, Teller-11.

ABSENT-Bailey, Baldwin, Bayard, Blaine, Blair, Bruce, Butler, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron of Wisconsin, Conkling, Davis of Illinois, Eaton, Edmunds, Grover, Hamlin, Hereford, Hill of Colorado, Hill of Georgia, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, ald, Maxey, Paddock, Ransom, Sharon, Thurman, Kellogg, Kernan, Kirkwood, Lamar, Logan, McDonVance, Vest, Walker, Withers-35.

So the joint resolution was passed.

In the House of Representatives, on January 28th, the following bill was considered:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Elizabeth P. Page, widow of the late

Captain Hugh N. Page, the sum of $136.85, being the balance of pay due the said Hugh N. Page, as captain in the United States Navy: Provided, Said payment shall not be made until the said Elizabeth P. Page files with the Secretary of the Treasury copies of her letters of administration, showing that she is the lawful representative of the said Hugh N. Page.

Mr. Brewer, of Michigan: "Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take any great length of time in discussing the question involved in this case. It is simply this, that the husband of the claimant in 1811 entered the naval service of the United States. He served as a faithful officer until 1861, when the State of Virginia withdrew her allegiance from the General Government. He sent in his resignation, setting forth those facts to the Secretary of the Navy. The resignation was accepted soon after. After the resignation had been forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy he immediately entered the Confederate service. How long he served in the Confederate Navy I am unable to state. Whether he was killed in the service of the Confederacy or not I am wholly unable to state. But we find that he died at some time afterward, and that the widow now comes to Congress and presents her bill, asking that the sum due hiin when he sent in his resignation to the Secretary of the Navy shall be paid. There is no question between the majority and the minority of the committee but what there was due to Captain Page, at the time he resigned, the sum of $136.85.

"In 1867 Congress sought to cut off and prevent the payment of all such claims, and passed an act which prohibited any department of the Government to pay any account, claim, or demand against the United States which accrued prior to the 13th day of April, 1861, in favor of any person who promoted, encouraged, or in any manner sustained the rebellion, or who during such rebellion was not known to be opposed thereto and distinctly in favor of its suppression.

·

"Now, Mr. Chairman, it may be stated by the gentleman who made the majority report, that the time has come for ordering otherwise. These claims were not to be paid until otherwise ordered,' and the gentleman sets forth in his report that the time has now come, in the judgment of the committee, when it should be otherwise ordered.

"I should like to know why it should be ordered now, any more than at the time the act was passed, that these claims should be paid. If it was right that these claims should be paid, then it was wrong to enact the law. If it was right they should not be paid, then it is no less right now.

"Our friends who make this report may come and say this is but a small sum, $136.85. They may say that this lady who now presents this claim as the widow of Captain Page is poor and needy. They may seek to play upon the sympathies of this committee and of the House, so as to secure the passage of this claim. I know how easy it is to raise a sym

pathetic feeling in the minds and hearts of members of this House. We saw it illustrated here in the passage of a bill, which but a little while ago was before the committee. And it is the fact that claimants come here before the House and before the Committee of the Whole and present but one side of the case, and appeal to the sympathies and hearts of the members for relief.

"Now, I say the widow of Captain Page could acquire no higher rights against the Government than those possessed by her late husband; and if it had been right to have paid this claim, then it should have been and would have been paid to Captain Page years ago, instead of its being claimed for the widow now. The same principles are involved upon this claim, and in this case, as would be involved if there was a million dollars concerned; no more and no less.

"We are establishing a precedent to-day, and if we pass this bill then we ought immediately to repeal the act by which the payment of this claim and those of others like it is prevented. If this claim is right, which is presented by Mrs. Page, then I say there are a thousand others who have equally meritorious claims, and they should be paid as well as this widow. I insist we ought not to attempt to do here in part, what we in my judgment, in this Committee of the Whole or in this House, will not do in whole, and what the country would not approve of our doing."

Mr. Goode, of Virginia: "Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Brewer] seems disposed to make such strenuous opposition to this little bill. What is it? If I can get the attention of the committee for a moment, I am sure that gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber will agree with the majority of the Committee on Naval Affairs that the bill ought to be favorably considered.

"And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, for the information of gentlemen on the other side of the House surrounding the gentleman from Michigan who has just spoken, that this is a unanimous report from the Committee on Naval Affairs, with two exceptions.

"It appears from the report that Captain Hugh N. Page entered the United States Navy as a midshipman in 1811. He was present at the battle of Lake Erie under Commodore Perry, and exhibited such conspicuous gallantry on that occasion that the Government voted him a sword. He remained in the service of the United States until the breaking out of the civil war in 1861, when he tendered his resignation for the reason stated by him, because his native State had adopted her ordinance of secession.

informed that it was slightly inaccurate in this: it says that Captain Page entered the service of the Confederate States. That is a mistake. He was too old a man to render any service, being seventy years of age when the war broke out. All he did was to tender his resignation in proper form as an officer of the Navy of the United States; which resignation was accepted by the Government."

Mr. Hawley, of Connecticut: "Did he state any grounds in his resignation?"

Mr. Goode: "The only ground was that his native State of Virginia having adopted an ordinance of secession, he tendered his resignation as an officer of the United States Navy; that was his only reason.

"It appears that at the time of that resignation, which was accepted by the Government of the United States, there was a small pittance of $136.85 standing to the credit of Hugh N. Page on the books of the department. It is not disputed by gentlemen of the minority of the committee that this money was fairly and honorably earned by Captain Page. It is not disputed by anybody that the Government owed it to him at the time of his resignation, and owed it for faithful services rendered during a long and brilliant career. He died with this little pittance standing to his credit. His widow now comes, as his legal representative, and asks the Government to pay to her, as the representative of her late husband, what was legally due to him at the time of his death.

"Gentlemen say it is a just claim; gentlemen say the amount is due; gentlemen say it has been fairly and honorably earned; but they are unwilling to pay it because of section 3,480 of the Revised Statutes.

"Now I submit to this Committee of the Whole, that it was never contemplated by the Government of the United States to confiscate for ever a claim like this. I apprehend the Government only intended to suspend, for the time being, the payment of such claims. Why? It was the period of reconstruction. The States had not yet been fully restored to the Union. Nobody knew then how many such claims might be preferred against the United States, and Congress in its wisdom, in 1867, thought that it would be good policy to suspend the payment of these claims until they should think proper to order otherwise.' They never intended to confiscate them. The Government never undertook to confiscate the property of any man who went into the rebellion.

"I claim that this is as much a debt due to the estate of Captain Hugh N. Page as if he had held the bonds of the Government at the time he died. It was to his credit upon the books of the department. He had earned it. He had rendered a quid pro quo, and it stood to his credit at the time of his resignation, and stands to his credit to-day on the books of the Treasury Department."

Mr. Conger, of Michigan: "Mr. Chairman,

one after another of these old claims comes creeping into this House, stained all over with the record of their disloyalty. When they come they always have their advocates. The reasons given for passing this class of bills are always plausible. If it is a claim on behalf of a college, it is an 'old college' that has educated great men, and the passage of the bill is demanded, and demanded by the gentleman from Virginia in favor of education. Year after year, day after day, William and Mary College is made the entering-wedge; and gentlemen are rallied to the support of that bill by plausible arguments in favor of education, in favor of antiquity, in favor of 'the first educational institution on the continent.' No matter what the subject may be, there are always plausible, eloquent, sympathetic reasons given for the passage of the bill. Generally there is great force added to the bill because it is a 'little' thing. I think I have observed-and if I am mistaken in this, the gentleman can correct me--I think as a general rule my friend from Virginia gathers all his intellectual forces around a 'little' thing. Because it is small, because it is weak, because it is feeble, he comes to its rescue with a chivalry worthy of himself.

"Now, what is this case? What does it present to you, and to me, and to this committee, and to the American people? Sir, it is the history of an adopted son of this republic placed in command above his fellows, commissioned to rule over other citizens in the Navy of the United States. As a gallant young man, on the broad waters of the lake which bounds my State, he won distinction with hundreds of other men. Was the country ungrateful for his services? Far back in that war of which Lake Erie was the scene, Congress rewarded the valor of this young man, presented him a sword; encouraged him from that time thenceforth and for ever, while his hand had the power, to wield that splendid gift of his country given him in reward of allegiance, of fidelity, of valor-to wield it for the country which thus honored him, which thus glorified him, which thus told the world how the republic would reward its faithful and devoted sons. Years passed on a half-century of honors, of promotion-until this man was elevated to the highest rank in the Navy which our laws recognize-honored, trusted, loved; and there came a time when in the madness of the hour, instigated by traitors, by rebels, that State of Virginia tore down the banner of the Union, and proclaimed to her sons that she set up an independent government for herself. Virginia, not the most deserving by far, but the most honored of all the States in the American Union, was the first to lay an unholy hand upon the banner of the Union and strike at its life. And this son of Virginia, for fifty years the honored representative of that State in the Navy of the United States, engaged then in upholding the flag of

his country, honored with the highest command which could be given to the son of any State, immediately upon hearing that the State to which he belonged had become dishonored -had become traitorous, had rebelled, had struck down the flag, had withdrawn from the association which had honored the State, not which the State had honored-resigns that high position, hands back to the Government with scorn and derision the honors conferred upon him, resigns his high commission, but carries off in his old trembling hand the sword which the nation had given him, carries it off to use it to strike the heart of the nation which gave it. [Laughter on the Democratic side.] Ah! those gentlemen laugh and sneer; perhaps they did the same. [Laughter on the Republican side.] I do not envy the smile that gathers upon the faces of some gentlemen on the other side of the House-the smile of their derision at the picture I have drawn. It is a becoming exhibition of the contortions of which the human face is capable under adverse circumstances. [Laughter.] It treats well of the wisdom and power of that Creator who can make a face subservient to the rule and will of the mind, which shall show a contrary feeling to that which exists within the breast sometimes. [Laughter.] Now, sir, that is the picture of this man.

"The gentleman says he was too old to engage in the Confederate service. He was not too old to resign and leave the service of his country. He was not too old to tell the officials of his Government that he did resign because his State was treacherous, because it was rebellious, and that he was hurrying to leave the service of his country that he might fling himself, old as he was, trembling as he was, paralyzed as he was, with his remaining vital forces into the arms of his treacherous and rebellious State, to aid it either by force of arms or by counsel and advice and encouragement.

"Ay, sir, it is reported to have been said by a distinguished general in the service of the United States, that the South had robbed the cradle and the grave to bring strength to their cause. Here was this man not yet in the grave. Here was this man who had gone to Virginia to aid Virginia in its treason. The law said to all such men and all officers of this Government, a law enacted and re-enacted: If you will thus, in the day of your country's emergency and danger, forsake your post of duty, there shall be no payment made to you for services either past or present. That law for twenty years almost has stood on the statutebook of the nation. That law for six years almost standing there has never been attacked by any man whose face now lights up with sneers at what I say. There is boldness among you, infinite boldness; but no man has had the courage to propose the repeal of that section. No man has dared to stand up before the American people and declare that law was improper or unnecessary, or ought to be repealed.

It remains to-day, sir, for the gentleman from Virginia-"

Mr. Goode: "If the gentleman will allow me, I think he is in error in that statement. It is my recollection that repeated efforts have been made to repeal section 3,480 of the Revised Statutes. Repeated efforts have been made in the other Chamber if they have not been made here, and there the question has been debated, but postponed and defeated in various ways."

66

Mr. Conger: "If there is such an effort, it is of record. I ask the gentleman for the record. I never heard of it in this Chamber. No, sir, the American people do not wish that law repealed. If that side of the House desire for any purpose, and so inconsiderable a one as this, to be on record for the repeal of the law which no hand has dared to touch for twenty years, I invite them to the issue. It seems to me as if the infinite variety of blunders of the Democracy would insure their ruin without any effort from our side of the House; and I say, let them put their votes on record, even in this case, which is an entering-wedge for thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to be taken out of the Treasury to pay up for the rebellion which is past."

Mr. House, of Tennessee: "It seems to me that this discussion has taken a very wide range, and aside from the merits of the case now before this committee. To what the gentleman from Michigan has seen fit to say on this occasion in reference to the South and in reference to this side of the House I care not to reply. It is not the first time that that gentleman has bawled himself hoarse in that case. It is not the first time the bloody shirt has been invoked by that gentleman to cover the cause of injustice.

"What is the case before this committee? It is the case of an aged widow asking for what? For the pitiful sum of $136 which this Government owed to her dead husband-owed before there was any war of the rebellion-for services that he had rendered his country. Nobody disputes that. She is the widow of a man who had reflected honor upon his country's flag in the past. This claim is for services he then rendered.

"Does the Government owe him that money or not? Does anybody dispute that the Government owes it? Suppose, Mr. Chairman, that I owed you the sum of $136, and you and I were afterward to have a dispute or a falling out, and in order to punish you I repudiated the debt and refused to pay it. Between individuals such conduct would be infamous. Shall the Government place itself in that position toward this old widow?

"This Government has never attempted to confiscate this debt. If it had been confiscated, confiscation could not have lasted beyond the life of this officer; his heirs would have been entitled to it. Whatever may have been his faults, or whatever in the estimation of gentlemen may have been his crimes, he has passed