and district courts of the United States for the western district of Wisconsin, at La Crosse, shall be the third Tuesday of September of each year, instead of the first Monday of December, as now provided by law. The December term at La Crosse is abolished, and all recognizances, indictments, writs, process, and other proceedings, civil and criminal, now pending in either of said courts, may be entered, heard, and tried at the time herein fixed for holding them; but a term may be held in December, 1872, for the purpose of taking forfeitures of recognizances and disposing of any and all matters pending in the court, civil or criminal, necessary to be disposed of at the term to prevent discontinuances or any loss of any rights that may have accrued to any party or to the Government of the United States. This act is not to interfere with the term of the courts appointed to be holden at Madison, in the same district, nor with the power now possessed by the judges to order special terms, as now provided by law. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

JAMES KEENAN.

Mr. CAMERON. I am directed by the Committee on Foreign Relations._to_whom was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 141) to amend the resolution for the relief of James Keenan, late consul at Hong Kong, China, approved February 18, 1867, to report it without amendment. This requires only the alteration of a word and limits the responsibility of the Government. I therefore ask the Senate to consider it at the present time.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution. It proposes to amend the joint resolution approved February 18, 1867, for the relief of James Keenan, deceased, late consul at Hong Kong, China, by striking out all after the words "the several balances due him," and inserting in lieu thereof the words" on his accounts for relief of seamen."

Mr. EDMUNDS. I cannot understand that unless I see the act of 1867.

Mr. CAMERON. I will explain it in a moment. A resolution was passed by Congress a few years ago that allowed all this gentleman's accounts to be settled upon a broad principle. This strikes out all the accounts except a single one which is for the sums of money he paid to seamen in that country. The limitation is altogether in favor of the Government, and can do no harm to anybody. The only good it can do anybody is to settle the account for the benefit of the family.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to hear the resolution read again.

The joint resolution was read.
Mr. EDMUNDS.

Mr. CAMERON.
Government.

That changes it entirely. For the benefit of the

Mr. EDMUNDS. The act of 1867 provides that there shall be paid to his legal representatives the amount of exchange to which he would be entitled for loss had he drawn the several balances due him on the adjustment of his accounts. Now you propose to add a settlement of all moneys which he may have advanced to seamen. Instead of the limitation, therefore, it is an extension. I think we ought to consider that a little.

Mr. CAMERON. The Senator from Vermont for once in his public life is wrong. It limits it entirely to one account in place of allowing all his accounts.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let it go over for the present and I will look into it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution will lie over.

Mr. EDMUNDS subsequently said: In justice to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I desire to say that from comparing his bill with the statute I have no objection to it, and am willing that it should pass,

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Vermont withdraws his objection.

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

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. STOCKTON, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Madeline Vinton Dahlgren, praying compensation for the adoption and use in the Navy of the United States of certain inventions of her late husband, Rear Admiral Dahlgren, relating to orduance, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 1059) authoriz ing a settlement of the claim of the estate of the late Rear Admiral John A. Dahlgren.

The bill was read and passed to the second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. PATTERSON, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 957) supplemental to the act of February 9, 1871, incorporating the Columbian College in the District of Columbia, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1016) to extend the works of the Georgetown Gas-Light Company, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 972) to increase the capital stock and to extend the works of the Washington Gas Light Company, reported it with amendments.

Mr. PATTERSON. The same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2187) to confirm the action of the board of aldermen and common council of the city of Washington, designating a depot site for the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, and for other purposes, have instructed me to report it back without amendment, and I call the attention of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CAMERON] to this report. I believe the friends of this bill are very anxious to have some evening set apart for its consideration.

Mr. CAMERON. I ask the Senate to assign to-morrow evening for the consideration of that bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent that to-morrow evening be assigned for the consideration of this bill, and the Chair supposes with the limitation that the unfinished business at the afternoon session shall be the unfinished business for the next day. Is that the desire of the Senator from Pennsylvania? Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMNER. I object, for the reason that I know there are one or two Senators who wish to be here when that bill is discussed who cannot be here to-morrow evening.

Mr. CAMERON. Very well; then I will agree that the Senator from Massachusetts shall fix some other early evening.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. I object to any agreement whatever on this question.

Mr. CAMERON. I do not pretend to know the rules as well as I ought to do, but I will ask the Chair if there is not some other motion that I can make now to bring this bill up? [Laughter.]

The VICE PRESIDENT. There is not. All reports of committees must, by the rules, lie over one day for consideration except by unanimous consent. This bill having been reported to-day, cannot be reached before tomorrow by any vote except by unanimous

consent.

Mr. CAMERON. Then I give notice that to-morrow I shall insist on having a time fixed for its consideration.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 628) authorizing terms of the United States district court to be held at Fort Gibson, in the Indian territory, reported it with an amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the bill (S. No. 306) to fix the time of holding the United States courts in the districts of Arkansas; the bill (S. No. 830) to create a United States court for the Indian territory; the bill (S. No. 979) to define the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the United States district courts for the eastern and western districts of Arkansas, and for other purposes; the bill (S. No. 951) establishlishing a United States district court in the Indian country; and the bill (S. No. 838) to facilitate the trials of criminal causes and reduce expenses in the western judicial district of Arkansas, reported adversely thereon, and moved their indefinite postponement, the subject-matter being covered by Senate bill No. 628, reported favorably.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the same committee, to whom were referred resolutions of the Legislature of Kansas and various petitions on the subject of courts in Arkansas and the Indian country, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; which was agreed

to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1010) relating to evidence in the Court of Claims, reported adversely thereon, and moved its indefinite postponement; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1072) to fix terms of United States district courts in the eighth district, reported it without amendment.

Mr. NYE. Now, I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to take up House bill No. 1030, to regulate elections in Washington and Idaho Territories.

Mr. CORBETT. I do not like to object to anything that the Senator from Nevada desires. As chairman of the Committee on Territories of course it is his duty to try to call up this bill, but it is my duty to object from the fact that it will create a state of affairs in our elections that we do not want.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator object?

Mr. CORBETT. Therefore I shall have to object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Reports of committees are still in order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of William H. De Groot, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims; which was agreed to.

Mr. RICE, from the Committee on Mines and Mining, to whom was referred a memorial of the Legislature of Colorado Territory, asking the passage of an act granting titles to lodes and veins whenever sufficient improve ment has been made, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, the subject-matter having been disposed of by a bill already acted on by the Senate; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the Legislature of Nevada, praying that the proceeds of the sales of mineral lands be set aside for the purpose of fostering mining interests by the establishment of reduction works, asked to be discharged from its further consideration: which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Colorado, asking certain modifications of the bill now pending in the United States Senate entitled "An act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States," asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

Mr. CRAGIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1026) for the relief of the officers and crew of the United States ship Vicksburg, reported it without amendment, and submitted

a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. CASSERLY. The Committee on Public Lands have directed me to report back the bill (S. No. 883) extending the time for the selection of swamp and overflowed lands in Oregon, under an act of Congress approved March 12, 1860. This is a short bill, and the committee has proposed a single brief amendment, the effect of which is to extend properly the clause saving the rights of third persons. I will state to the Senate that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. KELLY] desires to say a few words upon this bill on Friday or Saturday of this week in the morning hour.

Mr. POOL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Sarah S. Stafford, only daughter and surviving heir of James Bayard Stafford, an officer in the Navy during the revolutionary war, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 1060) for the relief of Sarah S. Stafford.

The bill was read and passed to the second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. VICKERS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1644) to cure defective titles in the District of Columbia, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. PRATT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 198) for the relief of Warren & Moore, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. NYE. Is it proper for me to move to lay aside the morning business?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not, because the twenty-fourth rule requires the morning business to be progressed through to Senate resolutions, unless by unanimous consent. Reports are still in order, and several Senators seem to have reports to make.

Mr. SPENCER. The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred

the bill (H. R. No. 2332) to fix the salary of

the members of the Board of Health of the District of Columbia, have instructed me to report it back without amendment. It is very brief, and I ask for its passage this morning.

The

Mr. CAMERON. I object for the purpose of making an appeal to the Senate. Senator from Nevada, who is not well to day, has been making a succession of appeals to take up a bill which will occupy but a few minutes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair was about to state to the Senator from Nevada that he can move to lay the naval appropriation bill on the table when it is reached at one o'clock, and take up his bill by a majority vote, but he cannot now before one o'clock except by unanimous consent, which is refused.

Mr. SPENCER. I ask that the bill I have just reported be acted upon.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the bill cannot be considered at this time.

ARMY STAFF PROMOTIONS.

Mr. AMES. The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was recommitted the bill (S. No. 996) to repeal so much of section six of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1870, and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1869, as prohibits promotions in the staff departments of the Army, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment, and I ask that the bill may be now considered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It requires unanimous consent.

Mr. NYE. I do not wish to object to anything, but I desire to make an appeal to the Senate. There is a bill here which I am very anxious to have considered. If it is not passed to-day or to-morrow it will be useless.

It is very important that it should be considered at once.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Unless the Senator objects to this bill, the Chair will understand his statement as an objection to any other request of this sort, or if he objects to this bill it cannot be read.

Mr. NYE. I do not object.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill.

The Committee on Military Affairs reported the bill with an amendment, to add the following proviso:

Provided, That nothing herein shall authorize new appointments to places made vacant by promotions under this act: And provided also, That nothing herein contained shall authorize promotions in said departments above the grade of major.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CASSERLY. I trust the Senator who has introduced this bill, or the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, will give some reasons to the Senate why we should pass the bill. It is a change of the policy established by the existing law in regard to the multiplication of officers of the Army, if I understand it.

Mr. AMES. This bill does not authorize new appointments in the staff departments. It only permits promotions in those departments to the grade of major, and the bill does not apply to three of the eight departments interested. The first three named, the Adjutant General's department, the Inspector General's department, and the pay department, have grades of major and above, none below, and therefore this bill, if it should become a law, will not affect those departments. It will affect the other five only, permitting the captains and first and second lieutenants, and those officers only, to be promoted. No new appointments are authorized by the bill.

Mr. SAWYER. I should like to ask the Senator if the bill does or does not allow the

appointment of an assistant surgeon in place of a surgeon who has been promoted from the ranks of assistant surgeons? It expressly refuses that right, does it not? Mr. AMES. It authorizes promotions to the grade of major. That will depend upon the grade of the assistant surgeon.

Mr. SAWYER. Does it allow the vacancy in the assistant surgeons to be filled? Mr. AMES. It authorizes no new appointments.

Mr. NYE. Never?

Mr. AMES. Not as they stand.

Mr. CASSERLY. I understand then the effect of this bill is to provide for the promotion of a certain number of junior officers, but that it does not increase the number of superior officers. Is that correct?

Mr. AMES. The Senator from California is correct in that particular.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to have the bill reported. I did not hear it.

The Chief Clerk read the bill.

Mr. NYE. I dislike to object, but I am very anxious to have action on the bill to which I have referred.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator objects, it removes this bill from the consider ation of the Senate.

Mr. AMES. I hope the Senator will allow the bill to pass.

Mr. NYE. I will not object.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

Mr. SCOTT. I ask that the Senate consider the resolution relative to the time of meeting.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The call is still resting at reports of committees, pending which the Senator from Pennsylvania asks

unanimous consent to call up the resolution fixing eleven o'clock as the hour of meeting. Is there objection?

Mr. SUMNER. I object to it.

Mr. SCOTT. Will not the Senator from Massachusetts permit me to state that it is evidently the desire of the Senate that this time be fixed, either to go in effect at once or at some stated day hereafter?

Mr. SUMNER. I suggest to the Senator that we had better wait until it appears that the business will be advanced by it.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I move that Caleb H. Blood be allowed to withdraw the papers connected with his claim from the files of the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Senators have generally asked that when a request is made for an absolute withdrawal of papers some reason shall be stated.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think we ought to know whether there has been any adverse report.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I do not know. If there is, let copies be kept. Mr. PRATT.

report.

There has been an adverse

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I think they ought not to be withdrawn without copies, at any rate, being left.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from

Illinois objects.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I have no objection to copies being left.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the withdrawal on the condition that copies be left ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think the practice has been where an adverse report has been made not to allow the papers to be withdrawn, because it may result in their being presented a second time and the claim being allowed afterward without any knowledge of the former adverse report.

Mr. FLANAGAN. That is not the intention. There is no objection to copies being kept.

Mr. TRUMBULL. For what purpose is it desired to withdraw them?

Mr. FLANAGAN. To present to another Department a portion of them, as I understand.

Mr. TRUMBULL. After an adverse report has been made on papers that have been presented to Congress, it seems to me they ought not to be permitted to be withdrawn.

Mr. POMEROY. Our rule only extends to preventing their withdrawal for the sake of presenting them at another session; but any person can withdraw his papers; there is no rule of the body against withdrawing papers.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is a rule against it, I think, or a practice at any rate, where there has been an adverse report.

Mr. POMEROY. He cannot withdraw them for the purpose of submitting them again, but he can withdraw them. What is the ruling of the Chair?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The ruling is that by unanimous consent the Senate can grant the right to withdraw even if there was an adverse report, as the rule can be suspended by unanimous consent. The trouble in this case is that it devolves on the Secretary the making of copies. The rule has not been enforced heretofore that the petitioner shall have the copies made and left. Of course if numbers of these orders are granted by the Senate, and these papers are to be copied, the force of the Secretary's office ought to be increased. But the Chair understands there is no objection to this proposition.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I make the motion that if the papers in this case be withdrawn the petitioner be required to leave copies of them on the files.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, that order will be made. It is made.

On motion of Mr. RAMSEY, it was Ordered, That the bill (S. No. 1045) to quiet the title to certain lands in Dakota Territory, introduced on the 27th of April, be printed.

ELECTIONS IN IDAHO AND WASHINGTON.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The morning hour has expired, and the naval appropriation bill is before the Senate. The amendments made in Committee of the Whole have been concurred in in the Senate, and it remains in the Senate open to further amendment.

Mr. NYE. I move that that bill be inform ally laid aside for the purpose of taking up and considering House bill No. 1030.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nevada asks that the naval appropriation bill be informally passed over, subject to a demand for the regular order, that the Senate may consider the bill alluded to.

Mr. CORBETT. I should like to give my reasons why that bill should not be taken up. Two or three years ago we ascertained that fraudulent voting was being practiced between the Territories of Idaho and Washington, and the State of Oregon, they holding their elections at different times from what we did in the State of Oregon.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state to the Senator from Oregon, without making any point of order upon these remarks, which he is perfectly willing should be submitted to the Senate, that the question now is on granting unanimous consent to consider the bill named by the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CORBETT. I wish simply to state briefly why I object to taking up the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oregon asks unanimous consent to state his objections to this bill. The Chair has no objection himself.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the Senator from Oregon ought either to object or not.

Mr. CORBETT. I objected to taking up the bill and would like to give my reasons for it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The objection is absolute. That removes the matter from the consideration of the Senate; but if debate be allowed on one side, the Senator must see that the Senator from Nevada would have the opportunity of replying before the question could be decided as to whether there was consent or not.

Mr. NYE. I move now to lay the pending appropriation bill on the table for the purpose of considering House bill No. 1030.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That motion is in order, and is undebatable. The Senator from Nevada moves that the naval appropriation bill be laid on the table, stating that if that motion prevails he will move to take up House bill No. 1030.

Mr. CORBETT. What would be the effect of making a motion lay that motion on the table?

That motion

The VICE PRESIDENT. cannot be made. A motion to lay on the table cannot be laid on the table. It is an independent motion which must be decided by itself. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada to lay the naval appropriation bill on the table.

The motion was agreed to-ayes thirty-four, noes not counted.

Mr. NYE. I move now to proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 1030.

Mr. CORBETT. Upon that motion I will give my reasons why this bill should not be

taken up.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Before the Senator proceeds the Chair will state that by the eleventh rule debate on the merits is not to be entertained on this motion; but, as he stated yesterday, if any point is made by a Senator he will submit to the Senate the question what they consider to be the merits of the bill, as he seems to differ from some Senators on that point.

Mr. CORBETT. Well, I will give my reasons afterward.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada to take up the bill named by him.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 1030) to regulate elections in Washington and Idaho Territo ries. The bill provides that elections in the Territories of Washington and Idaho for Delagates to the House of Representatives of the Forty Third Congress shall be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 1872, and thereafter biennially on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November; and that all elective territorial, county, and precinct officers shall hereafter be elected at the times herein specified, unless otherwise provided by legislation subsequent hereto, in either of these Territories.

Mr. CORBETT. My objection to the taking up of this bill is, first, that it does not have the approval of the committee to whom it was referred, the Committee on Territories, it having been reported without recommendation. I was before the committee as were the Delegates from these Territories, and we submitted our views upon this question. The bill passed the House without opposition, no one being there to represent the Republican side in the State of Oregon to oppose the bill.

About three years ago, ascertaining that frauds were committed between the Territories of Idaho and Washington and the State of Oregon, Congress passed an act compelling these Territories to hold their elections upon the same date with the election held in Oregon. It was ascertained that, they holding their elections at a different time from our State, frauds were committed. We passed a bill, when my late colleague, Senator Williams, was in the Senate, to prevent this; and since the passage of that law we believe to a great extent those frauds have been prevented. We believe that it is improper to change the law from the fact that if we do it gives an opportunity to men east of the mountains, where there is not a Republican precinct on the border of Oregon, to cross the line and vote in Oregon as formerly; and our people there object to the change of this law. was necessary three years ago to pass this law, it is certainly necessary at this time, to prevent any change in it when it has proved effective thus far. I hope that the Senate will not repeal a law that has been enacted after due consideration and thorough examination, when it is evidently as necessary to retain the law now as it was to pass it originally.

If it

I should like very much, if I could consistently, to accommodate the Delegates from Idaho and Washington who desire this change simply for the purpose I believe of canvassing those Territories; but at the same time we must consider that the purity of elections in Oregon is a matter of importance. A Representative to Congress is there to be elected on the first Monday in June. As I understand, our convention has been held and the election is to take place. Both parties have entered the field and are canvassing the State. The convention in Washington Territory has also been held; the Delegate has been nominated, and he desires to canvass that Territory. He has time now to go and make the canvass of the Territory; and changing this time of election will only throw us back and enable those people who have committed these frauds hereto.

We

fore to commit them again on the border of our State. This I desire to prevent. desire nothing but an honest election in our State. If it is wrong to compel them to hold their election at the same time with ours, so that we may have an honest election, then it is proper to repeal this law. But if we desire an honest election, there is no reason why they should not hold their election at the same time that the State of Oregon holds her election; and for that reason I hope the law will not be changed or repealed.

I think I have stated the case fairly. The Senator from Nevada of course feels it is his duty to call up this bill, being the chairman of the Committee on Territories. I presume that he has no interest in the bill, and therefore cannot be actuated by any motives to do us injustice in Oregon. I hope that the bill will not be passed.

Mr. KELLY. I had not intended to say anything or but little on this bill; but as it is alleged that frauds have taken place at the elections in Oregon by importing voters from these Territories, I will say that I differ with my colleague in that respect; and as the best evidence of it I will mention that four years ago the State was entirely Republican; then we voted upon a different day from these Territories; but ever since the passage of the bill fixing their election on the same day as ours Oregon has been a Democratic State. So, I think, if frauds were committed, they were committed by the friends of my colleague. I will not charge it, however. I will simply say that so far as the Territory of Idaho is concerned the nearest polling place in Oregon to that Territory where votes are cast is one hundred miles, except a single precinct, known as Jordan Valley precinct, which is some fifteen or sixteen miles from the Idaho line and casts perhaps a dozen votes, not more.

Mr. CORBETT. I should like to correct my colleague. I believe previous to the passage of this law the Democrats carried the State by twelve hundred and fifty votes, and after its passage the Democrats carried the State by about three hundred and fifty to four hundred votes at the last election. So it is evident that the Democratic majority was very much reduced after the passage of this lawabout eight hundred votes.

At

Mr. KELLY. It was somewhat reduced for member of Congress; but so far as the Governor was concerned, in 1866 the Democratic candidate came within four hundred and sixtythree votes of being elected, but he was defeated and the whole ticket was defeated. the next election two years afterward, in 1868, the Democracy triumphed. In 1870 they car ried the State; our candidate for Congress had a less majority than at the preceding election, but our candidate for Governor had some six hundred majority.

I repeat that there is not a voting place in Oregon nearer than one hundred miles to the Idaho line except a single precinct that casts about a dozen or fifteen votes, so that there is no likelihood of fraud being committed there where they know every voter.

Again, I will suggest that if the object of this bill be to facilitate fraud, as seems to be insinuated, why fix it for the presidential election, when every voter will be required at home in Oregon? If this will keep away imported voters from the State of Oregan at the presidential election, then we ought to carry the State by a greater majority than we would carry it in June, because it will keep away voters in Washington Territory that would come to Oregon at the time the presidential election is held and vote there. If this bill be passed it will keep them there, it will keep fraudulent votes out of Oregon.

Mr. NYE. It is proper, perhaps, that I should state the exact facts in relation to this bill. Prior to 1859 the elections in both these Territories were held in the fall of the year.

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. CORBETT ] tells us that the reason it was changed was that it was thought frauds were perpetrated upon the Oregon elections, they being held at a different time, and that was one of the issues before the committee that reported back this bill. I became satisfied that there was a good deal of imagination about this idea of fraud, and I think so still.

There are one or two things that should be considered in relation to the time of holding these elections. In the first place, the Territories of Idaho and Washington are peculiar in three or four ways. They are peculiar in their formation, peculiar in their products, peculiar in their seasons, and I do not know but that I might add somewhat peculiar in their people. In the month of June, taking the north and northwestern portion of Idaho, the spring is just opening, and it is a mining region to some extent. The water is in that condition that only for a short time can it be used for that purpose.

Perhaps, taking both Territories conjointly and as a whole, there is no month of the year that the people can as profitably and importantly busy themselves as in the month of June. This election coming in the month of June takes them away from their business, which they bave completed by fall to a great extent, and in that way enables them to make their election more convenient and less expensive. I suppose the object is to make their elections as convenient as possible for them. They have fixed their own territorial elections and they have fixed them in the fall for members of their Legislature. Congress changed it to the day that the Oregon elections were held with a view to the purpose of which my friend from Oregon nearest me [Mr. CORBETT] speaks. On this question we made some considerable inquiry, and the Delegates from both Territeries, one a Republican from Washington Territory and the other a Democrat from Idaho Territory, agree in the fact that they think all this idea of fraud is imaginary and made the statement substantially that the Senator from Oregon farthest from me [Mr. KELLY] makes, that the obstacles are so great as to make it almost impossible that any effort of that kind should be made.

I called up this bill to-day because if the elections are to be had in June if the law remains unchanged the Delegates have but about twelve or fourteen days to make their canvass for their election. They have to go home, and it would not leave them over a fort night to go over these difficult and large extended Territories. The testimony of both the Delegates is that they think my friend from Oregon [Mr. CORBETT] labors under a hallucination about fraud being perpetrated. I do not see how it could be to any extent. They ask to have the election changed back to the original time.

There is one further consideration. By a general law passed at this session, including Delegates as well as Representatives in Congress, the time of election is fixed from 1876 and afterward on the same day throughout the United States in November. This bill is to fill up the vacuum between, and with that view it is submitted.

Mr. CORBETT. It had been stated to the committee, or to some members of the committee, that the present law was enacted simply on account of some difference between the former Democratic Delegate and my former colleague, and that there was no reason for the law. I addressed the Attorney General a letter upon this subject to ask him whether it was his judgment, and I ask that the Clerk read the letter of Attorney General Williams, which I send to the desk.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WASHINGTON, March 13, 1872. DEAR SIR: I have just received your letter of yesterday, in which you say that it has been represented 42D CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 186.

to the Committee on Territories that the law passed by Congress compelling the Territories of Washington and Idaho to hold their elections in June on the same day the election is held in Oregon was passed simply because I had a personal quarrel with the former Delegate from Idaho, Mr. Holbrook, and because he threatened to defeat me: and that there is no good reason for the retention of the law.

You ask me to explain the reasons for the passage of that act, and whether or not, in my opinion, there is any necessity for its continuance.

I have to say, in answer, that the law was passed because it was represented to me that citizens from Idaho and Washington Territories voted at our elections, and that in those precincts where the Democrats bad control the law of the State was not observed as to persons supporting the Democratic ticket. I was advised, and believe, that more than one hundred votes from Washington Territory were polled in the North Portland precinct for the Democratic candidate for Congress at the June election, in 1868. I was also told that persons from Idaho voted in those precincts in Oregon adjoining that Territory, and have good reason to believe that the representations, to some extent, were correct. So far as I know, the Democrats are as much disposed now as they ever were to disregard the law governing elections in Oregon, and I am sure that there were frauds committed by that party at the last June election in that State. I have no grounds for supposing that the necessities for the law have ceased to exist.

Yours, &c.,

GEO. W. WILLIAMS.

Hon. H. W. CORBETT, United States Senate.

Mr. CORBETT. It will be seen by the letter of Attorney General Williams that he is still of opinion that it is necessary this law should remain on the statute-book, and that it is important that it should so remain to prevent frauds in Oregon from these Territories. I submit to the Senate whether under this statement it is right to change the law, when the law simply provides that we may have honest elections by holding them in Oregon and in these Territories on the same day, so that Democrats cannot come across and vote in our precincts on the eastern side of the mountains. Let the elections be upon a different day, and with those precincts all in the hands of the Democrats we are likely to be overrun. I appeal to the Senate not to pass this bill, but to let us hold the elections as now at the same time, and thereby have fair elections. We ask nothing more than a fair election, and I trust the Senate will not adopt this bill. I hope it will be voted down.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. CORBETT. I move to lay the bill upon the table, and I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. NYE. I hope that will not be done.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. COLE. On all questions that arise on this bill I am paired with the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. SPRAGUE.] who is absent from the Chamber. He would vote "nay," and I should vote "yea."

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 15. nays 28; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Boreman, Chandler, Clayton, Corbett, Edmunds. Ferry of Connecticut, Flanagan, Hamlin, Osborn, Pool, Pratt, Ramsey, Sherman, and Sumner-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Casserly, Conkling, Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Hamilton of Maryland, Hill, Hitchcock. Howe, Johnston, Kellogg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Nye, Rice, Saulsbury, Scott, Spencer. Stevenson, Stockton, Trumbull, Vickers, Wilson, Windom, and Wright-28.

ABSENT-Messrs. Alcorn, Blair, Brownlow, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Cole, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Texas, Harian, Lewis, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ranson, Robertson, Sawyer, Schurz, Sprague, Stewart, Thurman, Tipton, and West-31.

So the motion was not agreed to.

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

Mr. MORTON subsequently moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and the motion was entered.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills;

in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 183) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make partition of the reservation to Me-shin-go-me-sia, a Miami Indian;

A bill (H. R. No. 239) authorizing the award to the Vincennes University of certain vacant and abandoned lands in Knox county, Indi

ana;

A bill (H. R. No. 872) to provide for the sale of certain New York Indian lands in Kansas;

A bill (H. R. No. 1841) authorizing the removal of restrictions upon the alienation of certain Miami Indian lands in the State of Kansas:

A bill (H. R. No. 2264) to authorize the Cattaraugus and Alleghany Indians, in New York, to lease lands and confirm leases; and A bill (H. R. No. 2290) regulating the mode of making private contracts with Indians.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. COLE. I move that the Senate resume the consideration of the naval appropriation bill.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1191) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. STEWART in the chair.) The amendments reported by the Committee on Appropriatic as have all been agreed to, and the bill is now before the Senate and open to further amendment.

Mr. CRAGIN. I move to amend the bill on page 20, line four hundred and sixtyeight, by striking out “$1,200” and inserting "$1,500;" so that the clause will read: "clerk of store-houses, $1,500."

Mr. COLE. I hope that amendment will not be agreed to. I do not think it ought

to be.

Mr. CRAGIN. This relates to the salary Charlestown, Massachusetts. I have here a of the clerk of store-houses at the navy-yard at

communication from one of the officers of that yard, stating that this salary ought to be increased to $1,500. The Secretary of the Navy has recommended it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Have you got the recommendation?

Mr. CRAGIN. I have not, but this communication states:

"In the report of the Secretary of the Navy this year, he recommends that the salary be restored to $1,500. The salary of the store-house clerk in the smaller establishments exceeds that in this yard, and the responsibility of the clerk here exceeds by far that of the other yards."

It would be no more than just that this salary should be increased, in my judgment. I have no feeling about it. The Secretary recommended it in his annual report.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to have that recommendation read.

Mr. CRAGIN. I should have said the head of the bureau.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is quite a different thing.

Mr. COLE. This is simply an increase of salary of the clerk of that yard, and will of course result in raising the salaries of these clerks in other places as well. This amendment, if adopted, of course will afford a leverage of raising them all, and there are quite a number of them. I do not care about arguing it, but I think the salary had better be left as it is.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRAGIN. On page 11, line two hundred and thirty-seven, after the word "thou. sand," I move to insert the words "two hundred;" so that it will read, "for writer to receiver and inspector of stores, $1,200.'' This is an increase of $200. The salary of this officer was $1,500 up to within two years.

Two years ago it was reduced to $1,000 by the action of Congress.

Mr. POMEROY. What does he have to do?

Mr. CRAGIN. He acts as clerk to the receiver and inspector of stores. I know about the matter there myself personally, and I think $1,200 is no more than the salary should be. Even that is a reduction of $300 from the former salary.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Where is that? Mr. CRAGIN. At the Portsmouth navyyard.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Have you any recommendation from the Secretary for that?

Mr. CRAGIN. I have not.

Mr. EDMUNDS. All offices of that character ought to be abolished entirely.

Mr. COLE. This service can really be performed by an enlisted man. The officer is called "writer to the receiver and inspector of stores."

I suppose $1,000 will pay for services adequate to that duty, and I suppose there is no occasion for raising this salary any more than the one we have just voted upon.

Mr. CRAGIN. These are the only amendments that the committee have recommended for increasing salaries. As I have stated before, this salary two years ago was $1,500. The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRAGIN. I offer the following amend

ment:

For experiments to determine if the present smooth-bore guns of the Navy may not be advantageously converted into rifles, $40,000; this amount to cover all the cost of guns, carriages, projectives, iron plates for targets, and powder necessary to make the experiments.

I send to the Chair the recommendation of the Department, which I ask to have read. The Chief Clerk read as follows:

NAVY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 4, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to recommend that an amendment be inserted in the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the next fiscal year, appropriating $40,000 to enable the Department to purchase two special, large, trial guns, and to conduct a series of experiments for the purpose of determining practically whether the present smoothbore guns of the Navy can be increased in efficiency and strength by rifling, and by the use of a new projectile, with a view of obtaining more reliable endurance, longer range, better precision, and a greater power of penetrating iron plating.

A plan for this purpose has been laid before the Department, which is claimed to possess such merit that it is deemed desirable to submit it to a full and complete comparative test.

The sum named is, by the terms of the proposal, to cover the entire cost of the two new fifteen-inch guns necessary one of them to be rifled-together with all the projectiles, powder, iron plates for targets, carriages, and appliances required for the entire test. The proposed expenditure is much below the usual cost attending similar experiments, and may result in enabling us to improve and utilize such of our present stock of guns as we may wish at a trifling outlay per gun.

The importance of obtaining for the Navy large rifled guns of great power and certain endurance is believed to fully warrant the Department in asking for the appropriation herein recommended.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. M. ROBESON, Secretary of the Navy. Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD, Chairman Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives.

OFFICE OF THE ADMIRAL. WASHINGTON, D. C., April 5, 1872. SIR: The attention of officers in the Navy is at present drawn to the plan of Mr. Norman Wiard for converting our heavy smooth-bores into rifled guns at an expense so moderate for each gun that the Navy can be placed in a much more efficient position than it has been for a long time past, and with a future prospect of at least being able to compete with the ravies of some of the smaller Powers.

Mr. Wiard tells me that he is in hopes that an appropriation of $40,000 will be made to carry on experiments with his fifteen-inch guns, and I sincerely trust that Congress will grant the means necessary to carry out these most important experiments, which, if they succeed, as I am quite sanguine will be the case, will save millions to the country hereafter. Should the plan prove successful, we shall have what no other nation possesses, a combined rifle and smooth-bore gun.

Should the guns fail in the experiment, we should still derive important information from the trial,

and shall not have expended one tenth of the amount annually appropriated by the English and French Governments in trials of ordnance.

Hoping that you will give your hearty support to this important matter, I remain, very respectfully,

yours,

DAVID D. PORTER, Admiral. Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD, Chairman Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Mr. CRAGIN. This sum will not begin to cover the cost to the inventor, Mr. Wiard. He furnishes all the necessary apparatus for this trial. He expects to use two hundred thousand pounds of powder, which, at a cost of twenty five cents a pound, will amount to $50,000, more than the whole of this appropriation. The officers in the Bureau of Ordnance and the Department are very sanguine in relation to this experiment. If it is a successful one, it will be one in the interest of economy, very much so, for the Navy Department have a large number of smooth-bore guns which can be converted into rifles by this process, if the experiment is a successful one, at very small cost.

Mr. TRUMBULL. As I understood the letter that was read, it was stated that if this was a successful experiment it would enable us to have a navy that would be able to compete with the navies of some of the smaller Powers. I should like to get a navy that would enable us to compete with the navies of the larger Powers, because we are likely to get into a difficulty with some of the larger as the smaller Powers.

as

Mr. ANTHONY. I can tell the Senator what it will cost. It will cost what Congress constantly refuses to appropriate. The reason we have not a proper and efficient navy is because Congress refuses to appropriate money for it. You cannot have a navy without paying for it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. After that statement of the Senator from Rhode Island, who I know is posted, I should like to inquire of him how many million dollars we have appropriated since the war closed in 1865 for the Navy? I should like to know whether it is one or two hundred million dollars, and if it is $200,000,000, I should like to know why we have not got a navy?

Mr. ANTHONY. We have appropriated money to keep the Navy afloat.

Mr. TRUMBULL. How much?

Mr. ANTHONY. I have not the figures before me. We have appropriated money to pay the men and the officers, to pay for provisions, and for such armament as has been necessary. We have appropriated almost literally nothing for increasing the Navy. We had a navy that answered very well the purposes of the war of the rebellion because we had no efficient navy to cope with; but if we should measure our Navy against the navy of some foreign Power that had the means of putting on foot an efficient navy, we should find we had lost very much by our niggardly policy, in which, I am sorry to say, my friend from Illinois has coöperated. We have tried here time after time to get appropriations through that are recommended by the Secretary, that are recommended by the Admiral, that are recommended by all those persons who under stand the Navy, who are best acquainted with the Navy, the men to whom we have intrusted the administration of the Navy, appropriations for experiments and for construction, and they have been voted down continually in Congress. If the time should ever come when the policy which we have pursued toward the Navy is brought to a hostile test, I think the American people will hold us responsible for the nig gardly policy which we have pursued. 1 believe now that the best economy, the best thing for peace would be to vote very much more liberal appropriations for the Navy than have been asked for.

Why, sir, we have vessels afloat now that were built forty years ago, and that are good apparently, so far as their endurance is con

cerned-of course their construction is infe

rior-for forty years to come. Nearly every vessel that we built during the war is good for nothing. The reason is that at the beginning of the war we had no materials to build vessels with, and could not obtain them; and there could not be to-day a more economical thing than for this Government to appropriate $3,000,000 for the purchase of live-oak timber to be put in store and preserved for the construction of vessels whenever we shall build them. To plate iron upon green timber, as we were obliged to do during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, is just to build vessels to last two or three years. When the Dunderberg was sold to France, if the French Government had not laid out more than a million dollars upon her, the wood in her would not have been fit for tooth-picks by this time; it was in a decaying condition.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that the Senator from Rhode Island, who takes such an interest in the Navy, is not able to give us some of the figures in regard to the navy. He speaks of our niggardly policy, but is not able to tell us whether $100,000,000 or $200 000,000 have been expended upon the Navy since the close of the war. He tells us that money has been spent to pay the officers and for supplies. But, Mr. President, millions and tens of millions of doliars have been ap propriated and used by the Navy Department since the close of the war for no such purpose as paying the men and buying provisions, and what have we got to show for it?

The Senator from Rhode Island wants more experiments tried. Do you want another experiment like that of the Tennessee? That was one of the experiments, was it? How much did the machinery put into the Tennes see cost? I think something less than a million dollars.

Mr. ANTHONY. Who put it in?

Mr. TRUMBULL. It was done under the direction of the Navy Department, and I understand that that which cost more than half a million dollars sold for old iron at perhaps thirty or forty thousand dollars. There is one of the experiments. The Senator from Rhode Island wants to repeat them, and complains of our niggardly policy, and cannot tell us within $50,000,000 to-day how much money the Navy Department has had since the close of the war.

war.

He complains of the vessels built during the What has been done with the tens of millions that have been appropriated to the Navy since the war? What is there to show for it? Old iron taken out of vessels that you appropriated more than half a million dollars for. I think, instead of talking about the nig gardly policy that has been pursued toward the Navy Department, the Senator from Rhode Island should tell us what has become of the millions of money that have been appropriated for that Department, if we have got no Navy now, as he says.

Mr. HAMLIN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. HAMLIN. It is very easy to make broad, unsupported declarations here. I will thank the Senator, and the country will thank the Senator when he will point out where tens of millions have been appropriated for the Navy outside of its ordinary equipment and maintenance since the war. I stand here to say that it has not been done. Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know what the Senator calls "ordinary equipment." I undertake to say that more than ten million dollars and more than twenty million dollars have been appropriated to the Navy that was not used for the payment of the men or the ordinary supplies of the Navy.

Mr. HAMLIN. Show your figures, and dc not ask us to take your word for it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator is ad