eration of the bill. I shall endeavor at a subsequent stage of the bill to test the sense of the House on this proposition.

The amendment was not agreed to. The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill. The twenty-first section was read, as follows:

SEC. 21. That no money on account of pension shall be paid to the widow, children, or heirs of any deceased person who in any manner voluntarily engaged in or aided or abetted the late rebellion against the authority of the United States.

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. I wish to ask the gentleman having charge of this bill a question with reference to the construction of the section just read. There were a great many persons who enlisted in the rebel army and afterward enlisted in the Union Army: does this twenty-first section deprive such persons or their survivors of the right to a pension?

Mr. MOORE. Oh, no, sir. The fact of their having been soldiers of our Army and having been wounded or killed in the service would bring them within the provisions of the pension laws.

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. I supposed that was the intention of the committee. Mr. MOORE. That was understood. The next section was read, as follows: SEC. 22. That no pension claim heretofore filed, or which may hereafter be filed, unless the same shall have been prosecuted to a successful issue within five years of the date of such filing, shall be admitted without satisfactory record evidence from the War or Navy Department establishing that the cause of death, or the wound or disease which caused the disability of the person on whose account the pension is claimed, originated in the service and line of duty: Provided, That upon presentation of parol evidence regarded by the Commissioner of Pensions as satisfactorily showing that the record evidence is probably erroneous or insufficient, he shall submit the same to the War Department, and upon change of the record, though the term of limitation shall have expired, the claim shall be reopened: Provided further, That upon the reception of evidence of service in any claim hereafter filed in the Pension Office, the claimant or attorney for the claim shall be at once notified of every defieiency in said claim; and in all claims heretofore filed and now pending the same notification shall be made.

Mr. STORM. I move to amend by inserting after the word "wound," in the sixth line of the section just read, the word "injury." This is in conformity with amendments which have been adopted in a previous section. The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 30. That in all cases where reasonable doubts arise respecting the right of any claimant to a pension from statements of any kind under oath or otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Pensions to immediately, by letter, notify the said claimant, his agent, or attorney, of the name or names of the person or persons furnishing the information upon which such doubts are founded, and also of the facts alleged against the said claimant.

Mr. MOORE. The Committee on Invalid Pensions report a new section to come in at this place.

The Clerk read as follows:

Sac. 31. That the President shall appoint in the Department of the Interior, by and with the advice of the Senate, a competent person who shall be called the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, with an annual salary of $2,500, who shall be charged with such duties in the Pension Bureau as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, or as may be required by law; and in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the Commissioner, his duties shall devolve on the Deputy Commissioner until a successor shall be appointed or such absence or sickness shall cease.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 31. That the Commissioner of Pensions is hereby authorized and empowered to detail, from time to time, clerks in his office to investigate suspected attempts at fraud on the Government of the United States, through and by virtue of the provisions of this or any other act of Congress providing for pensions, and to aid in prosecuting any person so offending, with such additional compensation as is customary in cases of special service; and that any person so detailed shall have the power to administer oaths and take affidavits in the course of any such investigation.

Mr. MOORE. That section ought to be

man of the committee, that he may make his

SEC. 33. That no agent or attorney shall demand or receive any other compensation for his services in prosecuting a claim for pension or bounty land than such as the Commissioner of Pensions shall direct to be paid to him, not exceeding twenty-five dollars; and any agent or attorney who shall wrongfully withhold from a pensioner or claimant the whole or any part of the pension or claim allowed and due such pensioner or claimant shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall for every such offense be fined not exceeding 500, or imprisoninent at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Mr. HALE. I offer the following amendment, which I have no doubt there will be no objection to. I move to insert in the fifth line of the section, after the word "attorney," the words or any other person instrumental in the prosecution of any claim for pension and bounty land;" and also in line eight, after the word

،،

claimant," the words "or land warrant issued to any such claimant." The idea is to complete the sense of the section. It provides for punishment in the cases of bounty or pen sion claims, but does not provide for punish ment in the cases of bounty land warrants.

Mr. MOORE. I have no objection to that amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONGER. I ask the chairman of the Committee on Invalid Pensions why should a fee of twenty-five dollars be allowed for prosecuting the claim to a pension for eight dollars a month?

Mr. MOORE. This has been the law for a considerable period of time. Previous to that the law was still more liberal toward claims agents. Under the administration of the former chairman of the Committee on Invalid Pensions this law limiting the fee was passed providing it should not extend beyond twentyfive dollars; and it was so enacted for the purpose of protecting these claimants for pensions. The ruling of the Department has been generally to award ten dollars; but sometimes there are cases of exceeding intricacy, which require an unusual amount of effort to secure a pension at all. In these cases where there is much intricacy and a good deal of labor required to work up the claim, although the claim is a just one, the Commissioner of Pensions has the discretion to allow the fee to extend as high as twenty five dollars. There is no danger of the Commissioner of Pensions ever permitting the fee granted to these claims agents to be too much.

Mr. CONGER. I will not make a motion in regard to it, but I desire to say to the chairman of the committee and to the House that it seems to me where the provision of law is plain and clear, and the forms prepared so carefully, there should not be permitted by the order of the Commissioner one half or one quarter or one eighth of the small pittance given the pensioner to go to the claims agents.

These claims agents are a nuisance to the pensioner and to the country, as well as to the law granting these pensions. It has gone on from year to year to such an extent that these pensioners, whose relief is intended by Congress, do not get more than one half of what the law allows them, the balance going to the benefit of these claims agents.

Now, I had hopes that such a provision as that would specify exactly the particular cases in which the highest compensation would be allowed, and not leave it to the discretion of anybody.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not understand that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CONGER] is speaking to any

motion.

remark.

Mr. MOORE. While it is true that there are many wrong things done by claim agents, and while I have no disposition at all to enter upon their defense, I will state here that there are thousands and tens of thousands in this country who never would have had a pension but for the enterprise of claim agents. And very frequently the claim agents in seeking up the evidences of the claims of poor and ob scure persons do an amount of work that an attorney would not in other cases do for double the amount of pay. The Commissioner of Pensions is exceedingly strict, and so is the Department of the Interior, in awarding the This section requires that he shail not allow any claim agents, under any circumstances, to have more than twenty-five dollars; and under ordinary circumstances he rules them down to ten dollars. I do not think it would be proper to make a change in this provision. It was inserted after due examination of the whole circumstances of the case, and in accordance with the provisions of a previous act of Congress. I hope that the amendment will not prevail, and I trust the gentleman from Michigan himself will see that my view of the case is a correct one.

amount.

Mr. CONGER. Having yielded to the chairman of the committee, as I am always ready to do on proper occasions, I wish to make a remark or two myself.

Mr. Speaker, even during the last winter I have in twenty-five or thirty cases received letters from persons claiming pensions calling my attention to the fact that their agents, with whom they had left their claims, had not only neglected their duty, had not only neglected to present their claims, but had in several instances refused to proceed further without payment. And on my writing a letter to the Department, inquiring into the condition of the claim, or going myself, as I have frequently done, to the Department to ascertain its condition, I have found in a great many cases that the very last communication on the subject has been one from the Department to the claim agent notifying him that some particular portion of evidence was lacking in that case; and that letter still remaining in the hands of the agent, months in some cases have elapsed while the claim has been lying idle; and on presenting the matter to the Commissioner and sending to the claimant himself, within the next two or three weeks the proof has come and the claim has been allowed.

In my judgment, the agent who has charge of the claims of pensioners in nine cases out of ten has been the cause of the delay and of the neglect of the Department in not having the claim passed and the pension granted, while the claimant has been waiting, wearily waiting, for months and for years, blaming the Department and blaming the Government because a just claim was not allowed. I withdraw my amendment.

The Clerk read the following section: SEC. 38. That the Commissioner of Pensions be authorized to organize, at his discretion, boards of examining surgeons, not to exceed three members, and that each member of a board thus organized who shall have been actually present and made, in connection with the other members or member, an ordered or periodical examination, shall be entitled to the fee of one dollar, on the receipt of a proper certificate of said examination by the Commissjoner of Pensions.

Mr. HALE. I offer the following amendment to come in at the end of that section. The Clerk read as follows:

And from and after the 1st day of July next the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions shall be $4,000.

Mr. HALE. I only wish to say a word in favor of this amendment, which I hope will commend itself to the justice of this House, and that is that we are all the time adding to the burdens of the Commissioner of Pensions; he has more work and more responsibility to

day than some Cabinet officers. The very revision of the pension laws adds to his responsi bilities and duties. I hope the amendment will be adopted by the House.

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. I would inquire if the amendment offered does not propose to raise the salary of the Commissioner $1,000 a year.

Mr. HALE. That is it. Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. This bill provides a new officer in the Pension Bureau to be known as the deputy commissioner, which would seem to be a relief to the Commissioner of Pensions in the discharge of his duties, and it seems to me that although the duties of the Pension Office may be increased under the provisions of this act and former acts, yet from the fact that this law provides a deputy commissioner, it is scarcely proper now to increase the compensation of the Commis. sioner of Pensions $1,000 per annum.

Mr. HALE. The appointment of a deputy Commissioner of Pensions will undoubtedly relieve the Commissioner of certain clerical work, but everybody having business with the Departments knows that the final responsibility in contested cases comes upon the head of the bureau or department. The creation of this new office does not relieve the Commissioner of any of his responsibilities. The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the fortieth section, as follows:

SEC. 40. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, authorized to appoint a duly qualified surgeon as medical referee, who, under the control and direction of the Commissioner of Pensions, shall have charge of the examination and revision of the reports of examining surgeons, and such other duties touching medical and surgical questions in the Pension Office as the interest of the service may demand; and his salary shall be $2,500 per annum. And the Secretary of the Interior is further authorized to appoint such additional qualified surgeons (not exceeding four) as the exigencies of the service may require, who may perform the duties of examining surgeons when so required, and who shall be borne upon the rolls as clerks of the fourth class.

Mr. STORM. I desire to offer as an additional section, to come in as section forty-one, the following:

SEC. 41. That in all cases where the Commissioner of Pensions shall receive any letter or letters, or evidence referring to any claim and adverse to it, from any person other than the claimant or his attorney, said Commissioner shall on the receipt of such letter, or letters or evidence, furnish a copy of the same to the claimant or his attorney.

Mr. MOORE. I would say to the gentleman that he is not probably aware that there is already a provision in the bill which provides for that very thing.

Mr. STORM. I was not, and I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. I would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MOORE] what these additional qualified surgeons, not exceeding four, provided for in section forty, are required for?

Mr. MOORE. They are examiners and clerks of the fourth class. They are borne on the rolls, and it is only adding additional strength to the bureau.

Mr. McCORMICK, of Missouri. All right. Mr. MOORE. I offer the following as an additional section, to come in after section forty:

SEC. 41. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner of Pensions is hereby authorized to cause to be published, on or about the 1st day of July, biennially, in such newspaper as he may select in the locality of each pension agency, a list of the pensioners payable at that agency, and the expense of said publication shall be payable out of the general fund, upon the order of the Commissioner of Pensions.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NIBLACK. I desire to move amendment to section three of this bill.

an

Mr. DICKEY. I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MOORE] to go back to section one of this bill in order to amend it so that it will correspond with other sections that have been amended.

Mr. MOORE. There will be time for that.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] gave notice some time since that he had some amendments to offer.

Mr. NIBLACK. I move to amend section three by striking out the first words of the section, "that the pension for a permanent specific disability named or described in this section shall," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "that the pension for permanent specific disabilities, and others of equivalent se verity, shall, during continuance in the degree specified;" so that it will read:

That the pension for permanent specific disabilities, and others of equivalent severity, shall, during continuance in the degree specified, be as follows. &c.

According to the present law a full pension can be granted only in cases of permanent disability, which is usually construed to be the loss of a limb, or some wound upon the body, from which it is physically impossible for a person to recover. But it excludes a class of persons injured during their service in the Army, and who are just as much disabled and just as much entitled to the bounty and assist ance of the Government, while the disability

continues, as are persons who are totally disabled beyond all possibility of recovery.

I will refer more particularly to a case which has been brought to my attention, and which I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MOORE] will concede is a very strong one. In 1868 a disabled soldier applied for a pen

sion.

Both of his lower limbs had been paralyzed from the effects of a fall from his horse while in the service. He could not lift his feet from the ground, and he has not been able to do so since that time. He has to drag himself about, or be helped from place to place. He is as helpless almost as an infant for many purposes. And yet because the examining surgeon reports that persons who are paralyzed sometimes recover, and that this is a case where there may possibly be a recovery, his claim for a pension of twenty-five dollars per month is rejected, and he is remanded back to a pension of eight dollars per month, he having been pensioned at a time when eight dollars per month was the highest pension allowed to those of his rank and position in the service, he having received but six dollars per month at first. Instead of being allowed twenty-five dollars a month for total disability, as anybody must say he would be entitled to, he is allowed only eight dollars per month. Yet he is perfectly helpless-more so than if he had

lost both his feet.

Now, my amendment provides that in case of total or equivalent disability the pension shall be the same during the continuance of the disability as in the case of one who is permanently disabled. I think it is but a matter of common justice and humanity, whenever there shall be cases of that sort, to give the pension so long as the total disability exists. It ought to be at the highest rate, just as much as if the man's head had been taken off, if it were possible for him to continue to live in that condition.

Mr. MOORE. I think I can relieve my friend from any apprehension in regard to this section, which I am of opinion cannot be improved. If the gentleman will notice, it provides

That the pension for a permanent specific disability named or described in this section shall be as follows, namely: the loss of both hands, or total and permanent disability of the same; the loss of the sight of both eyes, or the loss of the sight of one eye, the sight of the other eye having previously been lost; the loss of both feet, or total and permanent disability of the same; or other total and permanent disability rendering the person utterly helpless, or so nearly so as to require the constant personal aid and attendance of another person, forty dollars per month, &c.

Mr. DICKEY. Make it "total or perma. nent disability."

Mr. MOORE. If the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] will give me his attention, I will say that if the person, as in the case he states, is totally paralyzed in both of his lower limbs, he is for the time totally disabled. This bill makes provision for the Commissioner c Pensions to examine every case, whenever he may see fit to do so, even those cases passed upon by special acts of Congress. The loss of both feet or equivalent disability is intended; that is what is meant by the bill-the loss of both feet, or total or permanent disability.

Mr. NIBLACK. Let us amend the first two lines as I propose, and we can afterward discuss the other point.

Mr. MOORE. I wish to say further that my friend is mistaken when he speaks of these pensions dropping back to eight dollars a month. Provision has been made for pensions at the rate of thirteen, twenty, thirty, and forty dollars per month, the pensions being graded according to the disability, so as to do equal and exact jus tice in every case. For instance, if a man does not appear to be sufficiently disabled to

justify his drawing twenty dollars a month and

yet the case is one of severe disability, the pension may be fixed at thirteen dollars a month, instead of eight dollars. I am clear in my opinion that the language "total or permanent disability" will meet the whole case, and I will readily assent to that amendment. Mr. NIBLACK. What is the objection to accepting the amendment which I have offered to the first two lines? I ask the Clerk to read the amendment again.

The Clerk read as follows:

Strike out the first two lines of section three down to and including the word shall" and insert the following:

That the pension for permanent specific disabilities and others of equivalent severity, shall, during continuance in the degree specified, be

Mr. MOORE. I will assent to that amendment. I see no special objection to it. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NIBLACK. I move further to amend by striking out in the third line the words "and permanent," so that the provision shall refer simply to "total disability."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NIBLACK. I move further to amend by striking out in the seventh line the words and permanent."

66

Mr. MOORE. I do not object to that.
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NIBLACK. I move to amend by striking out in line nine the word "constant" and inserting "regular" where the provision speaks of disability requiring "the constant personal aid and attendance of another per. son. In several cases which have come within my knowledge, where there has been practically total disability for any purpose of business, where a person has even been confined to his bed, it has been held by the examining surgeon that because the person did not require some one to be with him constantly day and night he did not come within the contemplation of this provision. I have therefore moved to amend by inserting regular" in place of "constant;" so that the phrase will read, "regular personal aid and attendance."

66

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NIBLACK. I ask the Clerk to read the first proviso of the third section. The Clerk read as follows:

Provided, That the pension for the loss of both

feet, both hands, or the sight of both eyes, shall not commence prior to the 4th day of July, 1864; that the pension for the loss of one foot and one hand shall not commence prior to the 3d day of March, 1865; and that the pension for any other disability herein designated shall not commence prior to the 6th day of June, 1866; and that the pension for loss of hearing of both ears, or other equivalent disability, shall not commence prior to the approval of this act.

Mr. NIBLACK. I ask the Clerk also to read the last proviso of the same section. The Clerk read as follows:

And provided further, That in no case shall the additional increases of pension provided for in this section take effect prior to the passage of this act.

Mr. NIBLACK. The point I make is that these two provisos are. inconsistent. I move to amend by striking out the last proviso.

Mr. STORM. I attempted to do that, but objection was made.

Mr. BIRD. This brings up a question which we discussed the other day, and the House decided not to strike out the provision. I hope the question will not be mooted again.

Mr. CONGER. I raise a point of order that the House has already voted upon this question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is well taken.

Mr. DICKEY. I move to amend the first section by inserting the words "or injury," after the word "wound," wherever it occurs. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONGER. There are several other places in the bill where the same amendment ought to be made.

66

MB. DICKEY. I move wherever the word "wound" occurs in the bill in the same connection to insert the words "or injury."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MOORE. I now demand the previous question on the bill as amended.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MOORE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

RETIREMENT OF JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT.

Kelley, widow of Daniel Kelley, second Tennessee volunteers, for a pension; and the same was laid on the table.

SPRINGFIELD ARMORY.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, in answer to a resolution of the House of February last, in relation to the operations of the United States armory at Springfield, in reference to the working of the eight and ten-hour systems there, &c.; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and ordered to be printed.

And then, on motion of Mr. DICKEY, (at nine o'clock and forty-five minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees:

By Mr. BURCHARD: The memorial of Richard Gregg, of Peoria, Illinois, for relief on account of spirits consumed by fire while in transitu.

By Mr. CHIPMAN: The petition of Alexander Ray and others, praying that the draws on Long Bridge be kept open so as not to impede or obstruct navigation.

By Mr. MOREY: The joint resolution of the Legislature of Louisiana, memorializing Con gress to refund the amount of the cotton and sugar collected throughout the southern States during the years 1865, 1866, and 1867.

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: The petition of W. H. Lumpkin, D. M. Tidwell, and L. Mino Bently, of Lawrence county, Tennessee, for removal of their political disabilities.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, May 14, 1872.

The House met at eleven o'clock a. m. Prayer by Rev. Dr. RANKIN.

The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of yesterday.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I move the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with so that the gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] may have an opportunity to report back from the Committee on Appropriations the amendments of the Senate to the naval

will consume but a few minutes, and we might as well dispose of them at once.

MARY E. SHELTON.

Mr. BIRD, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill (H. R. No. 2770) granting a pension to Mary E. Shelton; which was read a first and second time.

The bill, which was read, provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall be authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Mary E. Shelton, widow of Samuel Shelton, late private of Company I, first regiment of Tennessee cavalry, at the rate of eight dollars per month, and also the minor children of said Mary E. Shelton and Samuel Shelton at the rate of two dollars per month until they reach the age of sixteen years, respectively; this act to take effect from and after its passage.

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

Mr. BIRD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DELILAH KELLEY.

Mr. BIRD, from the same committee, reported adversely on the petition of Delilah

Mr. KERR. I object.

The Clerk continued the reading of the Journal.

Mr. DAWES. I hope the objection to dispensing with the further reading of the Journal may be withdrawn so that the gentleman from Maine may have a few minutes to dispose of the amendments of the Senate to the naval appropriation bill, and we may then go on with the tariff.

Mr. BROOKS. Yesterday the House limited the debate on the tariff bill in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and that bill is much more important than the appropriation bill.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. It will take longer to read the Journal than the amendments of the Senate to the naval appropriation bill.

Mr. BROOKS. I do not object to dispensing with the reading of the Journal.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to dispensing with the further reading of the Journal?

There was no objection; and it was ordered accordingly.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. HALE, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported back amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1191) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes.

ISABELLA ORANGE.

Mr. MORGAN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 2771) for the relief of Isabella Orange; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims, and ordered to be printed.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendments of the Senate, and will indicate whether concurrence or non-concurrence is recommended by the Committee on Appropriations.

The Clerk read the thirteenth amendment of the Senate, as follows:

In lines one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty-two, one hundred and twentythree, and one hundred and twenty-four, page 6, strike out these words: "Provided, That the mechanics and laborers shall be employed on the selection of the heads of the several mechanical departments in the several navy-yards, without the interference of any naval officer: And."

The committee recommended concurrence. Mr. BROOKS. I should like the gentleman from Maine [Mr. HALE] to give some explanation in regard to this amendment.

Mr. HALE. I will explain the effect not only of the thirteenth, but of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, which are connected with it, so that the whole effect of the proposed Senate amendment may clearly appear. In the House bill the provision stood thus:

Provided, That the mechanics and laborers shall be employed on the selection of the heads of the seeral mechanical departments in the several navyyards, without the interference of any naval officer: And provided further, That laborers shall be employed in the several navy-yards by the proper officers in charge without dictation from political committees, and without regard to their political sentiments.

Now the Senate, as a matter of good taste, while conforming to the idea, makes a change in the language and leaves it in this way:

Provided, That laborers shall be employed in the several navy-yards by the proper officers in charge, with reference to skill and efficency, and without regard to other considerations.

Mr. LYNCH. Which my colleague very well knows does not mean anything.

Mr. HALE. I do not know if anything we have done in this regard would operate prac tically; but as a matter of good taste 1 like the language used by the Senate better than the language of the House. I do not suppose that we can infuse a great deal of life into the operation of this thing, any way. It is simply a matter of taste, and gentlemen will see that the Senate expresses it more briefly and more in accordance with the dignity of legislation.

Mr. BROOKS. I would prefer bad taste with good sense, to the opposite of that. The object, I suppose, is to prevent the employment of men as laborers in the navyyards solely for political purposes.

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments of the Senate were concurred in. The Clerk read the twenty-first amendment of the Senate, as follows:

On page 17, line four hundred and six, strike out the words "and forty-seven thousand and six hundred" and insert the word "thousand; 39 80 that it will read:

Bureau of Provisions and Clothing: For provisions for the officers, seamen, and marines, $1,500,000.

The committee recommend

rence.

non-concur.

Mr. HOLMAN. This is a very large amount by which the Senate proposes to reduce this appropriation, and I should like to hear some explanation of it.

Mr. HALE. When the bill was being prepared by the Committee on Appropriations, the estimates of this bureau were gone over very carefully, and the amount reported to the House was got by cutting down the estimates between $200,000 and $300,000. We did not consider it prudent to cut them down further, but if the Senate committee can show that the appropriation can be cut down further, without

injury to the public service, I shall be very glad.

Mr. HOLMAN. If the amendment of the Senate makes so large a reduction as to be, in the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations, imprudent, the House ought to know their reasons for arriving at the conclusion.

Mr. HALE. I hardly believe that the committee of the Senate, which does not originate these appropriations, has looked into the matter as carefully as has been done by the Committee on Appropriations of the House, where the whole responsibility lies. I can only repeat what I have said already, that the House committee went over the estimates carefully and cut them down to the extent they thought they would bear reduction. We did not think it prudent to cut them down further.

Mr. HOLMAN. If the gentleman thinks that this should go to a conference committee, I will not object.

Mr. HALE. I may also state that in the consideration of the bill before the House, before it went to the Senate, we added an extra ration which was not estimated for. My impression is that that would cover an amount of more than fifty thousand dollars.

Mr. ARCHER. That was to give each sailor and seaman the same outfit as was given in the Army, allowing each one about sixty dollars.

The amendment was non-concurred in.

The Clerk read the twenty-fourth amendment of the Senate, as follows:

After line five hundred and four, page 21, add the following:

For the purchase of a license to use in all the works of the United States Gorman and Siegfried's process of tempering steel, for the term of their patents, $10,000.

The committee recommend concurrence, with the following amendment:

At the end of said amendment add the following: And for the purchase of the right to manufacture and use on Government vessels the Emery and Cheney patent elastic chain stopper and surge reliever, $12,000.

Mr. STORM. I desire to know something about these patents, and whether they do not belong to men employed by the Navy Department?

Mr. HALE. Not at all. I would say that the Government is paying a royalty, and this is recommended by the Department as a more economical mode of securing the use of these patents.

Mr. STORM. What is the royalty?

Mr. COGHLAN. Two hundred and fifty dollars for each, and it is proposed to allow the Government to buy the right.

Mr. STORM. And with regard to the other amendment proposed by the committee?

Mr. HALE. This is a similar case. Both of these articles are largely used in the Navy. The amendment, with the amendment proposed by the Committee on Appropriations, was concurred in.

The twenty-fifth amendment was read as follows:

Under the head of "Naval Academy" strike out the words "clerk to commandant of midshipmen and."

The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence.

Mr. LYNCH. I desire to ask my colleague if that would not cut off a clerk? Mr. HALE. That is all.

Mr. LYNCH. I hope that in every instance where there are reductions the House will concur with the Senate, for to my certain knowledge there are in the navy yards a great many sinecure clerks employed, not because the Secretary of the Navy desires to have them employed, but because they are pressed upon him by members of Congress. I know that in some of the navy yards there are many sinecures, and many are included in this bill which ought not to be. I called my colleague's attention to this fea ture of the bill at the time it was reported. If I had been here when the bill was before

the House I should have tried to have some clerkships stricken out. I hope that wherever the Senate have made reductions of force in any of the navy yards the House will concur in the reduction. There is already in this bill more than twenty-five thousand dollars appropriated for sinecure clerks at navy-yards that the Secretary of the Navy does not desire to employ, and would not but for the pressure brought to bear on him by members of Congress.

Mr. HALE. I would simply say that I should be very glad if this can be done, but the Senate struck out this provision and sent over no papers, and we have no information on the subject. We therefore recommend concurrence because no reason has been given by the Senate for striking out.

Mr. LYNCH. I know nothing about this particular clerkship, but I do know that some of the clerkships provided for here are sine

cures.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. Commander Worden, whose eyes were nearly destroyed in that famous fight in Hampton Roads, came before the committee and showed the necessity of having this clerk. The committee were satisfied that in his case it was fully necessary.

Mr. LYNCH. That may be so in this case, but I desire to say that in every instance where a chief accountant and receiver are employed they have no duties to perform, and the receiver has simply to receive his pay. The Secretary of the Navy told me that he would not have appointed them but for the pressure brought to bear on him by members of Congress. I say that all these sinecure officers ought to be stricken from the bill.

Mr. HALE. I hope the vote will now be taken.

The question was put; and the amendment of the Senate was non-concurred in.

The Clerk read the thirty-first amendment, as follows:

In section two, lines twenty and twenty-one, strike out the words "all net proceeds of," and insert in lieu thereof "the total amount received on;" so that it shall read: "and the Secretary of the Navy shall, at the opening of each session of Congress, make a full report to Congress of his acts under the authority given by this section, which report shall contain a statement of all vessels and materials sold, the parties buying the same, and the amount realized therefrom, together with such other facts as may be necessary to a fall understanding of his acts; and the total amount received on such sales shall be covered into the United States Treasury."

The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence.

has created more bitter feeling than almost any other. I ask that the portion of this section affected by this amendment be now read, so that we may know just exactly the connection.

The Clerk read the portion of the section referred to; the part to be stricken out is indicated by being in brackets, and the part to be inserted being in italics:

And the Secretary of the Navy shall, at the opening of each session of Congress, make a full report to Congress of his acts under the authority given by this section, which report shall contain a statement of all vessels and materials sold, the parties buying the same, and the amount realized therefrom, together with such other facts as may be necessary to a full understanding of his acts; and (31) [all net proceeds of] the total amount received on such sales shall be covered into the United States Treasury.

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not propose to be captious over this matter, but I do desire that the question may be understood. For that purpose I ask that the first part of this section may be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. That the Secretary of the Navy be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to sell, at publie sale, such vessels and materials of the United States Navy as in his judgment cannot be advantageously used, repaired, or fitted out: Provided, That before any such sale shall be made, public notice shall be given by advertisement in some leading newspaper or newspapers in at least four of the principal cities of the United States, which advertisement shall state the number of vessels and the amount of materials proposed to be sold, with a description thereof so far as the same shall be practicable, together with the time and place when and where such vessels and materials can be seen and examined.

Mr. HOLMAN. The power here is conferred upon the Secretary of the Navy to make these sales and to pay the net proceeds into the Treasury. The Senate propose to amend so as to require him to pay the gross proceeds into the Treasury. The question before the House is whether the net proceeds or the gross proceeds shall be paid into the Treasury. If we require him to pay only the net proceeds, what power has Congress to control the expenditure of the money thus received? I still insist that when any property is sold the total proceeds shall be covered into the Treasury; and if money is to be expended it shall be appropriated according to the Constitution, and that any other course is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Mr. HALE. I see the point which the gentleman has in his mind. But the Secretary is so hedged in and carefully guarded that nothing improper can be done.

The question was upon concurring in the amendment of the Senate; and it was concurred in.

The fifteenth amendment of the Senate was in the following clause:

That laborers shall be employed in the several

Mr. HALE. I think I can explain it to the gentleman so that he will see very clearly that the amendment ought not to be concurred in. These private sales are so regulated as that a full report is made to the Department as to what was the value of the property sold, but in every instance where a private sale has taken place the expenses have been paid out of the money received as the Department goes along ; otherwise the Secretary would have no fund to pay the expenses of these sales, and would have to make a regular estimate in advance of what it would cost. The provision is so guarded that the whole net amount is to go into the Treasury, and the reports will show the total amount to Congress and the country.

Mr. HOLMAN. It seems to me still that this amendment ought to be considered as preventing an appropriation of money here by the Department of the Government without any authority of Congress to the amount of the sum expended in making the sale. I see no reason why estimates cannot be made for all these expenses just as well as for the other expenses of the Government. This question has been before Congress this session, and it

dictation from political committees, and without regard to their political sentiments.

66

The amendment was to strike out all after the words "proper officers in charge," and to insert in lieu thereof the words with reference to skill and efficiency, and without regard to other considerations."

The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence, with an amendment adding the following:

To enable the Secretary of the Navy to carry on his experiments toward converting heavy smoothbore guns into rifled guns, with a view to obtain a combination gun possessing the qualities of both smooth-bore and rifle, $40,000; and for enabling the Secretary of the Navy to secure effective means for

projecting, guiding, and operating torpedoes at long distances from the ship or shore, $150,000, no money to be paid except for means found to be successful on trial.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to; and the amendment, as amended, concurred in.

Mr. HALE moved to reconsider the various votes upon the amendments of the Senate; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. DAWES. I move that the rules be