CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1\lAY 5,

$: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1\lAY 5,$
3798 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1\lAY 5,

Ur. BECK. I will; but I will e~ect the courtesy allowed to a Senator to make any suggestion he pleases as to how he would like to vote upon a bill; and when the Senator asks unanimous consent to have a vote at 3 o'clock upon this bill when there is a House bill that can become a law if properly amended, I will claim the privilege of endeavoring to do something practical instead of something impractical.

Mr. FRYE. I had the House bill laid on the table when it came over here from the Honse for the very purpose of moving when, in my judgment, as the Senator having this bill in charge, the proper time had arrived to take up the House bill.

Mr. BECK. I am glad to hear it. 1\fr. FRYE. The Senator from Kentucky has made two extended

and very excellent speeches on this present bill or the general aspect of the whole question. Now I hope he will not object to a time being fixed to-morrow for taking the vote.

1\Ir. HALE. Will my colleague let me suggest an amendment? Mr. FRYE. With pleasure. Mr. HALE. Or rather make a suggestion which amends his proposi

tion. It is that the general de bate close at 3 o'clock to-morrow, taking the bill up on the close of the morning business, which will give nearly three hours for general debate, and that after that it be considered under the fi ve-minnte rule, and that a vote finally be taken orne time during the session to-morrow. I make this suggestion with the view of getting the bill out of the way. I have an appropriation bill myself in charge that I desire to get through; but this bill has run so long that I think it will be economy of the time of the Senate to let it now be finished before projecting any appropriation bill, for if you cut it short now and let it rest and take it up by and by, there will only be renewed and extended debate, and I think it will be better to finish it now. I hope we can finish it to-morrow. It seems to me by letting the general debate run to 3 o'clock perhaps and probably every body desiring to speak longer than five minutes will be able to do so, and we shall get it out of the way to-morrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine ask!> unani-mous consent that debate upon this bill cease at 3 o'clock to-morrow--

1\Ir. FRYE. I modify my proposition as suggested by my colleague. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? 1\fr. VOORHEES. I desire to say a word in that connection. The

inability of the Senator from Kentucky to agree to that arrangement puts it somewhat under his own control, as we adjourn with that Senator on the floor. I have been so unfortunate as to twice misunderstand that he had yielded the floor. I should like to know whether he will occupy all the time of the debate to-morrow?

Mr. BECK. I shall behave quite as well as the Senator from Indi-ana did in the last great debate that was up.

Mr. VOORHEES. I do not know what theSenatorallucles to at all. Mr. HALE. I think there will be no objection to the proposition. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Mr. BECK. I object. Mr. VANCE. I object. Mr. LOGAN. I think Senators will be in better humor probably

when we meet to-morrow. Therefore I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The PRE !DING OFFICER. Will the Senator delay the motion a minute?

Mr. FRYE. I desire to give notice that I shall endeavor-at any rate I shall ask the Senate to conclude this bill to-morrow.

Mr. VOORHEES. I qbjecttoanythingon this subject unless! know how the time is to be occupied to-morrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will lay before the Senate certain House bills for reference.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. The bill (H. R. 1798) to amend an act entitled "An act, to execute

certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved May 6, 1882, was read twice by its title.

Mr. FARLEY. I ask that the House bill just read lie on the table for the present without being referred.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California asks that this House bill lie on the table. If there be no objection, that will be the order.

The following bills were severally read twice by their titles and re-ferred to the Committee on Pensions:

A bill (H. R. 1042) for the relief of Mrs. Sarah Sinfield; A bill (H. R. 2425) granting a pension to Catharine Henry; A bill (H. R. 2447l for the relief of Catharine Terry; A bill (H. R. 2480 granting a pension to Margaret Kearns; A billlH. R. 4189 granting a. pensions to Caroline Van Norton; A bill H. R. 4191) granting a pension to Jane Bracken; A bill H. R. 4856) ~ranting a pension to Bvt. Col. C. A. Cilley, of

North Cru:olina.; A bill (H. R. 5088) for the relief of Magdalena Cook; and A bill (H. R. 5364) granting a pension to William H. Whitcomb.

UNIVERSITY OF :MED!OINE. 1\fr. CALL. I desire to give notice that at the close of the morning

hour on Thursday I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate to submit

some remarks on the bill (S. 1044) to establish a uni>ersity of medicine at the cnpital of the United States, in the District of Columbia, for the ad van cement of science, and the discovery of improved methods of treatment and cure of disease, pending before the Committee on Education and Labor, and will ask that the committee be discharged from the consideration of the bill for the purpose of submitting those remarks.

EXECUTIVE SESSION. .Mr. LOGAN. I renew my motion. Mr. FRYE. I desire to say to the Senate, especially the Senator

from Indiana, that I asked no agreement; I simply gave notice that I should endeavor to have this bill acted upon to-morrow some time.

:Mr. LOGAN. Now I ask that my motion be put. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consid

eration of executive business. After three minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5o' clock and 10 minutes p. m. ) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1\iOND.A:Y, 1J1ay 5, 1884.

The House met at 11 o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. JOHNS. LL.~SAY, D. D.

The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday last was read and approved.

PUBLIC LANDS IN ARKANSAS. Mr. DUNN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 6870)

to exclude the public lands in Arkansas from the operation of the laws relating to mineral lands; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be prin~.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. ' Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question

of personal privilege. I send to the Clerk's desk to be read a portion of the proceedings of the House on last Saturday afternoon.

The Clerk read as follows: E.."'SIGN L. K. REYNOLDS.

Mr. Cox, of New York. I desire now to ask the House to do a graceful act of kindness which I have two or three times before endeavored to have done. It is to pass a joint resolution of the Senate to allow Ensign L. K. Reynolds to accept a medal from the Government of Austria. for an act of humanity. He ha.s left our shores on the expedition for the relief of Lieutenant Greely and his party, but if we pass this resolution now he can be reached by telegraph.

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope my friend will not do that in the absence of gentlemen who have heretofore objected.

Mr. Cox, of New York. I have made my arrangements with those gentlemen. The gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. FINERTY] has consented that the joint resolution be taken up.

Mr. WELLER. I have withdrawn my objection. "1\lr. HoLMAN. I know that my friend, after a moment's reflection, will see the

impropriety of calling this matter up in the absence of gentlemen who have objected to it.

1\lr. Cox, of New York. I have made my arrangements with them, and they are perfect.Jy content. The gentleman from lllinois [Mr. Fr:NERTY] was here a short time ago.

Ir. WELLE R. I saw him. 1\Ir. HoLMAN. I regret ex ceedingly to interpose an objection. I am thoroughly

and heartily oppo ed to resolutions of this kind, but till I would not object if gentlemen were present who heretofore have objected to this part icular joint resolution.

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. Mr. Chairman, on Saturday afternoon I consulted with orne gentlemen who had the Chinese bill in their charge and understood that it would probably not be finished before the end of the day; and as I was not well and supposed there would be no other business transacted, I went home. Just at the close of the day s session, when a motion had been made by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL J that the House adjourn, upon which motion there was developed a vote of 10 in il:nor and 21 against, there being thirty-one members present, the proceedings which I ha,ve caused to be read took place. During the course of the proceedings, as appears by the RECORD, it was stated by my old friend from :New York [Mr. Cox], "I have made my arrangements with those gentlemen "-that is, gentlemen who had objected to the measure.

Now, Mr. Spea.ker, this House will certainly see that, while I do not wish any undue prominence in this matter, I had been quite as prominent as any other member on the floor in objecting to the measure, believing it to be wrong, believing that no man who supports and defends the Constitution can vote for that resolution. I think I could go before the Supreme Couit of the United States and sustain this declaration that no man who fully supports the Constitution can vote for that joint resolution.

The Constitution of the United States, in reference to this subject, provides two things-and let me say I am not going to make a speech ; I shall be very brief; I do not mean to impose upon the Honse. If allowed to proceed, I shall be through in two or three minutes, but if not I shall occupy an hour, for I have here a resolution which would give me the floor for that time; but I shall get through this statement in a very few moments.

I say the Constitution of the United States provides, :first, that " no title ofnobility shall begranted by the United tates," not even with

1884. CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-HOUSE. 3799 the consent of Congress; and second, that no person holding office under the United States shall accept any present from any king, prince, or foreign state. ·

Now, this joint resolution proposes to confer a title of nobility, clear and perfect. I have here the report made by the gentleman from New York [ fr. Cox] who is engineering the measure. From this report I read the declaration of the Austrian minister:

Preliminary, confidential, and verbal application having been made concerning that question to the Secretary of the Navy, Hon.l\Ir. Hunt had declared that the United States Senate would have to grant that permission by special act; that such permission would undoubtedly be given considering the circumstances of the case, and that the Department saw no objection to Lieutenant Reynolds being made a knight of the I. and R. order aforesaid.

"A knight of the imperial and royal order aforesaid!" Was ever .anything plainer than that this is a title of nobility? And any member who may vote for it ought to get on his knees before the Almighty and pray forgiveness for having committed perjury; for every member here has taken the oath which, Mr. Speaker, you administered to me "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There are to-day a million of Democratic voters looking at this question. They believe it to be of more importance than any tariff discus· ion that you can get up; and it will have more influence in the next election. l\Ionarchy and its tendencies here must be put down. That

· is the first thing -in order whether we shall have a tariff or not, the Constitution providing that we shall confer no title of nobility.

Now the gentleman from New York says the Austrian minister has written him a letter on this subject. He seems to be particularly interested in it.. All the dudism of this city is in favor of this theory. A young lady, coming home to my neighborhood from New Orleans, after learning I was opposing H, would scarcely speak to me because ,of my barbarism in adhering to my oath to the Constitution. Men, w'?men~ and children are running around here and doing more to carry this thing through than they would do for ·their eternal salvation. [Laughter and applause.]

. What is this all about? If this young man wants honors I will give .lum a vote of thanks of this House which will entitle him to the floor <>f the House. I will give him preferment to be rear-admiral; I will introduce a resolution to that effect and advocate it if necessary. But I wish these American officers to love their own mother and to be satisfied with ~he .institutions of th~ir own country, and not to go fishing .after these foreign baubles. I Wish them to attend to their own country's business and to obey the laws of their own land. If they wish to fi h for honors let them cast their lines in the clear waters of American lakes and into our own sparkling streams, and not go bobbing for eels in foreign mud. [Laughter and applause. J .

It is said here that I made an agreement with the gentleman from New York [ 'ir. Cox] to withdraw my oppo ition to this joint resolution. I did no such thing. The memories of old times with my friend from Kew York are too strong, of many battle-fields where we stood shoulder to shoulder, to allow me to say one unkind word to him. I have only risen to say if one ro e from the dead I would not withdraw my objection to this the strongest evidence we have of the downward career in which we are going toward the perdition of monarchy. I would not withdraw my opposition if all the illustl·ious dead who sleep on the hillsides of Arlington should rise from their graves and request me to do so. I did not withdraw my objection nor make anyarrangementto do so; no, ir; I want my objection to stand.

I stop a gentleman passing me at this instant in the aisle-I speak of my honored friend from the Utica district [Mr. SPRIGGS]-in order to say that before this thing was brought up on Saturday he spoke to me .to withdraw my opposition, and he named an eminent clergyman for :whom I would travel from this city to .New York afoot, as indeed I would for my friend from the Utica district, but I told him then I would not 'vithdraw my opposition.

Now, I have made my explanation. I will not say a single unkind word of my friend from New York [Mr. Cox J; but I am misrepresented, .and dare not stand before this republican country in the attitude of ·being in favor of these monarchical tendencies. This is only a pioneer measure. There are fifteen or twenty others coming after, all clamorin~ for forei~n decorations. I am opposed to them. I might quote, w1th very little change of words, from Oliver Wendell Holmes the language of our country to her gallant young officers seekinc:r worthless titles from ioreign despots: "'

Come back to your mother, ye children, for shame l Who have wandered abroad after baubles of fame; 'Vith a smile on her face and a sprig in her cap She calls you to feast from her bountiful lap.

[Applau e.] .1\'Ir. 9~X, of New York. I do not really know whether my good

ir1end 18m e~rnest or not; or whether he wishes to display some of that :rare rhetoric 1or which he is so justly celebrated.

In reference_to this bill I think anybody would excuse the anxiety I ha.d to have 1t passed on last Saturday afternoon. The beneficiary, Ens1gJ?- _Reynolds, had gone to the polar region on the Greely relieving expeditiOn. He was to land and did land at Saint John s en route to the .Arctic . . There we might have reached him by telegraph with this >elegant courtesy.

So far as misrepresenting my friend here, there was no such intention. It was done in the presene.e, as I supposed, of two gentlemen who had objected. They were present in the House. They had a right to object, as they had objected before. They did not object, as I had an arrangement with them, to allow me to present the bill. The gentleman from Iowa [:M:r. WELLER] withdrew his objection as he will tell you, and the gentleman from illinois [Mr. FINERTY] kindly said to me ~e had no objection 1-:<> have the matter brought up and disposed of, proVIded I would state 1t was a matter of humanity and that there was no hereditary nobility in the decoration. This I did state. Gentlemen who are absent can not object, or continue previous objections. So that in my statement I did not have my eolleague in my mind.

Now, the gentleman from New York, my coJleague, argues that this is a title of nobility which is proposed for Ensign Reynolds. I am just informed by my German friend from Wisconsin [Mr. GUENTHER J that all over Germany there are knights, so called, of various qrders which are not orders of nobility. This 11 Royal and Imperial Order of Francis Joseph," according to the statement ofthe Austrian minister, is one of this order. No one in Austria or Hungary believes that such orders are orders of nobility. They are not inhibited by our Constitution. They carry no titular privileges. This order is merely the title of an organization to reward merit. In this country there are certain orders of socalled k~ghthood. For instance, there are the Knights of Pythias and the Krnghts of St. Patrick. To this latter order my di~tinguished friend from New York himself belongs. [Laughter.] There is no knighthood about them, in the sense in which he fancies or discusses the matter.

So far as this matter is concerned, our fathers, in the Constitution, took it into consideration. In section 9, article 1, of that instrument it is declared that 11 no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or tru t under them, shall, withouttheconsentofthe Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any 1.-ing, prince, or foreign state.''

Thus provision was made to meet any case of 11 present emolument or title.'' This clause required that the consent of Congress must first be had before our citizens accept such decorations from foreign governments. The reason for this clause has gone by; but still we comply with the constitutional obligation, as in this case. In the present case this i only a badge of humanity. It is a recognition of gallnnt devotion. Congress has already, through the life-savin()' statute, giYen Ensign Reynolds more than thanks. He has one medaJ already.

I see my friend from Connecticut [Ur. EATON] before me. He will concur in my statement, and his Democratic dislike of royalty and nobility will not be questioned. Into this question he has himself had occasion to look closely. When I was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House and he chairman of the same committee of the Senate I reported some twelve or thirteen several bills allowing our citizens to accept dec.orations. They passed here, they went to the Senate and met the con~urrence of my friend from Connecticut. He recommended the passage of them all, in a general bill covering all such orders and decorations, and which disallowed their display in public. That is now the law. There was no objection to it from any member of the American Democracy. I would rathertakehisjudgment as to what is genuine, old-fashioned State-rights Democratic-Republicanism than the opinion even of my distinguished friend and colle3.ooue from New York, or the opinion of any other member.

M:r. ROBINSON, of New York. Ask him if he is in favor of this thing.

.Mr. COX, of New York. I know he is in favor of it, without asking him .

. Mr. ROBINSON, ofNew York. He has not so stated. Mt- COX, of New York. It is not necessary. I know his views by

his action here. Mr. ROBI.:..~SON, ofNew York. Thegentleman oughtnotto argue

on a false basis. Mr. QOX, ofNew York. When it comes to debating the question I

will meet my friend in a proper way. Heisnotopposed, of course, I presume, to grantingcertainmedalsfor

life-saving service. He can not oppose the life-saving system in this country. I have had something to do with that system myself. I still feel the same interest in it as one may feel in his offspring, since I got from thisgenerousHousethefustapproprin.tionhere,someyearsa~o,of$10,000 for establishing a patrol system on the Jersey coast. Since the reorganization ofthisservicein 187.1 wehavesaved 18,334livesand$23,937,529 worth of property. Have we not cause to feel proud of that service? If there be any exultation in this Congressional lifC-over any legislative achievement-I would prefer to every other &rvice the part I have taken in organizing our life-saving institution. The giving of medals to our heroes of the sea, lake, gulf, and river, who have risked their own lives for the lives of others, is beyond all other decorations. In this case the honor is enhanced· for the decorative medal is for saving life almost in mid-ocean instead of on our own shores. It is given by a great government for there cue of eleven of its citizens in the waters of the Azores. In thisit is in harmoliy with our other life-saving legislation.

Our Life-Saving Service, 1\'Ir. Speaker, knows no nationality. It is

3800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,.

world-wide in its humanities. It saves the life of the Irishman as well as that of the Eno'lishman. No race is alien beforeitskindoffices. It questions no one~ to his nationality. I be~ev~ ~the ~oct_ri~e th.at in this as in other regards we should make no mVIdious discriminatwns.

Our broad, impartial law blots out all lines of caste. The ~credness of human life is the very genius of this benevolent system. I tis worthy of the verse of the Quaker poet:

Still to a. stricken brother true, Whatever clime hath nurtured him ;

As stooped to heal the wounded Jew, The worshiper of Gerizim.

It recognizes, beneath ''all disguise, form, place, or name, the man within"-

On man as man, retainin~ yet, How e'er debased, or solled, or dim,

The crown upon his forehead set, The immortal gift of God to him."

This young man, Ensign Reyno~ds, made no discr~tion when he leaped into the sea and saved the lives of eleven Hunga.nans on the bark Olivo. He had no thought about who he saved when, to rescue human life he braved the elementa in the midst of a hurricane. It is for this her~ic conduct that he has been honored the world over by societies here and abroad, and especially by the Austrian-Hungarian Government which has sent this medal in recognition of his unexampled gallantry. It is but a small tribute to the humanity of this naval officer, whom I have never had thepleasuretoknow, and I think the objection is the most microscopical that could be devised by the humanmind.

Mr. ROBINSON of New York. I want to say a word in reply. The SPEAKER.' The Chair thinks that this subject does uot pre-

sent a question of privilege. Mr. PAYSON. I demand the regular order. Mr. WELLER. I rise to a question of personal privilege. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. WELLER. My name has become connected with this question

in such a way that I feel warranted in securing the attention of the House to explain why I had made objection to a consideration of this resolution a few days ago, but since that time have withdrawn my objections thereto. I made my objection in the first insf:ance because I hated monarchy, because I hated every condition, word, or deed that had for its object or purpose the indorsement or establishment of anythino- monarchical in form or character, such as we :find in the Eastern continents. I am opposed to-day to being a party to receiving for any American citizen any token of autocratic royalty which can be construed into an indorsement of the system of government that I hate, but I was importuned by my genial friend from New. York[~. Cox] to remove my objection on the ground that the granting of this medal was purely a question of an award for meritoriou.:', valorou~ conduct in rescuincr lives under circumstances of great peril. To this I could have no obJection. I did not remove my objections because I wanted this Congress to grant any favoritism to a monarchical governme?t ~r to a subject thereof or of this Government, but an award for mentonous conduct in such a case is different: I should not have removed my objection if I had believed for a momentr-

1\lr. KEIFER. I rise to a question of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. KEIFER. I have no objection to the gentleman stating his

views upon a subject of that kind when it is properly bef?r~ this Ho11f3e, but I must object to his doing so on the pretense th~t 1t IS a .q':lestio?I of privilege. I make the point of order that no question of pnv1lege IS

involved in this subject. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks there is no matter of privilege

involved. Jl.ir. ROBINSON, of New York. On the point of order I wish to be

beard for a moment. • The SPEAKER. The point of order is not made against the gentle

man from New York but again t the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. WELLER. I desire to speak on the point of order. The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the rule to be read. In or

der to facilitate the transaction of the public business and prevent its. interruption by irreleva11t matters, it is ab olutel~ necessary to enforce strictly the provisions of this rule. The Clerk will read Rule IX.

The Clerk read as follows: RULE IX.

Q.UESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

Que tions of privilege_ sh!3-ll be, first, .those .affec~ing the rig_hts of the House collectively, its safety, d1gruty, and themte&"r1t:y~f1ts pr<;>ceedl!lgs; second, ~e rights, reputation, and conduct of members md1v1dually m ~hen· representfl.~1ve capacity only; and shall have precedence _of all other 9ue twns, except motwns to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn, to adJourn, and for a recess.

The SPEAKER. That is the rule, and the Chair thinks that in the interests of orderly legislation this rule should be strictly eniorced whenever the point of order is made under it.

Mr. WELLER. Will the Speaker grant me permission to speak to the point of order? . . .

.Mr. PAYSON. I desire to make a parliamentary mqmry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 1\lr. PAYSON. Has not the Speaker already decided this question? The SPEAKER. The Chair has decided it.

Mr. PAYSON. Is it debatable? The SPEAKER. It is not except by unanimous consent. Mr. PAYSON. Then I make the point of order that the regular or-.

der should be proceeded with. The SPEAKER. The regular order has been demanded, which is

the call of States and Territories for the introduction of bills and joint resolutions.

SPECIAL El\ffiASSY FROM SI.AM.

Mr. WASHBURN. I ask the gentleman to withdraw the demand for the regular order, that I may make a report.

'l'he SPEAKER. The regular order has been demanded by several gentlemen on both sides. Is the demand for the regular order in isted on? If it is not, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from :Minnesota [Mr. WASHBURN].

The regular order was not insisted on. Mr. WASHBURN. I am instructed by the Committee on Appro

priations to report for immediate consideration a joint resolution appropriating $10,000 to defray the expenses of the visit of the special embassy of Siam to the United States. I also send to the desk to be read a letter from the President of the United States and a letter from the Secretary of State on the subject of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read, after which the Chair will ask for objections.

The joint resolution was read. Mr. SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of

the joint resolution? Mr. WELLER. I object. Mr. WASHBURN. I hope the·gentleman will withhold his objection

until the letters from the President and the Secretary of State can be read.

Mr. WELLER. I wish to say that I care no more for the President ofthe United States than I do for the gentleman from Minnesota himself, and I object.

Mr. WASHBURN. Iwillonlysaythattheresolutionisuuanimously reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and is unanimously recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

PRINTING OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. COBB. I am directed bytheCommitteeonPublic Lands toreport certain testimony taken by that committee in the investigation of the Portage Lake and Lake Superior Ship-Canal Company, and I move that the evidence be printed and recommitted.

The motion was agreed to.

CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE-O'FERRALL VS. PAUL.

M:r. LOWRY. On behalf of the Committee on Elections I desire to call attention to the contested election of O'Ferrall against Paul, from the seventh Congressional die;trictof Virginia. It will be remembered that on Friday last I gave notice to the House, at the instance of the Committee on Elections, that that case would be called up for action today. It is my duty, however, to state that at a meeting of the committee this morning the question was brought to their attention as to whether or not the minority of that committee had had sufficient opportunity to prepare their views for presentation to the House, and upon a sugge tion made that a sufficient opportunity had not been afforded for that purpose the committee passed an advisory resolution that the matter be not pressed on the attention of the House to-day, and as aresult of that an accommodation was had by-which the gentlemen representing the views of the minority agreed that the case might be taken , up on Wednesday morning. It was insisted by myself that the matter was not under the control of the committee, that it had pa ed from our control, and tbatit was properly. a matter for consideration in the Hou e; a.nd in pursuance of the notice heretofore given, I now desire to call that case up for present consideration. I ask for the reading of the resolutions. .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY], from the Committee on Elections, in pursuance of notice heretofore given, calls up for consideration the contested-election case of O'Ferrall vs. Paul from the seventh Congressional district of Virginia.

llfr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I am authorized by the Committee on Elections to state that it is the ense of that committee that thi. case should not be caJled up prior to Wednesday morning. The majority report was :filed on the ~Oth of April, but did not come ~o this H.ou e until last Saturday mornmg. That was the :first opportunity the mmorityofthe committee had to examine it, and since that time it has been examined. A minority report has been prepared, which will be :filed today. In accor~nce with ihe sense of the committee I a k that the case be laid over at least until Wednesday, and I. ask the gentlem:m 1rom Indiana to agree to that.

Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. :MILLER, ofPennsylvania.. Yes, sir. Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I wish to ask if the minority of the com

mittee ha.ve not had as much time for the preparation of their report as the majority?

Mr. 1\HLLER, ofPennsylvania. Inreplytothegentleman.from. Vit:·

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3801 ¢rna I will state the views of the majority of the committee were ubmitted to the full committee some two weeks ago; but when the gentleman from Indiana, who was authorized to make the majority report, prepared it, he gave me notice that he had materially changed the basis of his report.

.Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I will state to the gentleman that makes no difference.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor. Mr. HLLER, of Pennsylvania. The minority of the co.nmittee

found it was impo ible to make a report until they had had an opportunity of seeing what the views of the majority were. They were not

. the same views that were pre en ted to the committee. The resolutions were the same, but the basis upon which the conclusions were arrived at were different. I make this suggestion in accordance with the sense of the Committee on Elections, only one vote being in opposition thereto. I think the gentleman from Indiana will withdraw the calling up of the case at this time on the understanding that it will come up on Wednesday morning.

.Mr. LOWRY. Did thegentlemanfromPennsylvania [Mr. MILLER] make otne reference to myself? I did not hear what he said.

Mr. HLLER, of Pennsylvania. My statement was that I hoped the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY], in view of the informal action of the Committee of Elections, would withdraw his request for the present consideration of this election case, with the understanding that it should come up on next Wednesday morning.

Mr. LOWRY. While otherwise I would be very glad to acquiesce and would do so cheerfully on the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER], yet under the circumstances I do not feel at liberty to do so. I have stated to the House the action had this morning by the Committee of Elections. The view that was entertained by that committee was that as a matter of courtesy to the minority it would be proper that they should have an opportunity of seeing thereport of the majority before the views of the minority were prepared. I do not understand, however, that that is in accordance with the custom and practice of this House; but that on the contrary the usage or practice has been for the majority to prepare its report and for the minority to prepare their views contemporaneously, and they are brought simultaneously before the House for its action.

Now, applying that rule to this case, the question having been fully canvassed before the committee, the report of the subcommittee having been presented to the full committee some six weeks ago, the full committee took action upon it and adopted the report of the subcommittee. Another case was pending, perhaps more than one, involving some of the same points that are involved in this case. In view of the fact that the case of Ma ey against Wise was about to be argued, a proposition was made that the report in the case of O'Ferrall against .Paul should not be made to the Rouse until after argument had been heard in the case of l\1assey against Wise.

A limitation was imposed, however, upon that proposition in order that it might not continue this case indefinitely, and th«;~ period of suspension was limited to three weeks. That time having expired, some of the members of the committee were still anxious that this case should not be presented to the House until the other case was acted upon by the committee, and in order to obviate any clash between the two cases it was determined upon the pa,rt of the majority of the committee to have the report in the case of O'Ferrall against Paul revised, so as to predicate the determination of the case on a point which did not arise and could not arise in the case of Massey against Wise.

That revision having been made, the report was submitted to the House in regular order and brought in here last Saturday morning in printed form, andnotice was given that the case would be called up today. Now, according to the usage and practice of the House, as I understand, the case would properly come up for action this morning. According to usage it is not required that the minority of the committee hould have an opportunity of inspecting and undertaking to reply to the report of the majority. On the contrary it was expected that they would prepare their views contemporaneously with the preparation of the majority report, though, as I have ~tated, it was the opinion of the committee that the minority should have an opportunity to prepare their report before the case is called up.

Under these circumstances, and being importuned on all hands by those who feel that the contestant in this case bas a right to be seated, and in view of the further fact that a vacancy has existed in the representation of this district for several months past, Judge Paul having resigned upon being appointed to the United States court, and the governor of Virginia having called no election since the resignation of Judge Paul~in view of these and other considerations there is a great anxiety upon the part of tho e who feel that the district ought to be repre-ented and that Judge O'Ferrall is entitled to the eat that the case

shall be acted upon by the House this morning. I therefore feel it is my duty to insist upon action in the case at this time.

M:r. TURNER, of Georgia. I have very great sympathy with the anxiety ofthegentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY] to have this vacant seat filled.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will. state that there is nothing before the House now for debate. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY]

called uptheelectioncaseinquestion; thegentlemanfromPennsylvania [ 1r. MILLER] suggestedanarrangementbywhichitshould go over until Wednesday next. The only question seems to be whether or not an arrangement can be a.rri ved at. The question of consideration has not been raised.

l\1r. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I raise that question now . Mr. TURNER, of Georgia. I desire to make asugge tiou on the que -

tion of consideration. The SPEAKER. That is not debatable, but the Chair will hear the

gentleman if there is no objection. :Mr. R.A..l~ALL. I think it nothing more than proper that the chair

man of the Committee on Elections should be permitted to make a statement.

The SPEAKER. The Chair bas said that the gentleman will beheard, if there is no o~iection.

1\fr. TURNER, of Georgia. I desire simply to say that there is a certain courtesy always due to the minority of the House and to the minority of a committee. I think that under the circumstances tated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER J the minority of the committee ought to have the privilege of presenting their views and having them printed before this case is called up for consideration.

Mr. LOWRY. Ithinkiwassomewhatmisapprehended bytheChair. In accordance with the statement made by myself to the committee as to the course of action my sense of duty wouJd prompt in the matter I moved that the case be taken up forpresentconsideration . This was with the view of leaving the matter to the determination of the House. I have stated, I think, explicitly the action taken by the committee, as it has been stated by the gentleman from Georgia [1\fr. TURNER], the distinguished chairman of the committee. With the view of discharging my duty, and at the same time bringing the matter before theHouse, I have made my motion.

The SPE.AKER. The Chair thinks he understood the gentleman to. decline to accede to the arrangement suggested by the gentlema,n from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER], which of course would bring the matter before the House, unless the question of consideration were raised. That question is now raised--

Mr. 1\llLLER, of Pennsylvania. I raise the question of consideration.

The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now proceed to consider the contested-election case of O'Ferrall vs. Paul?

The question being taken, there were-ayes 91, noes 70. Ur. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 141, nays 98, not

voting 83; as follows:

Aiken, Alexander, Bagley, Ballentine, Barbour, Barksdale, Beach, Blackburn, Blanchard, Bland, Blount, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Buchanan, Buckner, Cabell, Caldwell, Candler, Carleton, Cassidy, Clardy, Clay, Clements, Cobb, Collins, Connolly, Cosgrove, Cox, ,V. R. Culberson, D. B. Curtin, Davidson, Deu ter, Dibble, Dibrell, Dockery, Dowd,

Adams, G. E. .Anderson, Atkin on, Bayne, Bingham, Boutelle, Bowen, Boyle, Brainerd Brewer, F. B. Brewer, J . H . Brown, W. W. Brumm, Campbell, J . l\1. Converse, Cook,

Duncan, Dunn, Eaton, Eldredge, Ellis, Ermentrout, Evins, J.H. Ferrell, Fiedler, Follett, Foran, Forney, Fyan, Garrison, Geddes, Gibson, Green, Greenleaf, Halsell, Hammond, Hancock, Hardy, Hatch, W.H. Herbert, Hewitt,G.W. Hill Hoblitzell, Holman, Houseman, Hunt, Hurd, Jones,B.W. Jones,J.H. King, Kleiner, Lamb,

Crisp, Cutclleon\..... Davis, G . .H;.

Davis, R.T. Dingley, Dunham, Elliott, Ellwood, Everhart, Finerty, Funston, George, Guenther, Hanback, Hardeman, Harmer,

YEAS-141. Lanham, LeFevre, Lewis, Lowry, McAdoo, McComas, 1\Icl\Iillin, Matson, l\faybury, Miller, J. F. l\Iills, Mitchell, Money, M-organ, l\Iorrison, Moulton, Murphy, Oates, O'Neill, J. J. Pierce, Peel, S. W. Pryor, Pusey, Randall, Rankin, Ree e, Robinson, W. E. Rogers,J. H. Rogers, W. F. Rosecrans, Scales, Seymour, Shaw, Singleton, Skinner, T. G. Slocum,

NAYS-98. Hart, Hatch, H. H. Haynes, Henderson, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Hepburn, Hiscock, Hitt, Holme, Holton, Hopl.:ins, Horr. Houk, Jame, Kas ·on, Kean,

Snyder, Spriggs, Springer, Stevens, Stewart, Charles Stockslager, Sumner, C. A. Sumner, D. H. Taylor, J. M. Thompson, Throckmorton, Tillman, Townshend, Tully, Turner, Oscar Van Alstyne, Vance, Van Eaton, Ward, Warner, A. J. Warner, Richard Wellborn, Weller, Wemple, Wilkins, Williams, WilLis, 'Vilson, W. L. "\Vinans, E. B. Wise, G. D. Wolford, Worthington, Yaple.

Keifer, Laird, Lawrence, Libbey, Lore, 1\fcCoid., McCormick, McKinley, Millard, Miller, S. H. Milliken, Morrill, Morse, Neece,

. Nelson, Nutting

3802 CO:NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY D '

.O'IIara, O'Neill, Charles Patton, Payson Peelle, S. J. Perkins, Peters, Poland, .Pot,

Ra.y,G.W . Reed, Rice, Robertson, Rockwell, Rowell, Ryan, Skinner, 0. R. Small ,

Smith, Spooner, Stephenson, Stewart, J. W. Stone, Strait, Struble, Taylor, E. B. Taylor, J.D.

NOT VOTING-83. Adams J. J. Davis, L.H. Larey, Arnot, Dorsheimer, Long, Ban, Evans, I. N. Lovering, Belford, Findlay, Lyman, .Belmont, Glascock, 1\Iorey, Bennett, Goff, 1\Iul<.lrow, Bisbee, Graves, Muller, -Brei tung, Hemphill, Murray. Browne, T. l\1. Henley, Mutchler, Budd, Hewitt, A. S. Nicholls, Burleigh, Hooper, Ochiltree, Burnes, Howey, Paige, :Calkin , Hutchins, Parker, Campbell Felix Jeffords, Payne, Cannon, · Johnson, Pet.tibone, •Chace, Jones, J. :K. Phelps, Covington, Jones, J. T. Potter, Cox, S. S. Jordan, Price, Culbertson, W. W. Kelley, Ranney, ·Cullen, Kellogg, Ray, Ossian Dargan, Ketcham, Reagan,

Turner, H. G. ·wait, Wakefield, Washburn, White, Milo Whiting, Wise, J. S.

Riggs, Robinson, J. S. Russell, Seney, Shelley, Steele, Storm, Talbott, Thomas, Tucker, Valentine, Wadsworth, Weaver, White,J. D. 'Vilson, James Winans, John Wood, Woodward, York, Young.

So the House decided tO proceed with the consideration of the case. The following pairs were announced: Mr. WooD with Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, until the lOth instant. 1\fr. MUTCHLER with Mr. EvANS, of Pennsylvania, until the 6th in-

·stant. .Mr. NICHOLLS with 1\fr. CHACE, on all political questions except tariff

until further notice. The following were .. announced as paired on all political questions un-

1il further notice: · .Mr. JoNES, of Abbn.ma, with Mr. JOHNSO:N. Mr. HEWITT, ofNew York, with Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. GRAVES with Mr. B&IETUNG. Mr. DO &SHErMER with Mr. MOREY. 1\fr. REAGA.!.~ with Mr. HOWEY. :l\1r. HE~IPHILL with Mr. YORK. Mr. BLOU:NT with Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. CAMPBELL, of New York, with Mr. CULBERTSON, of Kentucky. Mr. RIGGS with ~1r. KELLOGG. }ir. BEN:NETT with 1\fr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. Yo~G with Mr. PAYNE. Mr. BEL.:\IO:NT with Mr. BARR. Mr. JoNES, of Arkansa , with l'l1r. McKINLEY. l\1r. SNYDER with Mr. HANBACK. Mr. MULDROW with l\1r. GoFF. The following were announced as paired for this day: Mr. Cox, of New York, with 1\Ir. BELFORD. l\!r. TUCKER with l\1r. BROWNE, of Indiana. Ur. TALBOTT. I desire to withdraw my vote. I am paired with

·the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANNEY], whom I do not now .see in his seat.

The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the resolutions reported by the

majority ofthe Committee on Elections. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That John Paul was not elected as a Representative to the Forty

eighth Congress from the seventh Congressional district of Virginia, and was not entitled to the seat.

Resolved, That Charles T. O'Ferrall was duly elected as a Representative from the seYenth Congressional district of Virginia to the Forty-eighth Congress, and i - entitled to hi seat as such.

Mr. niiLLER, of Pennsylvania. I want in time, Mr. Speaker, to -offer a ubstitute for tho e which have been read.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, it will be considered the snh titnte is pending. The gentleman xefers of course to the resolution reported by the minority of the committee.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir. The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and it will be con

sidered as pending. 1r. MILLER, of Pennsylvania.. I ask for the reading of the report

in this case, and shall al o at the conclusion of its reading ask that the views of the minority be read.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the report made by the Com-• mittee on Elections.

The Clerk read as follows: 1\Ir. LoWRY, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following report: The Committee on Elections, having fully considered this case, after mature

dol iberation, report as follows: Charles T. O'Ferrall and John Paul were opposing candidates for a seat in the

Forty-eighth Congre s from the seventh Congre sional district of Virginia, the former the nomint!e of the Democratic party, the latter the nominee of theReadju ter or Coalition party,at the November election,1882. The State board of <"!l.nva sers made the following returns: For O'Ferrall 11,941; for Paul 12,146; leaving a majority of 205 votes for 1\Ir. Paul.

The latter received the ce1·tlficate, but never qualified, and sent in his resig.natiou to the go,·ernor in August, 1883, on being appointed to the bench of the

United States court. No special election having been ordered, the seat has been during the session, and is uow, vacant. 'fhe record in the CtLSe cover about 800 pages, and much of the testimony is irrelevant. We find that 676 votes were cast for the conJlCStee (Paul) in the county of Albemarle, in this district, by persons who were delinquent in payment of their capitation tax fo:r ISSI, of which number there is no fair pretense that, as to 557 of them., they had ever paid such capitation tax so us to entitle them to vote under the constitution or Virginia. . ;

The first clause of Article III, section 1, of the constitution of Virginia w!ls, at the date of the election, • ovember 7, 1882, as follows:

"Every male citizen of the United States 21 years old who shall have been a resident of the State twelve months, and of the county, city, or town in which he shall offer to vote three month nea:t preceding any election, at1d shall have paid to the State before the day of election the capitai.ion tax required by law for the preceding year shall be entitU!d to vote for members of Ute generaL assembly a11d aU office~· elected by th.e people."

Article X, section 5, was and is as follows : "The general assembly may levy a. tax not exceeding $1 per annum on every

male citizen who has attained the age of 21 years, which shall be t'-pplied exclusively in aid of public free schools; and counties and corporations shall have power to impose o. capitation tax, not exceeding M cents per atmum for all purposes."

Section 5 of an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, entitled "An act for the a essm6nt of taxes on persons, property,'' &c., approved .April2~. 1882,and in force at the time of said election, is as follows:

"Upon every male person1 as classified in this schedule, over the age or 21 years, not exempt for bodily Infirmity, there shall be a tax of 1 for public freeschool purpose . " -Virginia Revenue Laws, 1882, page 45.

"\'Ve base our conclusion that 676 vote were cast by person delinquent in the payment of their capitation taxes in Albemarle for contestee, and that 557 of these were clearly illegal, upon the following facts:

By section 57, chapter 33, of the Code of Virginia, the commissioners of the revenue were required to state in their as essment-lists the color of all male inhabitants over the age of 21 years. The treasurer, in making his return of delinquents to the auditor-of public accounts, gave the color of all delinquents in accordance with the commissioners' books. So that the white delinquents were classified in one list and the colored in another list.

The contestant filed certified copies of the delinquent-lists (wh.ite and colored) of Albemarle County. (Record, 75-91.}

The e lists showed the names and color of all delinquents for the year 1881-the year for which the capitation tax was required to be paid before the day of the election in question.

There is contention between the parties as to whether the auditor of public ac-counts of Virginia could appoint certain collectors of delinquent taxe , and whether the e collectors and their deputies could then legally collect these delinquent capitation taxes.

Assuming for the purposes of this case that the auditor of public accounts could appoint collectors of delinquent taxes, and that these collectors could appoint deputies (both of which questions are held in reserve), then, •wderthela.w, the clerks of the county and corporation courts of the Commonwealth and the special collectors appointed by the auditor and their deputies were the only parties by whom receipts could be issued for delinquent capitation taxes in the various counties and cities.

The principal question on which we rest this case is whether certain tax receipts Issued by these collectors (so called) and their deputie were issued without being paid for.

The contestant, to show the number of receipts issued and to whom by both the clerk of Albemarle and special collector, filed a certified list of the name of delinquents for 1881, to whom receipts bad been issued by the clerk of Albemarle County. (See record, 73-75.)

After thus ascertaining the names of these parties who had clerk's receipts it followed as a necessary con equence that all delinquents who voted whose names were not on the clerk's list voted on the collector's receipts. Then to ascertain what delinquent voter cast their votes, and upon who e receipt , it was only necessary to compare the poll-books of the county with the delinquentlists. ·

Contestant introduced a witness (record, 71) who testified-and whose testimony remained uncontradicted-that he had compared the clerk's list with the poll-books and had designated all the delinquents who voted on the clerk's receipt by the letters "H. B. B." opposite their names on the delinquent-lists; that he then designated all the delinquents who voted and who did not have the clerk's receipts by the name of the precinct at which they voted opposite their name on the delinquent-li ts. Itwa thus found that6i6 delinquent voted who did uot have the clerk's receipt, and presuming that the judges of election did their duty and required the production of receipts, as required by law, the e 676 voted on the collector's receipts. Of this number 655 were colored.

James '.r. Wayland, a strong and a-ctive partisan of the contestee, was appointed a speci,tl tax collector of delinquent taxes for Albemarle County by the auditor of public accounts, who belonged to the same party as the contestee, and was a State canva ser of that party. This special tax collector appointed persons whoru he ealled deputies in said county; he issued unlimited numbers of blank receipts for delinquent capit>~.tion taxes to these so-called deputies, who were all partisans of the contrstee, and these deputie filled these receipts without receiving any money, and delivered them to the voters. These deputies paid no money to the collector for the receipts at any time, either before or after the election; the collector only received, and that in bulk, without being applied to individual cases, for all the receipts i sued by him, $125 before the day of election. Each receipt issued represented 1.00, so that, even assuming that this $1.2:) was a valid payment for so many receipts, the said sum of $125 only paid for 119 receipts. There were 676 votes cast upon the receipts issued by this special collector, o that after deducting said 119 receipts there were 557 vot-es ca. t upon collector ' receipts for which no money had been paid at the time the votes were cast, or before the day of election, as required by the constitution of Virginia, and therefore these 557 votes were illegal.

The system of appointing these special collectors was inaugurated for political purposes by the auditor of public accounts of the State, who belonged to the party of which the contestee wa the nominee; all of his appointees were active partisans of his party, and in many instances the chairman or secretary of the county committee, or a member of the State committee of that party, or an United States internal-revepueofficer.

For instance: ALBEMARLE COUXTY.

(See deposition of James T. Wayland, collector. Record, 20.) "Que tion 37th. Please state which of the candidates for Congress from this

district you supported at the last election? "Answer. Good God A'mighty, I thought everybody knew that-John Paul.

Put that in great big le~ters. "Question 38th. Were you not an active worker for and partisan of said John

Paul? "Answer. Yes; I was."

AUGUSTA CO~TY.

(See deposition of E. L. Curtis; collector. Record, 483.) '' 1. Ques. What are your politics? "Ans. I am a. Republican; voted for Paul and Wi e."

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3803 .CITY OF STA~TON.

(See deposition M. S. Cease, collector. Record, 472.) "1. Qnes. What are your politics, and for whom did yon vote? "Ans. lam a Republican, and voted for Wise and Paul.''

BATH COUNTY.

(See deposition Thomas A. Colby, collector. Record, 226.) "3d. Please state whether or not you voted at the election held on the 7th

Nov., 1882; ifyea,forwhom did you vote? "Ans. I did vote at said election, and for Wise and Paul. "4th. Please state whether or not you hold any position of emolument, trust,

<>r profit under the Federal Government; if so, what position. . ' Ans. I do; I am district gauger for Alleghany, Bath, and Highland Counties."

FLUVil"NA COUb--rY.

(See deposition of A. Shepherd. Record, 258.) "Quest. 3. Did John R. Haden occupy any official station in the organization

of either of the political parties ; and was he or not a partisan of either of the candidates at that election?

"Answer. He was county chairman of the Readjuster party, a. warm friend of Paul and Wise, and be was also delinquent-tax collector.''

Haden was the collector for this county.

GOOCHLAND COtn."'TY.

(See deposition of Dr. A. N. Johnston. Record, 275.) "14th question. You stated that 1{. N. Turner, collector of delinquent taxes by

appointment of the auditor of public accounts, )vas present at Snead's Store precinct on the day of election. Please state what part be took in said election then and there, and in the canvass preceding the same, for which party and candidate, and to what extent.

"Ans. Yes, hewaspresenta,nd wasquiteactivein working for Wise and Paul. He issued the delinquent-tax receipt.s on the ground the day of election. He worked hard during the canvass for Wise and Paul, I think.''

PAGE COUb--rY.

(See depo ition of A. K. Grim, to wh0m the collector turned over the delinquent-lists and who issued receipts. Record, 654.)

"Ques. 2d. \Vere you not a partisan of Paul in the last Congressional election in this district; did you not exert yourself actively to secure his election; and are you not now chairman of the executive committee of the Readjuster party in this county?

"Ans. {lst) I was; (2d) I did; {3d) I am.'' ROCKINGHAM COUNTY.

(See deposition of James Sullivan. Record, 319.) "50. By same. State whether or not 1\Ir. Davis was an acti>e worker and par

tisan for Ir. Paul in said election. "Ans. Mr. Davis was, I know, a supporter of the Readjuster ticket; be was

an active supporte1·.'' Davis was the collector for this county.

SHENA1\'DOAH COUXTY.

(See depo ition of R. L. Roberts, collector. Record 352.) "Q. 2. State whether or not you are a member of the State committee of the

Readjuster party of the State of Virginia. "Aus Yes sir" Thes~ collecto~s appointed so-called deputies in pursuance of directions from

the officers ofthe Readjuster party. (See deposition ofL. W. Bunch. Record, 49.) "Quest. 4. Did you ever see any circular or printed letter of instructions, pur

porting to be issued and signed by William 1\Iahone, chairman of the Readjuster Republican Coalition party of the State of Virginia; if so, in who e band was such letter, and what was its purport?

"Ans. I was appointed a canvasser for the senatorial district of Albemarle and Green Counties by the Harrisonburgh convention which nominated Hon. John Paul. I was shown by Dr. John R. Wood a printed circular formulating a plan for the appointment of deputy collectors for each voting precinct for the State of Virginia, for the conducting of the campaign."

All of these o-called deputies were partisans of the contestee. (See Record, 20,113,118,167,247,266, 268,270,311,325,328,330,333,334,339, 350,352, 648.)

Receipts were only issued by these collectors and their so-called deputies to Readjuster or Coalition voters.

This system was inaugurated just before each election, and the duties of these collectors ceased immediately after. All the collectors were partisans of the contestee, and thcirso-called deputies were appointed in obedience to the directions of their leaders. The system was evidently administered, not for the interests of the revenue but as a political machine for the purpose of promoting the interests of the party of which the contestee was the nominee.

But apart from the presumption arising from these facts we refer to the following testimony:

ALBEMARLE COUNTY.

William H. Southall (record 25): "Quest.4. Who was said t<> be the deputy collector of Jame T. Wayland, the

.auditor's collector at Ivy? "Ans. J. Snowden Wood. "Quest. State whether or not you ever approached said J. Snowden Wood,

and offered to pay a capitation tax of a voter, and asked him to give you are-ceipt therefor, and with what re ult and what he said.

"Ans. On the evening before the election a voter came t.o me at the Ivy precinct, and said he had not paid his taxes and had no tax ticket. I suggested to him to go to 1\lr. Wood, who I understood had 'Vayland tax tickets, and get one. He did so, but Wood declined to let him have one. I then went toW ood mvself and requested that he would let me baTe one of his tickets, as I understood he hnd tickets; that I would pay him for it. He acknowledged he had ticket-s, but that he did not have more than he had use for, and refused to let me haYe one. The voter who came to me was a white voter, and I told J. Snowden Wood he was a Conservative or Democratic voter."

Wood was one of the collector's deput.ies. (Record,19.) N.C. McGee (record, 58) testified as follows: "Quest. 5. Did any person offer to vote that day who said he had not paid his

taxes, but whose name was on the delinquent-list, and who afterward produced a receipt? If so state circum tances fully.

"Ans. Yes, sir; there were two, I recollect now, Bob Harris and Charles Kenney; two negroes. But they were not allowed to vote. I objected seriously .and remarked to the judges that that was too thin; I could not stand that; th~ tickets were too easily made. The other white judge then took the colored one out and they had a little consultation. I don't know any further than this.

''Quest. 6 by same. State whether or not either of the judges of election went out with one of the last-mentioned negroes, after he first presented himself and said he had no receipt, and before he returned with a receipt; and if so, do you know where they went?

"Ans. One of the judges went out with Bob Harris. I don't know any further, where they went, what they did, or anything else. The judge who went out was 1\ir. SnowdP-n Wood."

Wood was a deputy collector. (Record, 19.)

W. S. Coles (record, 68) testified as follows: " Quest. 2 by same. Please state whether or not you have ever seen a capita

tion-tax receipt in the bands of any person who voted at Porter's last election, which receipt appeared from its face to have been filled up with the names of several voters successively; and, if so, in whose bands did you see it? What was said about the receipt when it was shown t<> you, and where is it now?

"Ans. Yes, sir, did; I saw it in the hands of James Jones, a colored man who live.s at Warren. I asked him who gave it to him. He told me it was given to' him by George Washington Carey, one of the judges of election at Porter's precinct, I think; !don't k.now where it is now.

"Quest. 3 by same. When did he say it was given to him, whose name was in it when you saw it, and who wrote the name in it, and when was the name written?

"Ans. He said it was given to him on the day of election. James Jones's name was in it when I saw it. Geo. Washington Cary wrote the name in it. It was written on the day of election.''

This, though in the nature of hearsay, was not asked to be stricken out. We give effect. to it, however, only iu connection with the following:

James Jones, colored (record, 733), testified as follows: "Quest. 2. What time of day did you get to Porter's last election day, and what

time did you 'vote? "Ans. As near as I can come at it, about 3 o'clock p.m., and voted very late

in the evening. "Quest. 3. 'Why did not you vote when you first got there? "Ans. I failed to get my tax ticket; thought Mr. Coles bad it there, but found

Mr. Coles did not have it. "Quest. 4. How did you finally come to vote? How did you get your tax

ticket? '' Ans. Just before I stru:ted to leave George Washingt-on Carey asked me if I

had voted. I told him I bad not; I failed to get my tax ticket. He told me then to hold on and wait, he thought he bad one left, and came to me pretty soon and handed me a tax ticket, and said it was all right. I then went on and voted.

"Quest. 5. Is the George Washington Carey you just spoke of the same man who was one of the judges of election at Porter's that day, and is he white or colored?

"Ans. He is colored, and was one of the judges of election there that day. "Quest. 6. Did you ever ask George Washington Carey to get your tax ticket

for you? "Ans. No, sir.'' James R. Bragg (record, 68) testified that there was a large number of colored

voters nt his precinct in the morning who did not vote until the evening; that they rushed to- the polls very soon after one Branham arrived at the precinct; that Branham acknowledged he brought capitation-tax receipts for a good many; that Branham was a very strong partisan of the contestee, and admitted in his presence he had filled up the receipts after he got them. Branham was a deputy collector.

J. l\Iassie Smith (record, 29), Milton, testified that two colored Republicans were the ticket-holders, and that they went up to the polls with the colored voters, and often gave them their tickets and tax-receipts at the same time.

l\1. Darrett (record, 29) testified that Samuel B. Yates, a deputy collector, told him he was only collecting from those he knew were going to vote the Readjuster ticket.

Samuel B. Yates, deputy collector (record, 32), testifies: ''Quest. 29. Did you deliver any of these receipts to persons unless you knew

or had good reason to believe they would vote for Paul and Wise ? "Ans. No, sir." Archer Bland, colored (record, 36), testified he got a number of receipts from

the collector's office and gave them to the colored supporters of the contestee. He testified fUl.'ther (record, 37) that receipts were sent for on the day of elec

tion from his precinct to another, to one John Alexander, for supporters of contestee. Alexander was a deputy collector. (Record, 19.)

A. B. Parker, colored, a member of county committee of the "Readjuster Republican party " (record, 47), testified that in a meeting of the committee the chairman stated-

" That he proposed t.o put blank receipts in the hands of deputies or some reliable person at each poll, to be filled on day of election."

Jefferson R. Taylor (record, 59) testified as follows: "Ques. 4. Please state whether or not you saw any capitation-tax receipts

offered in evidence to the judges of election at Keswick that day; if so, by whom were they offered, by whom were they signed, and what was their appearance and condition?

"Ans. I saw several, I can't recollect how many, nor can I recollect the names of the persons offering them with any exactness, except that they were colored men residing in my immediate neighborhood, one of whom, if I recollect rightly, was Ben. Hearns. Hearns and one or two other men approached the polls. I sent a man, who was also a neighbor of theirs, to them to see bow they were going t.o vote. In my hearing they said that they could not vote ; that they had not paid their taxes, or hadn't their tax-tickets, I forget which. I kept my eye on them, and in a few minutes I saw them approach the polls 'vith a Readjuster as if they were going to vote. I saw them present to the judges of election, in evidence of their having paid their taxes, tax-tickets which were clean, whereas they were very dirty, unfolded, without a crease, with the collector's name, James Wayland, signed in ink which was perfectly black. The voter's name was filled in in an ink of a greenish hue, which seemed to have been 'Arnold's Writing Fluid' before it had had time to turn black.''

AUGUSTA COUNTY.

l\I. S . Cease, collector of the city of Staunton, and E. L. Curtis, collector of the count.y of Augusta, testified they issued receipts to Readjustersonly. (Record, 469, 480.)

"No Democrats ever applied to them.''

FLUVANNA COUNTY.

Isaac 0. Perkins, deputy collector (record, ~0), testified that he refused to deliver receipts to certain voters because they were regarded as Funder.s (Democrats).

GOOCHLAND COUNTY.

The evidence in this county showed that these receipts were in the bands of the partisans of the contestee, and no one else at the polls, except one man who had beenaR~adjuster, and to whom they were sent by mistake, but he left the precinct and did not use them. About seventeen receiptswereissaed to Democrats because the clerk refused to receive taxes.

PAGE COUNTY .

All the receipts in this county were in the hands of the partisans of the contestee.

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY.

The same in this county. One deputy testified that he would ask a voter whom he would vote for; if he said he intended to vote the Democratic ticket ''he would leave him alone;'' but if he said he would vote theReadjuster ticket he would give him a. receipt. (Record, 677.)

SHENANDOAH COUNTY.

Receipts were issued only to Readjust.er Yoters in thi county, except about

3804 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. M.A.Y 5,

twenty which were issued to the Democrats, because the county clerk, who was the county chairman of the R.eadjusterparty, refused to receive taxes.

So far as to all these delinquent voters on collectors' receipts as a. class the receipt were in the hands of these partisan collectors and their deputies, who either gave them out to the supporters of the conte tee or to his partisans, who delivered them to those who would vote for contestee. The surveillance these partisans exercised leaves no doubt in our minds that the receipts were used only by the supporters of the contestee, except in the county of Goochland, where ~bout seventeen, and in the county of Shenandoah1 where about twenty were issued to Democrats because the clerks would notrecelVe taxes, but whether used by the e Democrats in voting or not does not appear. These latter were paid for when issued, before the day of election. There is no evidence introduced nor attempt made to show that receipts were issued by these collectors to Democrats except the few indicated. It seems to have been a well-arrangedand wellunderstood system inaugurated for the benefit of the party of wruch contestee was the nominee.

But apart from the manifestly just conclusion that these delinquent voters t {pOD collectors' receipts voted for contestee, we refer to tbe testimony in Albemarle County c.lone (tor we do not think it is necessary to inquire further) to show for whom the colored vote was cast in that county.

It will be remembered that 655colored voters voted on the collector's receipts in that county.

ALBEMARLE COUNTY.

Showing how e<>Wred vote was cast. 1. A. D. Payne (record, 22) testified that be was at the polls at Charlottesville

most of the day of election and that the colored vote was cast for Paul; that he knew this from observing from whom they got their tickets and of whom these ticket-holders were supporters.

2. John Dickerson, colored (record, 23), testified that he canvassed a large portion of the county for Paul; tbat he held meetings of the colored people and addre ed them and conferred with them. He thought after he got through with his canvass they would go solid for Paul.

3. Albert Southall, colored (record, 24), testified that he was at the court-house all day of election; that the colored vote was cast for Paul; that be saw the tickets Paul's supporters were issuing, and he thought all the colored people got these tickets and voted them; that be was at one meeting of the colored people (a club meeting) and they pledged themselves to support Paul; "took it down in writing;" that he was at another meeting which was addressed by a colored man in the interest of Paul.

4. William H. Southall (record, 25) testified that be urged the colored voters at his precinct (Ivy) to vote for 0' Ferrall, but only got one to do so; that he was all day at the polls; that there were three colored men on his place who were pretty much supported by him, and be urged them to vote for O'Ferrall, but they posi:tively refused. The colored man who vo!ed for 0' Ferrall voted on a clerk's receipt. (Memo. : No question is raised as to clerk's receipts by either party.)

5. J. J. Brown (record, 27) testified that he was well acquainted with the white and colored voters at his precinct (Howardsville); had been registrar there for several years; bad ascertained the sentiments and political views of the voters, and that the colored vote was cast for Paul with the exception of two. That frequently, prior to the election, be urged the colored voters to vote the Democratic ticket, but they all refused to do so with the exception of one, who always votes the Democratic ticket.

6. Holmes Bowles, sr., colored (record, 28), testified that he used his influence with ills race, and did so just before the election in November, 1882, in the interest of Paul; that be was at his precinct (North Garden) all day of the election, and from ills opportunities of knowing and from his work on that day be would say the colored vote was cast for Paul with a. few exceptions.

7. l. L. Van Doren (record,~) testified that he was judge of election (at Carter's Bridge) and present all day; that from his observation at the poUs and his general knowledge of the voters and their political affiliations and associations, and his observation of the political workers who gave out ballots at the polls to the colored voters, he would say the colored vote was almost unanimous for Paul. ·

8. J. 1\lassie Smith (record, 29) testified that he was at the polls all day; that from his observation of the polls, his knowledge of the individual voters, and their political affiliations and associates, and from his observations of the persons who gave out the ballots to the colored voters and went to the polls with them, he would say the colored vote was cast for Paul; that two colored Republicans went up to the polls with nearly all the colored voters and exhibited the tickets of the voters and gave them their tax-receipts.

9. J. C. Childress (record, 33) test:ified that he was a Republican, and that be had usually exercised a large influence over the colored voters ; that at his precinct (Carter's) the colored vote was cast for Paul-" be did not know an exception." That this opinion was formed from his observation at the polls and his conversation with the colored voters just before the election. "They were all for the Readjuster ticket."

10. J. J. Winn (record, 33) testified that be was present at his precinct (Hillsborough) all tlay of the election, and that from his knowledge of the individual voters and their political associations and affiliations, and his observations at the polls of the persons from whom the colored voters got their ballots, and with whom they came to the polls, he would say the colored vote was cast for Paul.

11. Jonathan Browning (record, 41) testified that be was present at the polls election day, at his precinct (Scottsville); that the colored vote was cast for Paul, with one exception; that be was well acquainted with the people in his section, and stated that the colored vote was cast for Paul from his knowledge of the voters and their political affiliations and associates, and his observation of the persons from whom the colored voters got their ballots, and by whom they were e corted to the polls, and from his experience in canvassing among them in the interest of candidates.

12. Rev. M. T. Lewis, colored (record, 54), testified that the colored vote was cast for Paul; that there was more enthusiasm and interest manifested for him than be had known for years. He saw a number of Paul tickets voted by them at Charlottesville.

13. Wm. E. Jackson (record, 55) testified that he worked assiduously at his precinct (Wingfield's) for Paul; that up to 3.30 or 4 o'clock be was the only person who issued tickets, and all be issued were for Paul.

14. John Anderson (record, 56} testified that at his precinct (Keswick), from his ob ervatiou of the voting, and from his knowledge of the voters and the persons who gave them their tickets and went up to the polls with them, he would say the colored vote was cast for Paul; that be knew the ticket-issuers for Pau·J. He was at the polls all day and took a good deal of interest. .

15. N. C.l\IcGee (record, 57) test:ified that be was at Ivy precinct aU day as one of the judges; that judging from his observation at the polls and of whom the colored voters got their ballots and by whom they were aecompanied to the polls, and from his knowledge of the individual voters and their political affiliations and associations, he would say the colored vote was undoubtedly cast for Paul.

16. Je1ferson R. Taylor (record, 59) testified : "Ans. I re ide in Albemarle Coun~y, Rivanna district. I vote at Keswick

precinct; was pre ent from sunrise to sun et on election day at the polls. "Question 2. From your knowledge of the individual voters at that precinct,

and of their political affiliations and asso~ates, and from your observation of the persons from whom the negroes got their ballot , and who came up to the

polls with them, for whom would you say the colored vote there was ca t; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

"Ans. Paul, almost solidly. "Question. Please state the facts on which your conclusion is based. "Ans. I was appointed by the county superintendent of the Con ervative

party to attend to the interests of the party at Keswick precinct. I was to be, and was, assisted in looking after votes by several oiher voters at the precinct. Either myself or some of these men who were acting with me, and under my eye, met every colored voter who offered to vote at the precinct. They were also met by men acting for the Readjuster party. I do not remember one instance in which the Readjuster managers failed totakeoffthecoloredmen who offered to vote, and were met by agents of both parties, to the polls and watch over them until they had voted. They took their tickets from the Readjuster managers, and I suppose voted the Readjuster ticket."

17. Philip .Nelson (record, 68) te tilled that be was at his precinct (Stony Point) the most of the day of election; that from his observation at the polls the colored vote was cast for Paul, with a few exceptions.

18. James R. Bragg (record, 68) testified that he was at his precinct (Lindsay's) on election day.

"Q.uestion 2. State whether or not you noticed whether the colored vote at your precinct was controlled at the last election by the partisans of either of the candidates for Congress from this district; and, if so, in the interest of which candidate was the colored vote controlled and cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

"Ans. 1\ly observation is that is was for Paul. There was a large number of colored voters there in the morning who did not vote until the evening, and rushed to the polls very soon after Mr. N. Branham arrived on the place, who acknowledged that be brought capitation-tax receipts for a good many. He was a partisan of Mr. Paul, and a very strong one."

19. Capt. J. A. Early (record, 69) testified: "1st Q.uestion by contestant's counsel. Please state your residence and voting

precinct, and ifyou wereatthatprecincton the 7th ofNovember,l882. " Answer. Albemarle County; voting precinct, Whitehall. I was. "2d Q.ues. by same. State w hetber or not you noticed whether the colored vote

at your precinct was controlled at last election by the partisans of .either of the candidates for Congress from this district; and, if so, in the interest of which candidate was the colored vote controlled and cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

"Ans. Well, the colored vote was controlled by the friends of Mr. Paul. I do not believe there were but two colored votes cast for O'Ferrall. I know there was two.

Cross-examined by counsel for contestee: " 1st Q.uestion. When you speak of the colored vote being controlled by the

friends of Paul, what do you mean; that is, how controlled? "Ans. By seeing Paul's friends, who were the leading politicians, furnish

them with tickets." · 20. Davis J.Jacksw (record, 69) testified:

"1st Q.. by counsel for contestant. State your residence and voting precinct, and whether you were at that voting precinct on the 7th of November, 1882, the dar of election for Congressman for the 7th district of Virginia?

• Ans. Earlysvilleismyvotingprecinct. IlivenearthereinAlbemarleCounty. I was at said election, at said voting-place.

"2d Q.. by same. Whom did you support for Congress in that election ? "Ans. Massey and Paul. "3d Q. by same. For whom did the colored voters at that precinct vote as be·

tween Paul and O'Ferrall ? "Ans. WeU, I think Paul got the majority. "4th Q. by same. Did not Paul get nearly the entire colored vote? "Ans. I think be got the most of them." 21. James Curry, witness for contestee (record, 390), and who voted for con

testee, testified on cross-examination : "Quest. 5. Which side did the colored people at Hilton vote for at the last

election; was it for Paul and Wise, or Massey and 0' Ferrall? · ".Ans. Paul and Wise." This evidence shows as conclusively as circumstantial evidence could welt

show that the colored vote was cast with almo t perfect unanimity for the contestee, and when it is taken in connection with the fact that 655 colored delinquents voted on collectors' receipts issued only to Readjuster voters, the conclusion naturally follows that these 655 colored delinquents voted for contes tee.

What is proof? His that degree of evidence which convinces the mind and produces belief.

Can any reasonable mind in the light of this evidence fail to believe that these votes were cast for contestee? Is not the weight of evidence on the side of the contestee? In fact, does it not exclude even a reasonable donbt?

There is no evidence nor any attempt to controvert this, and is not that another circumstance which goes to strengthen the belief? In the case of Smith vs. Shelley the last House held t-hat tbe testimony of two witnesses that 95 to 97~ per cent. of the colored vote of a Congressional district was Republican was sufficient in the ab ence of controverting"testimony. Here are twenty-one witnesses, of both political]>arties and both colors, who were present at the polls, working in the interest of the respective candidates, or ob erving as intere ted parties the movements, actions, and expressions of the voters, and with a knowledge of their political affiliations and a sociates, who testify that the colored vote of a county (not a Congressional district) was cast with approximate unanimity in a certain direction and for a particular candidate. It was not mere opinion, as in the case of Smith vs. Shelley, but facts drawn from direct observation and participation at the polls, and from knowledge of political proclivities and associations.

Our conclusion is that the e 557 persons bad not complied with tbi constitutional provision, and were not therefore qualified to vote, and their vote must be deducted from the vote of the contestee. How, then, will the vote stand? Returned vote for contestant, O'Ferrall ..................................................... 11, 941 Returned vote for contestee, P ul .. ......... ...... ....................... ........... 12, 146 Deduct the illegal votes above................................................ ... .. .... 557

--11,589

Majority for contestant, O'Ferrall.................... ............ ...... ...... .... .... . 352 But in this county Porter's precinct was thrown out by the board of county

commissioners for mere irregularity. We trunk it ought to be counted. It gave contestee 104 majority. Deduct, then, 104 from 352, and it leaves a clear majority of 248 votes for contestant.

The record also contains allegations that many persons voted for contestee in other counties of the district who lacked this qualification; that a large number of persons voted for contestee who had not been assessed; that persons voted for him who were non-residents of the county in which they lived or had notresided in the county the required time; that minors and persons who had been convicted of petit larceny, and thereby disqualified, voted for contestee.

Contestant's majority might be considerably increased by a critical examination of the evidt>nce upon one or more of these grounds, but as it is unnecessary to do this we have refrained from giving an analysis of the testimony. The contestant also alleges that special tax-collectors, all of whom were partisaus of contestee, were appointed on the eve of thetlection in the interest o f the contestee

1884 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3R05 without authorityoflaw, and that many persons were enabled by the use of taxreceipts illegally and fraudulently issued by these special tax-collectors to vote for contestee, and that these votes ought to be deducted from his column. But we have not considered it necessary to pass upon the issues of law and fact arising upon these allegations, and expressly withhold our opinion upon them in this case, as the question is directly involved in another case now undetermined before the committee.

It is also claimed by the parties respectively that certain precincts which gave the contestee large majorities and one which gave contestant a majority ought to be excluded, because neither the judges nor clerks, nor any of them, were sworn, as required by the statute of Virginia; but upon this point also, as being one not necessary to be settled in order to the proper determination of this case, we abstain from announcing any conclusion.

We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: Resolved, That .John Paul was not elected as a Representative to the Forty

eighth Congress from the seventh Congres ional district of Virginia, and was not entitled to the seat.

Resolved, That Charles T. O'Ferrall wasdulyelectedas a R.epresentativefrom the seventh Congressional district of Virginia to the Forty-eighth Congress, and is entitled to his seat as such. *

During the reading of the report the following occurred: 1\Ir. l\IILLER, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a question of order. I am

quite satisfied that a large number of the members of this House have not heard this report, as there is so much confusion in the Hall, and I therefore ask for order so while the report is being read it may be heard.

The SPEAKER. The House will come to order. The Clerk proceeded with the reading of the report until it was fin

ished. Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I now ask leave to present the

views of the minority of the committee, and also that it be read to the House at this time.

1\lr. LOWRY rose. The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the Clerk will proceed to

read the views of the minority. The Chair hears no objection. :Mr. LOWRY. Before the reading of the minority report is proceeded

with, in order to suit the convenience of gentlemen on both sides of the House, I think it will be desirable to know when discussion, ifanytake place, will be closed in this case. I therefore inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the other side what time it will be agreeable to them to have fixed for the argument. What time would it be agreeable to the gentleman the vote should be taken?

. Mr. l\IILLER, of Pennsylvania. I ca.n imagine no purpose in that except to give members of this House an opportunity to be absent. I think inasmuch as the views of the minority have never been presented members ought to be here to hear them, and thus they ca.n vote intelligently. An arrangement can be made subsequently, after the discussion has proceeded some time, as to when the vote shall be taken.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will proceed to read the views of the minority.

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. l\Ir. HA:M.MO:ND, of Georgia. Is it a matter of right to have the

views of the minority read? The SPEAKER. It is not except as a. part of some gentleman's re

marks. The Chair asked for objection and there was none made. Mr. HAMMOND. I did not hear it. The SPEAKER. It is always usual to let the minority present

their views. Mr. HAMMOND. I understand that. Mr. REED. And it is customary to have them printed. Houses

have gone to that extent. The SPEAKER. It is customary to allow them to be presented and

ordered to be printed. In this case the views of the minority are presented in manuscript, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania asked to have them read. The Chair asked for objection and none was made. The Clerk will proceed to read the views of the minority. , Mr. LOWRY. Before reading the views of the minority, to which I hope there will be no objection, I will, inasmuch as the gentlemen on the other side have not indicated any time when it will be agreeable to them the vote shall be taken, give notice that I shall demand the previous question on this question this afternoon not later than 3 o'clock. I do this, as I have said, in the absence of any communication on the other side as to what would be most agreeable to them.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will proceed to read the views of the minority.

The Clerk read as follows: CHARLES T. O'FERRALL VS. JOHN PAUL.

1\Ir. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following minority report:

The resolutions appended to the report of the Committee on Elections, submitted by 1\Ir. LoWRY, of said committee, received the approval, by a yea-andnay vote, of six members out of twelve present at the time the vote was ta-kentwo members present declining to vote. Of the absent members, all three had expressed them elves opposed to the resolutions declaring l\lr. O'Ferrall elected and entitled to the seat. 'Ve state this as showing that at the time said resolutions were adopted by the committee they only had the indorsement of six of the fifteen members.

To arrive at the conclusions embodied in these resolutions the committee, or so much of it as indorses the so-called majority report, are compelled to ignore the well established rules of evidence as practiced and followed by judicial tribunals, and to override well established precedents which have heretofore ordinarily controlled the actioc of the HousE'! in contested-election cases.

The majority report in order to seat Mr. O'Ferrall, the contestant, throws out 557 votes in the county of Albemarle, and deduct.'J the entire 557 from the contestee, l\lr. Paul.

The alleged reason for throwing out the 5fl7 votes is that S76 persons in the county of Albemarle, one of the counties in the district, were delinquent in the payment of their capitation tax for 1881, the payment of which was a prerequisite to voting, of which number it is claimed 557 had not paid such tax prior to the election so as to entitle them to vote under the constitution and laws of Virginia.

The only substantial reason for deducting the entire 557 votes from contestee is that the tax collector for Albemarle County, appointed by the State auditor who had charge of the collection of this delinquent capitation tax, belonged~ the same party as contestee, and that all of the persons who cast the 557 votes were colored; and because colored persons and receiving their tax receipts from or through such collector they voted for contestee.

Of the 676 votes alleged to have been cast by delinquents but two of them were called-.J ames Curry, who (on page 390) testifies he paid his own capitation tax before the election and was therefore a qualified voter, and .James .Jones (page 733) who testifies he belonged to the Massey party.

We state the foregoing as preliminary to submitting our views.

CONTESTEE'S RETURNED MAJORITY 309. The Virginia State board of canvassers made the following return for the elec

tion held in seventh Virginia. Congressional district on November 7, 1882:

Counties, &c. Paul1 Readj. O'Ferrall,

Dem. Cochran, Indep.

Bath ............................................................ . 298 315 .................. Highland ..................................................... . 500 395 ...................

2,018 2,785 . ................. 2,630 2,000 115

969 647 .................. 1,610 1,324 .................. 1,878 2,255 17

036 369 ······ ············

Augusta ................ ........................................ . Rockingham ................................. ................ . Page .. ........................................................... . l::!henandoah .. .............................................. .. Albermarle .......................................... .. ....... . Greene ........... .... ........................................... .

601 658 . 41 688 495 34

Fluvanna ................................. ... ................. . Goochland ................................................... .. Staunton .. , .................................................... . 418 698 ··················

Total. ............................... .................... . 12,146 ll,941 107

Majority for l\Ir. Paul, 205. The commissioners of election for Albermarle County threw out Porter pre

cinct, in said county, because the poll-books and ballots were delivered to the clerk of the county court in an unsealed condition.

The entire committee are of opinion that it should be counted. It gave contestee 104majority, which added tothereturnedmajorityofcontesteemakes his majority in the district 309 .

A FAIR AND FREE ELECTION.

There is no proof, or indeed any allegation on the part of contestant, but that the elections were honestly and fairly held, and the vote counted and returned precisely as cast. There is no allegation on the part of contestant that the ballotrboxes, or the ballots, or the returns were tampered with.

There is no allegation in the majority report but that all those who voted for Paul were qualified voters, providing they had legally paid to a. legal officer the capitation tax of the preceding year.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A VOTER.

The qualifications of a voter in Virginia on November 7, 1882, are defined in the follo,ving articles and sections of the constitution and laws of Virginia.

Article 3, section 1, of the constitution of Virginia, was, at the date of the election, November 7, 1882 as follows:

"Every male citizen of the United States1 21 years old, who shall have been a. resident of the State twelve months, and or the county, city

1 or town in which

he shall offer to vote three months next preceding any election, and shall have paid to the State before the day of election the capitation tax required by law for the preceding year, shall be entitled to vote for members of the General Assembly and all officers elected by the people."

Article 10, section 5, was and is as follows: "The General Assembly may levy a tax, not exceeding $1 per annum, on every

male citizen who has attained the age of 21 years, which shall be applied exclusively in aid of public free schools; and counties and corporations shall have power to impose a capitation tax, not exceeding 50 cents per annum, for all purposes." (Acts 1876-'77, p. 422.)

Section 5 of an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, entitled "An act for the assessment of taxes on person, property," &c., approved April 22, 1882, and in force at the time of said election, is as follows :

"Upon every male person, as classified in t.hisschedule, over the a~e of21 years, not exempt for bodily infirmity, there shall be a. tax of $1 for pubhcfree school purposes." (Virginia Revenue Laws,1882, p. 45.)

It is admitted that the capitation tax above specified was properly levied for 1881 in the counties in this district. It is also true thatalargenumberofpersons in the several counties in the district did not pay this tax to the treasurers in the several counties and cities, and that in accordance with law the several treasurers made out lists of the delinquents, which after being presented to the courts in the several counties were duly and legally forwarded to the auditor of public accounts, a State officer. '

HOW THE DELINQUENT CAPITATION TAX IS COLLECTED.

By the various sections of the revenue laws of Virginia it is provided that as soon as practicable after the 15th day of .June of each year the treasurer of each county or city shall make out a list of unpaid taxes, and after being verified by designated officers, such lists are to be filed in the proper court in each county. When the court is satisfied of their correctness, they direct the clerk to certify copies to the State auditor of public accounts. The e lists include the unpaid capitation tax. Within sixty days after receiving the said lists, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the auditor of public accounts is to place a certified copy of the delinquent capitation-tax list "in the bands of any sheriff, sergeant, constable, or collector for collection."

Section 29 of this act is as follows: "A certified copy of the first and third lists heretofore returned (that is, the

personal property and capitation lists) shall be placed by the a.uditor of public accounts, within sixty days after receiving the originals, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the hands of any sheriff, sergeant, constable, or collector, for collection; the same to be acctmnted for within one year thereafter~aid officer to have the same power of distress as freasurers, and shall account for the same in like manner; and he and his sureties shall be subject to all such remedies as are given to the Commonwealth agaim.t treasurers for failure to pay; and his compensation shall not exceed 20 per cent. of the amount collect.ed and paid into his treasury. * * * But in no case shall such delinquent lists be placed for collection in the hands of any officer who has returned the same."

It will be observed that the delinquent capitation-tax list for 1881 could not leaYe the trea.omrer's hands until after .June 15. 1882. and that it could scarcely

:J806 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 5,.

reach the auditor before August 1, 1&...Q2, and be returned by him to the county collector before October 1, 1882. It wa-s contended by a portion of the committee, as al o by contestant, that the

a uditor of public aecountsof Virginia had no power to appoint collectors to collect these delinquent taxes, and that the receipt by them of such tax did not qualify the delinquent paying the same to vote; but this was so manifestly against the weight of authority that the committee has virtually abandoned this in the revised report filed April 30, 1884..

The expressed object of the law authorizing the assessment of a capitation tax was to raise revenue for the maintenance of public free schools, and the better to enforce its payment by indigent persons its payment was made a prerequisite for voting. The object of the law was to raise revenue. It is not contended but that the money collected by these appointees of the State auditor was paid into the State treasury. A full statement of the amount paid into the State treas ury up to February 20,1883, will be found on pages '1IJ7 et seq. of the record. By the law the collectors had one year in which to account.

Eve n admitting that thel e colJectors were not officers de jure (which we do not), there can be no doubt but tha t they were at lea. t officers de facto, acting under color of legal authority. We will not multipJy authorities on this point, but refer to the case of Thompson 11s. Ewing (1 Brewster, 121, and cases therein cited) and The People vs. Cook (14 Barbour, 259).

WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID PAYMEl\'T OF THE TAX? It was further contended by a portion of the committee, at the time this case was

passed on, that to constitute a valid pa-yment of this delinquent tax it must be paid by the delinquent himself, or by his express authority. We presume this position also has been abandoned.

We contend that if the delinquent's tax was paid by some one, the receipt given, and filled up by the collector or by some one for him and by his express direction and authority, at any time before the day of election, the ae ceptance of the receipt by the delinquent on the day of election ratified the act of the party paying the tax, and such ratification adopts the act as of the time of its performance.

In Pennsylvania it is provided by constitutional provision that to entitle an elector to vote he must, as a prerequisite, have paid, within two years next preceding the time of the election at which he claims the right to vote, a State or county tax. Under the constitution of 1874, the tax must have been paid at lea t thirty cjays before the election. In a. contested-election case in Dauphin County, which is reported at length in 11 Philadelphia Reports, 6451 the legality of a payment of such tax by an unauthorized person was the q uest10n at issue. The court held:

"From the adoption of the constitution of 1790 down to the present time the practice to pay taxes through an agent bas always been held as good and valid RS when done by the voter in person1 and the presentation of the receipt at the polls and claiming the right to vote oyvirtue of it has always been considered sufficient evidence of the adoption of the agency. It is averred, however, in the petition, and when that is demurred to we must take it to be true, that these voters bad their taxes paid without their knowledge or previous authority conferred on the person paying it. We must bold in this as in other cases that a sub equent ratification is equivalent to an original command, according to the legal maxim, Omnis ratihabitio retro trahiiur etmandato reqwiparatur. * * * The only doubt which can exist on this branch of the cases arises out of the constitutional mandate that the tax must be paid at least thirty days before the election, and whether the voter is obliged to show that be assumed and acknowledged the payment by the agent before that time. On careful consideration we are satisfied that the ratification adopts the act as of the time of its performance. It is thus carried back by relation to that period. Such is the doctrine la.id down by ancient and modern writers and by judicial decisions." (See 18 Viner's Abt., title Ratihabitio , pages 157-81, and a host. of authorities there cited.)

This opinion was delivered December 26, 1874. A still later case is that of in re Griffiths, decided in the quarter sessions of

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, IUld reported in 1 Kulp, 157. The contestant in that case, among other grounds of contest. set up tha t certain votes should be thrown out because their taxes had been paid by a political committee; but the court held, the testimony showing that the money was paid and the receipts filled out the required time before the day of election, although not delivered until election day to the voter, that such payments were good and valid. After deciding this point the court added:

"It is further urged that there was no appropriation of the money thus paid to the dischar~e of the tax against the voter for the reason that the payments were not credited on the duplicates. Assume that sucha:ppropriation is essentjal, the evidence in this case seems to show it wasmade.'

After quoting certain evidence of the collector the court adds: "The receiver is bound to account for it (the tax), and, as we have shown, he

would be liable to prosecution if he did not do so. And in this view of the matter it may be doubted whether the tax, having been paid and receipt given , the voter can be disfranchised by the failure of the collector to account for it or to appropriate it as he is bound to do by law." THE NUMBER OF DELINQ.UENTS WHERE TAXES WElitE PAID IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY.

The majority report bases the election of O'Ferrall on the following proposition, found on page 2 of report:

" We base our conclusion that 676 votes were cast by persons delinquent in the payment of their capitation taxes in Albemarle for contestee, and that557 of these were clearly illegal."

Under the laws of Virginia, while the appointee of the auditor alone had the power of distress to collect delinquent taxes, the clerk of the county court bad authority to receive such tax from any one desiring to pay to him, and his receipt therefor was as valid as that of the collector. Both these officers collected tlelinquent taxes prior to the election in November, 1882.

James 'I'. Wayland was the collector in this county. On page 18 of the record be says be issued from 500 to 600 tax-receipts filled in with the names of the voters when the receipts left his hands, and that be delivered them to deputies to deliver to the delinquents. (See question and answer 9.) He further says that he actually received in hand prior to the election on account of capitationtax receipts between S500 and $600. (See question and answer 15.) Because $440 of this amount was in a draft, and not indorsed by the collector until after the election, the subcommittee bold that it was not a good payment. This draft , be says, was received f:iom the 1st to the middle of October, 1882 (see question and answer 27), and was in the bands ofhisclerk, Ir.l\fontigue, until the time he indorsed it, about three weeks after the election. The draft was forwa rded to the State auditor and cashed November 24, 18E2, only seventeen days after the election. (See record, page 21J1.) In addition to this $440, the collector says be received $125 just before the election. (See question and answer 33, page 19, record.)

In addition to the above, a l::uge number of delinquent-tax receipts were issued by the county clerk of said county. H. B. Bunley, who was the deputy clerk of Albemarle County, testifies ( ee record, pages 403-405) that he knows of four hundred and twenty tickets i ued by the clerk's office. He further says he issued tickets to the value of 150 to 1\Ir. White, the chairman of the Democratic party, and that the money was not paid until after the election. (See questions and answers 18, 19, record 404.) The clerk also admits (question 16, page404) that the tax receipts in his office lay on his shelf, and that any one coming into the.cl~rk's office had access to them.

The clerk was a supporter of the contestant. This would make in all about five hundred and thirty tax receipts issued by the

county clerk, a.nd possibly as many as six hundred and fifty issued by the collector.

The majority report asserts that of the e delinquents 655 were colored persons. We can not better show the manner in w hicb the committee arrived at this than to quote from the majority report, :page 2:

" The contestant filed certified cop1e of the delinquent lists ( w bite and colored) of Albemarle County. (Record 75-91.) .

"These lists showed the names and color of all delinquent!-~ tor the year 1881-tbe year fot which the capitation tax was required ~o be paid before the day of the election in question."

The contestant, to show the number of receipts issued and to whom by both the clerk of Albemarle and special collector, filed a certified list of the names. of delinquents for 1881, to whom receipts bad been issued by the clerk of Albemarle County. (See Record, 73-75. )

After thus ascertaining the names of these parties who had clerk's receipt , it followed as a necessary con!)equence that all delinquents who voted who e names were not on the clerk's list, voted on the collector's receipt . Then, to. ascertain what delinquent voters cast their >otes, and upon whose receipts

1 it

was only necessary to compare the poll-books of the county with the delinquent lists.

"Contestant introduced a witness (Record 71) who testified- and whose testimony remained uncontradicted-that he had compared the clerk's list with thepoll-books and had designated all the delinquents who voted on the clerk's receipts by the letters • H. B. B.' opposite their names on the delinquent lists; that be then de ignated all the delinquents who voted and who did not havethe clerk's receipts by the name of the precinct at which they -voted opposite their names on the d elinquent lists. It was thus found that 676 delinquent voted who did not have the clerk's receipt, and presuming that the judges of" election did their duty and required the production of receipt , as required by law, these 676voted on thecollector'srece1pts. Oftbisnumber655werecolored.' '

The utter unreliability of this te timony arises from the fact that the witness,. Bennett T. Gordon, who testified on page n of record, did not pretend to know the parties who e names were on the poll-books or on the clerk's list of delinquents. He simply performed a mechanical act which any member of the com-mittee or the House can do by taking up the two lists, and when he finds a nameon the poll-list and a name on the delinquent lists which are the same, check it off, on the assumption that there couJd not be two men of the arne name in the county.

OVER 6,000 NAMES ON THE DELINQ.UElo.""T-LISTS Ar-""D POLL-BOOKS. There are over 2,000narnes of colored persons on the delinquent-lists of Albe

marle County, and 4,133 names of white and colored on the poll-books. Thereis no law in Virginia requiring theelectionofficersto keep a record of the colorof voters. Then on the delinquent-lists we find numerous instances where the same name is common to a n um her of persons. We find three Charles Burleys. three John Browns, one Jack Brown, one John A. Brown, and one John W. Brown, five Nelson Browns, four James Johnsons, and one Jim Johnson, four · William Johnsons, five Hy. Johnsons, and one Henry Johnson, three Sam Johnsons and two Samuel Johnsons, and an almost equal repetition is found throughout the alphabet. To assume that a stranger could take t-.vo lists, one containing over 4,000 names in twenty different books, and the other over 2,000, names on two lists, neither of which have any distinguishing marks, and from these 6,000 names select the num her of colored persons who voted on delinquenttax receipts and figure t-hem out at 655, is to assume an impossibility. It is not pretended that the election officers kept a. record of either the whhes or black who voted on delinquent-tax receipts. The proof is utterly unreliable. In short, it is no proof whatever, for, as heretofore stated, any member of the committeecan take the lists and the twenty poll-books and as correctly arrive at the same conclusion.

We contend that the only reliable acd competent evidence is the testimony of the alleged delinquents, or a sworn copy of the list of such as paid their tax, made out by the collector to whom the tax was paid and by whom the receipts w ere issued. If the latter could not be obtained, then the delinq_uent votersalone could te tify correctly. Every man whose name was Qn the delinquentlist and who voted is presumed to have had a tax-receipt, and con equently his .. ballot can not be rejected except upon competent evidence.

It is on the evidence of Bennett T. Gordon, which will be found in the appendix, that the committee found that 655 colored delinquents >oted in Albemarht County. The witness Gordon does not pretend that be has any per onal acquaintance with any of these 655 men; does not pretend that be has personal knowledge of whether they were delinquent or not; does not pretend that he bas personal knowledge of whether they voted or not ; does not pretend tha~ he has personal knowledge of whether they are colored or not ; does not pretend that he has personal knowledge of whether they are the same men or not. All he testifies is that he finds the name of John Smith on the delinquent county list and the name of John Smith on some poll-list for the same count.y; there-fore the two men are one and the same.

FOR WHOM .. WERE THESE 655 VOTES CA T? Unless the Hou e adopts the hypothesis of the majority report, that Bennett .

T. Gordon could with a bsolute certainty pick out from over 6,000 names these-655 voters, then they are unnamed and unknown. Buttwoof a llare called and three others only are identified. But if their identity is established, then there · is not a single witness who te tifies for whom they severally voted. Twenty-one witnesses living in sixteen -;of the twenty election precincts testify as to whom the colored people as a cla s voted for. In four of the precincts in which . 66 of the alleged delinquents voted there is not a line of testimony as for whom the colored people as a class voted.

But we contend that a still more important question is:

'WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THE 557 VOTERS who cast the ballots which the m ajority report declares to be illegal , and which the committee deduct from conte tee's >ote, and which must be deducted from contestee's vote in order to seat the contestant ?

The committee concede that of the 676 persons who it claims voted on collectors' receipts 119-of whom 21 were white and 98 colored-were entitled to vote. What are the names of these 119? It is admitted by the majority report that Collector Wayland had at least $125 before the election, and that this would qualify 119 voters. Who are they? At what precinct did they vote ? How many of them voted at Batesville? How many at each of the other twenty precincts? If it is . impossible to say who the 119 voters are, how cari the committee name the 557 voters whose ballots it deducts from contestee?

Did any court investigating an election case ever reject a ballot for the sole reason that the person casting it had not paid a tax required by law as a prerequisite for voting.without namin~ .tbe voter who cast the ballot ? How is it possible to decide that the ballot is illegal unless the name of the person casting · such ballot is known? Can the m ajority of the committee name the 557 voters . whose ballots it deducts from the contestee in order to seat the contestant? Can the contestant name them? Can any one tell us the number rejected at each oftbe twentypreciucts? If not, why not?

Again, ft. is admitted that the clerk of Albemarle County, and a supporter of .. contestant, issued tax tickets to the value of $150 to the chairman of the Democratic party . (See record, page 404.. ) Why does not the committee apply the same rule to the 140 votes, who presumably Yo ted on these receipts, that it llpplies .. to the 557 and deduct that number from contestant? We concede that we can..

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3807 »ot name them, but neither can the majority name the 557. We concede there is n·o evidence for whom they were cast, but there is as reliable evidence as there is in the case of the 557. ·

'Ve do not deny the correctness of the rule that the declarations and actions of a voter whose partisan he bad been, with what party he affiliated, whose friends gave him his ticket, who paid his taxes, &c., are all proper matters to be considered in finding for whom the individual voter voted. But that is not what the contestant and the subcommittee ask of us. They ask us to find that the colored people as a class voted for contestee. They ask us to find from such evidence as is published in the appendix that 655 colored delinquents voted, and because colored, and because they received their tax receipts from a collector ,...-bo was contestee's friend, that, therefore, they vot-ed for contestee.

As heretofore stated, but 2 of the 655 alleged delinquents are called as witnesses. Of the 557 votes which the collliriittee deduct from contestee no man can select them from the 655. No member of this House can write down their names from any evidence before us. With the exception of a very few-less than a dozenno witness of the 21 called specifies how any individual voted. It is utterly impossible for any member of the committee, who indorses the resolutions reported by the majority, to specify how many votes are re-jected in a single one of the twenty precincts.

No Committee on Elections in any (',ongress, no quasi-judicial tribunal whose decisions have been preserved, no courtoflawor equity has ever foreshadowed the positions upon which these 557 votes are rejected, and all deducted from the majority candidate, and a minority candidate seated. It is in proof that a very large number of tax receipts were issued by the partisans of the contestant, and therefore the declaration that such "receipts were issued to Readjuster voters, and used by them exclusively," falls to the ground.

What is true of Albemarle County is true of the other counties in the district. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That Charles T. O'Ferrall was not elected as a R-epresentative from

the seventh Congressional district of Virginia to the Forty-eighth Congress.

Ur. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be permitted to print an appendix to the views of the minority. I do not ask to have it 'read, but simply to have it printed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CoBB in the chair). Is there objection to granting the request made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.

Mr. LOWRY. I do not understand exactly the proposition just now made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

1\fr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. It was leave to print with the views of the minority the appendix which the gentleman has already seen. It is the same appendix printed with the minority views some time ago, of which he had a copy.

1\fr. LOWRY. I do not object. The appendix is as tollows:

APPENDIX.

HOW THE NAMES OF VOTERS AND DELINQ.UENTS WERE IDENTIFIED.

[Record, page 70, et seq.]

Maj. John 'V. Goss, a witness oflawfnl age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows, in answer to questions by W. D. Dabney:

Quest.!. Please state your residence, whether you hold any official position in this county; and, if so, how long you have held it.

Ans. Albemarle County; I am clerk of the county court of Albemarle County, and have been so since tbelstof Julylast(l882). Ever sinceNov'rorDec'r, 1871, I have been connected with said clerk's office, and from that time to this I have been clerk or dep'y cl'k of said court.

Quest. 2. How many as essing distriP.ts are there in Albemarle County, and how many voting precincts?

Ans. There are two assessing districts and twenty (20) voting precincts, I believe, if I am not mistaken.

Quest. 3. Please look at the books now shown you and state what they are. Ans. They are the poll-books for 1882 for Albemarle County.

X-ex'd by C. E. Hn.ss: Quest. 1. Please tat-e whether the poll-books to which you have referred, if

they are poll-books, have been removed from your office since the election of 1882; if so, when and by whom?

Ans. Here latterly l\1r. W. D.Dabneybashad someofthem out; I don't know which nor how many; and it strikes me that Rich'd \V. Duke had one, but I'm not certain whether he got it or not; I know he came there for one.

Quest. 2. Please state whether any Democrat, pdorto the late election, applied to you or gave orders upon you for blocks of delinquent capitation-tax receipts; I mean by blocks, more than one, several.

Ans. None. Quest. 3. Do yon know of a Mr. White addressing orders to you or to your

deputy for the delivery, in quantities, of delinquent capitation-tax receipts to other parties? .

Ans. None addressed to me. I don't know what has been addressed to l\Ir. Burnley?

Quest·. 4. Who is l\lr. H. B. Burnley? Ans. He is deputy clerk of the county court of Albemarle.

Re-ex'd by W. D. Dabney: Quest. Plea.o;;e state whether or not the books gotten out by me were gotten

with your knowledge, and whether or not it is the pt·actice of your office to allow trustworthy and responsible people to withdraw the records at times for more convenient reference.

Ans. Yes. Further this deponent saith not.

JNO. W. GOSS.

B~"'l\"'ETT T. GoRDON, another witness of lawful age, was here introduced in the same behalf, and, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows in answer to questions by W. D. Dabney:

Quest. 1 {by contestant's counsel). State your residence and profession. Ans. !live in Nel. on county, Va., and am a lawyer by profession. NOTE. -Counsel for Col. O'Ferrall here filed three papers marked Exhibits A

B , and C, respectively, with Bennett T. Gordon's deposition. (See pages 73 u; 90, inclusive, of record.)

Quest. 2 (by same). Mr. Gordon, please examine Exhibits A, B, and C, which have been filed with your deposition, and state whether you have compared Exhibit, A with.exhibits Band C, and whether lbe names which appear on Exhibit A are noted by any mark or memorandum on Exhibits B and C, oppo ite the same names on Exhibits B and C; if so, by what memorandum or mark?

{Counsel for contestee excepts to the filing of the three exhibits noted 11.bove on the ground that they furnish insufficient and imperfect evidence; that th~ facts set forth therein, if perfect in their forms, are immaterial in this issue, and the foregoing question is except-ed to on the ground that the issue it presents is immaterial. All qpestions involved in the prepayment of the capitation tax

should be excluded by the Committee on Election , because that requirement in. that constitution of Va. is opposed to the Constitution of the United States and in conflict with the act of Congre s approved Jan'y 20th, 1870.)

Ans. I have examined them and compared A with Band C. The names that appear on Exhibit A are marked on Exhibit Band C by the letters H. R. B. opposite the same names on Band C.

Quest. 3 {by same). Please examine the said Exhibits B and C, and state whether you have examined those exhibits in connection with the books now shown you, which purport to be, and have been identified by the clerk of AlbermarJe County court as being the poll· books of Albermarle County for 1882; and whether any note or memorandum opposite the natnes on the list of colored delinquents on said Exhibits A and B, respectively, indicates the names of parties that you have found on said poll-books. (This question is excepted to on the ground that it is immaterial and is suggestive.)

Ans. I have examined Exhlbits B and C in connection with the poll-books of Albemarle. On Exhibits B and C all :::~ames found upon poll-books are indicated by the name of tbefrecinct opposite the voter's name, in red ink in most instances. In the case o Monticello House, I believe, the word Mont. Ho. is found in black ink, which I think is the only exception to the color of the ink. In several instances the names of voters on the poll-book differed from thos-e on the delinquent-list in the matter of spelling, but in every such instance as I now remember the sound of the name is identical, and the name as found on the poll-books is so marked on the delinquent-list opposite the name. In some cases the name of the precinct is abbreviated.

Quest. 4.. Plea-se state how many names of colored delinquents you found on the two Exhibits B and C, which names also appeared on the various pollbooks?

Ans. I counted the li ts carefully and found six hundred and fifty-five (655) names of colored voters.

Quest. 5 (by counsel for conte tant). Where did you make your examination and comparison of Exhibits B and C with the poll-books?

Ans. In the clerk's office of the county court of Albemarle. Without waiving his exceptions, counsel for contestee proceeds to cross-ex

amine the witness as follows: Quest. 1. Please state bow you ascertained the 655 names mentioned above to

be those of colored voters. Ans. I simply took these delinquent lists and compared them with the poll

books, and when I found a name on the poll-book corresponding with one on the delinquent-list I indicated it by writing the precinct or an abbreviation thereof opposite the name of the voter on the delinquent-list.

Quest. 2. Please state by what authority of law the assessors make a distinction between the white and colored delinquents. State this as a lawyer, if you please.

Ans. I am not prepared to say, and am not cognizant of any act of the Legislature authorizing it. I simply know it is done in all the counties with whos-e proceedings I am familiar.

Quest. 3. Then, if there be no law in Virgini11o requiring an as"e or to make a color distinction in the delinquent-list they return to the clerk's office of the county, a return of colored delinquents by such assessor could be no legal guide for you in determining the colored delinquents of the county. Is not this so?

ADs. I didn't examine the lists as a lawyer, nor did I do so critically. I simply did it as a matter of fact. The distinction had been made, and I took it as I found it.

And further this deponent saitb not. Richard W. Duke, a witness of lawful age, being here introduced on the sa.me

behalf, and beingfirstdulysworn, deposesandsaysasfollows in answer toquestions by W. D. Dabney:

Quest. 1. Please look at the books shown you which have been identified as the poll-books of Monticello Court-house and Wingfield's precinct in Albemarle County, and state whether you have compared those books with the assessor's books of Albemarle County for the year 1881, and if so what voters, if any, did you find at those precincts who appear not to have been asse sed for 1881; state the names at each precinct separately.

Ans. Ihavecomparedtbem-lst. l\IonticelloHou e: Wm.Dabney,C.H.Calaway, Wm. Preston, Fred Chapman, James Cooper, J aac Coleman, Fleming Green, Isaac Duval, Charles l\Iarroe, George Buckner. 2d. ourt-house: Isaac Sampson, Charles Co ly, .Toe Laring, Lycurgus White, Ed Young, Milton Kirtl~y, Jas. L. ·wa~d. 3d. 'Vingfield's : Adam Dyer, John Barbour, Frederick Small, Parks Sm1tb, and 'Wm. E. Terrill.

{The foregoing question and answer excepted to as immaterial and irrelevant. The judges of election at those precincts are sworn officers and they are preumed to have admitted tho e votes under some exception in the law authoriz

sing them to vote though not assessed.) Que t. 2 (by S!lme). Please state whether or not you have examined the regis

tration-books of Court-house and Monticello precincts with reference to the names above given by you, and, if so, do theirnamesappearon the li tofwbite or colored registered persons, aud do they appear from said reo-istration-books to have been over or under 21 years old when registered ? "'

(Question excepted to.· The evidence referred to is of record, and should be pre nted here in that form. The contestant should not rely on the memory of his witness.)

Ans. I have examined them. Their names appear on the list of colored registered persons, and they seem to have been over21. I didn'texamine the registration books of Wingfield's precinct, because I couldn't have access to them.

Quest. 3 (by the same). Where did you examine the poll-books asse s01·'s books,-and registration-books above referred to ? '

Ans. In the county clerk's office of Albemarle County. And fnrther this deponent saith not.

THE PRECINCTS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, AND THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED DELIKQ.UENT COLORED VOTF.S CAST AT EACH.

The following is the number of colored persons who it is alleged voted for contestee in Albemarle County on delinquent-tax receipts, at each precinct. Of this number the majority of the subcommittee deducts 557 votes from contestee: Batesville... ................... ....... ..................................................... .... . ...... ........ ... 16 Blackwell's..................................................................... ................................. 3 Court-house .................................... .............................................. :.................. 63 Carter's Bridge. ..................... ..... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... . . . ... . .. . . . ... . .. ... ... ... ... 35 Covesville ... ... .. . ... ... ... . .. ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .. .. . .. . . .. ... ... ... . . . ... . .. ... ... . .. ... ... ... .. 23 Earleysville... ...... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 34 Free Union...................... ... ............. ... ................................... ..... ...................... 24

~oils~~~~r~h:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::: ~ Ivy ....... ............................................................................................................ 54 Keswick ........... . .............. ..... .......................................... ................................... 38 Lindsay's..................................................................... .......... ............ ............... '1:1 1\Iilton .. . ................................. ......... ... ..................... ................. ............................. 39

Ionticello House ................................................................................ ,............. 66 North Garden ............... ... .................................... .......... ... .................... ........... 25 Porter's............................................. .. . .................................... .............. ........ .. 68

~~~~;:~~n-~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::.:·::::.::·.:·::.·.·:.:::·:::::: ~ \Vhite Hall. ..................................................... :.. ........ ... .... ...... ....... .... ..... ........ 32 Wingfield's ............................ .............................. ·..... ..... . ............... . .... . ... ......... 13

655

3808 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MA_y 5,

THE EVIDE.'"CE RELIED ON BY THE MAJORITY TO SHOW HOW THE COLORED DELINQUENT TAX-PAYERS VOTED IN ALBEMARLE COUl>'TY.

BATESVILLE PRECINCT.

There is not a line of evidence as to how even the colored people voted at this precinct.

BLACKWELL'S PRECINCT.

There is not a line of evidence as to how even the colored people voted at this precinct.

COURT-HOUSE PRECINCT.

[Testimony of Albert Southall, page 24.]

Question 3 (by contestant's att'y). State _for whom the colo~d voters voted at the last election at that precinct. Was It for Paul and WISe or Massey an(f O'Ferrall?

Answer. They voted for Paul and Wise. Question 4 (by same). How do you know that?. . . Ans. Because I was here all day and saw the t1~kets which the men were Is-

suing who were working for Mr. Paul and Mr. WISe. Question 5 (by same). State whether or not nearly all the colored voters got

th~es tiy~~t.s.I think all the colored voters got them tickets and voted t-hem at the co.urt-h~use. Anyhow, I was ~tone of their J?leetings_, and. e_very colored man pledged himself 1.9 vote that ticket, and t?ok It down m wntmg ..

Question 6 (by same). Where was that meetmg held, and who presided over

th~~eJJ~:t? meeting was held at a place called Woodbu!fi, ~Albemarle County. Jas. Taylor, of Charlottesville, A .. B. rarker, and Jessie Srmons, or Sal-mons, as it is called, were the leaders or principal men. .

Question 7 (by same). Was any white person present at that meetmg? If so, who?

Ans. No, sir; no white man was present. Ques. 8 (by same). About how many people were there? Ana. · Probably fifteen or twenty men were there that mght.

Cross-examination: 2nd. Ques. Can you read and write? Ans. I can't read or write much; I can manage to scribble my own name. I

-can read a little, not much. 3rd Que . How, then, can you tell how people voted? An~ I can know the name of the men on the ticket by looking at them. 4th. ·Ques. How many men's tickets which were voted at the election last No

vember did you look at and read the names upon? Ans: I saw the tickets the men were issuing; I asked t~em to let me see the

tickets they were issuing, and t-hey let me see them. MacaJah W alk:er, I saw the tickets he was issuing.

5th. Ques. Did you issue tickets, and, if so, for whom? , Ans. I issued a few, some two or three, for Mosby and Dawson; I don t mean

Mosby, I mean Cochran and Dawson. [Testimony of M. T. Lewis, page 54.]

Question 2 (by contestant's at.t'y). Did you take an active interest in the last canvass; if so, for whom? . . . .

Ans. I did, sir. I was a leading one of my party m thi.s county, and, I~ fact, m this district. I supported Dawson and Cochran, the stra1ghtout Republican can--didates, for Congress. . . .

Quest. 3 (by same). From your opportunity of Judgmg du~ng the ~vass and at the polls where you voted, and from your personal acquamta.nce Wlth the voters and your observation of their political associates, for whom would you ~Y the great mass of the colored vote in this county was cast last election ?

Ans. They were in a larger majority than I have. ever know ~hem to be for Paul and Wise; there was more enthusiasm, more mtere t manifested for the candidates than I have known for years. .

Quest. 4 (by same). For which candidates, and by whom, do you mean all this enthusiasm was shown?

Ans. It was by the colored people for Paul and Wise. Cross-examination :

Quest.!. Do you know, of your personal knowledge, how any vote except your own was cast at the last election?

Ans. I think lean readily state. While I was in the court:-house I saw numbers of Paul and Wise tickets voted. I saw them get these t1ckets, go up to the polls and did not fold their tickets till they got to the polls, and then voted. Qu~st. 2. Were these tickets referred to by you folded before they were voted? Ans. They were, sir. . Quest. 3. Did you unfold and read a ticket after it was handed to the Judge of

election by the voter? Ans. I did not unfold a ticket. Quest. 4. You say the tickets were folded before they were. voted, a~d t~at you

did not read a ticket after it was given to the judge of electiOn. This bemg the fact can you say on your oath you knew who the vote was cast for?

.Abs My grounds for swearing the tickets were for Paul and Wise was because they ~ere handed there in the court-house open, in my presence, and I saw the same ticket folded and voted and the parties had no chance to change the tickets without my notice, because i was actively at work on that day and watched all these things. · . .

Quest. 5. Did you see the face of the t1cket after It was folded and hand~d to the judge of election; if not, do you still say you can tell for whom the ticket

w~~~t~~w the ticket after. it was folded, but did not see the face of it. SoJ?le of the tickets were handed to me to find out whether they were Paul and W1se tick~ts. I did not see the face of it after it was handed to the judge. I do say I can tell who the ticket was voted for.

CARTER'S BRIDGE.

[Testimony of M. L. Van Doren, page 28.] Ques. 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state your residence and voting

place; whether you were an officer at the last election and were present at the polls all day. . .

Ans. My residence is in Albemarle County, near Carter's Bndge precmct, where I vote; I was a judge of election and present at the polls all day.

Question 2 (~y same). From your observation of the poll that day, and your general knowledge of the voters, and ·their political affiliations and as ociates, and from your observation of the political workers who gave out ballots to the colored 'l'oters and came to the polls with them, how should you say the colored vote was cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Answer. I should say it was almost unanimously for Paul. Cro examination :

Quest. 1. Were you not a partisan of, and did you not work and vote for, C. T. O'Ferrall at the last election?

Ans. I did not work for him on the day of election; I voted for him. I was a supporter of CoL O'Ferrall and wished for his election. I was less active than usual at the last election; my :position as judge prevented me from taking an active part on the day of election.

COVESVILLE PRECINCT.

There is not a line of testimony as to how even the colored people voted at this precinct.

EARLEYSVILLE PRECINCT.

[Testimony of Davis J. Jackson, page 69.] 2d Q. (by same). Whom did you support for Congress in that election? Ans. Massey and Paul. 3d Q. (by same). For whom did the colored voters at that precinct vote as be-

tween Paul and O'Ferrall? Ans. Well, I think Paul got the majority. 4th Q. (by same). Did not Paul get nearly the entire colored vote? Ans. I think he got the most of them.

FREE UNION PREciNCT.

There is not a line of testimony as to how even the colored people voted at this precinct.

HOWARDSYILLE PRECINCT.

[Testimony of J. J. Brown, page 27.] Question 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state where you reside, how long

you have resided there, and where you vote. Answer. I live at Howardsville precinct, where I have lived since 1848; vote

there. Question 2d (by same). Have you ever been an officer of election at that pre

cinct, and have you been an active political worker, ~d have you full acquaintance with the politics of the white and colored voters at that precinct? Do you know well, in a general way, how the colored voters have usually vot-ed at Howardsville and how did they vote in the last election?

Ans. I b";;ve been registrar there for several years. I have ascertained the sentiments or political views of the voters, white and colored, at that precinct more fully for the past five years.

Ans. (continued). By knowing the colored and white voters, after looking over the poll-books, after the election, then ascertaining the number of votes, it was evident the colored people voted in a mass, with the exception of two, who voted the Democratic ticket, which two votes I know of my own knowledge. As to the last election I know nothing of my own knowledge.

Question 3d (by same). Did you not frequently,prior to the last election, urge the colored voters and the colored leaders to vote the Democratic t.icket; that is, for O'Ferrall and Massey, and did they agree or refuse to do so?

Ans. Yes, sir, I did; they all refused to do so, with the exception of one colored voter, who always voted the Democratic ticket.

Question 4th (by same). State whether or not you have heard any of the negro leaders say since the election how the vote was cast, and have you heard any colored voters say how they voted, and have you heard any of them say they voted the Democratic ticket?

Ans. I ha'l'e heard nothing. Cross-examination :

Quest. 2. Were you not a warm partisan of C. T. O'Ferrall in the last election, and did you not vote and work for him?

Ans. I did. BILLBBOROUGH PRECINCT.

LTestimony of J. J. Winn, page 34.] Ques. 2 (by same). From your knowledge of the individual voters at that pre

cinct and their political associations and affiliations and from your observation of the persons from whom the negroes got their ballots on last election day, and whom they came up to the polls with, for whom would you say the colored vote at your precinct was cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. I should say it was cast for Paul. Cross-examination :

Ques. Can you say on oath, of your personal knowledge, how any man, except yourself, voted at the election of Nov. 7th, 1882?

Ana. I could say how they said they voted. No; I could not say of my personal knowledge, unless that be considered personal knowledge.

IVY PRECINcT.

[Testimony of Wm. H. Southall, page 25.] By contestant's att'y:

Question 2. Were you present at the polls all day at Ivy during the last election?

Ans. I was there all day in the room where the voting was going on or near there, never one hundred yards from there-from sun to sun.

Question 3. State whether or not you urged the colored leaders there and the colored voters to vote for Charles T. O'Ferrall at that election, and with what result?

Ans. I urged the leaders and many who were not leaders to vote for O'Ferrall and Massey, but only got one to do so. There were three colored voters on my place who I pretty much support which I asked to vote for O'Ferrall and l\:lassey, but they declined positively to do so, and two of them voted on Wayland tax tickets; the third one came to vote, but had no tax ticket. He was asked whether he had paid his tax:es, and he aid he had not, and had no tax ticket. He, the voter, retired (was not allowed to vote); then Mr. J. Snowden Wood, the registrar, then left the polls and went to 1\Ir. Sandridge's store and bar-room at Ivy, which place was considered the headquarters of the Readjusters. And a little while after 1\Ir. Wood returned the voter came to the polls with a ta.x ticket (a Wayland t-ax ticket), but was not allowed to vote. I gave those two tax tickets to Mr. Dabney. After the election I got those two tickets from Herbert Taylor and Ruben Cutlet; the parties there gave them to me voluntarily upon request. Bob Harris, the one who attempted to vote but did not, refused positively to give the ticket up upon my request, or to tell me how or from whom he got the ticket.

· Cross-examination : 5th. Ques. Did you contribute or assist in collecting money to pay delinquent.

taxes for Democratic voters. Ans. I did, ir: by voluntary subscription. 6th. Ques. Do you know the amount raised in this county or used in it to pay •

for Democratic delinquents? · Ans. No, sir; I can't say that I do. 7th. Ques. Can you approximate it or state fully your knowledge as to the

amount so raised? Ans. It is a mere gue s-work, but I suppose some four or five hundred dol

lars. There was 1;10t one-fourth (t) as much as ought have been raised, a great many refusing to give anything-a large majority refusing to give anything. About three hundred dollars ($300) to my knowledge; it may be a little over or a little le .

lith. Ques. Do you know of any efforts on the part of the partisans of Col. O'Ferrall to induce colored men to vote for Dawson and Cochran who would have voted for 'Vise and Paul?

Answer. I tried t.o persuade colored men to vote for Cochran and Dawson. So far as I know, did not succeed in getting a. single vote. I know of no one else, except a colored man who was endeavoring to do the same; whether he succeeded or not I do not know.

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3809 [Testimony of N. C. McGee, page 57.]

Quest. 2 (by contestant's att'y). From your knowledge of the individ';UI-1 voters and their political affiliations and associations, and from your observatiOn of the polls that day, and of the persons with whom the colored voters came to the polls, and from who~ they got their ballots, for whom would you say the colored vote was cast; was 1t for Paul or O'Ferrall?

(Objected to by contestee on the ground that the voters referred to are living in this county; that they are the best witnesses on this subject; that this witness can have no positive knowledge on the subject.)

Ans. I should say for Capt. Paul, undoubtedly.

KESWICK PRECINCT.

[Testimony of John Anderson, page 56.] Quest. 2 (by contestant's att'y). From your observation of the voting that day,

and from your knowledge of the voters and the persons who gave them their tickets and came up to the voting place with them, for whom would you say the colored vote at Keswick was cast that day; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. For Mr. Paul. Cross-examination :

Quest. 1. Can you read or write? Ans. No, sir. Ques. 2. How do you know these votes were for Paul? Ans. I knew the ticket-issuers for Mr. Paul and Wise, and could tell pretty

well from them. [Testimony of Jefferson R. Taylor, page 59.)

Quest. 2 (by same). From your knowledge of the individual Yoters at that precinct, and of the1r political affiliations and associaf:es, and from your observation of the persons from whom the negroes got the1r ballots, and who came up to the polls with them, for whom would you say the colored vote there was cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. Paul, almost solidly. · . Quest. 3 (by same). Please state the facts on which your conclusion is based. Ans. I was appointed by the county superintendent of the Conservative party

to attend to the interests of the party at Keswick precinct. I was to be and was assisted in looking after votes by several other voters at the precinct. Either myself or some of these men who were acting with me, and under my eye, met every colored voter who offered to vote at the precinct. They were also met by men acting for the Readjuster party. I do not remember one instance in which the Readjuster managers failed to take off the colored men who offered to vote, and were met by agents of both parties, to the polls and watch over them until they had voted. They took their tickets from the Readjuster managers, and I suppose voted the ReadJuster ticket.

LINDSAY'S PRECINCT.

[Testimony of James R. Bragg, page 68.] Question 2d (by contestant's att'y). State whether or not you noticed whether

the colored vote at your precinct was controlled at the last election by the partisans of either of the candidates for Congress from this district ; and if .so, in the interest of which candidate was the colored vote controlled and cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

(Excepted to on the ground that the voters themselves must be called to testify as to how their votes were ca-st, or it must be shown that their evidence can not be obtained.)

Ans. My observation is that it was for Paul. There was a large number of colored voters there in the morning who did not vote until the evening, and rushed to the polls very soon after Mr. N. Branham arrived on the place, who acknowledged that he broughtcapitation-tax receipts for a good many. He was a partisan of Mr. 1-aul, and a very strong one.

Cross-examination: 1st Q. (by contestee by counsel). You have said that the colored vote at Lind

say's precinct was generally cast for Paul ; how do you know that fact? Ans. By their being brought up by the partisans of Paul.

MILTON PRECINCT.

[Testimony of J. Massie Smith, page 28.) Question 2d (by contestant's attorney). From your observation of the polls

that day, from your knowledge of the individual voters and their political affiliations and associates, from your observation of the persons who .gave out the ballots to the colored voters and came up to the polls with them, for whom would you say the colored vote was cast at the last election at 1\Iilton; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. It was for Paul. The ticket holders were Republica~, Jas. T. S. Taylor and Jas. Thomas, both colored men. These men went up Wlth nearly a.ll the voters-w.ould go up with the voters and exhibit the tax tickets of the voters. Taylor went with the colored voters to the polls, and I saw him very often give the voter the ballot and the tax ticket jnst at the door of the room in which the poll was held, and I saw James Thomas do the same. This answer refers to the colored voters at this precinct. I saw Jas. T. S. Taylor take a small book from his pocket, which looked as if it were a memoranda. book, write something in or on ilie book, I don't know which (I tried to see), and he immediately handed a tax ticket to a voter, to a colored voter. Jas. T. S. Taylor tried to vote Randal Johnson on Randal Jackson's ticket, and I challenged the vote and his vote was refused.

Ques. 3 (by same). State whether Randal Jackson had already voted on tha~ tax receipt.

Ans. I can't say positively that he had voted.

[Testimony ofW. R. Staehlin, page 731.) Quest. 3 (by contestant's attorney). Do you know whether or not many per

sons at Milton who in elections heretofore voted the Readjuster ticket, when the debt was the main issue at the last election, voted the Democratic ticket, and do you know whether John E. Massey has a strong personal fellowing at .Milton precinct?

(Counsel for contestee excepts to this question as only calling fora. hearsay answer.)

AllB. There were some, a few white persons, who voted for him who did not vote for him in previous elections; but there were many colored men who voted for him before, but did not vote for him this time. He did not have the following he had in previous elections there.

4th. Quest. State who nearly all the colored people there voted for. (Excepted to, because he can't know under the ballot system, and his opinion

is not evidence.-MONTAGUE.) Ans. I can't say who the majority of the colored voters voted for; I think the

majority of the colored and white votes were for Massey and O'FerralL 5th. For whom did you Yote? Ans. I voted the Readjuster tick&tsquare through and through. Furthel" this deponent saith not.

1\IOYTICELLO HOUSE PRECINCT.

[Testimony of A. D. Payne, page 22.) Question 3 (contestant's attorney). State which of the two candidates for Con-

XV--239

gress from this district the colored voters supported at the last November election at your precinct.

(Excepted to by counsel for contestee, because the evidence must be second~ry if answered by the witness, and under the ballot system he can not know Wlth sufficient certainty to answer.)

Answer. John Paul and JohnS. Wi e. Question 3d. State your means of knowing this. Answer. I know from whom they got fueir tickets, and who these ticket

holders were supporters of. [Testimony of John Dickerson, page 23.]

Question 6th (by contestant's attorney). Did you hold meetings of the colored voters in the various neighborhoods you visited on your canvass, and address them, and confer with them, individually, on the subject of which candidate they should and would support in the election then about to come off?

Answer. I did in some of them. Some of them I held meetings and in some of them I conferred with them through their leaders.

Question 7th (by same). State which of the two candidates for Congress from this district the colored people of this county voted for at the last election; was it Paul or 0' Ferrall?

Answer. The majority of them voted more solidly than usual than since the Presidential election; the majority voted for Paul and Wise. My impression is the majority of them voted for Paul and Wise; but I could not know. I was judge of election at Monticello House precinct and could not see anywhere else.

Question 8th (by same). Fromyouropportunitiesofjudging, state whether the colored vote of the county was not almost solid for Paul and Wise; that is, were there not but very f"ew who voted for <>';Ferrall?

Answer. I don't know that I had any opportunity of knowing after I canvassed and did all I could for them. 1\Iy opinion is, after my canvass they would go solid for Paul and Wise.

NORTH GARDEN PRECINCT.

[Testimony of Holmes Bowles, page 28.] Question 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state where you reside, how

long you have resided there and where you vote. AllB. I reside in the neigh~rhood of North Garden, in Albemarle County;

some t~n years in that neighborhood; I vote at North Garden precinct. Question2 (by same). State whether or not you have been an influential leader

of your race (the colored race) in politics at that precinct for several years, and did you work among the colored voters just previous to the last election in the interest of either candidate for Congress; and, if so, for which candidate did you work? Was it Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. Yes, sir. I have used my influence among my race, the colored race. Yes, I used my influence previous to the election in the interest of Hon. John Paul.

Question 3 (by same). Were you present at the polls at North Garden all day at the last election? -

Ans. Yes, sir; I was present there all day at the last election. Question 4 (by same). From your opportunities of knowing-from your work

before and your presence at the elect10n-for whom should you say the colored vote was cast· for Paul or O'Ferrall? ·

.Ana. I wo~d say for Paul, with a. few exceptions.

PORTER'S PRECINCT.

[Testimony of J. C. Childress, pe.ge 331.] Ques. 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state where you reside, how long

you have resided there, where you vote, and whether you have not been active in the politics of this county for many years, and exercised a large influence over the colored vote. -

Ans. I live between Porter's precinct and Howardsville, in Albemarle pounty ; have lived there about 69 years; I vote at Porter's precinct; I have been active in the politics of this county for many years ; I have usually exercised a large influence over the colored voters.

Question 2 (by same). From your opportunities of knowing, from having worked among and con versed with many negroes on the subject of politics just before the last election, and from your observation of the polls on election day, how would you say the colored vote was cast at Porter's; that is, for which of the candidates from this district was it cast?

Ans. They voted theReadJusterticket,for Mr. Paul, about unanimous; I don't know of one who did Bot.

Ques. 3 (by same). Did you have much talk among the negro voters at other precincts before the election; and, if o, what was the sentiment prevailing among them aEtto which candidate they should support, especially the precincts of Scottsville and Howardsville ?

Ans. I electioneered for Dawson, and in that way I saw most of the negroes, but did not succeed in getting them to vote for him. I went to Scottsville and Howardsville, tried to get them to vote the Republican ticket, but they were all for the Readjuster ticket, for Paul and Wise.

Cross-examination by counsel for the contestee: Ques. L You say you do not know of one negro who did not vote for John

Paul; can you say on oath you know of your own knowledge how a. single per50n except yourself voted at the election held Nov. 7th, 1882?

Ans. No, sir; of course I don't. I did not read a ticket or touch one. There was no vote for Dawson when they reported. I know though that I voted for him. I did not read the darkies' votes; ouly know how they told me they voted.

[Testimony of Archie Bland, page 35.] Ques. 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state where you reside, where you

vote, whether or not you are a leader in politics among the colored voters at your precinct, who you supported at the last election, and whether you were present all day atlthe polls.

Ans. I live at Porter's precinct, Albemarle County, Virginia, where I vote; I have been a leader among the colored voters there for fifteen (15) years. At the last election I was present at the window of the voting-place from sunrise to sunset.. I supported .Mr. Wise and Mr. Paul.

Ques. 2 (by same). From the work you did among the colored people and your talk with them, and from your observation of the voting at Porter's that day, for whom would you say the colored vote at that precinct was cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. For Mr. Paul and Mr. Wise. Mr. O'Ferrall's name was not called at all, except by those who did not let their votes be known. They would not tell who they voted for, but when they were counted it was found those few who dodged around had voted for O'Ferrall. I could not tell exactly how many, but they might have been some twenty-five; there were not many of them.

Ques. 3 (by same). How many colored voters voted at Porter's last election, as near as you can tell?

Ans. I could not tell exactly, as I did not take sight on the quantity. STONY POINT PRECINCT.

[Testimony of Philip Nelson, page 68.] Question 2 (by counsel for contestant). From your observation of the polls

that day how should you say the colored vote was cast: was it for Paul or O'Ft:rrall?

(Objected to, as this is not the best evidence that can be procured, and becauae

381(} CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

the question is too general. Nobody can testify to how a voter ca-sts his vote until the voter himself has testified, or until it is shown that his testimony can not be had; and, secondly, all of the colored voters did not vote the same way; consequently such a que tion is too general.)

Ans. For Paul, with a few exceptions. SCOTTSVILLE PRECD"CT.

[Testimony of Jonathan Browning, page 41.] Ques. 2 (by counsel for contestant). From your knowledge of the individual

voters and of their political affiliations and as ociates, and from your obsei·vation of the persons from whom the negro voters at Scottsville got their ballots la-st election day, and who came up to the polls with them, and from your experience in canvassing among the negroes in the interest of your candidates, for whom would you say the negro vote at Scottsville was cast that day, Paul or O"Ferroll?

Ans. It was cast solidly for Paul, I think, with one exception. I don't know of but one negro that voted the other way.

WHITE HALL PRECINCT.

[Testimony of J. A. Early, page 691.] 2d Ques. by same. State whether or not you noticed whether the colored

vote at your precinct was controlled at last election by the partisans of either of the candidates for Congre s from this district; and, if so, in the interest of which candidate wes the colored vote controlled and cast.; was it for Paul or O'FerraU?

Ans. Well, the colored vote was controlled by the friends of Mr. Paul. I do not believe there were but two colored votes cast for 0' Ferrall. I know there was two.

"WINGFIELD'S PRECINCT.

[Testimony of William E. Jackson, page 55.] Quest. 2 (by counsel for contestant). From your work among the voters that

day, and from your observation of the parties who gave them their tickets and went up to the polls with them, how would you say the colored vote there was ca.'lt that day; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

Ans. In behalf of Mr. Paul and Wise the only person who issued tickets there was myself up to the time I came away, about3.30or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I then gave the tickets to Mr. John Kennie. And of course all those I issued were voted in the interest of Paul and Wise. In my judgment, up to the time I left they were in the majority for Paul and Wise. I did not look over the poll-books, but I approached pretty much every one who came, both colored and white.

Quest. 3 (by same). Do you know of any person who voted there that day who said they had not paid their taxes ; if so, who were they?

Ans. I don't know of any. Quest. 4 (by same). Did not Frederick Small, or Adam Dyer, or John Barber,

or Parks Smith, or Henry Smith, or Wm. E. Terrell, or Phil! ip Scott, or Robert Fry, either, or any or all of them, vote, admitting either that they had never been assessed or had not paid theil" tax?

Ans. I don't recollect anything about it. Cross-examination :

Quest. L Can you say of your own personal knowledge how any one voted at Wingfield's precinct, Albemarle County, Va., on last election day?

Ans. Yes, sir; I can. All those that I gave tickets to I required them to give me their tax tickets, and as there was two tickets to be voted J; went to the polls with them, handing a ticket first for the candidate and then the ticket for the repeal of the constitut.ional amendment.

Mr. LOWRY. J'l!r. Speaker, with a view to a free and full opportunity for discussion by the other side I will again call attention to the point whether it will be desirable to have any understanding as to the time when a vote may be taken upon this question.

Mr. l\HLLER, of Pennsylvania.. I will state to the gentleman from Indiana that the gentleman from Iowa [l'!Ir. CooK], a member of the Committee on Elections, will want an hour; the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PETIIBONE], a member of the committee, an hour, and I myself would like to have an hour in case I find it necessary to consume any time whatever. It may be that I shall not occupythefloor, but I would like to have the privilege of doing so if I find it necessary. That will be three hours on the minority side.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CoBB in the chair). The Chair has nothing to do with regulating the time, but presumes that gentlemen can agree among themselves upon the length of time to be consumed in the debate. The gentleman from Indiana can of course demand the previous question whenever be sees fit to do so.

Mr. LOWRY. It is understood that the Honse will be occupied in the discussion of another topic on to-morrow, and it is desired, I take it, on all hands t.o get through with this case to-day. I think it will be reasonable, Mr. peaker, to divide the time up until the hour of half past 4 o'clock.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania.. There is no necessity for forcing a vote to-day. The case can go over until Wednesday. [Cries of" No!"]

Mr. LOWRY. I think it may therefore be understood, in view of the fact that no present arrangement can be effected, that the previous question will be called at half past 4 to-day.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I certainly will not give my assent to any such arrangement as that. If the gentleman sees fit to force this matter to a vote without discussion, as they have forced the consideration of the question without the minority views being printed, they have of course the power to do so.

The SPEAKER pro ternpm·e. The question is upon the adoption of the s~b titute offered by the minority of the committee.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I certainly will not agree that a · vote shall be taken upon this without discussion. The gentleman from

Indiana I understood was on the floor prepared to proceed. The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is for the House to determine. The

Chair has waited, but since no gent.leman seems inclined to debate the matter the Chair will put the question.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. We have a right to be heard, I~ lieve.

The SPEAKER p1·otempore. The gent1E.man from Pennsylvania will

be heard if he desires to be heard. But no one ro e to address the Chair, and the Chair, in obedience to the rnles of the Hou e, ubmits the question first upon the adoption of the resolutions reported by the minority a.s a substitute for the report of the committee.

Is the House ready for the question? M:r. COOK. If no one desires to address the House upon that side,

or in favor of the reportofthe majority of the committee, I will begin. But I supposed the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY] wonld occupy the first hour.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not for the Chair to inquire whether gentlemen propose to address the Horu;e or not. After waiting and finding no one inclined t.o address the House the Chair submits the question. Does the gentleman from Iowa desire to be heard?

Mr. COOK. I do, but I prefer to wait until after hearing from the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. LOWRY. I addressed the Chair for the pnrpo e of discussing the question now pending and was recognized by the Chair. The Chair, as I understood, recognized some proposition emanating from some otherpartof theHall whichnogentlemanon thissideunderstood. The Chair was riot understood by any gentleman in thisneigbborbood as to what the proposition was, and I was waiting for the purpose of bearing that before proceeding with my remarks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that he recognized the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who asked leave to have an appendix printed to the minority report. After action had been taken upon that the Chair recognized the gentleman from Indiana, supposing that he desired t.o debate the report. The Chair waited for some time and concluded the gentleman had yielded the floor. If, however, the gentleman states that he was recognized and that he had not yielded the tl.oor the Chair will of course recognize him now.

1\fr. KEIFER. Nobody objects. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair was not dispo ·ed to wait

further on the gentleman from Indiana. [Laughter]. 1\fr. COX, of New York. Regular order! 1\Ir. LOWRY. J'llr. Speaker, we have in Indiana a maxim, and I do

not know whether it is well recognized in the region of the State from which the present incumbent of the chair comes or not, but it is one which we found quite wholesome to act upon at times in that portion of the Commonwealth from which I came, and it isthat it is sometimes desirable to make haste slowly. I was desirous just now of coming if possible to some understanding so far as the length of time to be consumed in this debate was concerned. For thatpurposeihadaddressed the gentleman from Pennsylvania and had stated to him that I thought it would be reasonable to limit debate in such a manner as that a vote conld be taken in the case at half past 4 o'clock. I desire now to say that, having failed to succeed in effecting any understanding with the other side as to the time, so far as I am concerned my inclination will be to afford such reasonable time for discussion as I think will be necessary to bring out all the facts in this case and then aka vote upon it. I do not think it will be desirable to infringe upon the parliamentary day of to-morrow in this discussion, inasmuch as it is well understood that it is to bedevoted to another and a mostimportanttopic.

In t.b.lli case, sir, at the November election in 1882, in the seventh district of -the State of Virginia, Charles T. O'Ferrall was the Demo.: cratic candidate and John Panl the Readjuster or Coalition candidate for Representative in the Congress of the United StatR.s. The constitution of the State of Virginia contains a provision by which the Legislature is authorized to impose a capitation tax as a qualification for voting, and in pursuance of that provision of the constitution the Legislature provided for the imposition of such a capitation tax. There was within the confines of this district a large number of delinquent tax-payers, those that had not paid their capitation tax before the November election. The auditor of public accounts for the State of Virginia had appointed a collector for each of the ten counties comprising this Congressional district, and these collectors had each appointed deputies who claimed authority to collect and issue receipts for these delinquent capitation taxes. The controversy arose in this case as to whether the auditor of public aecounts possessed such authority under the laws of the State of Virginia, and at one time the committee had arrived at a conclusion in regard to that matter. Other contestedelection cases are pending from the State of Virginia and the same que8tion was raised in tho e cases.

One of them at least is yet undetermined and unargued. And in order that there Inight be no conflict between the conclusion arrived at in this case and the conclusion that might be reached in that, the question as to the validity of the appointment of these tax collectors has been held in abeyance by the committee until they have arrived at a conclusion in reference to that case. Not a.s is stated by the gentleman from Virginia; they have not abandoned the position which was occupied by the majority of the committee in reference to that matter, but have determined to hold it up in order that there might be no embarra ment in determining the question when it comes to be fully considered after being presented by tho e engaged in its discussion in the case of Massey against Wise, to which I refer more particularly.

These collectors having proceeded with the discharge of the duty which they conceived to be incumbent upon them, issued receipts to

1

.

I

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3811 delinquent tax-payers, parties delil:,lquent in the payment of their capitation taxes in the ten counties composing this Congressional district. There is no controversy about the fact that the clerks of the several counties have unquestioned authority to receive these delinquent capitation taxes and to issue receipts for them; and that upon the payment to the clerks the parties become duly qualified to vote at the ensuing election. The provision of the statute is that the tax must be paid before the day of election. And the question aro e as to whether or not therewere payments made in the manner required bylaw either to the clerks of the several counties or the collectors, assuming them to be qualified to make the.'Se collections, who were appointed by the auditor of public accounts, or their deputies.

In order to ascertain who were delinquent in the payment of these capitation taxes the committee have proceeded no further than the county of Albemarle, for the reason that they conceived it to be unnecessary in order to a determination of the merits of this case as between the contestant and the contestee to go beyond an inquiry as to the validity of the vote of that county. The canvassing board returned John Paul as being elected by a majority of205 votes. Under the statute of the State of Virginia the commissioners of the revenue are required tonoteupon therecord on whichtheassessmentoftax-payersisentered whether the party assessed is white or colored; and the treasurer in making returns of delinquents in the county of Albemarle showed upon his list as set forth by the assessment-list of the commissioners of t.he revenue the fact as tow hether or not the delinquents were w bite or colored. A witness was introduced in this ca e who examined the list of delinquents and who compared it with the poll-lists of the voters who bad voted at the election for members of Congress in the county of Albemarle; and it was ascertained by him that 667 of the persons who were noted as being colored were persons who voted at the election and were returned a-s delinquent in the payment of these capitation taxes. The witness who thm; examined these records remained uncontradicted. There was no coUntervailing testimony upon that point.

Mr. HEPBURN. Will my colleague permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. LOWRY. I would rather proceed until the close of my remarks, and if it shall then be in my power to answer any question proposed to me I shall be happy to do it.

By this process it-will be seen that it could be ascertained how many of those who"had been delinquent and had voted at this election for members of Congress werewhiteorcolored; 667, asihavesaid, ofthese were ascertained to be colored voters. Thus that fact was ascertained almost to a demonstration iii this case.

Then, sir, for the purpo e of ascertaining how these 667 delinquent colored voters cast their votes at that election a large amount of testimony was introduced, twenty-one witnesses in all test:i.fYing on that point. They testified as to how the votes of the colored people as a class were cast; not throughout the State generally; not throughout the whole Congressional district, but as a class in the county of Albemarle and in the various precincts of that county. And it is shown by these witnesses in a variety of ca es that they became conversant with this fact. Many of them were the adherents of the party of which the contestee, Mr. Paul was a candidate-nearly all of them whotestified upon the question. Some of them were present at meetings where colored people congregated together for the purpose of discussing the questions pending during that election. Others were conversant with the views of the colored element in the county of Albemarle. Others knew as to what the personal preferences and predilections of that class of voters were. Others had canvassed the district, and particularly the county of Albemarle, and had thus familiarized themselves with the views and purposes of that element of the voting population. Others had associated with them personally and knew what their personal predilections and party affiliations were. Others had been present at meetings whereresolutionswereadoptedand wherethepurposewasdeclared.

orne gentlemen who had canvassed the county-one in particularstated as the result of his observations that he had no doubt that the colored vote was cast almost as a unit for Mr. Paul. In fact, the evidence upon this point, not to amplify further at this time, is so full, complete, andsatisfactoryinregard to the ma~rthattherecanscarcely be a reasonable doubt that this vote was cast en masse for the contestee.

I do not understand gentlemen upon the other side as claiming that there is evidence going to show t.he contrary. And so far as one of the counties of this Congressional district is concerned, the point was made that the entire colored vote of the county was solid for the contestee; this claim being put forth in the answer to the notice of contest in the case, assuming that as a ma~r of course, as an undisputed and wellascertained fact.

A large number of witn~ es were also introduced to testify in reference to the manner in which voters who were delinquent in the payment of the capitation tax were supplied with their tickets; in regard to the manner in which they were di tributed; in regard to the manner in which they were handed out at the polls; in regard to the manner in which they came into the possession of the collectors and their deputies; and in regard to the time in which they were passed out of the hands of these deputies to the voters.

It will be remembered, as I have already remarked, that the statute

of Virginia pre cribes thn.t this capitation tax must be paid not lat€r than the day preceding the election. The testimony all goes to e. tablish the fact that none of these delinquents either paid their tax or -were provided "ith tax-tickets, as they are called in that State, or, as they will be more familiarly known to members of this House, tax-receipts, until the day of election.

It however appears in the proof ih this case that in the countv of Albemarle no payment of the taxes was made for the tickets whiCh were issued to the collectors (with the exception of the sum of $125), until long after the election. James T. Wayland was the collector appointed by the auditor of public accounts in that county, and in his turn heappointed a large number of deputtes. Without at this time going into a minute examination or analysis of his testimony, I will state that in substance it appears from his evidence that a check for the sum of $440, I think, had been sent to him.

It appears that he had a private clerk, a person who is denominated a clerk. I do not know that it appears distinctly -whether or not he was acting simply as his private clerk or in some official capaeity; but it does not appear that he was acting as deputy collector, assuming that there could be such an officer as deputy collector. Wayland, however, never saw that check until some sixteen days after the election. At that time it came into his hands for the first time, and he indorsed it and sent it in to the treasurer of the State of Virginia.

There was the sum of 125 which had been transmitted to him in bulk before the election. In arriving at the conclusion which we have reached in this ca e the committee have not deemed it necessary to go into an investigation of the fact whether or not that would constitute a proper payment of this capitation tax o as to authorize individual voters to vote. That sum of $125 came into his hands. A larger fund came into hands, and of that larger fund he appropriated $125 to pay for th~e delinquent capitation receipts.

Without raising in this case the qu tion as to whether or not that con~tituted a proper payment of the tax, the committee allow credit for the amount of money thus coming into his hands, and making a calculation as to the number of receipts that sum would pay fm·, each voter under the provisions of the statute of the State having to pay $1.05, or at least the sum of $1-I think there is some controversy whether the additional5 cents was properly impo ed-but assuming that 1.05 was the sum which each voter was required to pay in order that he might be entitled to vote, that 125 would pay the tax for 119 voters. Now, deducting that •umber from the 676 votes which it was· shown were cast up on collectors' receipts, there -would be left 557 votes, which we think are clearly shown as having been cast for the contestee in this case, Mr. Paul, and should be deducted from the vote accorded to him by ·the canvassing board.

The votes of one of the precincts of this county were tlu'Own out by the canvassing board, as stated in the majority report, upon a mere technicality, because of the non-sealing of the envelope in which the certificates of the board were returned. The majority of the committee accord to Mr. Paul the right to the votes cast in that precinct. Deducting that number from the majority which it was ascertained Mr. Paul would have after deducting the 119 votes, that would leave 248 votes as the majority for the contestant. The conclusion of the majority of the committee is that leaving out of consideration the que tion as to the other counties in the district, in all of which these tax-receipts were issued in a similar manner through these collectors to their deputies and by them distributed in many instances without the payment of the capitation tax by the voters-at best there being.only a payment in bulk, large sums of money being placed in their hands for the purpose-leaving out of calculation the question in reference to those counties, the majority of the committee consider that this will show the majority of votes to which the contestant in this case is clearly entitled.

This is a brief statement of the grounds upon which the majority of the committee rest their report in favor of the contestant in this case. I will reserve the remainder of my time and give way to other gentlemen who desire to speak ..

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CASSIDY). The gentleman has thirty minutes of his time remaining.

M:r. LOWRY. I thought I had forty minutes remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore. According to the information given to

the present occupant of the chair as to when the gentleman commenced his remarks, he now ha thirty minutes remaining.

Mr. HEPBURN. In opening the discussion of this question against the report of the majority, I desire to call theattentionoftheHouse to the very peculiar position in which this ca-se now is. I think that I might make some complaint against my colleague on the committ ee who has just taken his seat [Mr. LOWRY] with regard to the attitude that he has assumed with reference to . this case.

You will remember, :Ur. Speaker, thatup tothistimenoopportunity has been given for the minority of the committee in that orderly and usual way recognized as proper by this House to place their views of the case before the House. Some time ago, three or four weeks ago, the gentleman who hasjusttaken hi seat prepared an elaborate report, embodying, as he suppo ed, the views of the majority of the committee, which report was discussed in committee. The minority of the com-

3812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MA_y 5,

mittee prepared theirviews with reference to that report of the majority, which views were presented by the minority to the full committee, and they were discussed.

The result was that the distinguished gentleman was driven from many of the po itions that he had assumed, so that he was tm willing, in the light of the investigation that ensued, to commit himself to the views he had expressed in that report. He therefore asked and obtained permission to revamp his report, and for the fil"St time it was permitted to see the light on last Saturday morning. I do not believe that it has yet been distributed. For one I have never seen it, and until two hours ago did not know that it was in print; and up to this time there has been no opportu¢ty for that usual reply that the minority would have a. right to make.

Not only that, sir, but this case has been pressed upon the House at this time in opposition to the unanimous view of the Committee on Elections, because the gentleman himself &tated that in voting upon the question his vote was pro forma simply. It was not the desire of the Committee on Elections that this case should be called up this morning. They recognized the unfairness of such procedure, and by this united vote to which I have called your attention declared their conviction that propriety required there should be such delay, so that thereport of the minority, conta.i.Ding their argument, should be laid upon the desks of members. Hence the committee this rooming resolved that this case ought not to be taken up for consideration before next Wednesda.y rooming.

But, Mr. Speaker, there seems tQ be some remarkable exigency for this haste. The gentleman, usually so courteous, would not, in my humble judgment, have outraged propriety as he has done, would not have trampled upon decency as he has done, unless there was some reason beyond that which is apparent to the average member of the House. The minority of the committee had a. right to be heard in the ordinary way. We had a right to have our views laid upon the desks of members, so that they could see upon what fli.msy pretexts, ~pon what miserable pretenses, it is proposed now to seat the contestant in this case.

Mr. Speaker, as you must have observed, it is claimed that the contestant should be seated solely upon the vote in Albemarle County. The majority have abandoned all the other nine counties in the district, and have contented themselves with saying that such facts cluster around the vote of this county as justify them in the report they have made. Now, in this district the contestee had a clear majority of 205 votes; having that majority, he received the certificate.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Themajorityofthecommitteeconcede he is entitled to 104 more, making 309.

Mr. HEPBURN. I was coming to that. But he was entitled to and received his certificate upon this majority of 205, to which the addition of 104, by reason of an erroneous count, must be given him. Now, these gentlemen must overcome that majority of 309 votes; and by their own confession they are limited to the one county of Albemarle in order to accomplish it.

How is it proposed to do it, and what is the character of evidence upon which they have arrived at their conclusien? Theysaythatvotes were cast at that election by 667 colored men whose names appear on the delinquent capitation list. Now, I am ready to admit that this list under the law should designate whether the delinquent is white or colored; and therefore if it contains the statement that an individual is colored, being in the nature of a record, the committee have a right to rely upon that fact. But how do theyfindoutthatthe parties whose names appear upon the poll-books are colored? Simply because the letter "C," by the voluntary act of some one, we know not whom, some one whose duty it was not made by the law to place it there, has been written after each one ofthese667 names. There is no authority for so designating these voters on the poll-lists; the law does notrequire it; it is not the duty of any one to do it. The mau who placed the letter there was not, in doing so, acting under the solemnities of an oath. The letter thus written opposite these names is not in any sense a part of a record; it is not in any sense exemplified. No man has pretended to swear that those persons against whose names this letter '' C, '' indicating ''colored,'' appears were in fact colored voters. But the majority of the committee have assumed that they were col-ored. ·

There has then been introduced a. witness who testifies, not as my friend stated a while ago, that the 667 persons whose names appear upon the delinquent-list did in faet vote. That is not in proof. No man has said it. It is simply in proof that there are corresponding names upon the two lists; and these gentlemen have assumed the identity of the individuals. But there is, it seems to me, a very marked distinction. Where they have found, for instance, the name of George Washington upon the delinquent-list and the name of George Washington upon the tax-list, the majority of the committee have assumed that the name on the two lists is the name of one and the same person. Yet it may be true that there are scores and scores of persons so named in that county. Hence the assumption of the majority of the committee is entirely unwarranted.

These gentlemen assume that there are more than 500 of these voters who did not pay their capUation tax. They admit that of the 667,

the total, 125 did pay their capitation tax. The remainder, they sa.y did not. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is in proof that in the hand of the clerk of the collector of that county, as the gentleman himselfsaid in hisremarks, there was before the election day $440 to be used in payment of the capitation tax: of these voters. But right here the gentlemen grow technical; and although this money was in the hands of this clerk, the one who was transacting the business, the one who was recognized by his principal, the one who was authorized by him to do the business and who did it, they say that because the money had not reached the hands of the collector therefore the money is not to be regarded as in his hands, the payment was not made, and t.he votes should not be counted.

Is not that a little technical? Wehavearighttoassumethat the laws of the State of Virginia requiring the payment of this tax are for the purpose of aiding the revenue of the State. o geutleman will claim that they are cJogs, impediments, obstructions in the way of free suffrage. No mau will claim that the enginery of the great State of Virginia has been invoked in order to rob these men of their right to vote.

No gentlemen on the other side will claim that it ha been the purpose of this great Commonwealth to ostraeise certain of its citizens, to prevent them from the exercise of the right of suffrage; but, on the contrary, it will be their claim and it ought to be our belief that Virginia

1 when imposing this tax, simply means it shall be a revenue measure, a means by which so much of the hard earnings of her sons shall go into the trea ury of the State.

And right here let me say, Mr. Speaker, no man disputes that every dollar of this $125 and the $440 has gone into the treasury of Virginia, and is there to-day unless expended. No man claims but that the purpose of the law, of this revenue measure, has been effectual in bringing into the coffers of the State $565 from these colored people. That is beyond dispute. The State has the money. ~ow, Mr. Speaker, as these provisions are simply revenue measures,

and are for the purpose of adding to the revenue, whether you find them in the constitution or statutes, the method of collection, the tim& and place of collection, are simply directory and not mandatory, the object being to secure revenue. True, the time and place may be stated, but if the object is to secure revenue, and if any other time will do as well, if any other place will do as well, if any other person will do as well, then the statute is but directory, and if the object af securing revenue is accomplished, then the object of the law is attained.

The State of Virginia has the money, the State of Virginia has been the beneficiary, and it seems to me now it would be the gro estofinjustice to say these men whose money the State clings to tenaciously, these men who have done all they could do to fit themselves for the discharge of this duty-it would be a most ungracious act to say because of some technicality such as my friend has suggested their rights are to be questioned and their votes excluded from the count.

Mr. Speaker, there is no dispute about the fact of this $440 being in the hands of the clerk of the collector prior to the election. I appeal to the language of my colleague on the committee. It was his statement, and I borrow it from him. There is no dispute but 125 was paid before the day of the election in addition to this 440. There is a total of $565-payment for 565 tax receipts.

Now, sir, if we were to admit what the committee claims in regard to the remainder there would be but 105 votes disposed of, while they must dispose of 309 in order to overcome the clear majority of the contestee.

Let me call your attention, Mr. Speaker, if you please, to another important question, and that is as to how the 667 trouble orne voters that so much perturbed the majority of the committee-how are they to be disposed of in reference to the question of how they voted? I say of that whole number of 667 neither the gentleman who has just taken his seat nor any other member of the committee can lay his finger on a. single voter and say this voter voted for the contestee. Not one. There is no attempt to individualize the vote. There is no attempt to show that John Jones or John Brown or George Washington voted for the contestee or for the contestant. Gentlemen console themselves or rather content themselves with guessing at the whole class of voters, and that, too, in the case of entire townships or voting precincts where there is not one olitary word of testimony as to how the voters of that particular tQwnship or precinct voted. There are several of these, and I challenge the attention of my friend who has just taken his seat to this portion of his report.

I assert there are many townships whose vote he has excluded tha~ no living witness, white or blaek, has in"any way challenged. They have contented themselves by showing that in the opinion of the witness the colored people as a class in the whole country or in the whole district voted for a particular candidate. They have not attempted to show that any of these challenged voters individually voted for the contestee in this case.

But the contestant called witnesses and put such questions as this: How did the colored veter of such a county or such 8. district vote? And the answer is simply of this character:

The most of them, I think, voted the Rea.djuster ticket.; or, a large m&jorityo( them, I think, voted the Readjusterticket; or, it is my opinion tllat the large

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3813 p;oportion of them voted the Readjuster ticket; I think they mostly voted for Wise and Paul.

But, sir, no man has had the temerity to say that all the colored people voted the ReaDjnster ticket.

Mr. LOWRY. Will you allow me? Mr. HEPBURN. Did you allow me? ::M:r. LOWRY. I would inquire of the gentleman what witness he

alludes to as using such qualified language? Mr. HEPBURN. I can not name the particular witness now, but I

will make the general statement that the great majority who were called by the contestant contented themselves with just this kind of qualified statement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in some instances they give the reasons for their belief. They sa.y that their leaders voted the Readjuster ticket; that their head men voted it; they say that the distributers of tickets voted the Readjnster ticket, and they think from all of these causes and from other conditions existing that the majority of these people voted that ticket. That is the conclusion of the majority. Why, sir, how unsafe this would be if adopted as a rule of evidence. Suppose there was but a single vote in the contest in dispute, who would then be content to say that proof such as I have called your attention to would be sufficient to keep out that one vote, whereas it is now claimed by this committee as sufficient to exclude 667 votes? I do not believe that any sane man ought to. And yet that is the principle, that is the method these gentlemen have adopted here. They have not called the witnesses and asked them how they voted.

They have not sought to get the better class of testimony. But refusing to do that, they attempt to make a secondary class of testimony competent. They have been content to go beyond the elements of secondary proof and give to the House simply these speculations and beliefS and opinions of men upon this question. How unsafe this must be is apparent to all, and I can not understand how any gentleman could be willing to trust himself to act in matters of this important character upon testimony like that. .My friend who made the report said, as I understood him, it was conceded that the colored people all voted the Readjnster ticket. I do not know who has made that concession. I have never heard it before. On the «ontrary, there were proofs from their own side that more than one hundred of these coloroo people voted the Democratic ticket.

And if I might appeal to the current literature that we have for years seen, when outrages upon su~o-e have been charged against the Democracy, we would not have to go far before we could find in all the prints of the Democratic persuasion constant insistings that there was a division of the colored vote in the South and that the colored people knew who their fr-iends were. We hear it frequently said that they have a strong affection for their old masters, that they know who fed them and provided for them, and that they vote as this class desired them to vote. How familiar that kind of· talk is upon this question! But now, sir, the opposite seems to be conceded because it h appens to be necessary to sustain my friend's methods and argument, and he must take the other hom of the dilemma and insist that it is a truth now that the colored people all vote in opposition to the Democratic party. If the Houseis to act upon this question as claimed by the majority, Iwantsuchaction to operate as an estoppel against them in future when they propose to make their annual denials, as they will do at each succeeding election; and to my friend especially I commend his own statement when he proposes to wipe out all of the charges that are made about out rages in the South by the easy pretense that the colored vote is divided, that there is no solidity or unification of it, and that as many of the colored people in the South vote the Democrat ic ticket as any other.

Mr. Speaker, I have occupied more of the ·time of the House than it was my purpose to do; but I want to say in conclusion that I do not believe, upon the sober second thought, this House can afford t.o seat the contestant. In order to do so there must be so many outrages upon the laws of evidence, upon the methods that have heretofore been adopted, upon the rules of procedure that have been established, upon the right and justice-and veritiesof this case, that I do not think gentlemen can afford to commit themselves to the proposition that a whole community, 676 persons, must be ostracized and robbed of their votes when there is no other shortcoming upon their part than that a payment into the treasury of tlie State of Virginia has been delayed until three weeks beyond an election, when the law of the Commonwealth gives to the officer an entire year in which to make his statement or aecount and settlement. I do not think the House can consent to so disregard all of the well-established precedents for the production of testimony that they will seat this contestant solely because a number of witnesses have said that in their judgment and opinion the majority or the mass of tbe colored people voted against the Democratic party and in favor of the Readjuster party. And yet you have got to say that; you have got to give the seat to this contestant upon this grotmd and upon this class of evidence and upon no other, for that is all there is in the case.

I now yield the remainder of my time to my collea.,oue on the committee [Mr. CooK].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has thirty minutes of his time :remaining.

l'lfr. COOK addressed the committee. [See Appen<}ix.] Mr. LOWRY. I yieldfifteenminutestomycolleague [Mr. WARD]. Mr. WARD. .Mr. Speaker, the only distinguished. service which I

can claim to have rendered to my constituents thus far is in the fact that I have maintained silence on this floor. I think my constituents are indebted to me for this, and the House is under an equal obligation. Nor, sir, had I any intention ofbreaking thatsilencethismorning; but I can not be silent nor will I ever withhold my voice when a gentleman contending for a seat here, whose right in my judgment is unq uestioned, demands simple justice, and when it is manifest that the opposition to him is factious, partisan, and unreasonable. To be silent under such circumstances would be a plain dereliction of duty.

Speaking for myself individually, here and now I wish to say that upon a question of t his kind, a question of a contested election in this House, I will never consent to consult anything but my judgment and my conscience. I will never consent to view these questions from a partisan standpoint. I will never consent to sit here in judgment on these cases except as a judge trying the ~e upon the law and upon the faets. I would not vote to seat any man here simply because he belonged to my party. I am a partisan, and a strong one; but I repeat it, sir, I will never consent to seat any man here simply and solely because he happens to belong to my party. It is because I believe this contestant has an indisputable right to his seat that I rise to briefly advocate his claims.

So far as I have been able to examine this case-and I am compelled to admit my examination has been cursory, but I have read this ·'report and I have heard measurably, as well as I could hear, the report of the minority which was read in the House this morning-so far, I say, as I have been able to inform myself, I think the case before ns is clear, strong, irresistible. It stands upon the law; it stands upon the evidence. It commends itself to the conscience and in~lligence of every gentleman in this Hou...<le, and the right of the contestant to his seat ought to be conqeded by every member cheerfully, promptly, without a moment's hesitation.

What is the case? I find from the report of the majority of the committee thattheyplant themselves chiefly upon the proposition that a large number of persons who voted for the contestee had not fulfilled the requirements of the law in that they had failed to pay what is known as the capitation tax. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HEPBURN] sa.ys that the capitation tax is merely a tax for revenue. That is a remarkable proposition, to my mind, as coming from a gentleman -of acknowledged ability as a lawyer. A tax for revenue simply ! Sir, the payment of this tax is a qualification of the voter. It is made a prerequisite to everyman'srighttovote in the State of Virginia. This tax is grounded upon a statute, and that statute is grounded upon the constitution of the State. Does anybody doubt the right of the State of Virginia to impose such a qualification? The gentleman says it is simply for revenue purposes. I say, ·sir, that in the State of Virginia in 1882, when this election was held, it was just as essential that a voter should have paid his dollar of capitation tax as that he should have lived in the State twelve months, and in the city where he asked to vote three months-just as essential as that he should have been 21 years of age, just as essential as any other qualification that may have been prescribed by the constitution of Virginia or by any statute of the State.

Now what is the evidence? I can not go into detail. I have not time; and I am obliged to admit I have not read this record in full. I have failed to do so simply and solely because it was my understanding, until I came into the House this morning, that gentlemen on the other side would content themselves by voting against the contestant, and would not ask for any discussion of the case. What I am saying is chiefly founded upon the report of the majority of the committee. I assume t hat it contains the facts.

Briefly, what arethosefacts? Thatfivehundred and fifty-seven men who voted at that election failed to pay the capitation tax. F orwhom were these votes cast? What istheevidence on that point? It is said there is nothing definite on this question; that we can not tell for whom these votes were cast. Sir, looking at this matter as a lawyer, looking at it, as I trust, with judicial impartiality, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy my mind, or that I think of any reasonable person, that these 557 men who thus voted belonged to the Republican party, were colored voters, and cast their votes for the contestee. Who testifies to this? Is there any testimony upon the point, or is there an absence of testimony on this question? There is positive testimony upon it. lt comes from the lips of twenty-one witnesses. It comes from witnesses who wereinaposition to know. It comes from men who attended th e election on that day, aud who testify that these votes were cast for t he contestee, and that they were all the votes of colored men.

Some of these witnesses are Republicans-some of them are colored m en, and not one person who appeared upon the witness-stand has testified to the contrary. Does any reasonable person :mppo e for one moment that if it had been possible to successfully controvert t his one promiuent, controlling fact in the case it would not have beeu done ? And yet there has not been even an attempt to controvert it. Sir, in the last Congress it was held by the Republican Committee on Elections and by a Republican House that the uncontradicted testimonyof

3814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

two witnes es was su:flicient to establish the fuct that the colored voters of an entire Congressional district voted the Republican ticket. But here we ha\e twenty-one witnesses, whose testimony is wholly undisputed testifying that the 557 colored men in a single county, to whom tax receipts were furnished by Republican tax-collectors, \Oted for the contestee. I there a gentleman upon this floor who ha any moral doubt of the fact? Probandum est.

I am not making any attack upon these voters because they were colored men. I am simply trying the case upon the law and the evidence. Tho e votes were cast for the contestee. Being thus cast, and being illegal Totes, if you deduct them from the votes received by the contestee, the result as hown by the report of the committee is that this contestant is elected by 24 majority.

How happens it that these votes were thus cast? For what purpo~e? What does the record how in this behalf? What is the uniform testimony of all th ·e witnesses? It i that these tax-receipts were issued by the partisans of the contestee. They were not issued because the tax had been pa,id. There is no preten e that prior to this election more than $125 had been paid in this way into the treasury of the State. The gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. HEPBURN] said that the clerk or orne other person-I did not understand who from his remarksheld ache ·k or ~L draft for $400, which wa applied in payment of the capitation ta..'C for these persons who voted.

That i. not the evidence. I respectfully say, according to my reading of the report, that the gentleman is quite in error.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him with a tatement?

Ir. WARD. I am nearly cared to death now. Please do not interrupt me. [Great laughter.] I do not understand that to be the evidence. I understand the evidence to be this: The gentleman whorecei\ed that check or draft never did receive it until one month after the election had taken place.

What is the meaning of this capitation tax, Mx. Speaker? I say it i an essential prerequisite to a man's right to vote. Even if the 400 had been paid into. the tat treasury before the Yotes were cast, you could not say it could be applied as capitation ta;. Thexe was no direction a to where it should be applied and it is not pretended that there wa . The tax wa a pexsonal debt which the voter was bound to pay before he could exercise the high prerogative of the elective franchise.

I do not claim or pretend that some other man might not have paid it fox the voter. I say if four hundred pel"SOns wanted to vote and 400 ·were paid into the Treasury, indiscximinately, without any direction as to i application, it would not be a fulfillment of the law. I do not believe there is any gentleman on this floor who belongs to the profession of the law who would claim any such con trnction.

Mr. ~fiLLER. I will cite yon authorities. .:\1r. WARD. A gentleman uggests to me the authorities you will

cite will be Philadelphia authorities, and I will say to the gentleman they are not worth a cent out in Indiana where I live. [Lu.ughter.J I do not know what they may be worth..in Pennsylvania.

~1r. HOL}..IAJ.~. Will the gentleman yield to me? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Do the gentleman yield? Mr. WARD. I do not yield to an body in the world. [Laughter.]

I am pretty nearly through, and when I have fini bed you can all take the floor.

It is my firm conviction from the hasty and cursory examination I haTe been able to mu.ke of the record and ter' timony in thi ca e that the contestant is entitled to hi eat, and because I believe he is so entitled·on the evidence I speak for him and hall vote for him.

I repeat, I am one pen;on on thi side of the House, and I trust there are many who will ne'"'er be found voting for any person to take his seat here simply and solely because h e happen to belong to my party. I know bad precedents hu\--e been et by both parties, but bad precedents should be changed into good examples. We ought to amend our habits and conduct in this respect, and so fa.r as I am concerned I propo e ne\ex to make a record of that kind. ~ow ir I have ubmitted these brief remu.rks earnestly, bemuse

they grew out of my profound conviction of the 1-jght of this contestant to take his ea.t. H e d not com here ask-ing any favor at our hands a partisans. He come as the legally-elected Representative of the se\·enth eli trict of the Commonwealth of irginia. His title is as clear as yours or mine. I can not doubt that it will be recognized and confirmed.

.:\Ir. MILLER, of Penn yl\"'auia. ~Ir. Chairman before I pass to the consideration of this ca e I d ire to make a iewcorrection." for the benefit of the gentleman from Indiana [1\'Ir. W A.RD], -who tateJ be ha only cursorily read the majority repor aud heard a little of the minority report tiled thi ' morning and read at the Clerk' desk. Tie tated, if I undertood him correct! that thi capitation-tax pro\ision was not a revenu e mea~ure. Permit me to inform him that this capitation-ta.x provision was adopted in the Virginia constitution of 1850 and has been in all of her constitutions and all the enactments of that State from that time down to this, but it wa only in the year 1 77- 7 that the payment of such tax wa · made a prerequisite for voting.

And what does the State of Virginia herself declare thi tax is for? Article 10, section 5, of the constitution reads as follows:

The General.A.ssembly may levy a. tax not exceeding- 1 per annuni on every male citizen who has attained the age of 21 yen.rs, which shall be applied in aid of the public free schools.

Why, sir, by the very provision of the constitution of Virginia that taxi declared to be a tax forrevenue. By theconstitutiono£1876-'77 and the act of 1877-'7 the payment of it was made a prerequisite of voting for the express purpose of enforcing the payment of that tax.

Again, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. W .A.RD] stated that it did not appear in the evidence that this draft for $440 paid to Collector Wayland on delinquent taxes was in the hands ofthe clerk of the collector before the election. Why, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LOWRY] who drew the majority report, and who has but taken his eat, stated in his remarks, as an admitted fact, thatth,edraft was in the hands of the clerk of the collector or some person acting as his clexk before the election. It strikes me tha,t the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WARD] not only read this majority report in a cursory manner but failed to listen to the remarks of his colleague.

Tbegentlemanfromindiana [Mr. W .A.RD] again stated thatitwasafact that 557 pel"SOns voted for the contestee who had not paid their capitation tax. I ask him now, and I will give him time to answer me, to name one of the 557 pen;ons. He says he has read this report. He said he had, in a cursory manner, examined the testimony. Now, I yield to him to name one of the 557 who be says it is a fact voted for the contestee who had not paid the capitation tax, and I hope he will answer me.

:Mr. TEELE. To whom are you referring? Mr. }.tiLLER, of Pennsylvania. To the gentleman from Indiana

last on the floor [Mr. W A.RD]. Ipauseforananswer. [Afterapause.] Ah ! the gentleman from Indiana declines to an wer ?

Mr. WARD. Perhaps I did not think the remark was worth answering.

l\fr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Ah! ~hatisavexyproper response on the part of the gentleman. He referred to his profession in his xemarks. I would be pleased to know what his profession is.

Mr. PETTIBONE. It can not be law. Ir. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. There are 557 votes rejected, and

the gentleman espouses the action of the majority of the committee, and when I ask him to name a man of all of that list who has voted, as he states, for the contestee~ he is unable to answer me.

Mr. WARD. I did not claim any knowledge of that kind with ref erence to thi subject. I planted my elf upon the proposition contained in the report of the majority, which shows that 557 persons voted for the contestee. I do not pretend to say that there is any evidence to show bow any one of them voted.

rr. }.tiLLER, of Pennsylvania. I am not asking you how they voted; I am only asking you for the name of one single one of that 557 persons. If the gentleman can not answer it, then I ask is there a member of this committee who will name one of them? Will the gentleman from Indiana, :Mr. LOWRY, who made thereport, name one of them?

I pan e for an answer. Five hundred and fifty-seven votes deducted in bulk from the vote of the contestee and no man can name a single one of the 557. The gentleman from Indiana concedes that of the 676 votes 119 are legal Yoters, and he says that we count these 119. He says o in hi report as well as in his speech, and I ask him to name one

of the 119 that he says are legal voters, and then name one of the 557 votes which were illegal Yoters that he ruled out.

I yield for an an wer. Mr. LOWRY. Does the gentleman desire an answer? MJ·. MILLER, of Pennsy I vania. I want the name ; I yield for that;

not for an argument. l\Ir. LOWRY. The gentleman inay be wanting a great many things

that he will never get. [Derisive laughter on the Republican side.] fr . .:\IILLER, of Pennsylvania. And this Honse wants a great many

thing' with reference to this report that it will never get from the gen·tleman. It wants light on this subject. It desires to know the names of the alleged illegal voters which you a kit under the solemnity of an oath to reject in order to seat Mr. 0 Ferrall. It wants the names in order that it may determine whether or not the voters are disqualified.

Ur. LOWRY. But my response to the gentleman's inquiry is this: That in th close of the u.rgument I expect to show a degree of proof here that is entitled to more weight and ha more strength in support of the propositions embodied in this report than in the more than fifteen or twenty case which have been decided by his party when they were in a majority in this House-the party with which the gentleman is a ociated.

Mr. MILLER, of Penn ylvania. Ob, then, because the Republican party has et this House, as the gentleman claims, a bad example by excluding a Democratic contestant in the past, and seated partie that ought not to haYe been seated here, and against the voice an~ protest of gentlemen upon the other side of the House, yow. are now going to . follow tbat example which you then condemned. Ii that the argu-

t

1884. COKGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3815 ment of the gentle!Ik'tn from Indiana? Is that his response to my inquiry? Is that naming one of these 557 voters that he excludes? I state to t his llouse, without fear of contradiction, that this committee has said that 557 vote were cast by men who had not paid the delinquent tax and I further assert that they can not name a single one of the 557.

I repeat it, they can not name one of them. They have a list of the 676 men that they say had not paid the capit.ation tax, but the very moment that they said 119 of them were illegal votes, that very moment they put themselves in such shape that they never can tell this House who the voters are. I want to know what court ever did that? Deduct the vote because the voter that cast it was not a qualified voter, without being able to name the voter !

I cease to wonder that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WARD] did not yield for a question. Is the ballot in and of itself illegal, or is it the voter that is disqualified? The majority do not hesitate to say that it is the voter who is disqualified. I put the question to the lawyers on the Democratic side of this Chamber: Did you in all your practice know of a case where a court threw out a ballot because the person casting that ballot was disqualified, unless they were able to identify tbevoterwbocast the ballot? I pause for an answer. [After a pause.] Th.e gentlemen are all silent. I admire your discretion.

But, sir, more than that. I state that this House never in its past history established a precedent that votes could be taken from the contestee or a contestant on the evidence which is submitted to this House. What is it? There are twenty precincts in the county of Albemarle. The committee in its report stated that of the 676 votes which they found had been given upon capitation-tax receipts 21 were white voters, and therefore they would conn t them. They said that being white they could not tell whether those votes were cast for contestant or the contestee, and therefore they would count the twenty-one votes. They do not pretend to know for whom they were cast. They do not pretend to know anything of them except three facts: one is that they were ou the list of delinquent i:.:'l>x-payers; another was that they were on some ofthe poll-books in that county; and another was that they were white, and, being white, they would count them. That left 655 votes alleged to have been cast upon delinquent-tax receipts by colored voters. Assuming that the witness, Gordon, correctly marked and checked the names, the votes cast by these delinquent tax-payers, legal and illegal, are distributed throughout the county as follows: THE PRECINCTS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, AND THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED DF.:LIN

QUENT COLORED VOTES CAST AT EACH.

The following is the number of colored persons who it is alleged voted for contestee in Albemarle County on delinquent-tax receipts, at each precinct. Of this number the majority of the subcommittee deducts 557 votes from contestee: Batesville......................................................................................................... 16 Blackwell's.............................. .... .... ...... ........ ......... ...... ............ ...... ............... 3 Court-House..... ........................... ........... . ...... ...... ........................ ... ....... .......... 63

~~~:~m~r·i·~~-~.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.":::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::::::: ~ Earlysville........................................................................ ............................ .. 34 Free Union...................................................................................................... 24 Howardsville................... ... . . ... .. ............. ... ... .. . ...... .. .... .. . .......... .......... .... ...... .. 34 Hillsborough.. ......... . .............. ......................................................................... 15 Ivy ................................................. ............... ............... ............................ . ........ 54 K es,vick. .... ......... ..... .. ............. .... .. .. ... . .. . . ....... ...... .... ...... .. . ...... .. . ...... .. .. .. ..... . .. 38 Lindsay' .. .. ..... .. ... ... ....... .. ....... .... .. ...... ...... ......... ...... ......... ...... ...... .. .. .... ... ... 27 Milton .................... ..... .......... ... .................................................. .. .................... 39 l'rlonticello House............................................................... ............................. 66 North Garden ............................................. ................................................... 25 Porter's............ ................ ..... ....... ......... ................................... ....................... 68 Stony Point....................................................................... .............................. 18 Scott ville........................................... ............ ...... ...... ...... ...... ............. ..... ...... 28 White Hall............... ......... . ...... ...................................... .. ....... . ................. ...... 32 'Vingfield's. ............................ . ........................... . .............. ..... ........................ . 13

655

Bear in mind now that the majority count in bulk, without locating or identifying, 98 of the above, and reject in bulk, without locating or identifying, the balance-557. Adding the 21 votes cast by alleged white voters to the above 98 makes the 119 votes heretofore referred to. Let us examine this list. First in the list is Batesville, where, it is alleged, 16 votes were cast by colored delinquents. These 16 votes are deducted from contestee. No, not the entire 16 votes, but the t-H of these 16 votes. Will some memberoftbe committeetellme for whom these 16 votes were cast? Will be refer me to the evidence on this point? I yield for an answer. [After a pause.] Silent again.

Will orne mem berof the committee ten me what witness testifies how even the colored people voted in Batesville at that November election? Why ir, there is not a single witness called who pretends tote tify how the colored people voted in Batesville. And yet, sir, this committee has decided and asks this House-and this House will do itto throw out ill of these 16 votes in Batesville precinct without one line of testimony as to how even the colored people voted there. They throw them out because some witness testifies that in some other pre<:inct the colored people voted for the contestee. And they ask my friend from Indiana [1\Ir. WARD], who stands by his profession, to stand with them when they say because the colored people voted in one district for contestee therefore they did so in another; and be will do it.

Then at Blackwell's precinct the committee &'ty that three colored delinquent voters voted for contestee. Well, who testifies as to how the colored people voted at Blackwell's precinct? Nobody. But then

that is ''such a very little one' ' that my friend from Indiana. will vote for that too. That is only a matter of H-i of 3 votes and out they go.

Then we come to Covesville. At Covesville the committee tell n there were 23 colored delinquents that voted for the conte tee. According to this line of evidence they voted for him becau e they were black. Why, sir, who testifies that the black voters of Covesville \Oted the Readjuster ticket? Who? Nobody. No witness is called who testified as to how the colored people of Covesville voted; but becau3esome man says that in his opinion the colored people voted at some other precinct the Readjuster ticket out go the aforesaid vulgar fraction of 23 votes, and my distinguished friend from Indiana will vote for that too. He has to; he will not like to when he comes to look at it~ but he will do it. I wonder if be does not now think that cursory reading and hasty conclusions are bad in practice. I see that some of my Democratic friends are becoming uneasy. Wait! The grid-iron I shall put you on is only warming. Wait until it gets hot.

Then we come to Free Union. The committee tell us that at Free Union 24 colored delinquents voted, and becn.use they were colored men they voted for the contestee. Who says that the colored people of Free Union precinct voted the Readjuster ticket? Nobody. No witness says so. Witnesses could have been called if that were true. But the committee say, notwithstanding there is not a line of testimony about that, that you must throw out the requisite fraction of those 24 votes, and out they go. l\Iy distinguished friend from Indiana, placing himself on his profession, says, "I will follow." I like that kind of law which can arrange itself on either side of a legal proposition; that is the kind of law that pays.

But at Earlysville precinct the committee tell us there were 34 colored delinquents who voted the Readjnster ticket. How did the colored people vote at Earlysville? Why, here is the only testimony within the lids of the record as to how the colored people ·of Earlysville voted. Let me read it to you. I want to read this to the lawyers of the House that they may see upon what testimony they a,re going to put Mr. O'Ferrallinhisseat. You willfindhistestimonyonpage69. For the benefit of the gentlemen of the House who have only gi•en it a cursory reading I will refer to the pages. Davis J. Johnson, the witness, testifies:

Q. Whom did you support for Congress in that election? A. Massey and Paul.

Massey was running on the Democratic ticket; Paul was running on the Readjuster ticket. The contestant supported Mr. Massey. The contestee, Mr. Paul, supported Mr. WISE, who was running against 1\h-. Massey.

3d Q. For whom did the colored voters at that precinct ,·ote as between Paul and 0 ' Ferrall?

A. Well, I think Paul got the majority. 4th Q. Did not Paul get nearly the entire colored yote? A. I think he got the most of them.

And out weni.i the required fraction of the 34 votes. Ah! the gentlemen on that side who stand by the legal profession

will admire the audacity of the committee that deducted ill of34 votes from contestee on that testimony.

The next precinct is Carter's Bridge.. The majority of the committee tell us that 35 delinquent colored men at that precinct voted the Readjuster ticket because they were colored. Well, how did the colored people vote according to the testimony? I will read every line that regards the precinct of Carter's Bridge. Here it is-testimony of M. L. Van Doren, page 28:

Q. 1 (by counsel for contestant). Please state your residence and voting place; whether you were an officer at the last election and were present at the polls all day.

A .. My residence is in Albemarle County, near Carter's Bridge precinct, where I vote; I was a judge of election and present at the pqJ.ls all day.

Q. 2 (by same). From your observation of the polls that day, and your general knowledge of the voters, and their political affiliations and associates, and from your observation of the political workers who gave out ballots to the colored voters and came to the polls with them, how should you say the colored vote was cast; was it for Paul or O'Ferrall?

A. I should say it was almost unanimously for Paul. Cross-examinat;ion :

Q. 1. Were you not a partisan of, and did you not work and vote for, C. T. O'Ferrall at the last e lection?

.A. I did not work for him on the day of election ; I voted for him. I was a supporter of Colonel O'Ferrall and wished for his election. I was less active than usual at the last election ; my position as judge prevented me from taking an active part on the day of election.

And out go the requisite fraction of these 35votes, all deducted from contestee, so as to seat a man that never was elected. To throw out votes on such te timony is to assume a position which no party outside of Virginia e\"'er thought of t.aking. The only party equal to such anemergency is the great party which to-day is seeking to obtain the control of the destinies of this nation. Upon such testimony as that the requisite fraction of 34 votes is deducted from conte tee by this committee. The testimony of the other eighteen witnesses is not more conclusive or more convincing. I publish all of it on this point with the minority report.

Yet upon such testimony, the testimony of twenty-one witnesses scattered over sixteen districts, this committee propo es, and it asks the House to indorse its position {and it will do it) to throw out ffi of the abo'\"e 655 votes, or 557 votes in the county of Albemarle, and

3816 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 5,

deduct them all from contestee. Why did they not throw out the whole 676 votes? They say that 119 of the persons who cast that many of the 676 votes were legal voters. They say they can not separate them from the illegal voters; they can not separate the wheat from the chaff. They confess that they can not name one of those claimed to be legal voters; they confess they can not name one of the 557 claimed by them to be illegal voters. But they ask you, their political associates, to stand with them and say that 557 votes were illegal; that they were cast by colored men, and because they wece cast by colored men therefore ~hey were cast for the contestee. "\Vnen before did this House ever take such a position?

They claim that the contestant had the names of the 676 persons who he and the committee say were delinquent tax-payers, and who he and they say voted for the contestee. They all lived in the county of Albemarle. Sixty-three of them, if the evidence is to be credited, lived in one precinct. Not one of them was called; not a single witness was called to testify how any one of these individual colored men voted. Those 63 men lived there in one precinct. Not one of them was called to prove that he was a delinquent tax-payer; not one of them was called to prove to whom he paid his tax; not one of them was called to prove that he voted for the contestee; not one of them was called to prove that he voted the Readjuster ticket.

In the whole county of Albemarle but two men were called as witnesses who voted, and one of them testified that he paid his tax himself before the day of election; he was not asked and did not say for whom he voted. But his vote went out with the rest. His name is among the others on that delinquent-tax list. It is James Curry. You will find his testimony on page 390 of the record. He is one of the colored men who go to make up the 676.

I trust the Democratic Representatives of this House relish the evidence on which they are asked to seat the contestant. I have heard it asserted on Democratic authority that a ballot cast by an illegal voter could not be deducted from the person for whom it was cast, even after it was found to be illegal, unless the party desiring to be benefited thereby had first called and offered to examine the voter who cast the alleged illegal ballot.

I do not take that position in its broadest sense, but I understand that the Democratic party does take that broad position, It takes the position that where John Smith is admitted to be an illegal voter and voted at Bataville precinct, it is the duty of the party who wants to gain by throwing out his vote to place John Smith on the stand, and then if he refuses to testify the party can proceed and prove John Smith's party affiliations, his actions, and his declarations before and at the time of his voting. I understand that this House will be asked to stand upon that position before this session closes. And I enjoy the prospect of seeing my Democratic associatesplacingthemselves on record to-day that a vote can be deducted from a candidate without naming, identifying, or calling the alleged illegal voter, or proving his declarations before, at, or after the election. When you undertake to straddle this position, as you soon will, I shall remind you of your to-day's aetion.

I am gratified that there is one Democrat who sits in this House who will not have the lash applied to his back by either the Morrison reformers or the Virginia Bourbons. I am glad that there is one Democratic Representative who is determined to be consistent, although his party associates may all go against him. I refer to 1\fr. CooK, of Iowa.

But let us for a moment refer to this list of alleged delinquent taxpayers, and who is one of the 676?

One of them is Hy. Allen. He is one of those who they say voted at Howardsville. He is the first man on the list of district No. 1, to be found on page 78 of the record. Who testifies as to how Hy. Allen voted? No man. Who testifies with whom Hy. Allen affiliated on the day of election? Nobody. Who testifies from whom Hy. Allen got his tax ticket? Nobody. Who testifies from whom Hy. Allen got his ballot? Nobody. Who testifies as to whom Hy. Allen went up to the polls. with? Nobody. Who testifies to a single declaration that Hy. Allen ever made before the election, on the day of election, or since? No living man. ·

But Hy. Allen's vote has got to go out, because he is a colored man. Ah, the colored man must go, either by force or intimidation at the polls, or by such action as this after a fair and free election has been had, unless he is one of the said 119. Who knows whether he is or not? Nobody. That his tax was paid is unquestioned, for no delinquent could vote without exhibiting a tax-receipt.

Let me take another name. Charles Burnley appears on the colored delinquent-list. How did Charles Burnley vote? Why, sir, do you know that there are three Charles Bumleys on the delinquent-list? Which one of them was counted? Which one rejected? Who testified as to how any one of these Charles Burnleys voted, as to whom any one of them acted with or went to the polls with or got his tax Teceipt or his ballot from? Who testifies as to what any one of these three men said before or after the election? Nobody. Yet these persons are living in the immediate community and could have been called or identified.

Let us take up the Browns. There are thTee John Browns, one Jack Brown, one John A. Brown, and one John W. Brown, all on the delinquent list and all five are marked as voted. Which of them were thrown

out, and upon what testimony? I ask the gentleman from Indiana; and I venture to say he does not know. If he does, let him an wer. Again he is silent.

Then there are the Nelson Browns-five of them-all delinqueuts, and all in the county of Albemarle. Which of these were thrown out and which accepted? Not a single witness fixes the identity of any one of these men.

Take the Johnsons. There are four James Johnsons and one Jim Johnson. There are five Hy. J ohnsons and one Henry Johnson. There are three Sam. J ohnsons and two Saml. J ohnsons. I admire the ingenuity of any lawyer who can pick out, upon a cursory examination, those of the Johnson family who voted and those who did not, and for whom they voted.

There are some other anomolies connected with this case. If you look at page 86 you will find the name of one John Anderson, a colored man, who paid his tax to H. B. Burnley, the clerk. The committee say that ~as a good payment. Then I go down a. little further and I find another John Anderson, who voted atcourt-houseprecinct; a little further down another John Anderson, who voted at Keswick's precinct. 'Vhlch one of these John Andersons did the committee count, the one who paid his tax to Burnley, which you admit was a legal payment, or one of the two who paid their taxes to the tax-collector, which you say was an illegal payment in the majority of cases? Will the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LoWRY] inform the House? I will yield to him to do so. Again he is silent.

I look down a. little further on the page and I find two Reuben Bakers. One of them paid his tax to Burnley, which you say was a good payment. One voted at Court-Hou e precinct, and he is thrown out. How do you know that the Reuben Baker who voted at Court-House precinct is not the same Reuben Baker who paid his tax to H. B. Bumley, the proper person, as you say, to receive it? You do not know; you can not know. Nobody knows but Reuben Baker, unless-if the Lord pays any attention to elections in Virginia [laughter]-it is the Lord. This committee, with an omnisciencewhichis to beat least admired, picks out at random one of these Reuben Bakers, it knoWB not which, and says, "We will throw him out anyhow," and deduct his vote from contestee.

If you look a little further down you get into the Johnson family again, which is as prolific in Albemarle County, Virginia, as the Smith family up inN ew England. I find that one Sam. Johnson paid his tax to H. B. Burnley; a good payment according to the committee; and I find that a Sam. Johnson voted at Batesville precinct. I find also tha~ a " Saml." Johnson voted at Scottsville precinct. Which one of these did you throw out? I ask my distinguished friend from Indiana [:Mr. WARD] which one of these J ohnsons he threw out? I ask the other gentleman from Indiana [Mr. LoWBY], who wrote thereport of the majority, which one did he throw out? Again the gentleman is silent, and yet his side of the Honse will blindly follow him.

So I find there are more persons than one bearing the name of William Barber. One paid his tax to Burnley; one voted at Batesville. Which did you throw out? So with William Faucett. Onepersonof this name paid tax to Burnley; one voted at Monticello. Which one did you throw out? So in regard to Daniel Scott. One person of this name paid tax to Burnley; one voted at Wingfield. A similar remark may be made in regard to Edwin Taylor. One person bearing this name paid tax to Burnley; one voted at Porter's. One person named John Wood paid tax to Burnley; and one of same name voted at Carter's. The same may be said as to Chas. Johnson, who paid tax to Burnley and voted at Court-House precinct.

If I had time I could pursue this line of argument at great length, demonstrating the absurd and inexplicable action of the committee.

Such anomalies emphasize the unreliability of deducting 557 votes in bulk. I think I have shown the importance of bringing direct testimony in every instance to identify the voter. The testimony should have been directed to John Anderson, to Reuben Baker, to Sam. Johnson, and to all the others. If these persons were not called themselv~, some persons should have been called to identify them, thereby making it possible for this House to act intelligently on the case. Because the committee has not done this, I object to this report. It is not one upon which a lawyer can stand, and I assert without fear of contradiction that no county court in the United States that would take this evidence and go over it impartially would ever throw out these 557 votes and deduct them all from the contestee.

If it is uncertain for whom illegal votes have been cast, throw them out altogether. If any votes are shown to be illegal, I will not object to throwing them out. But how? There are but two ways in which it can be justly done. It must be done either by taking the total vote of both candidates and deducting a fair percentage from each, or by declaring there is so much doubt about the matter that we can not decide intelligently and judicially for whom they were cast. Therefore, we will declare there was no legal elect ion, and send the case back to the people.

The report of the minority does not declare that :Mr. Paul was elected. He having resigned his seat to a~cept another position, it is not necessary to decide this. Speaking for myself, and I believe for the minority of the committee, I firmly believe he was elected-fairly, hone tly, and

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3817 leoaally elected. I believe that tax-collectors appointed by the State hundred or two hundred yards at most of the spot where the deposit ion auditor who is the head of the revenue department of the State, were was taken, was every man whose vote had been challenged, and not one at least' de jure officers, and that the payment of the capitation tax to of them was summoned as a witness to say how he voted, for whom he the collector of Albemarle County by the delinquent tax-payers was a voted, what tax-receipts he had or what tax he had paid! Monticello legal payment whether made by the delinquents themselves or by some House was another precinct in Albemarle County where ou t of a vote of one for them.' And in support of this I cite the House to the decisions 270ca tforJohn Paul65mustbestrickenout, as claimed, from the polls, of the courts in Pennsy lvan.ia as found in 11 Philadelphia Reports, 645; and the simplest summons of the contestant could have brought ever.:' 1 Kulp, 157, and 1 Brewster, 12~, and cas~ therein cited. The latter man of the whole numberto the stand to tell what receipt he voted and case is cited to support the legality of the title of the tax-collectors, at how he voted. So of every precinct in that county. But never one did least as de jure officers. he summon, and why? Because he calculated, and he calculated well,

Mr. Paul came to thls House with 309 majority. The election is it seems, that he would be indorsed here if he made out any sort of case conceded to be fair and free. No man voted whose taxes were not first on any sort of testimony. He knew it was not necessary to go beyond paid into the treasury of the State of Virginia. No delinquent in Al- that . [Laughter.] . b emarle County, in any of the twenty precincts, was permitted to vote Sir, from time to time I have been patted on the shoulder on this until he exhibited to the election officers his tax-receipt, signed either floor and told that I had better keep quiet myself, because I hadaconby the clerk of the court or the collector oftaxes. . . . test pending before the Committee on Elections. Mr. Speaker, that

On what flimsy pretense 557 are thrown out! Not only IS 1t ailln:itted seat of my coll~oue has no protector on_ this floor, and I hold a seat that $565 was in the hands of the collector before the day of election here as a Representative at large fi·om the State of Virginia, with a to apply on the tax owed by these delinquents, but it is admitted that duty to perform toward my outraged constituents of the seventh disno list can be made out of the 557 voters who it is alleged cast illegal trict; and by the gods, if I knew my head would roll in tho basket the ballots. Not only this; not one riame of the 557 can be given to this next moment, I will stand up for the rights of my people against any House, all of which were deducted from contestee in order to give con- party or any man or set of men who embark in an effort like this to testant a majority of 248. rob and cheat them of their rightful Representative. [Applause on t he

Will this House perpetrate this outrage? Will it disregard the reg- Republican side.] I ask no favors from the Democratic majority of istered will of the voters of the seventh Congressional district of Vir- this House. I stand on the ground of right and justice. I stand on ainia? Are there not some Democrats on this floor who will vote for the ground of Roman right, and I pray God that they will commit anihl.s very report who will be ashamed of it? other outrage and send me back to the people of Virginia. Because

Let me say to you that you can not stand by the position you are then, Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the gallant people of that State, to taking to-day until the 4th day of March, 1885. Other case<:~ will be the old Tenth Legion of Democracy whence this contest comes, to the brought to this House which will compel you to reverse this action. stalwart yeomen of the Valley of Virginia, who have already rebuked

We do not deny the correctness of the rule tha. t the declarations and the pretended Democracy of to-day by piling up an overwhelming rnaaction of a voter whose partisan he had been, with what party he affil- jority in every county in that district against them. .An immense iated, whose friends gave him his ticket, who paid his taxes, &c., are white majority has been rolled up against them and in favor of my all proper matters to be considered in finding for whom the individual party. I will show them what a fraud and sham is your latter-day voter voted. But that is not what the contestant and the committee Democracy, and. they will indorse the representative of their rights ask of us. They ask us to find that the colored people as a class voted who dares to stand up on this floor and who is not afraid to demand for contestee. They ask us to find from such evidence as is published their rights although at his own peril. I want to see this t.hing done. in the minority report that 655 colored delinquents voted, and because I say I want to see it done. It is done already. I hear the clanking of colored, and because they received their tax-receipts from a collector your chains that are lifting now the knife of the guillotine to cut off who was contestee's friend, that therefore they voted for contestee. the head of an empty seat. [Laughter.] You are schooled to such

No Committee on Elections, in a• y Congress, no quasi-judicial tri- outrages at home. You are panting for the blood ofanothervictim to bunal whose deciRions have been preserved, no court of law or equity keep your hands in for the next election. has ever foreshadowed the positions upon which these 557 votes are re- I know when the vote comes the ''grand old party '' will be on hand jected, and all deducted from the majority candidate, and a minority to pile up solidly its vote, for I have known them long and well. [.Apcandidate seated, and when the second sober thought of the Denlo- plause on the Republican side.] cratic party has gained control of this House it will notrepeattheout- Yes, sh; I know them well, but I listened with amazement to the rage about to be perpetrated in this case. How much time have I left? gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. :MILLER] here talking to Democrats

The SPEAKER. Twelve minutes. about'beingconsistent. Whoeverheardofaconsistentlatter-dayDemMr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I yield eleven minutes to thegen- ocrat? Why, gentlemen, you were laughing at him while you heard

tleman from Virginia [Mr. JoHN S. WrsE]. him. For the last twenty years the Democratic party has played the-1Ir. JOHN S. WISE. 11r. Speaker, the man who was elected to this game of merry-go-round, and straddled every sappling in the forest of

seat has been promoted to a higher position, and to-day occupies the bon- national politics. [.Applause and laughter on the Republican side.] I ored plaee of judge of the western district of Virginia. If he were in have seen it in 1868 come out for an incidental protection, but without his seat the question would be quite different from what it is, for I injury to revenue. I have seen it in 1872 take up as a leader Horaee hardly think the bold outrage now about to be perpetrated would be Greeley, the very father of high protection, in direct opposition to their practiced then. From time to time, as thiS contest has proceeded, I previous record. I have seen it in 1876 come back and denounce the tarhave heard· the remark from gentlemen on the other side that it did not iff; and later still, in 1880, I have seen it first clamor fora tariff for revmake much difference, as there was nobody in the seat. It make<:~ this enueonly, and thenranawayfromitsownplatform before election day. much difference, sir, that to take this seat, whether it be occupied or [Laughter.] I have seen them denounce the Republican party in one vacant, is to steal that which belongs to another man who was honestly campaign for not resuming specie payment, and give them ''Hail Coelected or to his lawful successor. [Applause on the Republican lumbia" in the next campajgn because it was done. [Laughter and apside.] plause on the Republican side.] I have seen it in one platform de-

That is what it means, and the consolation sought from the seat being nounce every measure of reconstruction, and in its next declare its unoccupied reminds me of the story of the man who once went to meet- devotion to every constitutional amendment. I have seen it vibrate, ing to confess his sins. He confessed that on a certain occasion he had like the pendulum of an eight-day clock, from greenbacks to hard gone to a store and found the ~torekeeper hadgoneofftothespringfor money; hard money to greenbacks. I have seen it one day weeping a bucket of water. He was barefooted, and ·he saw a beautiful pair of with the South over confederate graves, and the next day parading the boots on the shelf that fitted him exactly. He looked at his toes, and North with its t ransparencies enblazoned, "We whipped therebels and there was a spirit in him saying, ''Solomon, why don't you take those the Republican party got the credit for it." boots; they fit you exactly.'' · ''Then,'' said he, '' a better spirit came I have seen that party come here and denoune.e the Republican party up and whispered tome, 'Solomon, don't you take those boots.'" Said for having no oneattheirhead to lead them in their campaign but a milthe brethren, ''What did you do? '' "Struggling,' ' he said, ' ' between itary dictator, a bloody butcher, a military tyrant, and in the next camtwo contending feelings, thank God, the spirit of justice prevailed. I paign run Winfield Scott Hancock as their champion, with nothing in never touched those boots. I would have scorned to steal them. I was this world to give him prominence but the fact that he killed more perfectly satisfied to walk off with the best pair of shoes in sight." rebels than any other major-general in Grant's army. [.Applause on [Laughter and applause.] So the man who votes to-day to seat the Republican side.] I have seen them go into the tariff question in Charles T. O'Ferrall in this vacant seat can not console himself with my district ,and talk free trade out of one comer of their mouth and the thought that John Paul is not in it, for Charles T. O'Ferrall has protection out of the other; and whenyou getthem down towhatthey no more title to it t han if Paul was here. I never read since the day really want all you could get out of them on the tariff question was I was born such testimony as that upon which this committee attempt that they were ''Sort of so, sort of not so, a little more sort of not so to-strike at these 555 votes. than they were sorter so." [Laughter.] But I am delighted to know

What do we see at the court-house of .Albemarle County? We find the hour of a vote on the tariff is near at hand, when every sneak "ill the claim to be that of the 209 votes cast for John Paul62 of them must make his record, and on that record, if I mistake not, we will have muSic be stricken out on the testimony of somebody who is said to have com-~ in Virginia in the next campaign. If there is anything on God's green pared the lists. Who they are, what their disability was, nobody pre- earth that Democrats have been consistent upon for the last twenty years tends to say. And yet within the callofthatnotary public, within a have not been able to find it unless it beacommon purposeofpublic

3818 COKGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

plunder, and a common passion for getting all they could and holding concurrence to devote this e"\"'ening to the discussion of this question, on to what they get. .And it is this 'their sole, their ennobling and ex- I would be glad to have it so devoted. alted principle whichhasmadethemmarch to-dayshouldertoshoulder Many MEMBERS. .No! No! to take this seat belonging to Paul and give it to O'Ferrall. Mr. LOWRY. In view of the generaJ dissent--

Mr. Spe.'lker, I will not undertake to argue this question upon the SeveralllliDmERS. We are ready to vote now. evidence. This case sinks below the dignity of a legal argument. Mr. CABELL. Mr. Speaker--There is not a lawyer in thi Honse who if this evidence were before him The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana has the floor. Do~ in a private case would shoot a pointer dog for ucking eggs on such he yield? testimony as that on which they seek to give this eat to a man to Ur. LOWRY. I can not yield at this time. I regret I am unable. whom it does not belong. [Applause and laughter on the Republican to do so. If, ho~ever, the House will consent to dispense with the side. J But it seems to me when men become inflamed with this sort previous order under which this evening is devoted to the discu sion of of political passion they forget the high trust that is confided to them. the tariff question--They forget their sworn oaths to try cases according to their merits, Many MEMBERS. No! No! :mel run mad with the passions of party. They hound themselves on in Mr. LOWRY. Then, in view of the general dissent, having risen for the mad cry of the pack, instead of standing up in the nobler attitude the purpose of moving the previous question, I have only to say in reof conscientious men, and men sworn to do a high and solemn duty, gard to the question of courtesy, to which my eloquent friend from too brave and too proud to do a wrong merely because it is popular. Iowa has alluded, I think I may be able to give before the close of this

I am not afraid of the consequences of this act. I am not in doubt session, if I have not already given, evidence of my disposition to deal about what the result will be. For as sure as this House ever comes fairly with all these questions; and, so far as the mere question of poto a vote, the ayes can be measured on the Democratic yard-stick and litenessis concerned, while I regret exceedingly I have not been able to the noes will be the poor little minority of Republicans with fewer get into the uniform habit of being invariably polite, there are other just men than were found in Sodom and Gomorrah to come to their side and higher questions involved here than tho e of mere politeness. I from the Democratic ranks. regret I have been constrained to pursue the course I have felt it my

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude what I have to say in the two duty to pursue in calling this" case up for action at this time. minut remaining to me by defying this outrage. It is not worth while M:y friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. MILLER], who has distinguished to coax. When a man knows that coaxing will not do he can afford to himself in this Honse and I hope is about to distinguish himself upon the be a little defiant. I say that the spectacle is so outrageous that it has bench, I think will find himself constrained to pursue a very different become ludicrous. · It is a decided come-down from what was presented course in the examination of witnesses from what he has pursued in 1, 00 years since when our Savior rode into Jerusalem on an ass. We the examination of this case, when he comes to assume the judicial are to see to-day the Virginia Bourbon come riding into the House of ermine. The gentleman has asked for the names of disqualified voters. Representatives on the back of one of Barnum's spavined mules from We have here on this record, on this page which lies open before me, Indiana. VirginiaBourboni m must be honest. We have wronged it the name of every delinquent tax-payer who voted at that election. urely, for it is now indorsed by the world-wide virtue of Indiana De- We have there the name of every one who was delinquent as recorded

mocracy. Yes, sir, this is a fitting sight for the representatives of Vir- on the public records of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have inginia Bourbonism, Virginia honor, and Virginia chivalry. Here is a dubitable evidence which remains uncontradicted, and which I think man running on a ticket with Massey who ft.rst- appointed this tax-col- we may justly infer is not susceptible of contradiction, to the effect lector, and the man Ma ey who first appointed him now claims that that these men did vote for John Paul, and that they could not, in the tax-collector was a fraud and that he never had any power to appoint view of the evidence before the committee and the House in these rechim, while O'Ferrall, his partner, sings the chorus of the song. I say ords, have voted for any one else. it i a fitting time for Virginia Bombonism to come up here. It comes, I have said that I would be prepared to show that the evidence in it is true, with its hands besmeared 'vith the blood of innocent, murdered this case was such as to be tenfold more strong than that upon whieh blacks. It comes, it is true, to the national capital and to this House was predicated the decisions of this Hou e when the party majority palpably stultified in every principle it has ever professed. It comes, was differently constituted from what it is to-day. it is true, dra~aing after it the corpse of strangled suffrage. It comes, :M:r. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman permit me a it is true, as the thief of seventeen seats in one Virginia Legislature to question? get two-thirds· majority. It comes, it is trne, repudiating every ant.i- Mr. LOWRY. I hold in my hand the report in one of tho e ca in repudiation principle it ever professed. But after aU it comes up con- which it was proved, simply by the testimony of two witnesses only fidently to the fountain-head of national Democracy, that has always that from 95 to 97 per cent. of the colored vote of a certain Congreslent it countenance, to be igned with the cross of that national fraud sionaldistrictwasinfavorofacertaincandidate . .And uponthestrength and taken into worthy fellowship. And it :finds congenial spirits here of such testimony as that a majority of 2, 600 votes was overthrown, and awaiting it to welcome it in warm embrace and recogn~e it with a the man who was certified as having been elected by that majority was brother's kiss. [Applause on the Republican side. J turned incontinently out of his seat.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania bas one minute Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman now permit me of his time remaining. · to ask him a question?

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I yield that minute to the gentle- Several MEMBERS. Do not yield to interruptions. man from Tennessee [:Mr. PETTIBONE]. Mr. LOWRY. I do not propose to be governed by tho e precedents,

Mr. PETTIBONE. It seems to me we can settle this matter easily but simply to be controlled by the rules of evidence. I propose to look by determining a few fads. It is oonceded here that Mr. Paul received at these questions and have my conclusion upon them controlled by a majority of 205 votes as declared in his certificate. Next it is con- the same methods that are adopted in the judicial tribunals of this ceded that the Committee on Elections unanimously agreed that he country. If my friend who represents on this floor the entire Comwas entitled to 119 more, making his total majority 324. Now, in order monwealth of Virginia is apprehensive that in his case any different to declare the seat of Mr. Paul vacant, you must :find that 1\Ir. O'Fenall methods will be pursued, and if he is now making preparations for re-l·eceived in the county of Albemarle more than 324 majority. ceiving the crown of a martyr, I only beg leave to ask him whether, if

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expixed. he is constrained to put that crown on his head, he will allow us to do 1\Ir. PETTIBONE. I now propo e to take the floor in my O'Wll it in his kitchen? [Great laughter on the Democratic side.] .

riaht. Mr. JOHN S. WISE. I did not bear what my friend said. The PEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from In<liana Several MEMBERS. Do not yield.

(Mr. LOWRY], who had reserved the remainder of his time. A gen- Ur. LOWRY. It is not necessary that ell ewhere, where I have oc-tleman ha just spoken on the other side. . casion to feel any concern about my reputation for fairness in determin

l\1r. GEORGE D. WISE. I ask my honorable friend from Indi- ing these questions, I shall undertake to defend my vote. The people ana-- whom I represent know full well what my individual methods are in

The SPEAKER The gentleman from Indiana is recognized. reference to such questions. Ur. GEORGE D. WISE. I ask my honorable friend from Indiana But I desire to say to this House that although I h~we not now the time

to yield to me for a few moments. to do it without jeopardizing the public interests, I stand prepared to :Mr. LOWRY. I can not yield the gentleman any time. defend the report of this committPe against all comers here or else-Mr. GEORGE D. WISE. I would like to ask' the unanimous con- where, now or at any future time, whether it be in a party aspect or

sent of this House. whether it be in reference to its determination by the rules adhered to Mr. McADOO. I ask that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GEORGE in strict judicial decisions.

D. WISE] have unanimous consent to address the House. So far as the great Commonwealth of Virginia i concerned, my friend The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [l\Ir. LOWRY] has who sits opposite to me [Mr. GEORGE D. WISE] and others ru:e de ir-

the floor and can not be taken off it without his consent. ous to speak on this question, and I would be glad to afford them the . Ur. LOW .RY. I do not yield. I rise for the purpo e of moving the opportunity to do so. But I desire to state here a word in reference to

pre·dous question. I do so without any desire on my part, and I feel what has fallen from a gentleman who has just addressed the House, sure without any desire on the part of the Committee on Election; to who stated that it has become the custom in that Commonwealth for cut off full and ample discussion. .And I uggest if the gentlemen on the opposing parties to pour out their money lavishly for the purp ::> e the other ide of thi question can gi.ve u any as ur~nce of tmanimou 1 of pronding mean to carry on their canvascres and determine their

1884. CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3819 -elections. The inference is that the practice is to be ju tified which has been hown to have prevailed in this case of raising large sums of money for the purpose of suborning the votes of the indigent class of voters. ·

I desire to interpo e between the gentleman and the Commonwealth he represents, and to rescue the name and fame of Jefferson and of Washington from the obloquy that would rest upon them by having such .a misfortune overcome the old Commonwealth of Virginia. I hope that if such a stain rests upon her, the State which contains the sacred ~u t of Jefferson, that holds upon the bank of yonder river the bones of George Washi.noo-ton, will ere long be relieved from the imputation of having her elections carried by the power of gold. .Money is one great -element which this country has to fear; it is that which will infuse the dry-rot into her institutions; it is the skeleton in the closet of the American Republic.

I concur with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. BELFORD], who at an early period of this session said that he trusted that the Democratic party had a sufficient majority in this House to afford to be decent in ~eterminingthese questions. I think it can not only afford to be decent but to be right, and to place itself in such a position that now and for-ever hereafter it can defend itself as having adhered to the right in determining all questions of this kind.

I now move the previous question upon the adoption of the su"Q titute submitted by the minority of the Committee on Elections.

A MEMBER. Upon the report of the committee. Mr. LOWRY. I understand that there is a motion pending before

the House to substitute the resolution submitted by the minority of the committee for the 1·esolutions reported by the majority of the committee. I call the previous question on the pending proposition.

Mr. MILLER, of Penn ylvania. The previous question I suppose will apply to the report of the majority?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana has not s0 submitteQ. his motion. He moves the previous question on the resolution of the minority.

l\Ir. LOWRY. I will call the previous question on all the pending propositions; all of them.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman now to call the previous question upon the resolutions reported by the majority of the committee and the substitute submitted by the minority of the committee.

Mr. LOWRY. That is my motion. The previous question was ordered. The resolution proposed by the minority of the committee for the

resolutions of the majority was read, as follows: Resolved, That Charles T. O'Ferrall was not elected as a Representative from

the seventh Congressional district of Virginia. to the Forty-eighth Congress.

Mr. 1\IILLER, of Pennsylvania. On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MOULTON. Let the yeas and nays be called upon adopting the report of the majority.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I want it on this proposition. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 83, nays 139, not vot

ing 100; as follows:

.Adams, G. E.

.Arnot,

.Atkinson, Bayne, Belford, Bisbee, Boutelle, Bowen, Brainerd, Brei tung, Brewer, F. B. Brewer, J. H. Brown, W. W. Brumm, Burleigh, Calkins, Cook, Cullen, Cutcbeon. Davis, G. R. Dingley,

.Aiken, Alexander, Dagley, Ballentine, Barbour, Beach, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Boyle, Breckinridge, Broadhead. Buchanan,· Buckner, Cabell, Caldwell , Candler. Carleton,

YEAS-83. Dunham, Everhart, Funston, George, Guenther, Hart Hatch, H. H. Haynes, Henderson, D. B. Hepburn, Hiscock, Hitt, Holmes, Horr, Houk Jame;, Kasson, Kean, Keifer, Ketcham, Lacey,

Lawrence, Libbey, Lyman, 1\IcCoid, McCormick, IcKinley,

Millard Miller, S. H. Milliken, 11IoiTill, Nelson, Nutting, O'Hara, O'Neill, Charles Payson, Peelle, S. J. Perkins, Peters, Pettibone, Poland, Price.

N.AYB-139. Cassidy, Clardy, Clay, Clement, Cobb, Converse, Cosgrove, Cox, R. S. Cox, W. R. Crisp, Culberson, D . B. Curtin, Davidson, Deuster, Dibble, Dibrell, Dockery, Duncan,

Dunn, Eaton, Elliott, Ermentrout, Evins, J. H. Ferrell, Fiedler, Follett, Foran, Forney, Fya.n, Garrison, Gedde , Gibson, Green, Greenleaf, Halsell, Hammond,

Ray, Ossian Reed, Rice, Rowell, Ryan, Skinner, C. R. Smalls, Smith, Spooner, Steele, Stephenson, Stewart,J. W. Struble, Taylor, J.D. Wait, Washburn, Weaver, White, Milo Whiting, Wise,J.S.

Hancock, Hardeman, .Hardy, Hatch, W. H. Henley, Hewitt, G. W. Hill Hob'utzell, Holman, Hopkins, Houseman, Hunt, Hutchins, Jones, J. H. King, Kleiner, Lamb, Lanham,

LeFevre, Lovering, Lowry, McAdoo, McMillin, Matson, 1\Iaybury, Miller, J . F. ?.!ills, ?.!itch ell, Money, Morgan, Morrison, Moulton, O'Neill, J. J. Paige, Patton,

Pierce, Skinner, T . G. Peel, S. W . Slocum, Post, Springer, Pryor, Stevens, Pusey, Stewart., Charles Rankin, Stockslager, Reese, Sumner, C . .A. Robertson, Sumner, D. H. Robinson, W. E. Taylor, J. M. Rogers, J. H. Thompson, Rogers. W.F. Throckmorton, Rosecrans, Tillman, Scales, Townshend, Seney, Tully, · Seymour, Turner, H. G. Shaw, Turner, Oscar Singleton, Van .Alstyne,

NOT VOTING-100.

Vance, Ward, Warne:r,A.J. Warner,Richa:rd Wellborn, Weller, Wemple, Wilkms, 'Villiams, Willis, Wilson, W. L. Winans, E. B. Wise, G. D. Wolford, Woodward, Yaple.

Adams, J. J. Ellis, Kellogg, Riggs, Anderson, Ellwood, Laird, Robinson, J. S. Barksdale, Evans, I. N. Lewis, Rockwell, Barr, Findlay, Long, Russell, Belmont, Finerty, Lore, Shelley, Bennett, Glascock, McComas, Snyder, Bingham, Goff, Morey, Spriggs, Blanchard, Graves, l'tlorse, Stone, Browne, T. M. Hanback, Muldrow, Storm, Budd, Harme~~. Muller, Strait, Burnes, Hemphill, Murphy, Talbott Campbell, Felix Henderson, T. J. Murray, Ta.ylor,E.B. Campbell, J. M. Herbert, Mutchler, Thomas, Cannon, Hewitt, .A. S. Neece, Tucker, Chace, Holton, Nicholls, Valentine, Collins, Hooper, Oates, Van Eaton, Connolly, Howey, Ochilt:ree, Wadsworth, Covington, Hurd, Parker, Wakefield, Culbertson, \V. W. Jeffords, Payne, White,J.D. Dargan, Johnson, Phelps, Wilson,Ja.mes Davis, L. H. Jones, B. W. Potter, Winans, John Davis, R. T. Jones, J. K. Randall, Wood, Dorsheimer, Jones, J. T. Ranney, Worthington, Dowd, Jordan, Ray,G. W. York, Eldredge, Kelley, Reagan, Young.

So the substitute submitted by Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the minority of the Committee on Elections was not agreed to.

The following additional pairs were announced: 1\fr. SPRIGGS with Mr. RAY, of New York, for to-day, on all polit-

ical questions. Mr. FlNER:rY with Mr. HENDER..t;ON1 of Illinois, on this question. Mr. BURNES with Mr. ANDERSON, on this question. :M:r. STONE with Mr. BLANCHARD, on this question. Mr. MURPHY with Mr. THOMAS, on this question. The following were announced as paired for this day: Mr. MULLER with ?fir. McCoMAS. 1\Ir. TALBOTT with Mr. LAmD. Mr. VAN EATON with Mr. HOLTON. Mr. HURD with Mr. WAKEFIELD. Mr. BARKSDALE with Mr. ELLWOOD. Mr. NEECE with Mr. CANNON. Mr. LEwiS with Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Mr. JONES, ofWisconsin, with Mr. WADSWORTH. 1\Ir. COLLINS with Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. ELLIS with Mr. HARMER. Mr. SHELLEY with Mr. CAMPBELL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. POTTER with Mr. 0CHILTREE. Mr. NEECE with Mr. CANNON. Mr. OATES with Mr. STRAIT. On the proposition to seat Mr. 0' Fer

rall, Mr. OATES would vote "yea" and Mr. STRAIT "nay." 1\Ir. GOFF. I ~oted inadvertently and desire to withdraw my vote.

I am paired with the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. MULDROW. Mr. NEECE. I desire to state that if I had not been paired I would

have voted "no" on this question. 1\Ir. RANDALL. I was called out of the Honse, and did not return

in time to vote. If I had been present I should have voted "no" on this question.

The result of the vote was announced as above stated. The SPEAKER. The question is now upon the adoption of the

resolutions reported by the majority of the Committee on Elections, which will be read.

The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That John Paul was not elected as a. Repre entative to the Forty

eighth Congress from the seventh Congressional district of Virginia, and was not entitled to the seat.

Resolved, That Charles T. O'Ferrall was duly elected as a Representative from the seventh Congressional district of Virginia to the Forty-eighth Congress, and is entitled to his seat as such.

The resolutions were adopted; there being-ayes 128, noes 73. Mr. LOWRY moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolutions

were adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. 1\Ir. LOWRY. I ask that the oath of office be now administered to

Mr. O'Ferrall. .1\ir. CHARLES T. O'FERRALL presented himself, and was duly quali

fied by bking the oath presr.ribed in section 1757 of the Revised Sta.tuteR.


ORDER OF BUSINESS.

:Ur. PAYSON. I desire to call up from the House Calendar H<.mse bill 6479, and move to suspend the rules and pass it.

The SPEAKER. The motion to suspend the rules is not in order until after the call of the States and Territories.

Several MElu:BERS. Regular order. 1\Ir. PAYSON. I move to dispense with the regular order. The SPEAKER. That requires unanimous consent. Mr. PAYSON. I ask unanimous consent. Several members objected.

CALL OF STATES.

The SPEAKER. This being Monday, the Chair will proceed with the call of States and Territories for the introduction of bills and joint resolutions for printing and reference to their appropriate committees. Under this call memorials and resolutions of State and Territorial Legislatures are in order; also resolutions calling for executive information for reference to their appropriate committees.

.ALFRED PITTMAN.

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama, 'introduced a bill (H. R. 6871) for the relief of Alfred Pittman; which was read a first and .second time, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

CHEROKEE INDIANS.

Mr. PEEL, of Arkansas (by request), introduced a bill (H. R. 6872) for the relief of certain loyal citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Indians; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Commit;. tee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM S. TURNER .AND ANNIE TURNER.

1\!r. DUNN introduced a bill (H. R. 6873) for the relief of William S. Turner and Annie Turner, as assignees in bankruptcy; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM PORTER.

Mr. DUNN also introduced a bill (H. R. 6874) for the relief of William Porter or his assignee in bankruptcy; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. .

THO:ll.AS REGAN.

Mr. WOOD introduced a bill (H. R. 6875) granting a pension to Thomas Regan; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensio~, and ordered to be printed.

MRS. MARY .A. T.A YLOR.

Mr. DAVIS, of illinois, introduced a bill (H. R. 6876) for the relief of Mrs. Mary A. Taylor, of Chicago, lll.; which was read a first and iieCOnd time, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed.

MRS. .JllTE SCHEETZ.

Mr. HITT introduced a bill (H. R. 6877) for the relief of Mrs. Jane Scheetz, widow of Col. Josiah Scheetz; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered io be printed.

GEORGE W. STOPLIN.

1\Ir. HITT also introduced a bill (H. R. 6878) for the relief of GeQrge W. Stoplin; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM G. M 1CLURE.

Mr. LAMB introduced a bill (H. R. 6879)for the relief of William G. McClure; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

SAINT JOSEPH'S COLLEGE1 MISSOURI.

?t'Ir. CALKINS introduced a bill (H. R. 6880) for the relief of Saint Joseph's College, Missouri; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

CHRISTIAN· BROTHERS' SCHOOL, SAINT LOUIS.

Mr. CALKINS also introduced a bill (H. R. 6881) for the relief of the trustees of the Christian Brothers' School, of Saint Louis, Mo. ; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

JOHN OTIS.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa, introduced a bill (H. R. 6882) granting a pension to John Otis; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

SAMUEL H. CHAPMAN.

Mr. McCOID introduced a bill (H. R. 6883) forthe relief of Samuel H. Chapman; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

CAPT. SANDERSON H. ROGERS.

Mr. PERKINS introduced a bill (H R. 6884) granting a pension to Capt. Sander on H. Rogers; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed:

JAMES M 1LAUGHLIN.

1\Ir. FUNSTON introduced a bill (H. R. 6885) granting a pension to James McLaughlin; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

KICKA.POO INDI.ANS1 KANSAS.

Mr. MORRILL introduced a bill (H. R. 6886) to provide for the settlement of the estates of deceased Kickapoo In<lians in the State o£' Kansas, and for other purpo es; which was read afirstandsecond time,. referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed_

WHARF .AND MA.RTh"'E W .A YS, JEFFERSONVILLE, IND.

Mr. BLACKBURN introduced a bill (H. R. 6887) to provide for the purchase of a wharf and the construction of marine ways at Jeffersonville, Ind. ; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and ordered to be printed.

DRAFTED MEN, PENDLETON COUNTY, KENTUCKY.

Mr. CLAY (by request) introduced a bill (H. R. 6888) for the relief" of certain drafted men in Pendleton County, Kentucky; which wasread a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

REPEAL OF TAX ON TOBACCO.

Mr. KING -introduced a bill (H. R. 6889) for the repeal of the internal-revenue tax on tobacco; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

N.AVY-Y.ARD1 MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

1\Ir. KING also introduced a bill (H. R. 6890) to establish a navyyard and depot of supplies on the Mississippi River at Algiers, or at some point between Algiers and Port Eads; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

JOHN .JERDON.

Mr. KING also introduced a bill (H. R. 6891) granting a pension to John J erdon; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

CLAIMS OF LOYAL CITIZENS.

1\Ir. McCOMAS introduced a bill (H. R. 6892) to afford further relief to loyal citizens of States not in rebellion for property taken by the Army of the United States.

Mr. McCOMAS. I move the reference of that bill to the Committee on the Revision of the Laws.

?tlr. WARNER, of Ohio. Is that a bill to amend the laws? Should it not go to the Committee on War Claims?

The SPEAKER. It belongs, under the rules of the House, to the Committee on War Claims.

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Then I insist that it should go there. Mr. McCOMAS. It involves a revision of the laws upon this sub

ject, and should be properly considered by that comrhlttee rather than the Committee on War Claims. I make that motion, to refer it.

The question was taken. The House divided; and there were-ayes 56, noes 23. Mr. SLOCUM. No quorum. Mr. McCOMAS. This is making too much out of a very little thing,.

and if the gentleman insists upon the point that no quorum has voted I will withdraw the motion.

The bill was a{!(l()rdingly read afirst and second time, referred to theCommittee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

LABOR ON PUBLIC WORKS.

1\Ir. l\IA YBURY introduced a joint resolution (H. Res. 246) providing that in the employment of labor on the public works of the Government preference shall be given to residents and citizens of the United States; which was read a :firstand second time, referred to the Committee on Labor, and ordered to be printed.

PUBLIC LANDS, LAKE SAINT CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

1\!r. :MAYBURY also introduced a bill (H. R. 6893) to set apart the marsh and overflowed or shoal-water lands in and bordering upon Lake Saint Clair, in the State of Michigan, for a national shooting and fishing resort or reservation; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed_

SOLDIERS' CE.."UETERY1 PORT HURON, MICH.

· Mr. CARLETON introduced a bill (H. R. 6894) asking an appropriation for improving and ornamenting the grounds of the soldiers' cemetery at Port Huron, Mich.; which was read a :first and econd time,. referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

.ADDmON.AL LIGHT-HOUSE DISTRICT.

1\Ir. CUTCHEON introduced a bill (H. R. 6895) to authorize thecreation of an additional light-house district; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

JACOB STEED.

1\Ir. CUTCHEON also introduced a bill (H. R. 6896) granting a pen-(

1884 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3821 .&on to Jaeob Steed; which was read a first and second time, referred CATHARINE GATTIE. to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. Mr. ROGERS, of New York, introduced a bill (H. R. 6903) granting

CHARLES w. GREEN. a pension to Catharine Gattie; which was read a first and second time, Mr. MORGAN introduced a bill (H. R. 6897) granting a pension to referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be

.Charles W. Green, late of Company B, Regular Missouri Volunteers; printed. -which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on JOHN F. CHASE. Invalid Pension , and ordered to be printed. Mr. GREENLEAF introduced a bill (H. R. 6904) for the relief of

BOGGS & ALLEN. John F. Chase; which was read a. first and second time, referred to the Mr. GRAVES introduced a bill (H. R. 6898) for the relief of Boggs Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

.& Allen; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Com- 1\IBS. s. F. PATTEN. mittee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. Mr. SLOCUM introduced a bill (H. R. 6905) granting a. pension to

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mrs. S. F. Patten, widow of Col. G. W. Patten; which was read a. first Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania.. I ask unanimous consent that we and second time, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and ordered ~

go through with the call of States before the recess. to be printed. ~ The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the requestofthe gentleman THE CHORPENNING AWARD.

from Pennsylvania? Mr. HARDY introduced a. bill (TI. R. 6906) to review the award of Mr. RANDALL. With the understanding that no other business is John A. J. Creswell, late Postmaster-General, by which he found due

-to be done before the recess I shall not object. from the United States to George Chorpenning the sum of $443,010.60; The SPEAKER. · With the understanding that no other business is which was read a. first and second time, referred to the Committee on -

-to be transacted, the Chair hears no objection to therequestofthegen- the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. tleman from Pennsylvania. LYMAN BRADLEY.

PACIFIC RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINES. Mr. STEVENS introduced a bill (H. R. 6907) for the relief of Ly-Mr. LAIRD introduced a. bill (H. R. 6899) to ainend an act entitled man Bradley; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the

"An act to aid in theconstrnctionofarailroadand telegraphlinesfrom Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. ·the l\fissouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the Govern- STEPHEN v. BENET. ·ment the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes,'' ap- Mr. VANCE introduced a bill (H. R. 6908) authorizing the Com-•.proved July 2, 1864; which was 1·ead a. first and second time, referred missioner of Patents to rehear the application of Stephen V. Benet for to the Committee on the Pacific Railroads, and ordered to be printed. patent for cartridges; which was read a first and second time, referred

REVENUE TAX ON ALCOHOL. to the Committee on Patents, and ordel'ed to be printed. 1\fr. McADOO submitted a joint re..c;olution of the Legislature of the INDICTMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.

"State of New Jersey, requesting the repeal of a part of the United States Mr. COX, of North Carolina., introduced a bill (H. R. 6909) for ex-revenue laws relating to alcohol; which was referred to the Committee tending the time for which public officers of the United States maybe

..on Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD. indicted to :five years; which was read a first and second time, referred The joint resolution is as follows: to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

[Joint resolution No.3.] STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

...Joint resolution requesting the repeal of a. part of the United States revenue laws relating to alcohol.

1. Whereas the business of the citizens of the State of New Jersey engaged in agricultural pursuits has been injured by the operation of the United States rev

-enue law permitting themanufactureofvinegarfrom alcohol which has paid no internal-revenue tax; and

Whereas the operation of said internal-revenue law gives opportunity to evade the tax on alcohol made and sold as such: Therefore,

2. Resolved (the senate concurring), That our Senators and Representatives in Con_gress be, and hereby are, requested to use all honorable means in their power to procure the repeal of so much of the amendment to the United States laws con

·ta.ined in section 5, chapter 12-5, of general laws pas ed by the Forty-fifth Congress at the third session, in the year 1879, as authorizes the manufacture of vinegar from alcohol that has paid no internal-revenue tax.

3. And be itfttrther resolved, That the governor of t.his State be requested to forward copies of the foregoing preamble and resolution to our said Senators and .Representatives.

Approved April 8,1884.

IMPORTATION OF CO~TRACT LABOR. ~Ir. McADOO also submitted a resolution of the Legislature of the

.State of New Jersey with reference to the importation to the United -States of foreign labor under the contract system; which was referred to ·4be Committee on Labor, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

It is as follows: Resolutions of the New Jersey General Assembly against pauper labor.

Whereas it is a well-established fact that for some time past foreign laborers .have been imported into this country under peculiar contracts, the conditions of which contracts are manifestly detrimental to the labor interests of this country as well as to the foreign laborers so contracting, because of the fraudulent rep

·l'esentations made to them regarding the amount of wages paid and the cost of living in this country: Therefore,

B e it resolved by the house of assembly of the State of New J ersey, That the representatives of the State of New Jersey in the Congress of the United States be,

·.and they are hereb}'_, requested to take such official action as will prohibit the importation to the united States offoreig nlaborers under contract, and thereby protect the laboring interests of this country.

Resolved, That an engrossed copy oft bese resolutions be signed by the speaker ·Of this assembly, and by him forwarded for presentation to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

A. B. STONEY, Speaker. DANIEL M. DILL.

Mr. FIEDLER introduced a bill (H. R. 6900) for the relief of Daniel 1\1. Dill; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

JOSEPH CURRIDEN. Mr. FERRELL introduced a bill (H. R. 6901) for the relief of Joseph

· Curriden; which was read a first and second time, referred to the ·Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

FRANK G. STEVENS. Mr. BREWER, of New York, introduced a bill (H. R. 6902) for the

relief of Frank G. Stevens; which was read a first and second time re.ferred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

JACOB T. JOHNSON. Mr. KEIFER introduced a bill (H. R. 6910) granting an increase of

pension to Jarob T. Johnson; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

SECTION 165, REVISED STATUTES. Mr. CONVERSE introduced a. bill (H. R. 6911) to amend section 165

of the Revised Statutes of the United States; which was read a :firsl and second time, referred to the Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, and ordered to be printed.

HENRY B. L.Al\IBE. Mr. FOLLETT introduced a bill (H. R. 6912) granting a. pension to

Henry B. Lambe; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on ln>alid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

JOSEPH S.NAPP. 1r!r. HOPKINS introduced a bill (H. R. 6913) for the relief of Joseph

Snapp; whj.ch was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed .

H. G. HUNTER. Mr. ERMENTROUT introduced a bill (H. R. 6914) for the relief of

H. G. Hunter; which was read a first and second time, referred to tha Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. ·

ELL~ R. HARRIS •

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania., introduced a bill (H. R. 6915) for the relief of Ellen R. Harris; which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

MATILDA VICTOR. 1\Ir. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania, also introduced a bill (H. R. 6916)

for the relief of Matilda Victor; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

JOSEPH RICHARD. Mr. PATTON introduced a bill (H. R. 6917) for the relief of Joseph

Richard; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

LIBRARY IN SUBGEON-G~ERAL'S OFFICE. Mr. EVERHART introduced a joint resolution (H. Res. 247) pro

viding for the printing of the index catalogue of the library in the Surgeon-General's Office; which was read a. :first and second time, referred to the Committee on Printing, and ordered to be printed.

NASHVILLE, TE...~N.

Mr. CALDWELL introduced a bill (H. R. 6918) to add Nashville, Tenn., to the list of reserved cities mentioned in sections 5191 and 5192 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and ordered to be printed.

3822 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

SCHOOL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT. Mr. BARBOUR (by request) introduced a bill (H. R. 6919) relating

fu school property in the District of Columbia; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed.

LIGHT-HOU E AT NEWPORT NEWS, VA. Mr. LIBBEY introduced a bill (H. R. 6920) fu provide for a light

bouse at Newport News Point, Virginia; which was read a .first and second time, referred fu the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM A. MASON. Mr. GUENTHER introduced a bill (H. R. 6921) granting a pension

to William A. Ma on; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered fu be printed.

PROTECTIO:N OF PASSENGERS ON STEAM VESSELS. Mr. DEUSTER introduced a bill {H. R. 6922) to amend chapter 4488

of the Revised Statutes, to provide better protection for life on steam vessels; which was read a first and second time.

The SPEAKER. Under the rules of the House this bill should be referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. GUENTHER. I desire fu have it go fu the Select Committee on American Ship-building and Ship-owning Interests.

The SPEAKER. It will be so referred, if there is no objection. There being no objection, the bill was accordingly referred fu the

Select Committee on American Ship-building and Ship-owning Interests, and ordered fu be printed.

ROBERT L. MOORE. Ur. WOODWARD introduced a bill '(H. R. 6923) for the relief of

Robert L. Moore; which was read a first and second time, referred fu the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

ANNA l\I.ARIA SCHAUTZ. Mr. SUMNER, of Wisconsin, introduced a bill (H. R. 6924) for the

relief of Anna Maria Schantz; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

ORDER OF BUSINES . Mr. MAGINNIS. I desire fu ask consent to have a bill now on the

Speaker's table referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that can not be done at this time.

The order of the House, made by unanimous consent, was that the time for taking a recess to-day should be extended until the call of Sta.tes and Territories had been completed, no other business whatever fu be transacted.

Mr. STRUBLE. Will it be in order to ask a correction of the RECORD at this time?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks not, under the order made by the House. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McMILLIN] will occupy the chair asSpeaker protemporeduringthisevening's session. By order of the House a recess will now be taken [5 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m.] until8 o'clock this evening.

EVENING SESSION.

The recess having expired, the House reassembled at 8 o'clock p.m., M.r. McMILLIN in the chair as Speaker pro tempore.

Mr. HOLMAN. In the absence of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I move that the House now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpoS3 of considering revenue bills.

The motion was agreed to. The House a~cordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union, Mr. BAGLEY in the chair. TARIFF REDUCTION.

The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House the session this evening is for general debate only upon the bill {H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and war-tariff taxes.

Mr. COOK addressed the committee. [See Appendix.] Mr. YOUNG addressed the committee. [See Appendix. J Mr. HOLMAN addressed the committee. [See Appendix. J Mr. BEACH. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, when you took your seat

to-night that you stated that the House was in Committee of the Whole ior the purpose of general debate on the tariff bill. Now, I would like fu have the Clerk read the resolution under which this debate bas proceeded.

The Clerk read as follows: That on and after to-day [April 22] and until fm:ther ordered, the House take

a. recess at 5o' clock p. In. until8 o'clock p.m., which said evening sessions shall be for debate only, no business to be transacted; this order not to conflict or interfere with any prior orders for evening sessions.

Mr. BEACH. I take it that under that resolution any general debate is proper at this time, and that I need not confine myself to a discussion of tbe tariff.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that it bas generally been understood that tbe debate at these evening sessions shall be confined

to the tariff bill. The resolution which bas been read seem to warrant a different construction. The gentleman will proceed.

lli. BEACH. I am free to admit, Mr. Chairman, ·that the remarks. I am about to make are not in the line of the di cussion which has pre-vailed at these evening sessions. ·

I do not care to speak about the tariff to-night. That que tion has. been discu ed upon this floor until it is threadbare. It is like straw which bas been thrashed and thrashed o>er and over again, until nothing can be got out of it but dust. I prefer talking upon a subject which in my opinion equals if it does not urpa the tariff question in importance. I refer to the great question of legislative reform.

While others are talking about revenue reform, judioial reform, and civil-sernce reform, I propo e to say a word or two about legislatin~· reform.

It is time, lli. Chairman, for us to turn our attention to this subject. The evils of our legislative system are becoming more and more manifest, and the time is not far distant when an outraged people will rise in their fury and not only demand but exact a radical change.

Let us look at ourselves for a few moments to-night. I would that these walls were covered with mirrors, that we might "see ourselves as others see us." Such an introspection might not be pleasant, but it would certainly be instructive.

Here we sit, day after day, with our eyes wide open to the abuses which exist in the administrative department of the Government, but with them blindly closed to the abuses of which we ourselves a,reguilty. While trying to reform others we neglect to reform ourselves. There is far greater need of reform here, for you must remember that the abuses elsewhere owe their existence directly to the action or nonaction of Congress. We members of Congress are the sinners. ""\"<\Tehave done those things we should not have done, and we have left undone those things we should have done." It is my purpo e fu-night to call attention to a few of our acts of omission and commission, and in doing so shall point out the reforms which have become necessary in our legislative methods.

One of the first is fu stop all class and special legislation. We should have general laws under which the people could get what they want without special application to Congress. In this respect tbe Sta.tes arefar in advance of the General Government. Most all of them, I believe, have adopted the system of general laws and a prohibition of special legislation. When I first took my seat in this House in the last Congress this subject was brought to my attention. One of my constituents wanted fu change the name of a vessel. I found in the statutes numerous precedents, but before introducing a special bill for his relief I took the matter in consideration and concluded to prepare a general bill giving the Secretary of the Treasury power fu change, it required, the names of all vessels, and tbu relieve Congress from that class of legislation. I did so, but while on my feet awaiting recognition from the Speaker !.showed my bill fu an older member, who informed me that a bill similar fu the one I proposed bad passed in thepreceding Congress. The fact, however, remains that from the formation of the Government up fu the year 1880 a citizen who desired to. change the name of a mud- cow from the Sally Ann to the Mary Jane bad fu come to Congress and get a special bill passed.

Attbe same timeibad noless than threepostmasters in myfi}istrict who bad written me to introduce bills fu reimburse them for postal stamps and moneys stolen by burglars. I suppo ed that the burglars had not confined their operations to my district alone but that others had been frequented. Upon inquiry I found that about a thousand bills werepending for special relief in similar cases. I furthermore found that it had been the uniform practice of Congres to allow these claims where the loss had occurred tbroughnofaultor negligence ofthe postmaster. I at once introduced a general bill authorizing the Postmaster-General to adjust and settle tbe claims of all postmasters for stolen stamp . The proposition was approved by the House, and under thebill p~d at the last seSsion Congress is relieved of a vast amount of legislation. The extent of this relief will be seen from the last annual statement of the Postmaster-General, who reports that under the law of March 17, 1882, there bad been filed in his office 1,944 claims, of which 274 bad been allowed, 182 disallowed, 369 abandoned, leaving 1,119 yet fu be adjusted.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, call further attention fumy record upon this subject, not for personal gratification but for purposes of illustration. When the tariff bill was under consideration in the la t Congress it contained a provision prohibiting the importation of foreign watches, watoh eases, and watch movements which copied or simulated the nameor trade-mark of any American manufacturer. Now, I thought if this prohibition was a good thing for the watch-makers it would be equally good for other manufacturers, and I therefore moved and carried an amendment making the prohibition apply fu all other articles of forejgn manufacture.

Again, when the bill to stop the importation of adulterated and spurious teas was before this House in the 1ast Congress~ I took tbe ground that it should be made general and include all commodities which are the subject of adulteration. I regret to say that my objections were unheeded and the bill passed.

Coming down to the pre~nt Congress, I have introduced a general (

\~

MAY 5, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3823 bill granting the Secretary of War power to give condemned cannon to Grand Armypostsformonumentalpurposes wheneverhecandoso without detriment to the public service. In the last Congress there were hundreds of these " cannon , bills introduced, and in this we find quite a number, but not so many, because itis understood that the supply of useless cannon is exhausted. I rejoice to say that the general bill I introduced passed this House last Thursday without a single objection.

.Again, I noticed since we have been in session that numerous bills to change the names ofnational banks have been introduced. I thought it a piece of great folly to take up the time of Congre with the consideration of such insignificant bills. I therefore introduced a general bill (which I trust will become a law) empowering the Comptroller of the Currency to change the names of national banks upon such terms and conditions as he might prescribe for the protection of the public interests. I afterward suggested to the chairman of the Committee on Banking, which has the bill in charge, that it had better be amended so as to perm'it the Comptroller to authorize an increase of the capital stock of national banks and also let him direct a change of site when required.

These matters are purely matters of administration, and there is no reason why Congress should be bothered with them. I can not at this time think of the vn,rious matters of legislation which might with great advantage be made the su"Qiect of general laws. A few ofthem, however, will readily occur. There might be a general bill granting to railroads the right of way through Territories. We might pass a general bill for the bridging of navigable rivers. I think a public building bill could be fi-amed which would put a stop to the shameful logrolling we have recently seen on this floor. It might concede a public building to every city where the volume of court, revenue, or postal business done made it desirable or economical for the Government to own its own building. A generalbillgivingthejudgesoftheSupreme Court power to create and alter judicial districts would relieve Congress of considerable special legislation.

But it is not for the relief of Congress alone that I a-dvocate a system of general laws. 1\Iuch, no doubt, would be accomplished in that direction; but a more important result would be the prevention of special C-ongressional favors. There should be no monopoly in the franchises of the Government; they should be open to all, free to the people, and not reserved for the privileged few.

When I see the difficulty of passing any bill in this House I realize the obstacles in the way of general bills of the character I have indicated, which from their very nature would give rise to protracted debate. For this reason, in the early part of the session, I introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting special and class legislation and requiring the enactment of general laws. I am satisfied that nothing short of a constitutional amendment will stop the evils of special legislation.

I will now pass, 1t1r. Chairman, to another legislative reform which is worthy of our most earnest attention.

The practice of legislating on approprin,tion bills is a most pernicious one. It leads to all manner of abuses. A more vicious system could not be devised. An appropriation bill should be confined to the purposes expressed in its title. I can give you an illustration of how it sometimes affects the people. Several years since aNew York merchant told me that he had been obliged to pay $15,000 in compromise of a claim made against him by the Government for violation of a revenue law of which h e had no knowledge whatever, but which, upon more careful examination, was found tucked away in an appropriation bill. In this respect we are imitating the example of the tyrant Caligula who had his laws written in small letters and displayed on high poles so that the people could not read them.

The responsibility, Mr. Chairman, for a continuance of this pernicious system rests to a large extent upon this House. The Senate has wisely resolved against it, though I must admit their resolution has faltered at times when their own interests or dignity were affected. I do not believe, sir, that itcan beeffectuallystopped withoutachangein theorganiclaw, and for this reason I have proposed an amendment to the Constitution

- so as to prohibit all legislation upon appropriation bills. Another legislative reform for which there is a crying necessity is the

devising of some means whereby the petitions of the people can be heard by Congress and disposed of. The right of petition, 1\Ir. Chairman, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a right dear to the people. What is the character of the right? Is it simply the right to deposit a petition in that mahogany box at the end of the Clerk's desk, or is it the right to have the grievances compl:1ined of heard before Congress and passed upon? I submit that it is the latter. Oth~rwise, the right of petition would be an empty and :1 barren right. As matter of fact, we all know a petition is the basis for a bill. The petitioner prays for relief or redress and the bill is the instrument by means of which the m.a.tter is brought to the formal attention of Congress.

In the last Congress there were 10,702 bills introduced, of which number, including the general appropriation bills, only 729 passed. Of those which passed, 248 are classed as public acts, 171 as public resolutions, 285 as private acts, and 25 as private resolutions. In the present Congress there have already been over 7.000 bills introduced. and we are not yet through the first ession.

Now let us look at the routine these bills take. First the bill must

be formally introduced. That takes time. Then it must be printed. That costs money. Then it i considered in committee. More time again. Reported back formally to the House. More time consumed. Report of the committee print.ed. 1\Iore money spent. Ordered to be printed on the Calendar at still more expense. Each bill takes this course. Multiply the time consumed on ea-ch bill and report and the money expended in printing by 10,702 (thenumberofbills introduced 1 in the last Congress) and you have the co tin time and money of the work done in the last Congress before the bills could come up in the House for consideration. Now deduct the 729 bills and resolutions which passed from the 10,702 introduced, and you have nearly 10,000 which were strangled in parturition but which nevertheless cost the Government a very large amount of treasure.

The cost, however, is not the most objectionable feature in this business. The right of the people to be heard is a matter of far greater importance. Every citizen, however humble, who comes here for the enforcement of a right or the redress of a wrong is entitled to be heard. This is his privilege, his right, under the Constitution.

The common argument is, we must not. consider these bills from fear we may pass some bad ones. This argument, Mr. Chairman, is prompted by cowardice and founded in sophistry. If the bills are bad, let us vote them down; if good let us pass them. This is the honest and manly course. But it will be said Congress has not the time to consider all these bills. It is a physical impossibility. I admit the truth of this assertion. And yet if you will adopt the plan of passing general laws and creating special tribunals to hear and determine certain clas es of cases you will so reduce the number of bills that when Congre adjomns the Calendar will be cleared.

Let me call your attention for a moment to the pension bills. There were introduced of this class of bills in the last Congress 2, 247, ofw hich number only 166 passed. That would give upon a fair apportionment one-half of a bill to each member. In the present session there have been introduced up to date 2,222 bills for pensions.

Now, what are these pension bills? They are claims for pensions made by the soldiers of the late war. Their claims have been in many instances rejected by the Pension Bureau becau e of inability to furnish the legal proof called by that department. The Commissioner of Pensions has no discretion in the allowance of these claims. However equitable the case may be, he must reject it unless the claimant can comply with the cast-iron rules of the Pension Office. The door of the Pension Office having been closed, the applicant turns to Congress where the case can be considered in all its equities. The practice here is to send them to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. That committee consists of fifteen members. They take up the bills, and, having considered them, report them back to the House. They go on the Calendar, and every Friday night is set aside for their consideration. These Friday night sessions are very poorly attended. You will never find over fifty members present. The number of bills passed at these sessions will average about ten. It takes time to read the bills and the reports, and then some of the cases give rise to more or less discussion. -But I have noticed that after explanations have been ma-de the action of the committee is uniformly sustained. This has been the case, I believe, without exception, in the present Congress, and is owing in large part to the soundjudgment and conscientiousness of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Now, I ask particular att.ention to this fact, .for if the fifteen members of the Committee on Pensions can dispose of these cases to the satisfaction of this House, why could not a tribunal of fifteen or any less number ofpersons be created which would perform the work with equal satisfaction? Such a tribunal might be intrusted with discretionary powers and authorized to hear and determine upon equitable grounds all cases which have been rejected by the Pension Bureau. It shouJd be required to make annual report to Congress of its doings, and if we found at any time that its discretion has been abused we could correct the evil by removals or by legislative restrictions. Something of this kind has got to be done in the early future. These pension bills have grown rapidly in number, and they will increase still more rapidly hereafter, because we will have to deal not only with the cases already rejected but with the large number now awaiting their doom in the Pension Office. There seems to be a fascination about the soldier whose claim has been rejected to have a bill introduced in Congress for his relief. You may tell him he stands no show-that his chn,nce for uccess is only one in a hundred. But all in vain. He looks upon it as a lottery and he is confident he will draw a prize.

The same observations will apply to a very large class of bills which are commonly referred to the Committee on Claims. Up to this date eight hundred and eleven bills of this character have been intr<>4uced at this session, and the cry is, '' Still they come ! ''

Now, something must be done to relieve Congress from the consideration of this flood of business. It is growing worse every day, for each Congress has to deal with not only new claims but the old ones inherited from its predecessor. In my judgment the first step to be taken is to raise a. statute of limitations. We have got to get rid of stale claims and raise a bar to new ones. With this object in view, I have introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to have a statute of limitations for the benefit of the Gov-


ernment. In other words, I would put the Government, so far as its debtor and creditor relations with the people are concerned, upon a like footing with citizens as between themselves.

The next step would be the creation of an equity court of claims, similar to the one I have suggested for rejected pensions.

Another move in the direction of legislative reform is the constitutional amendment I have proposed to the effect that "neither the credit, nor the money, nor the property of the United States shall be hereafter given or loaned to, or in aid of, any association, corporation, or priva1e undertaking.''

What a world of treasure this simple provision would have saved the people if it had been incorporated in the organic law twenty-five years ago! We would not to-day be struggling to get back from railroad corporations a portion of the public lands voted so indiscriminately away by our predecessors in this Hall. Through the absence in the Constitution of the provision for which I am now contending Congress loaned the ~edit of the Government to private corporations to the amount of $64,000,000, and gave away in the same direction 2~,000,000 acres.of the people's lands. Is it not about time that the door was closed to all such legislation? Now let me sayawordin general aboutthesepropositions to amend the Constitution. In the last Congress there were forty-one joint resolutions introduced to amend the Constitution and sent to the 'Judiciary Committee. Wasanyofthemeverreported back to this House? The only one that ever got out of the committee was the one giving the President power to veto one or more items in an appropriation bill, and that was wrested from the committee through a Cresaria.n operation performed by my distinguished friend, Mr. Flower, of New York. In this Congress we have had forty-nine joint resolutions of a similn.r character introduced thus far. They come from most every State in the Union. Manyofthemareforthesame amendment. Now, these various propositions, coming as they do from all quarters, must have something back of them. They arenotintroducedherefor fun. When we look behind them we find a great popular sentiment, sustained by the press all over the country, urging amendments to the organic law. What has become of these bills? They went to the Judiciary Committee. Has that committee considered them? No! Does it intend to? No! They haveacted adversely, I am told, upon two out of the forty-nine bills.

And here let me say a word about the Judiciary Committee which will apply equally well to the other so-called important committees of this Hous~. Whenever a bill is introduced there is a struggle between the committees as to which shall get it for consideration. The jealousy I have seen displayed upon this floor in this respect would surpass that of the opposite sex upon an Easter Sunday. Each committee wants to gobble up all the bills it can. The result is, some of the committees are overloaded while others have comparatively little to do. The Judiciary Committee has always been a" stickler" for what it conceives to be its rights. It has always insisted upon gathering more eggs in its nest than it could cover.

Feeling from the first that my proposed constitutional amendments would never receive any consideration from the J ndiciary Committee, I introduced on the 11th da.y of January last a resolution to raise a special committee on constitutional amendments, to which all bills for that purpose should be referred. That resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules, where it entered into that peaceful sleep which knows no waking.

Now, what are we going to do about it? I believe that my proposed amendments are of great public importance. · I think we will never get rid of legislative and other abuses until they are adopted. I am not alone in this opinion. The press of the country, without regard to party, has commended them, particularly the one which looks to establishing a uniform law of marriage and divorce.

The position I take is this: The bills should be considered. If they .aremeritorious letthem be adopted; if not, let them be rejected. The position taken by the Judiciary Committee is: They will not consider them, and, with a dog-in-the-manger policy, they will not let any other committee consider them. I have appealed to members of that committee, as others have before me, to take up my proposed amendments Jlnd consider them, but I get nothing but evasive answers.

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact about which there can be no dispute, that a great change has taken pla<:e in the country during the last hundred years. It must be remembered that when the Constitution was framed the country was in its infancy. The population was about 4,000,000; now it is 55,000,000. There were but thirteen States; now there are thirty-eight States and eight Territories. Of manufactories there were but few and of commerce but little, and the present instrumentalities of ea.rrying them on had not been discovered. Electricity and steam as motors in material industries had not been thought of. The engine on the water has now taken the place of canvas, and the engine on the land has supplanted the stage-coach. Between then and now a vast change has taken place in the habits and wants of the people. A constitution that was adapted to that early period of our history is entirely inade~oate to the necessities of to-day.

I am aware of the reverence with which we have been taught to regard that sacred instrument, but I must submit we have been wrongfully taught. I ca.n not subscribe to the theory that we must adhere

to a constitution simply because of its antiquity or because it has, in the main, been beneficent in its operations.

Let me read you what Jefferson Rays on this subject . Here is an extract from one of his letters:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenants, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose wha' they did to be beyond amendment. I know that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of ·its country. It was very like the pre ent, but without the experience of the present; and forty years' experience in government is worth a century of book-reading. We had not yet penetrated to the mother principle that governments are repu blica.n only as they em body the will of the p eople and execute it. Hence our first constitutions had no leading principle in them.

Again he says: The dead have no eight ; they are nothing, and nothing can not own some

thing. The corporeal globe and everything upon it belongs to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation; they alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by a majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be best for themselves.

Again: Let us not weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of

taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs.

Guided by these principles, the State of New York, which! havethe honor to represent in part on this floor, requires in her constitution that every twentieth year, and as much oftener as the Legislature may provide, the question of revising and amending the constitution must be submitted to the people.

In this provision the Empire State is true to her motto: Excelsior! She believes in adapting her organic law to the wants of an ever-progressing people; and by thus doing she has taken the lead in constitutional law; and the wise and salutary provisions of her constitutions have from time to time been adopted by most of the other States.

Among other legislative reforms to which my attention has been called and which I desire to commend is one proposed by my distinguished friend, Mr. BLANCHARD, of Louisiana, who has a bill to change the time for meeting of Congress from the 4th of December to the first week in January. This is a much-needed change. As is well known we come here in the early part of December and after numerous short adjournments ofthree days each (that being the constitutional limitation) we get the consent of the Senate and take along adjournment of ten days to two weeks, which carries us over the holidays and well into January. Now, we should doone thing or the other-abolish the holiday recess or meet in January. There is no work of any accountdone in December, and members are kept here at large expense.

In this connection I will silnply hint at the propriety of changing the law in relation to the election of Representatives. As it now stands they are elected over a ·year before they take their seats. It is argued that this being the more numerous and popular branch of the Legislarture, its members should come fresh from the people. They would certainly be more apt to remember the issues upon which they are elected aud carry out the views of their constituents if they took their seats shortly after election.

~Ir. Chairman, another reform might be brought about in the manner of preparing and passing the appropriation bills. We have, I believe, fourteen general appropriation bills. I think the number might be safely reduced to two. In one, which might be called the "necessary appropriation bill,'' we could provide for the payment of all salaries and expenses which are :fixed by law. This would be a. mere matter of compilation and could be furnished by the heads of the various Departments. Such a bill would pass as a matter of course, requiring little or no consideration. In the other, which might be called the "conditional appropriation bill," we could place all appropriations upon which Congress was to exercise discretion. The advantage of such a system would be to simplify legislation, narrow down investigation, and invite a more careful scrutiny of all items of doubtful propriety.

I can not attempt , Mr. Chairman, in the brief time allotted me, to cover the whole field of legislative reform. It is indeed a wide one, and there is plenty of hard work to be done. I have outlined hurriedly, and imperfectly, I confess, a few of the reforms which are deserving of the early attention of Congress. I have simply shown the path, as it were, but I trust there will be some one to follow who will enter upon it and work out practical results. Before resuming my seat I beg leave to say just a few words upon a matter which is in the line of the remarks I have been making. I wish I had time, l\Ir. Chairman, to speak as I would like to about the rules of this Hou e. They are simply abominable. Theyaread~aracetoanyintelligentdeliberative body. Theyarefra.med with the sole purpose to obstruct and defeat legislation. A man with any sense would say that the rules should be made to facilitate the bnsiness of the House. The people are not familiar with these rules or they would ridicule their representatives into changing them at once. Look at the rule which permits one member to rise in his eat and by the simple words "I object" defeat the consideration of a measure upon which the other three hundred and twenty-four members are anxiously intent. I it fair or right t9 lodge uch a power in the hands of one man who may, through personal or local reasons, defeat a measure of great public moment ?

I

i884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3825 But the most objectionable feature in connection with the rules is

the almost endless talk to which their construction gives rise. I have known a whole day wasted in discussing some frivolous point of order. I believe it would be a good plan to have no rules whatever but let the Speaker decide all questions of order upon his own judgment and sense of fairness. Make an autocrat of him. Let his decision be final. No appeal. His decision would be subject to public criticism, and in nine times out of ten he would decide right. It would be better to run the risk of an occasional erroneous ruling than submit to the present system under which so much valuable time is wasted.

Another great waste of time is in calling the roll. In the last Congress there were 318 roll-calls, taking about thirty minutes each; the aggregate time thus taken amounting to 159 hours, or about 32 days, putt ing the legislative day at five hours. Thirty-two days, or over a. month, of the time of this House was actually consumed in the last Congress in the single act of calling the yeas and nays. If we multiply the 32 days by 325 (the number of Representatives), we have the grand total of 10,400 days, or about three years (of one man's time) wasted, to say nothing of the time of the doorkeepers, ushers, clerks, and other attendants. I wish the gentlemen in the gallery in front of me would take down these figures and spread them before the people.

It will be said, ''The yeas and nays must be called or we can not ascertain the result of a vote." True. But why should we adhere to the system of our grandfathers when a. better one can be adopted, doing away with all the evils of the old one? Why can we not use the electric wire to register our votes? The simple pressure of a button on our desks, upon the call of the Speaker, would convey to a dial on the Clerk's desk the vote of the wholetbreehundredand twenty-:fivemembersin the twinkling of an eye. If any mistake in the recording should occur it could be corr~d the next morning when we get the RECORD. I understand that this system prevails in France, and I have yet to hear any valid objections to it.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me indulge the hope that Congress will at some early date turn its attention to these matters and work out at least some of the reforms to which I have referred. They are of great public importance, and they will keep growing in importance as our population increases and the wants of the people multiply with their material progress. It is no party question, sir. It is the cause of the people, and should have, as I trust it will, the hearty support of every tme friend of good government.

TARIFF REDUCTION.

Mr. MORGAN addressed the committee. [See Appendix. J 1\1r. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman, all the good things and many

bad, all the new things and all the old things possible to be said on the subj ect have been said, and hundreds of times repeated in the course of this debate. I find no excuse for taking the time of the committee in th e hope of changing a single vote here or elsewhere. But the wider·;::aching influence of the tariff law and the national and enduring importance of the subject will excuse, if not justifY, even the humblest member of this body in presenting a statement of his views.

A large part of the debate which the House has so carefully refrained from listening to bas turned upon the question of the relative merits of free-trade and protection. I can not regard such discussion as necessary to aid us in passing upon the merits of this bill. We are not yet in sight of that question. It lies far in the future.

The true purpose of this bill is; and its effect, if passed, will be, that expres...'\ed in its title-the reduction of war-tariff taxes; and no gentleman who has yet spoken in this debate has been bold enough to assert that it bas any other purpose, or can have any other effect. By express provision of the bill no duties under it are to be lower than the rates fixed by the Morrill tariff of 1861. That was a tariff for protection fi·amed and passed by protectionists. After the passage of that law the exigencies of the Government compelled the adoption of t.he internalrevenue system, inclu<ling excise taxes upon busine...~, income taxes, license taxes, stamp taxes, &c. The manufacturers of the country claimed that the exactions of the internal-revenue system took away from them all the advantages which the Morrill tariff was designed to give them. Under such pleas the protective-tariff taxes of 1861 were increased from time to time by additions which are designated in the bill as '' wartariff taxes.'' ~be internal-revenue taxes, which constituted the excuse for the levying of the ''war-tariff taxes,'' sta.nps, 'licenses, income, everything except those on liquors and tobacco, have long ago been wiped from the statute-books. The practical question now presented is, shall t-hese" war-tariff taxes" continue when the sole excuse which the protectionists themselves ever advanced in their favor has ceased to exist? Surely this question ought not to depend for its solution upon any consideration of the principles of free -trade or of protection.

I repeat, the Morrill tariff of 1861 was a tariff framed and passed by protectionists. It was commended by them to the country on the theory that the industries protected by it were in their infancy and needed the aid of the taxing power of the Government to set them on their feet. It was further commended to the country by the promise that when these industries should have grown strong and prosperous by the aid of the law they would conRent to a reduction of duties to the revenue standard, and take the ordinary chances of competition in the

XV-240

markets of the world. Sir, the taxes which they themselves then fixed as the needed measure of protection have since been increased by additions of "war-tariff taxes," in ratio varying from 25 to 50 per cent. above that limit. ·

Now, after twenty years' enjoyment of the bounty of the people, far in excess of their own original demands, the oppressed tax-payers, the producers and laborers of the country, claim fulfillment of the promise made. They see that gigantic fortunes have been piled up by the manufacturers. They see that these infant industries have grown into vast and far-reaching monopolies. They see that the number of trained workmen, the buildings, the machinery, and the capital invested are capable of producing manufactured wares far in excess of the home demand. They see this excess practically shut out from foreign markets by the operations of our tariff laws. They see the e manufacturers strong enough to close their factories, turn their workmen into the streets, and let their costly plants lie idle for long periods, until diminished production is brought to equation with increased demand. They see them forming combinations to keep up prices in a glutted market, and hear their boasts that they are able to manufacture large lines of highly protected wares cheaper than the manufacturers of England and Germany.

The people, then, claim thepromise made; they ask that these pampered favorites of the law shall be shorn oftheir power to exact these enormous bounties and be subjected in some degree to the same competition which attends all other branches of labor and production. What is the answer to this demand? It is no longer the plea of infancy and poverty. Time and "war-tariff taxes " have disposed of that. They claim that it will be a shock to the business interests of the countrytodeprivethem ofthese bounties. This answer adds insult to injury. It assumes in effect that the people who have so long submitted to the exactions of the tariff have by their submission made themselves responsible for the business relations of the favored classes, and liable to guard at their own expense the fortunes which they have permitted to be taken from their own _pockets. Bu~ unreasonable as this contention is, the bill under consideration is a concession to it. It concedes protection, and, with the exception of three additions to the free-list, calls only for the repeal of taxes in excess of the demands of protection-the war-tariff taxes levied since the passage of the Morrill tariff of 1861.

Concession never satisfied greed. This reasonable measure, conceding to the protected interests even more than justice demands, bas aroused the bitterest hostility of all t.he favored classes. The arguments used against it are many and conflicting, for they appeal in turn to many interests which are not in harmony among themselves. I refer to some of these arguments not so much for the purpose of answering them as to indicate briefly what answers will be made to them in the court of the people.

It is said by many gentlemen that the agitation of this question will imperil the success of the Democratic party in the approaching Presidential election; and several of our Republican friends have manifested some solicitude on this aspect of the case, a solicitude which is greatly to their credit and is deeply appreciated. :Mr. Chairman, this argument deserves but one answer: it is not the business of this House to legislate or omit to legislate for Presidential elections. But there is another answer. The Democrat who believes in this reform and consents to postpone the question in the hope of attracting protectionist s to the support of the Democratic candidates is doing all that lies in his power to render the Democratic party unworthy of success. We intend to carry out this reform, or we do not. Our declarations, or better, our actions, should be plain and not susceptible of two interpretations. A. declaration that we intend to lower the tariff in case of success will surely make it. impossible to secure the vote ofasingl protectionist. A._ declaration that we do not intend to reduce the tariff will dissolve th . Democratic party.

But fortunately, sir, it is not in the power of the gentlemen who desire two-faced declarations, instead of simple action to commit the-. Democratic party to any course of deception on this question. The intrenched line of protection and monopoly is the line of the Republicant party. The protected interests know, indeed, that they have a. few de ~ otees among so-called Democrats. They know that among Republicans are some who are restless and eager to break away from the support of monopoly; but they also know that the masses of the Democratic party are in favor of tariff reform, while the masses of the Repu?lican. party, including all of its lead~, are in fayor of the existing tariff as 1t stands, aud can alone be relied upon to mcrease it. They will not trust the Democratic party. The confidence game so often outlined for the Presidential election is doomed to failure if attempted.

But, sir, it is said that it is useless to pass this bill because other branches of the Government will reject it. It is the dutY of this House 1\lr. Chairman, to interpret and to actuponitsown responsibility. W~ have no right to assume that any other body will reject any measure what ever which the House sees fit to pass. If we fail for this reason to pass this bill you must expect, sir, to be met with the assertion that the body referred to would have adopted it, and where will be your answer? Tba t body can not originate revenue bills; only this House can do that. Those ,,. bo may succeed in defeating this bill here can not be beard and will not be heard by the people to cast responsibility for its defeat upon


a body which will never have been permitted to vote upon it. Such an argument is childish.

It is urged that no bill on the subject of the tariff should be passed until we have had time to test the law of March, 1883. Sir, we have had ample time to test that law. We know now, as well as we will ever know, that the law of 1883, professedly passed for the purpose of reducing taxation, largely increased taxation on many articles of common use and made a reduction in the aggregate of less than 2 per cent. The average reduction which was fraudulently assumed to be made by the Republican Congress which passed the act of March, 1883-the reduction which they admitted ought to be made-was from 20 to 25 per cent. The bill under consideration proposes an average reduction of about 16 per cent., which, added to the reduction actually made by the law of 1883, is still less than the lowest estimate of reduction admitted by the advocates of that bill to be just and necessary. Sir, we have lived just long enough under that law to find out that it embodied a fraud upon the people-a mong which can not too soon be remedied.

It is said that the uniform reduction of 20 per cent. is empirical, unscientific. Sir, if we wait for the presentation of a bill reducing duties on imports which will commend itself to the· protected inte.rests by its reasonable contents and scientific construction we shall wait until after the "twilight of the gods." Nothing but an increase, horizontal or other, will ever satisfy their cravings for symmetry in the construction of tariffs. But this objection should not be heard coming from the Republican opponents of this measure.

The law of 1883 emanated from a tariff commission appointed by the Republican party. It was accepted and passed by the Republican majority in Congress. It was the work of experts and scientists specially charged to re-examine all the provisions of our tariff laws and propose changes in the schedule adapted to the changed condition of our manufacturing industries. It is not for the party which appointed them to do this work, and which ratified the work when done, to charge now that it was unscientific. Yet that is precisely what they do charge when they allege that a reduction of 20 per cent., which works no change in the relative status of the various articles and schedules, is empirical and unscientific.

Again, it is charged that this bill will so increase importations as to swell the revenue and the surplus in the Treasury. Here aoo-ain, sir, we answer them out of their own mouths. The Republican tariff law of 1883 was passed upon. their assertion that it scaled the taxes down from 20 to 25 per cent., and would therefore reduce the revenue $45,-000,000. The first assumption was false and undoubtedly fraudulent. But we can not say that if the first had been true the second would not also have been found true. If their reasoning was good then it is good now. The bill under consideration certainly reduces the average mtes 17 per cent. below those in force prior to the law of March, 1883. If they were not then mistaken in their argument it will reduce the :revenues from $30,000,000 to $35,000,000.

But, l\lr. Chairman, while I admit that a surplus in the Treasury is in some respects an evil, I also admit that I favor this bill rather toreduce taxation than to reduce revenue. Those who oppose the bill do so beca.use it diminishes that kind of taxation which diverts the money ~f the people to the private uses of a favored class. We support it for the same reason. There is entire agreement on all sides as to its effect in this direction. If it shall still leave a surplus in the Treasury we will then inquire further how that surplus may be disposed of, and will indulge the hope that pending that inquiry the evil may be in some -degree mitigated by a change of administration.

The last of these objections which I shall notice is the one most fre.quently used by he Republican opponents of this measure-that the bill is the entering-wedge to the establishment of the policy of free trade. None of these gentlemen go so far as to say that they would vote for the bill if they believeditwerenottheinitiation of free trade; but it is evident from the tone of their remarks that they are quite willing to let such an impression go to the country. But as many of them seem incapable of discriminating between froo trade and tariff for revenue, a word or two may be in place on that subject. No one is demanding free trade at this time. It is not probable that free trade will be advocated by any party or by any considerable number of persons at any time in the future. Free trade would necessitate direct taxation, and direct taxation under the Constitution must be apportioned among the States according to representation and not according to assessed value of property. The States most interested in reduction of impost duties are the States upon which this rule of the Constitution would bear with greatest weight. It is not for a moment to be assumed that they will ever favor a policy which would subject them to such unequal burdens.

But, Mr. Chairman, the friendsofthisbill, whiletheydenythatsuch discussion is now in place, are not anxious to avoid the discussion of the relative merita of tariff for revenue and tariff for protection. Nor will they pledge themselves to remain forever silent after the "war-tariff taxes " are removed. They will then be ready to meet the great practical economic question to arise: whether the policy of protection should be continuedindefinitelyoratall? And theyarereadynow, Mr. Chair-

man, if the opponents of this bill insist upon it, to anticipate the discussion of that question either in this House or before the people.

It is not my purpose, nor is it necessary, lli. Chairman, to enter in to the philosophy of the question, or to cite here great tables of statistics for the purpose of proving any set of propositions. All that has been sufficiently done by gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. I notice, to answer briefly, some of the arguments most frequently used on this floor in favor of the continuance of high protective tariffs. One argument-and it has been the most effective of all, for it is addressed to the most numerous class of voters in the country, the farmer-is that protection furnishes a home market by diversifying industry and building up communities engaged in tradesand occupations which consume the farmer's product and do not compete with his labor.

If other evidence were wanting, l\lr. Chairman, I should confidently appeal to what has been said in this debate for proof of the falsity of the argument and the utter failure of the policy. Several gentlemen have attempted to figure out the proportion of agricultural products consumed at home. With unlimited supplies of ink and paper, with ample time and full liberty to bend the figures to their will, not ·one of them has succeeded in making an equation between home supply and home demand. The boldest of them was only able to carry domestic consumption up to 92 per cent. of domestic supply, leaving 8 per cent. to be disposed of in foreign markets. And yet they admit, for they do not dare to deny, that 1 per cent. to be sold in foreign markets means a failure of the policy, for the foreign price of the surplus to be sold, no matter how small it may be, fixes the price of the portion sold for domesticuse. Thisaftertwenty-threeyearsofprotection.

Admitting that no more than 8 per cent. is available for export, what now is the prospect of the absorption of that 8 per cent. in the home market? If demanded here it must be for consumers not themselves engag~d in agriculture. Will a continuance of protection furnish these consumers to the domestic market? I appeal to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] for the answer to this question. He said in his speech at the opening of this debate, and nearly every gentlenian who has spoken on that side has indorsed his statement-none contradicting it-that the manufacturing establishments of this country are to-day capable of producing wares far in excess of the demands of domestic consumption. The statement is undoubtedly true; and, being true, no argument is needed to show that all hope of absorbing the domestic surplus in the domestic markets must be abandoned.

With this prospect in view our farmers are threatened with the loss of their foreign market for their great staples. Foreign nations have grown weary of submitting to our policy which forces them to buy our agricultural products while refusing to take anything from them in exchange. Barred out by prohibitory tariffs from selling in our markets, they are seeking other soU.rces of supply for products which they have heretofore purchased from our people. They have been partially successful in this, and will not rest until they shall be entirely relieved from the necessity of buying in markets where they are not permitted to sell. Already the staple products of our agriculture begin to feel the effects of increased production in India and Australia, and the time is not far distant when our surplus of production, instead of finding a market in foreign ports, must rot in the fields, serving there no purpose but to depress the price ofthat which is consumed at home.

The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. EAToN] endeavors to dispose of this view of the subject by telling us of a man w4o owned land adjoininga manufacturing town in his State who prospered in a fair degree by selling his products to the people of the town. No doubt, Mr. Chairman, many other similar instances might be cited in the vicinity of everycityin the country, without regard towhetherthecityisgiven up to manufactures or not. This city of Washington, which has no manufactures wha.tever, would furnish many such examples. But the argument will not be effective until we are enabled to class strawberries and green corn, lettuce and asparagus among the staple agricultural products of the country. It is an infinitesimal portion of our agricultural lands that is or ever will be available for such purposes. Men situated like the one mentioned by the gentleman from Connecticut never need the aid of law. The millions of farmers of this country can not find markets for ''garden sass.'' They must raise the great staples for the general markets and must have remunerative prices in such markets or go down, down under their loadofdebtand taxes. No, sir; protection does nothing for the farmers, no matter what it may do for the few market gardeners. Its purpose is to compel them to buy in a market where competition is excluded by statute, while they must sell in markets open to competition from the whole world.

But it is claimed that protection, by encouraging the investm~nt of capital in manufactures, leads to competition in the home market and lowers prices. Experience has shown that this is not true. It is occasionally true. The Spanish proverb says: Greediness bursts the bag. The mad race of competition artificially stimulated som~times gluts the markets with goods manufactured on borrowed capital. Forced sales and fall in prices momentarily ensue; but the vast aggregations of capital invested soon put order in the market. The disturbing element is quickly withdrawn by combinations of capital, the mills are

t '

\

'l

(

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3827 shut down, and prices arbitrarily maintained until the balance of the protected market is restored. In this way the farmers who have paid the cost of building up and enriching the capitalists engaged in manufactures are cheated out of the promised results of competition.

But more, sir; far from giving to the farmers the reward promised for their long years of tax-paying, these men now besiege the executive department of our Government and clamor for reciprocity treaties by which they may :find markets for their surplus manufa~tures in Mexico and South America. The natural effects of this policy! if carried out, will be to make and maintain high prices for their products without the necessity of periodically stopping their mills and letting their plants lie idle.

I protest, sir, that this involves a breach of faith. Was it the understanding that when the conditions of competition were secured through the aid of bounties paid by the farmers of the country the manufactures might destroy the effect of competition by widening their market? Or was it not a part of the implied agreement upon which prohibitory

'duties have been toleratedthatthemannfacturers shouldlimit the sale of their products to the domestic market? When otherwise will the agricultural producers of the country enjoy with certainty the benefits of the competition in the home market which has been promised them? Fairness to this great interest, Mr. Chairman, demands that a prohibition Qf the export of domestic manufactures shall go hand in hand with the continuance of protective duties. But far from admitting any obligation for the bounties they have so long enjoyed, these favored classes bend there energies and ~ their combined capital in efforts to cheat the farmers out of the benefits of competition by conspiracies to dim.inish production and at the same time to extend their markets in Mexico and South America.

I have said, sir, that the pleas of infancy and debility are no longer employed. They are not openly insisted upon, hut the advocates of protection on this floor imply them when they tell us of the consequences of the passage of this bill-mills closed, workmen starving in the streets, and bankruptcy and ruin everywhere. There is bad faith in all of this, Mr. Chairman. When exulting over the effects of protection and appealing to national pride, forgetful then of other considerations, they boast of the cheapness of American manufactures, and claim to undersell the English in their own markets. A distinguished advocate of protection, who took a prominent part in framing and passing the law of March, 1883, said to me very recently that that law imposed duties on a great number of articles which no longer need protection. I asked him for a list of them, but be declined to furnish it. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. EATON] bas stated on this floor that sixty articles embraced in the existing tariff schedules manufactured in his State do not need protection because they can be made ~heaper there than in England. But he did not name them nor propose to place them on the free-list.

But we are able to pick up a little definite information on this subject from the literature furnished by the protectionists themselves, furnished for another purpose, and for that reason more valuable. I hold in my hand a pamphlet marked '' Tariff Tract No. 6, published by the American Iron and Steel Association, James M. Swank, secretary," in which I find two paragraphs, which I read, as follows:

As one proof of this you have only to look over the exports from our couniry to foreign countries of our manufactured commodities. 'Ve are sending to other nations yearly our agricultural implements, including fanning-mills, horse-powers, mowers and reapers, plows, cultivators, forks, hoes, &c., carriages, carts, cotton goods, railroad-cars, locomotives, steam-engines, watches, clocks, glass and glassware, hats, caps, boots, shoes, wearing apparel, machinery, cutlery, edge-tools, files, saws, firearms, nails, India-rubber goods, jewelry, lamps, saddlery, harness, organs, piano-fortes, paper, stationery, printing-presses, sewingmachines, household goods, furniture, woodwork, tinware, and scales.

We are steadily, year by year, increasing the variety and qnality as well as the quantity we are sending abroad. Among these last year were over 148,000,000 yards of cotton goods, and nearly 400,000 clocks. If you will go to the leading dry-goods stores in Liverpool and Manchester you will find hundreds of pieces of our cotton goods being sold, equal in quality and texture to a.ny they are making in En~land andatlessprice than they can sell those of their own manufacturing; wh1le the" Yankee clocks," as they call them, are scattered all over their country. Our agricultural tools and implements, our axes, our edge-tools, our machines1 and- hundreds of other kinds of manufactured commodities, are found for sale in every town ofanysizein the kingdom. Weare, therefore, not only competing with England in all the markets of the world, but competing with her in her own markets at home.

On this whole list of articles our tariff taxes average between 30 and 40 per cent. ad valorem--on some of them over 50 per -cent.; and the same is probably true of the ''hundreds of other kinds of manufactured commodities" which are not specifically named. Now, sir, it is certainly true that if our manufacturers can make these goods here, pay freight, insurance, exchange, oonsuls' fees, and other charges in sending them to England, and then sell them in competition at their own doors with the manufacturers of England, they do not need protection against that pauper labor which they supplant on its own soil. No man will seriously deny this, and I beg you to observe, Mr. Chairman, that a great portion of these articles named-saying nothing of the "hundreds of others" not named-are of composite character. They require for their construction large num hers of different forms of various metals, wood, leather, cloth, and other materials which figure separately on our tariff schedules. If combined in manufacture they need no protection, it is a fair and reasonable presumption that they do not need it

in their simple state. And so the list of heavily protected articles which need no protection is greatly extended.

But what advocate of protection was found in 1883, or is found now, proposing either to reduce or abolish the duties on any one of these articles? It might well be, sir, that if they would act in good faith and frankly propose to put on the free-list the articles which they well know no longer need protection against the dreaded pauper labor of Europe, the friends of revenue reform could meet them and agree to continue yet longer the present protective duties on other articles which may possibly needsnch bounty. But, sir, they resist with desperation every attempt at reduction. They admit no compromise. They demand more, and will be satisfied with not one cent less. And here I may remark that while they now clamor to be let alone, and cry out against any reopening of the tariff question, it is but a short time since they were of a very different mind. Only last full, just before the opening of this session of Congress, the Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Association, copies of which were kindly sent to me for my guidance, demanded loudly that Congress should reopen the tariff question and repeal the beggarly reductions made by tbe law of 1883, and particularly so raise the duties as to create in this country " a cotU:>ntie industry," ''a tin-plate industry," and several other industries.

But, Mr. Chairman, the favorite argument of the protectionists is tha~ protection upholds the wages of the American laborer and saves him from the wretched state oftbepanper laborer ofEngland. Many tables have been compiled and published here and elsewhere showing rates of wages paid in this country and in England. Tables also are presented to show the purchasing power of the wages paid in both (;()untries. I doubt, Mr. Chairman, if any correct conclusions can be drawn from such comparisons. Thousands of circumstances which affect rates of wages and purchasing power in both countries' are necessarily excluded from view in those tables, and those which are most carefully compiled leave us with the impression that they are deceptive and unsatisfactory. A few simple facts not open to dispute or qualification will lead us to more accurate conclusions than a volume of such figures.

Let us inquire to what class of persons this argument refers. It excludes all persons engaged. in agriculture. Work on the farm is not '' labor'' in the sense in w bic4 protectionists use that word. By the census of 1880 the whole number of persons engaged in manufactures, mining, and mechanical industries in the United States was 3,837,112, and this number included 631,988 females and 133,607 boys and girls 15 years of age and under. There are included also many thousands who can have no possible interest in protection, who unquestionably are burdened by protection, always in their means of living, and generally through the operation of the tariff upon articles used in their business. It is necessary to deduct these from the aggregate in order to ascertain the number of people to whom the argument applies. I select none but those in·regard to whom no question can be raised.

This total of3,837,112 includes bakers, blacksmiths, brewers, malt-3ters, bridge bnildersandcontractors, buildersandcontracoors, butchers, carpenters and joiners, coopers, fishermen, gas-works employes, soonecutters, masons, meat and fruit packers, millers, oil-well operators, laborers and refiners, paper-hangers, plasterers, plumbers and gasfitters, pump-makers, quarrymen, railroad builders, roofers, slaters, npbolsterers,and wheelwrights, to the number, in all, of l,t 88,874. This total also includes carpet-makers, charcoal and lime burners, clock and watch makers and repairers, confectioners, engineers and firemen, engravers, gun and lock smiths, machinists, milliners, dress-makers, seamstresses, painters and varnishers, phooographers, stave-makers, tailors and tailorcsses, tinners, tinware-makers, and wood-choppers, to the number, in all, of 863,646. It is certain that at least one-half of this last number have as little direct interest in the tariff as the farmers themselves. But including them all it will appear that the whole number of persons whose wages are subject to be directly affected by protection, if they can be affected by it at alJ, is 2,748,238. The whole number of persons engaged in agriculture in 1880 was 7,670,493. And these farmers for over twenty years have submitted to an average tax of not less than 40 per cent. on everything they have bad to buy for the ostensible purpose of keeping up the wages of this small handful of our people.

I admit without further inquiry the general proposition that· the average wages oftbe peoplehave been and are higherthanthoseofpersons engaged in similar occ:npations in Europe, and also will admit, for the sake of the argument, that the purchasing power of the wages is as great here as there. Laying aside the question whether it pays us as a people to keep up the wages of a small class by such exorbitant taxation upon the necessaries of hfe, we come to inquire whether f.his difference in wages is in fact due to protection or to other cause.~. The statement of a single fact, disputed by nobody, suffices to dispose of the claim that it is due to protection. England with free trade pays higher wages than Germany and France with protective tariffs. The difference in wages is due entirely to the tact that in Europe population is crowded and land is not to be bad. Given the same state of things here, and the same results will follow.

The gentleman from Maine [Mr. DINGLEY], assuming erroneously that the whole number of 3,837,112 persons ionnd to be engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits are dependent for occupation

.


on the protective tariff, asks what would be the effect of diverting them from those pursuits and sending them forth to compete in other branches of labor. Saying nothing of the effects of this bill, which leaves an average of protective duties of about 30 per cent. ad valorem, I deny that even absolute free trade, the abolition of all customs duties, would send the half of them into other pursuits.

Between 1860 and 1880,122,966,221 acres were added to the area of improved lands of the United States. Over 50,000 miles of new railroads were constructed and put in operation. Vast additions were made to coastwise and inland tonnage. Thousands of mines have been opened west of the 1\fississippi River, and numerous other demands for labor have followed upon this enormous development of our material resources, none of which are in the slightest degree dependent upon the tariff. Let me then answer the gentleman from Maine by asking him another question: What would have been the effect upon the wages of factory operatives if the hands and brains which have gone into thereclaiming and continuous cultivation of these lands, the building and operating of the railroads and steamboat lines, and other pursuits dependent upon these, had been driven to compete for work and bread in the manufacturing centers of the country? But go further, cancel in imagination all the lands within the borders of this country .not now actually occupied, keep up your protective tariffs or raise them higher, and with a manufacturing capacity now in excess of the home deJlland and without a foreign market, tell me where will be the wages of your factory operatives in five years from now? I have not a particle of doubt that in less time than that they will be lower than. they are in England.

It has been well said, sir, by the gentleman from Michigan that the real purpose of the tariff has been to compensate the manufacturer for the high price of labor, to protect him against it by compelling the high-priced laborer to buy high-priced goods. Desiring to start mannfactories, they find labor high. The reason they give for passing protective-tariff laws is that labor is too high to permit them to compete without a bounty with the low-priced labor of Europe. The tariff law is passed, and straightway they impudently claim that the wages of labor are high by reason ofthe tariff.

The tariff, sir, has never added one dollar directly or indirectly to the wages of the American workman. The manufacturer has never paid one dollar in wages which he was not compelled to pay because of the scarcity of labor, and the scarcity of labor has never been in the slightest degree due to the tariff. There has always been absolnte.free trade in labor, and the manufacturer has never failed to use it remorselessly to depress the rate of wages. The records of this House prove that they import foreign labor under contract and transfer the dreaded pauper labor of Europe to this country to deprive our native workmen of the benefits of the scarcity of labor produced by the natural causes which I have mentioned.

A bill is before this House to prohibit such transactions accompanied by the report of a committee containing the proofs. The census returns show that native workmen are gradually being crowded out of the em- . ployments which have been fostered by tari:fl' bounties for their supposed benefit. In Rhode Island and Massachusetts over 25 per cent. of the population found in 1880 were of foreign birth; in Connecticut, over 20 per cent. If the children of these people of foreign birth, born in the last twenty-five years, were added it would no doubt appear that but little more than one-half of the population is, in any true sense, native .. The same proportion holds in the manufacturing centers of Pennsylvania.

But, sir, even in this country we are not without examples of the effects of a crowded population upon the wages of labor. In this country, as in all others, there are often found in crowded localities those whose hopeless poverty, if not the · lack or loss of ambition or other incentive, binds them to the spot. And here in our large cities such people are as effectually barred from participation in the great natural advantages of the country as though they lived in Europe. The gentleman from Pennsylvania tMr. KELLEY] has told usthestory of the trace-chains, and how the poor women who make them labor for starvation wages. He told us of the poverty and suffering in the slums of London to affright us from the passage of this bill.

Sir, the gentleman should know-does know-that Berlin and Paris, capitals of protected countries, will match every picture of poverty and suffering which he has drawn for us. Will he dare to say that New York and Philadelphia., his own city, have no slums, no unfortunate people who work for starvation wages? Are the shirt-makers of those cities, too poor to escape from their merciless employers, better paid than the women who make the trace-chains? He knows they are not. He knows that this unfortunate class in every city in the world are paid starvation wages, are insufficiently fed and clothed, are housed in chambers where the light is dim and the air impure-where vice, disease: and death lie in wait for them.

Butwhydilatenponthissubject? Thegentleman from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] has produced and read upon this floor evidence that in the coke regions of Pennsylvania women and young girls from 12 to 16 years of age are engaged in labor that would tax the strength of strong men, handling coke-forks in crowded rooms, breathing poisonous gases in a temperature of 1100. No member on this floor from that State

has questioned the evidence. Sir, the argument which the gentleman from Pennsylvania attempts to draw from the slums of London and the condition of the poor in England is fitly attended and sufficiently answered by his absurd assumption that the passage of the bill under consideration will "add pernicious anremia to the list of diseases with which our working people are already familiar.''

Protection, 1\Ir. Chairman, has enriched the manufacturers as a class but it has robbed the people at large. It has failed on every point~ dow hat it promised for the conn try. It has not created the home market for the products of our agriculture. It has produced the conditions of competition in manufactures, but by combinations of capital it has cheated the people out of the legitimate fruits of that competition. It has added nothing to the wages of labor, but has constantly striven and is still striving to defraud the native laborer of the advantages which naturally belong to him by reason of our comparatively sparse population and abundance of land.

But independently of all these considerations this bill ought to pass. As I have said, it leaves untouched the principle and policy of protection. It deals with the "war-tariff taxes" only, and does not entirely remove them except in a few cases. To the extent of the reduction made it will prevent exa-ctions upon our people in excess of the requirements of protection as stated by its own advocates. If this bill shall become a law the average of duties on all cotton goods under it will be 31.50 per cent. ad valorem, about 7 per cent. less than under the present law; on hemp, jute, and flax goods 24.60 per cent. ad valorem, about 4 per cent. less than the average under the law now in force; on wool and woolen goods, 46.43 per cent. ad valorem, against 57.70 per cent. now levied; on metals and manufactures of metal, 29.81 per cent., against 35.19 per cent. under the law of 1883; on crockery and glassware, 44.12 per cent., against 53.16 as now.

Can it be said that these reductions are unreasonable? · Or will it be claimed that the rated established by the bill are insufficient for protec: tion? To this it may be said now, and gentlemen may rely upon it it will be insisted upon again in that other forum to which we are all tending, that no gentleman who has so far spoken upon this floor has undertaken to point out a single rate established by the bill which is below the requirements of protection. They do not condescend to so simple a means of argument, but in presence of a measure which leaves the average rate of all tariff duties over 30 per cent. ad valorem they fall to shrieking about free trade and the pauper labor of Europe.

And now, Mr. Chairman, I invite the attention of this committee for a moment to the attitude of parties and factions toward this bill and the subject of revenue reform. 'The whole situation is reduced to two statements of facts and one conclusion: We have an actual surplus now in the Treasury in excess of demands to date of at least $50,000,000; we are taking from the pockets of the people every year from $75,000,000 to 100,000,000 in excess of the annual necessary expenditures of the Government; and the conclusion is that honesty and sound policy reqrure a reduction of the revenues. So far no disagreement here or el ewhere. We have our choice to reduce the revenues of the Government by reducing or repealing the internal-revenue taxes on whisky and tobacco, or by reducing the duties on foreign import , the taxes-war taxes-on hats, caps, boots, shoes, clothing, hlankets, knit goods, crockery, cutlery, glassware-in short, on the necessaries of life.

The majority of the Committee of Ways and Means, repre enting a large majority of the Democratic party in this House and in the country, bring forward this bill which reduces the war taxes on the necessaries of life and leaves untouched all taxes on whisky and tobacco. The issue so made is a plain one: necessaries of life on the one hand, whisky and tobacco on the other. From which. shall the taxes be taken to reduce the surplus revenue which all admit ought to be reduced? The solid Republican minority in this House, with the exception of four gentlemen from Minnesota, and a fraction of Democrats elected from manufacturing districts, array themselves in opposition to the bill. Many of them, all the leaders of this opposition, admit, and noneoftbem deny, that they prefer to make the needed reduction of surplu revenues by repealing the taxes on whisky and tobacco, and to leave untouched the war taxes on the necessaries of life. .Mr. KELLEY and Mr. RANDALL frankly avow this intention and argue in its favor. Not one of their followers on either side disclaims it. But many of tho e gentlemen who have spoken pretend, while opposing this bill, to be in favor of reduction of the duties on imports. These gentlemen, 1\Ir. Chairman. will be judged hereafter by their actions and not by their words.

First, sir, let us look at the action of the Republican minority of the Committee of Ways and Means, five gentlemen among the old~t and most experienced in this House, familiar with the ubject in all its details. It was their privilege in any event, it waa their duty, if thty believed the present tariff ought to be reduced, and ·were not ati fied with the bill of the majority, to report a substitute for it. In tead of reporting such bill or recommending amendments of the bill of the majority, they reported anargumentagainstanychangesin the existing tariff, and against free trade. The reportsplaced the subject in control of the House. The bill was ready to be considered, and when considered any member had the privilege of offering and advocating amendments to the bill or a substitute for it. But the opponents of this bill voted against its consideration in Committee of the Whole, and in so doing (

\

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3829 they voted, no matter what their mental intention may have been, and their families. Common sense, business sagacity, and humane against the consideration or passage of any bill whatever reducing war- judgment all agree, however, that the more conservative course should tariff taxes on the necessaries oflife. be followed of treating the ulcer on the body-politic by removing the

When the bill was taken up for consideration we had a right to ex- poison and restoring the system to healthful action. The remedy prepect, sir, that some of these gentlemen who say they favor reduction scribed by this bill is oftbe nature I have referred to, and is infinitely or modification of the tariff would point out in the general debate what worse than the disease. amendments they desired in order to make this bill worthy of their Upon the question of taxation as applied to the collection of revenue support. We have listened, sir, to vague general denunciations of this to cover the expenses of the Government, legislators and citizens alike bill, and high-flown declamations about the evils of free trade; but we should agree, in myopinion, upon the proposition to abolish the internalhave yet to hear the first suggestion of a proposal t9 amend or perfect revenue tax system. The time has passed when this burden is any longer this bill or to offer a substitute reducing or modifYing the tariff taxes necessary to be borne by our people. With a large surplus in the Treason any single article. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, we were noti- ury and annually increasing, war taxes may well be allowed to lapse fred shortly after general debate began by the gentleman from Ohio and the country be freed from the. last of the burdens imposed by the [Mr. McKINLEY] that at the close of that debate he will move to strike necessities of the rebellion. That there is not unanimity of thought and out the enaeting clause, and so endeavor to defeat the passage not only purpose on this matter is to be regretted. The causes moving to this of this bill but of any bill to reduce ''war-tariff taxes.'' non-agreement are not creditable to the element who object to the aboli-

Sir, these gentlemen are making a record of action here which no tion of this form of taxation, their desire being rather to let this surwords can ever wipe out or obscure. A vote to-morrow to strike out plus referred to increase and accumulate than to see the heavy phalanx the enacting clause of this bill gives the lie to every profession of de- of revenue office-holders now in service broken up and retired. sire or willingness to reduce unnecessary taxation. Those who favor But while I believe this system should be done away with, and the such reduction in the interest of the people will vote against that mo- people relieved fr9m a species of taxation peculiarly annoying during a tion,· and, if it is defeated, will proceed deliberately to consider this period of profound peooe, I as firmly believe that the tariff should rebillline by line, and anxionsly inquire what changes can be made to main solidly stationary without a shadow of wavering, that home labor perfect it and give to the country a measure of relief suited alike to and home product'> may be protecled from the fatal competition of the the condition of business, the rights of consumers of domestic manu- cheap pauper labor of foreign nations. The basis of protective duties factures, and the needs of the Government. should not be a sliding scale. In my judgment only a permanent one

For this great purpose, Mr. Chairman, they stand ready to receive will or can stimulate the growth of industrial products, and afford the and consider candidly and fairly warning, reproof, or instruction from artisan and agriculturist alike the mutual use and benefits of each friend or foe. Those who vote for the motion and to defeat this bill, other's labor. Upon this solid foundation only can be created an availwithout attempt to amend it, will simply say by their votes that they able, convenient, and cheap home market for all classes of people and desire indefinite continuance of ''war-tariff taxes '' on the necessaries all species of products. of life twenty years after the conclusion of the war and long after the Protectiveduties, carefully laid, on articles of trade which are manurepeal of the excise and internal-revenue taxes which led to their en- factured abroad, and mostly seek a market here, and brought into direct actment. Defeat this bill to-morrow, and the issue which goes to the competition with similar goods of our own production, I consider not country in November is so made up. only legitimate but absolutely necessary. These dnties should not

A word in conclusion, Mr. Chairman. The Republican opponents of only not be removed, but should not be disturbed. The agitation of this bill and of tariff reduction, while struggling frantically to prevent the question tends to frighten capital already invested, and to intimiits consideration, have told us that they welcome the issue which it date that which seeks investment. It tends to render the artisan dismakes, and that upon that issue they will defeat the Democratic party satisfied because uncertain of his future. in the coming Presidential election. I know not how that may be, sir, Solidity of principle and determination of purpose, founded upon proand have never taken time to consider that phase of the subject. Pos- dence, sagacity, and experience, are all essential to business success and sibly their predictions may prove true. No lioness ever fought for her prosperity. These can not exist as the outcome of debate and discuswhelps with the tenacity and desperation of protectionists fighting for sion based on a doubt as to the virtue and value of the principle inthe last cent of bounty and tribute. They have nearly all the capital volved. We have bad free trade in this country-and have suffered. of the country and a large share of its best brains in their pay. They We have tried protection-and the nation bas prospered in a miracuare skilled in political intrigue, in the arts of balancing and neutral- Ions manner. Under the former business stagnated and the country izing opposing interests. They have the machinery of the Federal Gov- went backward.. Under the latter life and animation filled all the arernment in their hands and a powerful and able press to assist them teries of trade and manufacture, business channels flowed with prosand misrepresent this bill and it friends. They may succeed now. perity, and the country went forward with renewed vigor, enterprise,

But, Mr. Chairman, this question will never down. The people are and assured success. Sloth was stamped upon the policy of the one; aroused upon it in the West, and many answering voices come to them progress and growth marked the other. already from the Eastern and the Middle States. The continuance of There was a period in our earlier history when we found it necessary to war taxes after twenty years of peace will not much longer be toler- encouragemanufactures-ifwewere tobaveany, even the least, national ated. This agitation will go on and on until it may be a worse thing development-by means other than the ordinary ones of patronage of shall in the end befall those who now r~ject a measure of relief sub- their products. Very few goods of our own manufaeture, in that early ject to no fair criticism but this, that it falls short of the requirements day, were to be found in our markets or used by our people. Almost of justice to the people. every want was supplied by foreign skill and labor. In that we offered

Mr. JONES, of Wisconsin, addressed the committee. [See Ap- every inducement to capital to invest in manufacturing enterprises. pendix. ] Property, in lands, was made a gift, taxe were held in abeyance on

Mr. SUl\.INER, of Wisconsin, addressed the committee. [See Ap- real and personal estate, and many and up.usual privileges were con-pendix.] ferred.

Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia, addressed the committee. [See And now, in the midst of our rapid development, although young in Appandix.] . comparison with our foreign competitors who have bad their "plants"

Mr. FEHRELL. Mr. Chairman, I consider it my duty before this established for centuries, with all the improvements which we liave bill shall have reached a vote of the House to offer some reasons why I reached, and which we cherish with so much pride aud admiration, am opposed to the agitation of the tariff question at this time. even now we are asked to turn back from these results of active and

At the outset, therefore, I desire to say that I have never considered progressive civilization and take up the primitive lite of the past-to this great economic matter as fit subject for partisan political control. simply till the soil while England and the balance of Europe shall furMoreover, I condemn the proposition which attempts to disturb the nish us with what we need in all branches of the mechanic art . great business and industi;ial centers of the country by the constant We are asked to loosen our grasp on what we have mastered, and, to agitation of this question, which serves only to render uncertain the change the figure, to halt in the march which civilized indu try and values of property and to depreciate public confidence in business in- open competition with the world are now ma1.."ing toward our markets. tegrity. Such lEt,oislation is not only impolitic, but it is statesmanship Who bas asked for this radical change in the policy which ha so long perverted to evil purposes and results. and favorably guided our business interests ? Has it come from the

As the success of a nation depends upon the confidence the people manufacturer or his workmen? Has it come from the agriculturist or repQSe in the law-making power, such power should, when exercised by his farm bands? Has it been heard from the lips of those who know either party, aim to correct abuses and irregularities rather than at- what toil in the workshop, the mine. or the ship-yard means? It bas tempt to revolutionize a system long established which may have served come from none of these, but, with the single exceptiun of the distinto enhance tbeprosperityofthecountry, unless it can be demonstrated guisbed gentleman from New York [.l\1r. HEWITT], whose large perbeyond all peradventure that the good which is to flow from such revo- sonal gain would be found in free ore, all who support this mischievous lution will be greater and more lasting than the benefits accruing from measure are found in the ranks of the legal profession, and they reason the recognized and habitual course. from their exalted status as mere theorists.

G;ranting, for argument's sake, that there are wrongs under the pro- On the contrary, the testimony from all classes of manufacturers, tection system, to abolish it for free trade will not only effectually eradi- notably of iron and glass, with their artisan and workmen, ::tnd the woolcate the evil, but in the doing of it you cut the throat of the business I growers, is against this bill. Only a few importers interested in their and prosperity of the country and deliberately starve the workingmen own personal gain by securing the control of our market against the


products of American workmen, and a number of free-trade clubs in New York, formed in the interest of English manufacturers and fed by English gold, in no sense employers of American labor nor tillers of American soil-who are in no wise acquainted with the operations of productive capitaJ. in our mills, mines, and furna~these are theonly people who favor the passage of this measure. The denunciations against this bill have been dignified but strong and convincing, and the result should be what the country desires-its emphatic defeat.

I had concluded, after the question had been referred to a commission brought about by the wise and judicious efforts of the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. EATON], then a Senator of the United States, and now an equally honored and distinguished member of this body, aided by the influence of the tariff convention held in New York in 1881, with its exhaustive discussion of all phases of the subject, followed by the exciting session of Congress which passed the act of 1883, that the matter was laid at rest for a time at least But my own belief has proved a fallacy, and the earnest wish of the country has been deliberately disregarded. Just as the good qualities of the aclof 1883 were beginning to be understood and accepted and its bad ones exposed, the spirit of agitation has again become rampant and the dry bones of free trade again begin to rattle. The work of the Fortyeighth Congress should have been to remove the unjuat discriminations and mistakes of its predecessor rather than to have engendered the strife and dissension which thus far ha.s marked our deliberations.

That the reduction of tarifi' duties on imports will stimulate the shipping of them to this country is too plain a proposition to need any argument. The conclusion is equally plain that the United States will be flooded with the goods of Europe to the great detriment of our manufacturers. In this competition American mills must close and .American workmen are thrown out upon the streets to hunt or beg for their bread and butter. Upon the face of this bill the tax appears to be reduced. Is that a real and beneficial reduction of taxation which shuts our shops and imposes ~ untold burden of poverty and enforced idleness upon the country to support, and at the same time opens the flood-gates of free trade to the pauper labor of England, France, and Germany? It is a reduction, but such as discriminates only in favor of foreign manufacturers. The effect of this bill will be to reduce the wages of the country to the European standard, for it is only by this means that our workshops can meet the influx of foreign products. In no other way can they sustain themselves against their free-trade competitors. Do employes or workmen want this state of things? They will answer in their own good time and way.

Europe has and may continue to enjoy her class distinctions of permanent rulers and servants, but in this country we elevate the wageworker and bread-winner, making him equal to any and opening to him all paths which lead to wealth, honor, and distinction. We want no legislation which will tend to undo this and render negative the genius of our institutions. Yet the measure under discussion tends strongly in this fatal direction, and should therefore be crushed. Rather than this give us laws which will still more efficiently assure the largest measure of education and protection to all citizens alike in the common race for fortune, honor, and decent life.

While such a wide difference of opinion exists between Europe and America upon these questions of business prosperity and social life, we can not afford to slight even incidental protection if we would maintain intact our present industrial and social progress as against the free--trade theories and practices of England. Her policy of "peace and good-will to all nations" is a wolf's cry and should be heeded, that it may be rebuked and resisted. As in colonial days, when even t he Bible was not allowed to be pTinted here, when wool and flax manufactures were repressed and American factories were declared a nuisance, and when English statesmen expressed the opinion that'' the colonies ought not to be permitted to make even a hobnail, " so in this day is England's attitude toward America and American manufacturing enterprise. The advocacy of this bill bears the impress of this same "hobnail" policy. England's proscriptive policy bore its natural fruit in that early day in the loss of her colonies and in the erection of a great and free Republic. Shall we, as one of the foremost nations of the earth to-day, yield to her insolent demands what we refused as her dependent colonies?

Permit me to adduce some testimony against the principle involved in this bill gathered from various sources. Tbe argument of Hon. Columbus Delano on the wool industry of the United States is not only suggestive but highly instructive. It appears in the evidence taken before the Ways and Means Committee. Even the slight reduction made upon this staple by the present law cost that industry about $12,000,000. He says a.s to the effect of the act of 1883:

The passage of the tariff act of !arch 3, 1883, has already crippled this important industry, and if the rates of duty imposed by the act of 1867 be not restored its destruction may be reg<&.rded as an aecomplishcd fact.

If required to give reasons for these conclusions I submit the following: First. The price of wool before the passage of the act of 1883 was barely remu

nerative; the subsequent reduction of prices has been so great as to JJreclude profit, except perhaps in some of the Territories aud sparsely- ettled States, where the price of land is exceedingly low. I venture to state, without fear of successful contradiction, that the clip of 1883 has been sold by the producers at prices varying in different States from 2 to 5 cents per pound less than the clip ofl882. The producers in no States, so fa.\' as I am informed, sold at a reduction

ofless than 2 cents; in many of the States the reduction was greater, and in the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 'Vest Virginia I venture to estimate it at an average of 4 cents or more per pound.

The actual loss on the clip of this year, estimated at 4 cents per pound, amounts to about $12,000,000. It i pertinent to ask does the percentage of reduction to the consumer in the prices of woolen goo&; equal that in the price of wool?

ThG workmen from the iron and steel industries as well as the employes and heads of large manufacturing companies jointly protesting against the change of duty in that great industry strictly admonishes us to let this question of reducing the tariff duties alone. · Mr. Thomas Williams, of Youngstown, Ohio, said:

They had been asked to come here and state how the workingmen looked at the matter of the proposed tariff reduction and how it affected workingmen. He was aware that it was often said that the tariff upon imported goods was of no benefit to the workingmen. He was not a public speaker, and bad never been accustomed to anything of the sort. He worked in the mill and earned his own living by boiling or puddling, and he thought he knew something whereof he spoke. He happened to have been born on the other ide of the Atlantic, and he had worked jn an iron-mill in England for some time, so that h{l could tell the committee from his personal experience how the matter was in free-trade England and how it was ju America. He had worked in England five years in what was known as the Dowlais works. He had been puddling there for five years, and the wages which had been paid to him were about 5s. 6d. a ton, or at the rate of $1.25 for puddling iron. And even at that the men did not get very steady work. At the end of the week, when they got their pay and paid ont of it for their living, there was not very much left to themselve . He wi\S aware that it was ofLen said that living was cheaper in England than in this country, but he denied that statement. He had lived or lodged (as it was called there), paying so much a week for his room, and letting the landlady buy his food for him. He did not live there as workingmen did in this country. For instance, in the morning when he got up to go to work, he got a. cup of tea and a piece of bread and butter. At dinner time he got perhaps a little meat, but not always. He generally mana~;ed to eat meat a.t dinner three or four times a week, hut never except at dinner. ·In the eveniug for tea, as it is called, he sometimes got bread and butter, and, if he wanted to be extra.vagRDt he mjght eat an egg or two, but that was accounted a. gree.t extravagance. In that country women worked in iron-mill!!, and he was sorry to see that they were coming to that same system in this country. The women earned in the Dowlais works about ninepenceaday,orl8cents. They were employed in unloadillg coal and in throwing coal out of the cars, and otherwise doing the coarse work of men. They were paid about 18 cenU! a day. If one of them ~ot a shilling a day it was considered good wages.

He contrasted the condition of affairs in that country under free trade with the condition of things in America; and what did he find? He found that the puddler or the boiler in this country was paid $5.50 a ton. He was aware that in some parts of the country men were working for less than tha.t, but in Pitt-sburgh and west of Pittsburgh they were receiving S5.50 a ton for puddling; and what was the result? The men in the old country got only$L25 per day at the highest average, while here they got $3.25 or $3.50 a day. It occurred to him as an American citizen that it was not right for American law-makers to go to work and say to men who had left England and come to this country, with the intention of benefiting their own condition, that they must now compete with tha.t same system of labor which they had in England. He ventured to say (and he thought the fads would bear him out) that if the proposed tal'iff were enacted into a law, the time was not far distant(ifworkmenhadany work at all here) that they would have to compete with English labor, and would have to live just as workmen lived in the old country. As an American citizen he objected to that. He did not believe that the workingmen of America should be compelled to compete with t·he pauper labor, or the comparatively pauper labor, of England or of any part of Europe. He had a somewhat extensive acquaintance with workingmen in that country. At the Dowlais works, where he had worked, there were employed altogether about 15,000 men, including t·he iron-ore miners, coal-miners, the blast-furnace men, and the men who worked in the mills. And of all that number he did not know more than two or three men who owned their own home.

There is another objection which I have to English free trade. They tell us that whenever a country can not manufacture a certain thing as cheaply as another country can the people should go to agricultural employment. That is the old English doctrine of free trade right along, and I wish to ask what has been the result wherever that has been practiced? Take one instance. Take Ireland, for example. We find that Ireland to-day is exporting, and has been exporting for years, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 tons of produce every day, while her people are starving. A.Hd this is because she has nodiversity of industry. There the people are imply farmers. And if they have got to compete with the cheap labor of Turkey, of India, and of other countries, of course it is impossible for them to live. Every few years they have a famine there and perhaps half a million of their people will die1 and another half million or so have to leave the country in order to save the1r lives. It is the same in the case of Turkey. A little more than two hundred y ears ago Turkey was feared as a nation and the nations of Europe trembled before her. But how did they manage to subdue her'! The English people, I mean the governing classes in England (because the English, generally speaking, have not very much to say in the matter), went to work and by some mea.ns got their good introduced into Turkey at a low rate of duty. Thus, they crushed out all the Turkish manufa-ctures and made Turke y an agricultul'al country, and to-day Lhe Turkish Empire is called the Sick 1\lan. It is only a question of a few years at most until Turkey shall be divided up among other powers of Europe.

:Mr. Williams, continuing, said : Now, Turkey and India are competing with us in England in the way of agri

cultural products, and whatever we send to England from America the price of it is controlled by the price of the same a1·ticle in those countries. If India and Turkey can grow produce cheap and send it to the English market, we have t.o grow it cheaper than they in order to sell our produce. If we want to bring down American workingmen so that they can compete with workingmen in India and Turkey, where 10 cents a day iscons1dered very high wage , I suppose that Congre can pa_ such a measure, but I do not know what the American people will say about it.

Mr . .A. C. White, of Youngstown, Ohio, speaking on the ta.riff ques-tion, said: ·

He believed that, at the present time, any tariff legislation would be injurious to the best interests of the country. The workingmen protested against further action being taken in the matter until the tariff bill of last winter should have been sufficiently tried. It was yet an experiment, and it was not known whether that bill would be for good or for evil. A great many of the workingmen held that the tariff legislation of last winter was unnecessary, uncalled for, and unwise.

They believed that thi country should have a good protective tariff for various reason . T4e workingmen of this country did not desire to be brought down to t.he level of English workingmen. '£hey believed that workingmen, being American citizens, were entitled to all the rights and privileges belonging

l

/

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3831 to them. They had a right to live decently and respectably and t-o be able to c~tbe and educate their children, to send them t-o college and fit them to be members of C<>ugress and Senators, if need be. The workingmen were part of the people, and they believed that legislation should be for the benefit of the people as a whole.

The time had been when it was claimed that a protect.ive tariff was simply legislation for the benefit of a few against the interest of the many. The saying might have been just and true at that time, but at present it was not true. A majority of the States of this country to~ay were iron-producing and iron-manufacturing centers. The iron industry was being built up all over the country. New mills were being put up in different places. In Alabama there was a new iron-mill about to be erected under the auspices of a co-operative society, and there were already two iron-mills there. The workingmen thought that arevision of the tariff at present would necessarily involve a reduction of wages on the 1st of June next, or else would involve a strike. They did not want either.

He further states that if a reduction of the duties should be made a. corresponding reduction of wages would necessarilly follow, and that protection was the great and only efficient guard against oppression. He says: ·

The workingmen of Youngstown did not want to be pressed into a position where they would have to consent to a reduction of the present rate of wages; and certainly the wages would have to come down if there was a change in the tariff laws. He believed, further, that if the rate of wages was lowered so that this country could make iron cheaper than Great Britain, and could export iron to Great Britain, Great Britain would in that case beoome as strong a protectionist as she formally was. If free trade were such a benefit t-o England as it was represented to be, he wanted to know why Englishmen emigrated to this country in such numbers. The Youngstown mills were full of them, and they all declared that they could not exist any longer in England. If free trade was such a blessing there, why did not those men stay there? They had come here to benefit their condition. No man would think of emigratin~ unless he wanted to benefit his condition. C-onversing with English puddlers m Youngstown, he had learned from them that workingmen there lived the life of dogs, and that the common laooring workingman at Youngstown lives better than a puddler in any part of England. _

Of course it was a well-known fact that England was formerly a strong protectionist nation. In the reign of Charles II a law had been passed that no tin

should be imported into that country, but that all tin must be used from the king' s mine so that he would receive royalty. As President Grant once said, in England, whenever that country developed her manufactures and got so that she could compete with all the manufactures of the world, then she laid aside her protectionist principles and established free trade so as to make a market of tbe whole world. He [1\Ir. WHIT.E] thought tliat all the iron and other fabrics consumed in tflis country could be made here, and that foreign importations should be kept out so as to enable them t-o be made here. This country should not be allowed to become a market for English goods. Better iron could be made to-day in Youngstown thancould bemaclein England. All the ores were to be found in this country, and the price of raw material in the ground was the same here as in England. If anything, England had to pay higher prices for the raw material in the ground. If he understood Secretary Swank's report correctly there was not as much iron made here as the cotmtry required. There were three million tons of iron consumed in this country annually, and he be~ lieved that Secretary Swank stated in his report that two and a half million tons of that were manufactured in this country; so that they had to import half a million t-ons in order to meet the requirements of the country. If that quantity had not been imported the making of it would have supplied additional occupation to the workingmen of this country.

As to the question whether protection did protect or not, he would refer to the cotton-tie question. When American manufacturers first went into the cotton-tie industry at Youngstown, the English agents were selling cotton-ties in the South at from 12 to 18 cents a pound. The American manufacturers immediately brought the price down to 4 and 5 and6 cents a pound, as be was told. In order to manufacture 25,000 tons of cott-on-ties, there were 50,000 tons of ore required. The value"ef that in the city of Cleveland was $262,500. There were 37,000 tons of limest-one used in the manufacture of these colton-ties, and 90,000 tons of coal. The laoor in making this quantity of cotton-ties was $45,000,_ and the whole cost of the ties was $538,000. That would give employment to skilled and unskilled laoor-in a mill such as the one be worked in-to 500 men for a year and a half, but they did not make a pound of these cotton-ties in Youngstown now.

It is claimed by some theorists that the coat of living in Europe compared with ours was cheaper, and the purchase-power of a dollar in Europe as compared with ours WaB greater. The following table will demoiLStrate the fact concerning it to some extent, and prove it false:

Comparative retail prices of the necessaries of life in Ewrope and the United States in 1878. [C-ondensed from the report of the Secretary of State on the state oflabor in Europe, derived from faots reported by the United States oonsuls: Washingt-on,l879.]

United States.

Belgium. France. Germany. Italy. Switzerland. Great lJritain.

New York. Chicago.

Beef: Roast ....................... : .................. per pound... SO 20 110 22 110 22 8020 S030 S022

so 18 so 12 to SO 16 S008 to so 12t

C<>rned ................ - ................... per pound... 16 16 13 12 18 to 20 08 to 12 04 to 07 Beans ............................................... per quart... ............... ...... .................. 10 Bread ...................... ....................... per pound... 110 04 to 05 03 SO 03 to fY1

13 .................. 09 fY1 to 10 05 to 09 06 04 oat to 04t 04 to 04t 04 to ~

Butter ·········· ·-·······························Per pound... 20to 50 25 22 Coal. ................................. ........... ........ per ton.......................................... 4 25

28 36 29to 38 25 to 32 16 to 40 1100 .......... ~ ....... 2 65 to 410 300 to 525 300 to 675

Codfish ........................................... per pound .............................................................. . Coffee ..................... ........................ perpound... 30to 40 - 30 35

09 .................. 06 to 08 06 to fY1 05 t-o 09 32 30 28to 50 20 to 30 16 to 40

Eggs ................................ ......... ....... per dozen ... 20to 25 18 20 Flour ...................... .................... ... per pound... ... ...... ...... ...... 04 05l

18 20 14 to 30 25 to 30 10 to 24 03-lto 10 fY1 04t 03 to 04 02tto 04-t

Lard .............................................. per pound... 20 20 21 22 .................. 12to 18 10 t-o 12 06 to 10 Milk ................................................ per quart... .............. ...... .................. 04 fY1 05 05 to 09 08 to 10 03 to 06 Mutton, fore-quarter .......... ............ per pound... 16 16 14l 15 18 16 to 17 09 to 10 05 to 12i Oatmeal. ........................................ per pound... ..................... .................. 03 .................. ·················· oat to 04-j- 04 t-o 05 04 t-o 05 Pork:

Fresh ................................. ........ per pound... 16 14 17 13 18 10 to 16 08 to 10 04 to 05 Salted ......................................... per pound... 16 14 17 18 20 10 to 16 08 to 10 06 to 12 Bacon .......................................... per pound... 18 20 20 22 .................. 12 to 16 08 to 10 fY1 to 12 Sausage ....................................... per pound... 20 16 19 20 .................... 18 08 to 10 06 to 10

Potatoes ......................................... per bushel... 56 50 50 115 60 68 to 200 1 40 to 160 60 to 80 Rice ................................................ per pound.......................................... 09 06 ·················· 03j-to 08 08 - t-o 10 05 to 10 Soap ............................................... per pound... ................... .. ......... . . ....... 10 Sugar .......... .................................. . per pound... 15to 20 .................. 11

04 .................. ootto 09 06 to fY1 03 to 08 08l 08 05tto 10 08 to 10 fY1 to 10

Tea ................................................ per pound... . . . . ..... ...... .. .... .. . ......... ...... 75 ................... 50 43 to 88 50 to 60 25 to 100

In the glass-bottle trade the Association of Bottle Manufacturers and the skilled artisans come to the front on thls issue and declare that it will disturb the market, and the wage prices must be affected by the change. Speaking from the sta.ndpoint of an employer, Mr. Bodine, representing the association of the whole country, said:

That industry was different from the one presented here the other day, although very similar. It differed more in results than in any other particular. The same materials that were employed in the making of cylinder windowglass were also employed with slightly varying proportions in the manufacture of bottles. Up to the time of commencing to convert the glass into shape the processes were similar and almost indentical. When the glass was ready to be worked for window-glass, it was poured into cylinders a nd flattened, and for bottles i t was poured into molds of the desired shape. &> that many of the reasons stated in regard to window-glass applied with l ik e force to the bottle m a nufact urers. The duties on bottle-glass had been advanced unde r the tariff of 1883, and the manufacturers thought that they could show that. there were strong r easons for that ad vance, and that the wonder was now not that the present duty was requisite, but that they had been able to get along with such duty. The industry was one that was well adapted to this country. It consumed almost exclusively the raw materials that existed here and that were widely diffused. It consumed sand and lime and coal and wood and lumber. These were its principal materials. Soda-ash was the only material that was imported, and that was sometimes supplemented by the use of sulphate of soda, a residuum of chemical manufactures which was largely used in the production of windowglass, and to some extent in bottles. This industry, on account of its being so well adapted to the country, had been very early establi bed. It bad been among the earliest ofthema.nufacturesofthiscountry. Without remembering the exact date at which it commenced, he knew that bottle-glass works bad been established in New Jersey as early as 1760. They had continued to grow up to the present time. They had always been protected during the early hist-ory of the country by what would seem to be a high rate of specific duty.

Until1846, under different tariff enactments, the duties had ranged from 1 to $2.25 per gross on bottles of small sizes, and on quarts and over from $2 to $i a

gro s, Under the influence of that protection and of the natural adaptability of the manufacture t-o this country the industry had developed and grown until it was now distributed throughout thirteen States, not being confined to any particular section. There were two furnaces in Massachusetts, two in Connecticut, fifteen in New York, thirty-seven in New Jersey, twenty-six in Pennsylvania (counting both eastern and western portions of that State), three in 1\Iaryland, five in Ohio, one ih Indiana, ten in illinois, two in Kentucky, three in Wisconsin, and five in Mi ouri. The industry had crept so far we tas the Pacific, there being two furnace now in San Franc isco and an additional one building. This made a total of one hundred and thirteen furnaces in the whole United States, with a capacity equal to or exceeding the total consumption of bottle-glass in the United States.

'rhe item of material in the manufacture of glass (in spite of some statements made before the committee) amounted to about40 per cent., of which a large proportion was the laoor in preparing it. The total labor in the m anufacture of bottles, as also in the manufacture of window-gla , represented about 90 per cent. of the cost. This material, being sand in the soil, or coal in the mine, or lime in the rock, or wood in the tree, was little else but labor before it was ready for the use of glass manufacturers. He repeated that the material in the production of glass was about 40 per cent. of the cost, and that of that 4U per cent. 65 per cent. was labor in preparing the raw material and taking it out of the earth. The direct laoor in the manufacture of bottle-glass wa.., about60 per cent., of which 33 per cent. was skilled labor and the remaining 27 per cent. ordina-rily unskilled labor. These figures had been ascertained carefully and in detail. They were facts that were known, and were not there ult of any theory.

There was no machinery employed in the making of bottles. Nothing but hand labor was used. The American bottle manufacturers could not have, and did not desire t-o have, the same prices for laoor that existed in Europe; but they must have a rate of duty to compensate for the difference in wages between the two countries, or the American industry would be destroyed.

There were greater reasons for a high duty now than ever before. In the early history of the country, when imports and exports were carried on in sailing vessels, and when the time occupied in ordering and receiving goods was considerable, the distance and delay amounted to a practical protection. All of that protection was now obliterated. The exports from this country being


heavy (mainly agricultural products), the steamers that took out those exports brought back freight at low rates. The average rate of freight from Antwerp to New York or Philadelphia was as low or lower than that from a furnace in New Jersey, or New York, or Pittsburgh to Chicago. At the pre ent time contracts for freight for soda-ash were usually made upon a basis of lOs. per ton, whereas, ten or fifteen years ago, these contracts were upon a basis of 20s. a ton. Goods could be ordered from Europe now by cable, and could arrive in this country by steamer at as low a cost for •transportation as they could be sent from furnaces in this country to the principal di tributing points.

The pre ent rate of duty of 1 cent per pound was an advance upon the duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem as it existed before the act of 1883. The great necessity of thi industry to have a rate th11;t would prot~ct it ag~instcompeting_labor on the other side had never been pomted out until last wmter, and then 1t was recognized and received consideration . . It was difficult to state exactly what this rate of 1 cent per pound was equivalent to, ad valorem. The Tr.easury statistic did not keep the imports of bottles separated from other kmds of glassware. But, from the custom-house entries in New York, it had been found that the highest rate of duty on bottles was about 65.6 per cent. on the larger bottles, while that on smaller sizes would run to about half that duty. So that, with a difference of 270 per cent. in the cost of labor, the American manufacturers were competing, under the present tariff, with only a duty of about 66 per cent. He was utterly unable to account for their inability to compete under those circumstances. The necessity of this rate of duty was shown by the fact that sin_ce the passage of the tariff a-ct of 1883,40 per cent. of the furnaces in the United States which went out of operation at the usual period (the latter part of June) had not yet resumed operations, and could not resume, because bottles could be imported under the present tariff at a price which left no profit to the American manufacturer to make them.

The imports of bottles had become very large within the last four or five years and in 1881 they. had reached a considerable amount; but in the year 1882 the imports had more than doubled those ofl881. This was piLitlybecause of the establishment of a new indu try in the We t, which made a very large demand for bottles of a certaib kind-lager-beer bottles, which were used by all brewers, of the same kind. This made a large demand for a single article, giving an inducement to the importers to reach that trade, and making it easy for consumers to import., and making it an object for them to import bottles. This beer-bottle industry had grown within the last half-dozen years from about two hundred and fifty gross per annum of new bottles (besides the refilling of old ones) until now it required from ten to fifteen furnaces to keep up the supply. The beer-bottling industry had commenced under the old tariff, and it had grown a.nd flourished as probably no other industry had grown and flourished in so short a period. Of course it was natural that the bottlers of beer should seek to purchase their bottles in the cheapest market, and they had commenced to give their orders abroad.

The imports in 1882 were double what they had been in 1881, and since then they had been still growing. Not only had the change had this effect in regard to this single description of bottles, but foreign manufacturers had had their attention directed to the consumption of bottles in this country, and had gone from the beer bottle into a great many other lines of bottles, so that it would require but a short time before all large consumers of bottles in this country would send their orders abroad unless the present duty were continued. This etl'ect was known and apprehended, and the evidence of it existed. They had seen during the past year bottled importations in a great many lines in which there bad never before been importations. And yet the tariffactof1883 did not give such a rate of duty on bottles when filled as corresponded with the rate on bottles when empty; but the manufacturers had submitted to it thinking that it was the best they could get, and that that was a portion of the trade which would have to be let go. Natural mineral water was now being imported in bottles free of duty, and under cover of that clause bottles labeled natural mineral water were filled with common water. After they came to this country the water was poured out and the bottles re old. No le s than 80,000 of ginger-ale bottles had been imported into the cityofNewYorkwithin the last six months. It was admitted on a duty of 20 per cent., with no extra. duty on the bottles.

He wa not here to urge a change of that rate, not knowing that there was any disposition in that direction, but it was right for him to mention the fact that American bottle manufacturers were seriously injured by this low rate of duty on filled bottles. These bottles were all used over again. The a.pollinaris bottle was practically a beer bottle. Another natural mineral water (he forgot the name) was imported in a. claret bottle, and the whole effect of it had been to transfer to the other side the bottling of all liquids that could be imported in that way.

'.fhe duty on bottles did not operate to the injury of the consumers generally. The developed industry of the country in bottles, being equal to the total consumption of the country, had so created competition that the prices now (without respect to the foreign article and on bottles which were not imported) were as low or lower than they had been in 1860; so that the manufacturers having establi hed the industry, and the con umers having the benefit of the competition of that established industry, it required no consideration to see that with one hundred and thirteen different furnaces scattered through thirteen States the prices could never be very high.

In view of this statement showing the enormous difference in labor with which the American bottle-maker had to compete, and as they had never had any advance under the tariff of 1861 except a small 5 per cent. up to 1883, and as the present rate was below the rate of similar goods in the tariff, he trusted that the bottle manufacturers would not be subjected to any decreased rate of duty.

On the circular letter presented to the committee from glass dealers in several of the large cities along the Eastern coast, Mr. Bodine replied as follows:

PHILADELPHIA, March 1, 1884. To tlle honorable the Committee on Ways and Means, '

House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0.: The manufacturers of green and bla-ck bottle-glass respectfully ask your at

tention to the incorrect and misleading statements in the paper presented by the" bottlers and merchants," dated New York, February 1, 1884.

As verbally stated to your committee, the duty on green-glass bottles, not having been advanced in186linproportion to other manufactures, was changed by the last Congress to correct the di parity.

Hand-labor only being employed in the manufacture, and also in the preparation of materials (which are mainly crude and native), justifies as high a duty as on any goods.

The cost of imported bottles, given in the bottlers' statements alluded to, shows a misstatement of the rate of duty of,from 10 to 15 percent. (i. e.,l cent per pound on 216 pounds per gross equals 69 to 70 per cent. duty on cost of$3.09).

If the duty is estimated on the valuation from the New York custom-house entries at $3.40 per gross, on a weight of216 pounds (which is over the average), the duty amounLs to the equivalent of 63t per cent. ad valorem.

For smaller size, lighter-weight bottles, the duty amounts to a. very much smaller per cent. ad valorem.

This duty is not" nearly prohibitory," as stated. Large imports continuing under the prel'lent duty of 1 cent per pound, and 40

per cent. of all the furnaces in the country standing idle, clearly show that the cost of importing must be less than the cost of manufacturing.

"Ample protection to American labor" can certainly not be expected by a

duty of 30 per cent. ad val01:em, because official documents show (see statement below from State Department's report on manufacture of glass in Europe, No. 99, March, 1883, page 402) that wages in countries with which we compete are but one-third the rate, either for unskilled or skilled labor, paid in the United States.

"Packing expenses, inland freight, marine insurance, and sea freights" do not cost, as asserted, about 40 to 45 per cent. additional. The cost of packing is distinctly included in their statement, and the inland freights are also included in the price given as foreign co t. ·

"Sea freights," because of low rates as ballast (now about 7s. 6d., and average lOs., per ton by steamer), are. less fr.om Europe than fro!l). the nearest factory in New Jersey to New York city.

Exports of bottles are not increasing largely, as stated. Treasury statistics include under one head all kinds of" glassware," and ex

ports are increasing only of table flint and not of bottle-glass. Export of table glassware is by reason of a system of working with presses,

by which the cost is greatly reduced. Thi system amounts to the use of machinery, which can not be applied in the manufacture of bottles.

The exports of bottles are confined almost exclusively to those filled with beer, fruits, &c. Export of beer bas been developed in American bottle , when prices were far higher than pre ent rates, and are rendered profitable, because of cheap grain, fruits, &c., and can well afford, as heretofore, to use American bottles.

''Extravagant prices by manufacturers," as asserted, are not reconcilable with the large number of manufacturers competing for the trade, the capacity of the bottle factories in the United States being greater than the largest consumption.

We therefore urge your honorable committee against any change in the duty upon bottles from the specific rate of 1 cent per pound.

No lower duty will permit manufacture here of large classes of bottles, the importation of which is large under the present duty, and has recently more than doubled the usual annual amount.

F. L. BODINE, In behalf of the NtJ.titmal Vial and Botae Manufacturers' Association.

Mr. William Manks, of Millville, N. J., an appointed representative of the Glass-Workers' Association of the Eastern Division of the Trade, covering all west of the Alleghany Mountains, made the following statement: Hon. T. M. FERRELL:

The agitation of a reduction of the tiLiiffbyCongress has caused considerable alarm in this State during the past few months, and still continues to be a source of uneasiness among working people. To the working people any reduction of the tariff would result in very serious injury. But such a. large reduction as that proposed by the Morrison bin would be disastrous in the extreme to all of the manufacturing industries of our State, and particularly to the glass-manu-facturing interests. To the latter it :would be ruinous. .

I need not say to you that the prosperity of the southern part of New Jersey is due in a very large degree to the glass-manufacturing interests. This you know. The inexhaustible beds of sand would still continue, untouched by the hand of industry, were it not melted into glass, giving remunerative employment to thousands, and sending out throughout the whole country the product of this sand after it had been worked into window-lights, bottles, and beautiful ornaments by the skill of the artisan and the mechanic, consuming large quantities of the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, and contributing to the geneml prosperity of the country by not only consuming large quantities of manufactured goods but also making the farmers a good market for products of their lands.

But what I more particularly desire to call your attention to is that part of the glass business relating to bottles and vials. There has been a great effort made by interested parties to make the impression that glass bottles are overprotected, and had become a monopoly, the capitalists making immense profits, and the workmen receiving no benefit from the protection of the tariff. The question is asked by the advocates of low tariff: How is it that the tariff on glass bottles being largely increased a year ago, the manufacturers of these bottles a few months afterward demanded a reduction of the blowers' wages of 20 per cent.? This is true; the demand was made, but the blowers have successfully resisted the demand, and most of the factories are in operation or soon will be, without any reduction of wages; and it was this increase of the tariff that enabled the e blowers to successfully resent the reduction demanded. Had bottles from Europe come into the country, and sold at the low price which 30 per cent. ad valorem would have enabled importers to have sold them, the fall ~o~~~;~b~~ ::&e::.ould have been inevitable, and to have resisted it

Gla s m·anufacturers are the same as other business men-they purchase as cheaply as they can, and their profits being increased ever so much by high tariff would not induce them to increase the wages of their employes unless they were compelled to do so. But tariff protection will give the employers such profits that their employes can compel them to give their wages in accordance with the profits they receive on their goods, the product of their labor. This can be accomplished by organized labor, and glass-blower striker , both window-light and bottle, demonstrate it. I freely admit the wages of the working people are very low, but any reduction of the tariff would only reduce them still more. The legislation needed to give them more wages is to encourage organization among them, thereby increasing their re istance power to the rapacity of the unscrupulous manufacturers. By low tariff you decrease the re istance power, and put the poor employe at the mercy of the employer.

The general public is in no way benefited by the low price of bottles; perhaps a few hundred beer-brewers would make a little by it, but the consumers, the beer-drinkers, would pay the same for their drinks were the bottles sold to the brewers for half the amount they pay now. Patent-medicine manufacturers make enormous profits, and the co t of thE'> bottles is not a consideration upon the price charged for the medicine, and with the exception of fruit-jars the general public have very little interest in the price of bottles. The reduction of tariff on bottles would bring ruin upon a. number of industriou , u eful, and patriotic citizens, with no corresponding good to any, except a few beer-bottlers and patent-medicine makers. The increase in the tariff at the last ession of Congress was only on bottles, as stated above. On the general druggist ware there was very little increase on any, and on some of the ware the tariff is lower than before. The change from an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. to a specific duty of 1 cent per pound really is no increase in the tariff when all the different weights and gra-des are taken into consideration, but only a change better adapted to the glass trade. Where we are in strong competition with the low wages of Europa, as in the case of beer-bottles and wine-bottles, the present tariff is adopted to protect, while upon small drug ware, where very little protection is needed, the duty is very low. It is folly to say that the tariff on bottles was adopted without proper consid

eration. On the contrary, it was there ult of mature deliberation by those who understood the wants and necessities of the glass-blowers in the country. It is not true that the present tariff on glass is prohibitory in its operation. On the contrary, a number of large bottling e ta.blishments in Milwaukee and other sections of the country import all the bottles they use, and a large importing business is canied on by jobbers in New York and other large cities. At least · one-fourth of all the wine, beer, and those grades of bottles sold and used in

\

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3833 this country are imported, and the proportion is still greater on carboys, demijohns, &c. These foreign bottles are used not because they are superior in quality, for it is admitted that they are inferior in wo1·k.manship, but because they can be obtained at a lower price than American-made bottles. The greater reason that foreign bottles can be sold in our markets at a lower price than those made in lhis country is on account of the difference in the price of labor in the two countries. A reduction of tariff is a reduction in the wages of labor to the extent of that tariff reduction, or the stoppage of all glass-factories engaged in the bottle manufaeture. The freight on bottles is very little protection, and should not be brought into the account, as these bottles are heavy, and are shipped in most cases merely as ballast, very little freight being charged.

But it is charged that the glass-blowers' wages are too high. There is a wrong impression in the country in reference to glass-blowers' wages. The newspapers have published exaggerated statements of la.rg&wuges made by them. A few very skilled ones have made high wages, but the average wages of druggist gla s-blowers, as will be seen by reference to the tati tics of the labor bureau, is very little above 1,000 per year, about $3.50 per day, and this average will be decreased this year, as a better quality is demanded for the same price than ever before. Add to this that glass-blowers all work piecework, and thereby are given inducements to exert themselves to their utmost to perform a large amount of work, so as to increase their wages, so much so that many of them have exerted themselves beyond their power of endurance, and the consequence has been loss of health and an early grave. If glass-blowers worked as other tradesmen do, and as they would work if not on piecework, at $2 per day, the blowing of bottles would cost the manufacturers more th::tn it does now. Of course it inust be understood that I am speaking of the average, and including the two months in the year when the factories necessarily are out on account of the weather being too hot to blow, and the necessity of building new furnaces. In certain localities the wages would be more than this, but this would not affect the average.

The farmer, too, would be a great loser by a reduction of the tariff in Southern New Jersey. He has a good market for all his products at these manufacturing cities and towns at better prices than he could obtain in the larger cities, which enables him, besides receiving better remuneration for himself, to pay his farm hands better wages. The argument that the price of grain will not be afiected by a reduction of the tariff is a false one. The grain farmers of the whole country in the future must look to a home market more than ever before. India is looming up as the great grain country in the world, notwithstanding the immense quantities of grain held in the West for higher prioos, yet the prices remain down in London, because the supply is drawn from India, and the grain farmers from this country will hereafter compete in London with the low wages paid for farming in India, and the day is not far distanb when our farmers will be driven out of Europe, and even be compelled to compete with ·the poorer wage-farming of India in the United States House. Their interests lie in encouraging manufactures, so as to give them a home market.

The idea that some Congressmen entertain, that we can have cheap goods by flooding our country with imported ones and still maintain good wages, is preposterous. Our goods have been and will continue to be cheapened by the introduct.ion of labor-saving machinery into our factories and the increased skill and inventive genius of our mechanics, and the price of labor will not be decreased thereby, for as the price is lessened consumption will increase the demand for labor, and thus keep up the wages. But cheap goods through foreign importations must of a necessity cheapen the ~rice of labor. Do we want cheap labor? I think not. In the name of the labormg people, of which I am one, I solemnly protest against this low-tariff cheap-labor legislation. If cheap labor is the best policy for the prosperity of the country, then go back to slavery or import the Chinese by the millions. They, by living on rats and mice, can afford to work cheap enough, but if we do so let us stop all our boasting about the glory and greatness of our country, when the great mass, the laboring people, are reduced, so far as the luxuries and comfort of life are concerned, to the condition of slaves. The agitation of tariff reduction injures the manufacturing interests.

\Vhen Congress, through the Ways and Means Commit.tee, commenced an adjustment of the revenue, manufacturers paused; they would not take the work of working stock while there existed any possibility of a reduction of duties, hence the lockouts, strikes, &c., and the large number of working people who have been idle during the past few months, and this state of affairs will continue until this revenue question is permanently settled. If it is settled in the decisive defeat of the l\1orrison bill, and the country can feel that there will be no further danger of a tariff reduction, the former prosperous condition of the country will be resumed, and if the laboring people will thoroughly organize themselves they can command their share of wages which a protective tariff should give them.

I am, most respectfully, yours, WILLIAl\:I 1\I. l'tiANKS.

One of the claims advanced for free trade is that the farmers of the country want it. This is a mere supposition, and the facts .fuil to bear out the further assumption that the protection given to manufuctures is fatal to the values of agricultm:e. Mr . .Joseph Nimmo, jr. in an able article in the North American Review on ''American manufacturing interests," says:

Contemporaneously with the increase in the value of products .of manufacture, from $1,&>5,8Gl,G16 in lotiO to ~,&69,579,191 in 1880, there was an increase in the acreage of land in farms from 407,000,000 acres itt 1860 to 536,000,000 acres in 1880, an increase of 32 per cent., and an increase in the value of farms of from $6,645,045,007 in 1860 to ~"10,197,096,776 in 1880, or 53 per cent.

The importance of manufactures to agriculture is indicated by the following facts in regard to the value of products of agriculture consumed in this country and exported to foreign countries: The total value of the products of agriculture in 1880, as before stated, amounted to about S3,600,000,000, this being the value on the farm. The farm value of the exports of products of agriculture during the year ending June 30, 1880, amounted, however, to only about $500,-000,00U, showing that !SO per cent. of the total value of products of agriculture wn.s consumed in the United States, and that only 14 per cent. was exported to foreign countries. In other words, the quantity consumed at home was six times that sent abroad.

It is a. self-eviuent truth that these great industries are so intimately connected with each other that the one can not exist without the presence of the other.

lVIr. J. R. Dodge. statistician of the Agricultural Department, in his observations on this subject, says:

The influence of manufactures, of mining, of any productive industries on local prices, whether of farms, or farm products, or farm labor, is plainly traceable in States, and in various districts within the tates, by the furnace fires, the mines, the factories that thickly dot the locat,ion where high prices for farm labor prevail.

Again, he says: The reflex influence of lllilnufactures and mining would accomplish more for

agriculture than the most persi tent direct efforts for the improvement of agriculture.

We also :findintheStateswhichcontainlargemanufacturinginterests

that the price of labor and land are · much higher than in those States where people are not occupied in II.liQnufactures. On this point Mr. Dodge says:

In lSiO, when wages and prices generally were high, the average wages o farm labor in the first or manufacturing class of States was $34, while in the last, exclusively agricultural, class it was but $15. When the panic came, and years of manufacturing depression followed. mechanics and artisans competed with farm laborers and reduced the price of rural labor. It is a fact that prices at different times furnish an accurate measure both of the industrial status of the laborers and the prosperity of the great industries of the country.

Showing conclusively that in _proportion to the success of the industry interests so likewise prospers those of agriculture.

If these observations are correct, and I think they are, this great industry, which is at the foundation of our nation's success, should demand that the raid made on manufactures should cease.

The product of our farms last year and their value, together with the number of persons employed thereby, showing the vast proportions that this interest represents, coupled with that of our manufucturing industries, should cause us to halt and more carefully consider this question before we strike at its life, as this bill proposes, by a horizontal reduction.

The product of our farms last year in stock raised of all kinds was $2,332,915,268, in grain and hay the value was 1,933,956,395, making an aggregate of $4,296,871,663, employing 7, 670,493 people of all classes of labor; of these 3,323,876 were what is known as farm hands, the balance being the farmers. Therefore the joint product of the farm is $4,29fj,871,663,andofthemanufactnringestablishments 5,369,579,191, making an aggregate total of $9,666,450,854 from farm and manufacturing employments.

To sum up the whole argument, I do not want cheap goods if I am to have them by the robbery of the laborer of his lawful and just wages.

I do not want any change in the tariff duties on imports that will discriminate in favor of foreign manufactured articles as against the American industries and its laborers.

I do not want a change that will impoverish our farm laborers. I want a tariff that will protect labor as well as capital, and prevent

free trade in the one and protection in the other, as it now exists. I want a condition of things to exist which·will make it unnecessary

for the employer and the employe to constantly meet each other on the :field ofbattle; and I want to see thedaywhen laborwillbe recognized and its legitimate rights protected along with capital.

Bnt permit me to repeat my qnery, Who asks for this legislation so fatal to the people? Does itcomefrom the greatindustrial and manufacturing States of the country? Does it come from Connecticut with its 4,488 establishments, and an invested capital of$120,480,275, with 103,000 employes, who receive annually over $43,000,000 for wages? Does it come from Rhode Island with its 2,205 establishments, and a capital of over $75,000,000, with its 62,000 employes, who receive annually over $21,000,000 in wages? Or from Massachusetts with its 14,352 establishments, and invested capital of over $303,000,000, with its 352,254 employes, who receive annually over $128,000,000 in wages? Is it heard from New York with 42,739 establishments and an invested capital of $514,246,575, with its 531,533 employes, receiving annually $198,634,029 for wages, or from Pennsylvania, with its 31,232 establishments and an invested capital of $474,510,993, with its 387,072 employes, who receiv..e annually $134,055,904 in wages? Does it come over from illinois, with its 14,549 establishments and an invested capital of over $140,000,000, with its 144,727 employes, who teceive annually over $57,000,000 in wages, or from Ohio, with its 20,699 establishments and an invested capital of 189,000,000, with its 183,000 employes, who receive annually over $62,000,000 for wages? Does New .Jersey call for it, with her 7,128 establishments and an invested capital of over $106,000,000, with its 126,000 employes, who receive annually over $46,000,000 in wages? In other word&, do the manufactories of the country at large, North, South, East, and West, compri ing in the aggregate 253,852 establishments, and whose united capital covers $2,790,272,606, and employes 2,732,595, representing over 10,000,000 of our people, who receive through these channels of trade 947,953,795 for their labor, and who e joint product in value reMhes the enormous sumof$5,369,579,191, demand free trade? It is none of these.

I have referred in my remarks to-day to the faet that the legal profession represented upon this :fioorweregiven to much theorizing upon this question from a very lofty plane. Noticeable among these is my friend from Michigan [Mr. YAPLE], who finds the boundaries of this sublunary sphere a.ll too small wherein to furnish an argument. for free trade and its attendant blessings, as he woulu term them; he appeals to the Higher Power and declares that God himself is a free-trader.

The gentleman is mistaken. It is not the Lord of Hosts who is a free-trader, but another inhabitant of the other world, the gentleman in black, who presides over the lower regions. It is not 1he great Creator of the universe, the Divine Manufacturer of the machinery of this world and the grander system of the infinite, who is a free-trader. While He is the free giver of all earthly and hC!l.venly goou. He ia Hs everlasting protector and the·b1ghest results and fullest returns are assured to his people by the tariff of repentance and faith which he h:ls laid.

The gentleman has impiously ascribed the attributes and evils of


free trade to the great Jehovah. Like the brand of Cain, they have always been the distinguishing mark of Beelzebub since he fell from Paradise to the place which Ingersoll says is not. The Prince of Darkness is the original free-trader, as my friend from Michigan may ascertain by turning to the fourth chapter of Matthew, the eighth and ninth verses. Lucifer revels in the free trade of souls and the chaos of evil it produces in this world, and is ceaseless in his efforts to reduce the rates in his infernal trade. He offers in free exchange his vast commodities of sin, and over his wide-open gates my friend may read, "Free traffic here and no protection." In this free-list he counts his unholy gains. The gentleman should revise his knowledge of the Bible and the memories which are said to cluster around a mother's knee.

Why should we change? The people want none of the so-called blessings provided so liberally in this bill, blessings which turn toDeadSea fruit in the hands of the laborer and blight the enterprise of the employer.

What we want is the whir of machinery, the music of the spindle, the thunder of the locomotive, t.he din of the forge, and the roar of the blast-furnace; and let them be commensurate in their strength, importance, and value with the broad domain which year by year they are developing into the grandest country upon the globe, and should not be disturbed by the agitation of this question at the convening of every Congress.

Ofthose who succeed in stilling this tempest, in quelling this agitation, and in bringing peace and quiet and content to our distracted business, it may be said as Abou Ben Adhem besought the angel to write of him: We pray thee, then, write us as those who love our fellowmen.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee. [See Appendix.]

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill now under consideration, not because I am opposed to revenue _reform or a proper revision of the tariff, but because this bill is not in the direction of either.

The tariff bill of 1883, pas...~ in the hurry and excitement of the closing days of the Forty-seventh Congress, is full of inconsistencies and inequalities; it needs revision; and !would unhesitatingly vote for any measure that looked to the curing of its defects. But, 1t1r. Chairman, this bill attempts nothing of the kind. It looks not to a reform or revision of the present tariff, but to a reduction of revenue and ''wartariff taxes" by a horizontal reduction of 20 per cent. . It takes the tariff of 1883, with all its gross inequalities a.nd inconsistencies, and makes a general paring down, leaving the irregularities to stand. And we are told that this is but the first of a series of reductions that are to be hereafter made. If the authors of the bill now before the House succeed in their efforts another reduction of 20 per cent. will be attempted in the next Congress. And this avowal explains the rea,l object sought to be attained by the advocates and friends of the bill. They are opposed not only to a protective tariff but to a tariff for revenue as well. They will consent to nothing but a tariff for revenue only, which in my opinion is only another name for free trade.

Have we not heard it declared time and time again that free trade was the international law of the Almighty, and have not the advocates of tbis bill on the floor of this House during the present session declared openly and boldly for a policy that would give us free trade with the nations of the earth? This bill is but the first step in the direction of free trade, and if such step be taken another will surely follow unless the people in their wisdom, watchful of their interests and jealous of their rights, repudiate and condemn at the polls the a~tion thus taken.

ll.r. Chairman, I wish it distinctly understood that I am not in favor of a tariff for protection as I am not in favor of a tariff for revenue only. A tariff for protection is a tariff laid, in my opinion, without warrant or authority of law, and while I do not intend to argue the legal ques~ tion involved in this statement, I will simply say that the only power given to Congress by the Constitution in the matter of laying a tariff is that contained in the eighth section of article 1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. ·

Nothing in this section confers any power on Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, or excises for the mere purpose of protecting industries. The power conferred is, as the section plainly says, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. I t bas been claimed by the advocates of protective tariff that the power to lay such a tariff is conferred by the "general welfare'' clause, but I apprehend the number of persons is not large who seriously make such a claim to-day. A tariff for protection, laid without regard to the amount of revenue required -by the Government, is not only unauthorized and unconstitutional, but it tends dil:ectly to build up gigantic co1-pora.tions and powerful monopolies. It assists in the creation of an aristocratic and privileged class and has not for its object the protection of American labor and the elevation of American laborers. Under such a tariff I will admit that American labor is protected to a certain extent, but the protection given is only an incident a.nd of uncertain duration.

It has been customary in certain quarters whenever a proposition looking to the revision of the tariff has been made to cry out that our industries were endangered, that our mills and shops were to be closed, that our furnaces were to be blown out and American labor ruined. The cry is never made by the organs of the overgrown corporations of the country that American manufacturers and capitalists are to be injured by a reduction of tariff duties. Oh, no, these self-constituted friends and advocates of the laboring men of the land would have us believe that t-hey think only of the latter's interest and are opposed to tariff revision, because they assume· to say that such a proceeding would reduce their wages. And this hypocrisy and deceit by which laboring men have been hoodwinked and gulled in this countryforsomanyyears has had its effect. The great body of men who toil and labor ha.ve been content in years gone by to accept without questioning the statements made by the advocates of corporate monopolies, and they have allowed themselves to think that a high protective tariff was made and continued for their particular benefit, and that the manufadurers and capitalists of the land were a disinterested lot of men who invested their money a.nd carried on their large establishments chiefly for the benefit and adva.ncementoftbelabor, skilled and unskilled, of the country. Why, it is only a few years ago that in many portions of the country an attempt to talk to a body of workingmen in favor of a reduction of duties or a revision of the tariff would be like waving a red flag in the face of a mad bull.

But, Ur. Chairman, a. new era is dawning. The laboring men and mechanits are beginning to think seriously upon this tariff question. They are studying it as they never studied it before, and they begin to see what others have seen for a. long time, that a high protective tariff is not a pana<Jea for all their woes.

The following deliverance by the employ~ of the silk-factories of Paterson, N. J., is in point. They say:

No matter what the tariff was, the working class received no benefit from it; their wages were neither advanced when the tariff was increased, nor were they reduced when it was lowered· their condition is worse every day, while the manufacturers have all got rich, built mansions, drive fancy turn-outsJ extend and beautify their mills, and live a life of luxury, all on the strength ot the protective tariff, which is supposed to benefit employe and employer alike, and which, in fact, only benefits the latter.

They said they expected the abolition of the tariff would lower their wages, but there would be other advantages that would make up for it, in the shape of cheaper clothing and food, and consequently lower rates. There would be less money in circulation, but they could get more for their money than at the present time.

These men undoubtedly make a. mistake whe.Jl they ad vocate the abolition of the tariff. They propose to "jump from the frying-pan into the fire,'' but the position they have taken simply shows t.he extremity into wbich they have been driven by the harsh and unjust exactions of a high protective tariff. They speak the-simple trnth, however, when they say ''their wages were neither advanced when the tariff was increased, nor were they reduced when it was lowered." Take the case of the iron and steel workers, and we will find the cbv,rge sustained. Bessemer steel rails were not manufa~tured in the United States a-nd put upon the market until1867. In 1870 Congress placed a duty on imported rails of $28 per ton. The price of steel rails, which in 1868 was $17 4 per ton, constantly decreased until1878, when the highest price was $43.50. The production of the home manufacturers during that year amounted to 499,817 tons, the largest amount produced in any one year up to that time. The price of English rails in that year in currency was $25. With the duty and freightage added, the price in New York was $60. In 1879 there was an increased demand for steel rails, and the price was raised by the American manufacturers from $43.50 to $67.

The production that year was 618,851 tons. Owing to the demand . for steel rails, the English manufacturers had raised the price of their productions from $25 to $35 per ton. This, with the duty and freightage added, made the price, delivered in New York, $70. Our manufacturers took advantage of the high tariff then existing to raise the price of the home product, as I have stated. They reaped a rich harvest, but the wages of the men were not increased.

In the recent report by the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on the operations of the taxiff act, page 17, it is said:

During the year ended June 30,1881, the average price of steel rails at works in Eastern Pennsylvania. was $61.25 per ton. The cost of English steel rails at the port of New York was during that year about $61.50 per ton.

This is shown as follows: Per ton.

Cost "free on board" at English ports........................... . ......................... $30 50 Fl·eight ... ...... ................................................................. , ............................ 3 00 Duties...................................... .................................................................. ... 28 00

G1 5()

In 1880 sldlled labor at the mills in Eastern Pennsylvania was paid an average rate of 1. 9 per day and common or unskilled 11-bor $1.02 per day. I believe the rate of wages paid at present has not materially changed from what it was in 1880, and yet steel rails manufactured in Ea.<;tern Pennsylvania are selling to-day for $35-$26.50 less than in 1881. The question therefore present'3 itself: '' WhoTeceived the benefits of the t ariff of S2 on steel rails in 1881-the men who labored in the mills or the manufacturers?" Undoubtedly the latter. And yet, Ur. Chairman, the advocates of a high protective tariff say that such a tariff is necessary in order to protectAmerican labor. That the duty on steel rails prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, was too

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3835 high was admitted bytheTariffCommissioners. In theirreportmade to the Forty-seventh Congress, on page 18, they say:

The commission has given special consideration to the question of th~ tariff ~m steel rails .. The present duty has served its purpose in a protective sense; it 1s now excessive and should be reduced.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said in the early part of my remarks, that a high protective tariff, laid for the sole purpose of protection and without -regard to the wants and needs of the Government, tends directly to build up an aristocratic and favored class and to foster monopolies. It makes the rich richer and the poor poo:rer, for yon can not build up an army of millionaires and give into their keeping the financial affairs of the country without making poor and dependent the vast army of toilers of the land. We see the evidences of this fact wherever we turn. Look at Pennsylvania to-day, with her vast number of poor and almost helpless laborers. In my own district, Ur. Chairman, rich as it is in its immense beds of anthracite coal and filled as it is with iron anQ. steel mills, blast-furnaces, locomotive works, silk fa<-1ories, and manufacturing establishments of almost every kind-in that district, where a high protective tariff has had every opportunity to show its peculiar merits and to demonstrate its benign influence in behalf of American labor, poverty walks abroad and looks into the homes of the mechanics, miners, and laboring men, while wealth sits enthroned in the luxurious homes of the manufacturer and capitalist.

What, Mr. Chairman, baa a high protective tariff done for the laboring men of Eastern Pennsylvania? For the past few years it has secured to the unskilled laborer a rate of wages equal to $1 per day. It has given the coal-minersofLackawannaand Luzerne Counties employment three days in each week, and has afforded them an income from their labor just about large enough to keep soul and body together. I may be met here with the statement that the protective tariff has nothing to do with the mining of anthracite coal, but let me say in answer to that that the men engaged in the protected manufactures in Northeastern Pennsylvania, are the monopolists who control almost wholly the entire anthracite coal business of the State. In their desire to aid, protect, and guard the ''interests of American labor'' in the section I speak of they have pursued for years the plan of encouraging and stimulating immigration to such an extent that nowthennmberoflaborersaskin~forworkexceeds the demand, and as a resnl t those who do work are kept on ''half-time '' and starvation wages. Their policy, deliberately marked out and pursued, bas brought a swarm of Hungarian and other cheap labor into the State, and the ''American laborers '' for whom they have aJ. ways claimed to .feel such deep solicitude are compelled in many places to compete on American soil with the so-called pauper labor of Europe.

Thus, while a high protective tariff, laid ostensibly in the interest of American labor, has served the purpose of building up great corporations and putting fortunes in the pockets of manufacturers and capitalis~, the benefits that might have accrued to the mechanic and laborer have been neutralized and almost entirely taken away by the action of these very manufacturers and capitalists in importing pauper labor to compete with the intelligent labor of our country. The cl~im of the manufacturers constantly made that they desire a protective tariff in in order that American labor may be protected is a sham and a fraud. They have imported by contract hundreds and thousands of the pauper laborers of Europe, and in my State have set them to work at a rate of wages averaging 60 cents per day. American lallorers who formerly did the work now given to the HW1garians have been driven from the mines and shops because of their inability to compete with this pauper Ja.bor. .

We are constantly met with the charge that the failure to give steady employment to labor results from overproduction. We hear frequently that the market is overstocked with coal, iron, steel, &c., and that a suspensionofwork for a time becomes, therefore, a necessity. I charge that overproduction in my State is brought about by the deliberate action of the corporations. A system, deliberately devised and steadily pursued for years by the corporations of Eastern Pennsylvania has led to the immigration of thousands of Europeans, whose labor was not required. Coal breakers, iron mills, and manufacturing establishments have been erected, and these immigrants put at work. The result in the anthracite coal-fields has been that for the past two or three years the men have worked ''half time '' and for small wages.

The wages paid them is just about sufficient to support themselves and families, and they are thus kept in a condition of almost helplessness. Living from day to day, and never having "anything ahead," the! are not in a condition to effectively protest against the tyranny of tberr employers. .As was said to me by one of the leading merchants of Scranton a few weeks ago, "The companies have the men where they want them-under their thumbs; it is a great wrong and ought to be remedied.''

. Inde:pendentj?urnalis_m is destined to do a great deal of good in the d1scuss1on of thlB question. One of the hopeful signs of the times in my section is the advent of the independent journal. Released from partysha.ckles and ring domination it can speak honestly and fearlessly upon all great questions. The Scranton Truth, an independent evening paper, in its issue of April 30, 1884, contained the following:

PROTECT LABOR AS WELL AS CAPITAL.

The i_mportation of <leg~ded pauper labor into the industrial valleys of Pennsylvarua by the monopolists who are so clamorous for a protective tariff does

not harmonize with their ostentatious professions of friendship for the laboring man. If the doctrine of protection be right it should be adjusted so as to protect the mechanic as well as the millionaire, and sustain "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work," as well as to keep up reasonable p1·ofits on invested capital. A'ny system o f protection that fails to do this is a delusion and does not deserve the support of the people.

·we believe in a protective tariff that will keep the honest workingman from. penury, enable him to support and educate his family, and live comfortably in a home suited to his modest needs. Until this is done it would be absurd to boast about the benefits of protection, or to give any party the credit of usinoo its power in behalf of the toiling masses, who form the bone and sinew of the nation. ·

* * * * * * * During the past few years those who have been most ostentatious in theiJ: tariff professions have been moit active in importing gangs of pauper laborers · into this country to cut down the scale of wages, and crowd sober, industrious, and useful citizens out of the useful walks of life. It is to the conduct of such persons that these valleys are at present indebted for the deep feeling existing against the degraded, poorly-paid, and wretchedly-housed 1\Iagyars who are attra-cting so much attention.

So far as these unfortunate people are concerned they are entitled to more pity than hatred. Most of them have been enticed away from their homes by designing sharks who pictured to them a glowing future in this Republic, and they came here entirely ignorant of the true state of affairs. There should be no unreasonable, bigoted race demonstrations made against them, but Congress ought to be invoked to check the influx and prevent the illegitima-te traffic fr.J:J!~r contra.ct labor which threatens to impoverish the workingmen of

Until this is done protection will be a one-sided affair. Let it be general in its application to the laborer as well as the capitalist, and protect the man whotoils at the furnace as well as the iron king who fattens on the proceeds of his toil. Any other system of protection is a sham, and" it is the duty of the people to call on their Representatives in this behalf, and relegate those who fail to reach the requirements of the age to the shades of private life.

The average cost of steel rails in . England during the six months ended December 31, 1883, was $20, the duty per ton was $17, and the freight $3, which made the price of these rails delivered in New York $40. During the same period the a"Vemge price of steel rails in Eastern Pennsylvaniawas$36.50. During thesixmonths ended December31, 1882, we imported steel rails to the amount of 85,618 tons, and notwithstanding the reduction of the duty from $28 to $17 we imported during the corresponding time in 1883 only 6,933 tons. It is a noteworthy fact also that during the caJ.endar year 1883 we produced 1, 295,-7 40 tons of steel rails, the largest amount produced in any year excepting 1882, and we exported 34,089 tons, more than double the amount exported in any previous year. The conclusion is inevitable that the present duty on steel rails is high enough, that the old duty of.$28 was too high, and unless it can be shown that the price of wages fell with the change of duty another conclusion is inevitable, namely: that under the former duty monopolies were fostered and protected and labor received none of its benefits. The same illustrations may be given and the same arguments will apply to other highly protected articles under the laws that existed prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1883.

That act did not correct all the evils existing under former laws, and it needs revision and correction. Does the bill now under consideration offer us the change so much needed? Does it look to a proper revision of the tariff and revenue laws by proposing a. reduction of rev en ne to a. point that will meet the want.s and necessities of the Government economically and honestly administered, and by duties so laid that proper and necessary protection will be given to our varied industries,. or does it propose to take the first of a series of steps that will eventually give the people of this country absolute free trade with the nations of the world? If any doubt existed; Mr. Chairman, in the minds of members when this bill was fust_introd~ced as to its real object and purpose, there can be none now m the light of the arguments made by its advocates on this floor. Nea,rly every speech made in its behalf has dwelt upon the blessings of the doctrine of free trade.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. WELLBORN], in his a-ble and very eloquent speech in behalf of the Morrison bill, said:

Rational self-interest is the universal motive, and buy where you can buy cheapest aJ?d sell where yo_u ~n sell de_arest the fundam_entallaw of exchange. ~he propnety of the applicatiOn of this law to domestic trade none disputes. "' * * Of these grand struggles none has yet been fought which rriore strongly cballeng~ the approval of the civilization of our age than the one now waged by Amencan Democracy for the freedom of commerce and the inteoority of taxation. * * * Commerce will be rescued from the merciless clutch~s of monopoly and taxation and emancipated from the wicked uses of protection. To freedom of person and freedom of opinion, so gloriously asserted in our first Revolution, will be not less gloriously added freedom of exchange.

The gentleman from Ohio [l\1r. HURD] in his advocacy of this bill denounced the doctrine of protection to home industries and argued in favor of freedom of exchange, and I may be pardoned for saying here and now that the protected industries of this country never had an abler opponent or the doctrine of free trade a more eloquent advocate.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. l\IILLS] said in closing his speech on the tariff a few days ago:

We must remove both by legislation and diplomacy every hindering cause that prevents the free exchange of the products of our labor in·au the markets of the world. We must unfetter every arm and let every muscle strike for the highest remuneration for its toil. We must let wealth, the creation of labor grow up in all the homes of our people. Then every industry will spring for: ward at a bound, and wealth, prosperity, and power will bless the land that is dedicated to free men, free labor, and f1·ee trade.

In the criticisms made by the advocates of this bill upon the doctrine of protection, the friends of a " tariff for revenue with incidental protection'' have not been forgotten. For exercising the right which they themselves claim, the right to represent the wishes of our constituents. and the interests of our districts and States, we have been ·denounced

3836 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

as false to our party and its doctrines. It is said of us that we claim to belong to one party and vote with another, and we are called the "Republican contingent" and "guerrillas."

Mr. Chairman, the doctrine of incidental protection was declared good Democratic doctrine by the last State convention held in Ohio, and but a few weeks ago at Allentown it was made the principal plank in the platform framed by the united Democracy of the old Keystone State.

The Democratic national platform of 1868 declared in favor of ''a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal-revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures, and as will without impairing the revenue impose the least burden upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country."

But a few weeks ago the New York World declared in the course of a learned and exhaustive article-

That extreme protection discriminating in favor of special interests is a. fungus of the lobby, an outgrowth of Republican greed and coiTuption consequent upon tho license of the war and the demoralization of a long term of office.

That Democracy is now, as it always ha.s been, in favor of protecting home labor and home industries as fa1; as the support of Government by duties on imports will permit, and is not now and never has been in favor of frequent tariff changes and the disturbance of business interests. There has never been an act on the part of the Democracy to imply that they are opposed to incidental protection.

Mr. Chairman, the doctrine of "a tariff for revenue with incidental protection'' is not a new-fanglednotion. It was upheld and advocated by Thomas J e:fferson, and has received the indorsement of every Demcratic President since. Mr. Jefferson in hls message to Congr~ in 1802 said:

Proper protection to American industry is one of the landmarks by which we are to guide ourselves in all our proceedings.

Andrew Jackson declared that the manufacturing interests of the country "ought to have extended to them adequate protection, that our manufacturers and laborers may be placed in fair competition with those of Europe."

The doctrine of incidental protection was held by President Polk, and in his inaugural address of March 4, 1845, he said:

I have heretofore declared to my fellow-citizens hat in my judgment it is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and navigation. I have also declared my opinion to be in favor of a tariff for revenue, and that in adjusting the details of uch a tariff I have sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount ofrevenueneededand at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry, and that I was opposed to a tariff for protection merely and not for revenue. * * * In executing this power of levying a tariff of duties for the support of Government the raising of revenue should be the object and protection the incident.

James Buchanan said: The American system consists in affording equal and just legislative protec

tion to all the great interests of the country. It is no respecter of persons. It does not distinguish between the farmerwhoplows the soil in Pennsylvania and the manufacturer of wool in New England. * * * The Legislature of Pennsylvania have given us what, in my opinion, is the correct version of the American system. They have declared that the best interests of our country demand that every possible exertion should be made to procuxe the passage of an act of Congres imposing such duties as will enable our manufacturers to enter into fair competition with foreign manufacturers, and protect the farmer, the growers of hemp and wool, and the distillers of spirits from domestic materials against foreign competition. * * * Byencouragingdomestro industry, whether it be applied to agriculture or manufactures, you promote the best interests of your navigation. You furnish it with domestic exports to scatter over the world.

uch, M:r. Chairman, has been the doctrine and policy of the Democatic party from the beginning. Such is its avowed doctrine to-day in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and such will be its declaration of principles at Cincinnati in July next. And yet Democrats who dare, in opposition to the wishes of other gentlemen, to represent the interests of their con tituents and the principles of their party as understOod from the beginning, are denounced as a '' Republican contingent.'' For one, I will never yield to a command or factional clamor that would seek to make me act and vote contrary to my settled convictions of right and duty. I repeat what I have already said, that a tariff for protection with revenue as an incident is not warranted or authorized by the Constitution, and should not be. It builds up privileged classes and fosters and protects monopolies.

A tariff for revenue only is simply another name for free trade. It would lay duties for the mere purpo e of revenue, and, ignoring as it does the doctrine of incidental protection, would discriminate against our industries. It would open our ports, as the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WOLFORD] says he trusts it will, to the nation~ of the earth. It would compel thepoorJy-paid labor of America to compete in the market with the still more poorly-paid labor of England, Germany, and other countries. It is admitted by statisticiansthattheaverage wages paid to American labor is 75 per cent. greater than that pa.id to English labor, and still greater than that paid to German and other labor.

Do we wish to adopt a policy that will compel the American mechanic who receives two dollars per day to compete in the market with the English mechanic who receives but one, and with the German who receives but 75 cents? Do we want to compel our sugar-growers and manufacturers to compete with the slave labor of Cuba? Are the American people in favor of a policy that will compel the labor of Am.er-

ica in all the different branches of industry, agriculture, mining, and manufactures, to compete with the servile, poorly-paid, poorly-clad, and poorly-housed labor of Europe? I think not. And yet that is just what this attempted legislation will do if carried out to its ~egitimate conclusion. Its advocates say this bill is but "the first step." Should it succeed -another will be taken, and when the goal, free trade, is reached, its friends will be satisfied, not before.

The gentleman from Kentucky [:M.r. WoLFORD] said in a speech delivered in this House on the 25th of April last, ''I agree with the gentleman who has just taken his seat that there will be another tariff bill, another reduction,'' and he but voiced the sentiment of the friends of this bill when he said it.

Mr. Chairman1 free trade and a hlgh protective tariff are the twin enemies of American industry and American prosperity. I am opposed to both.

I am heartily in favor of" a tariff for revenue, so laid as to give just encouragement and proper protection to our industries without fostering monopolies.'' If such were the object of this bill, and it were framed with that end in view, it would receive my hearty support. It is not framed with a view of reforming or revising the present tariff, but for the purpose of reducing it. We are told that one of its objects is to reduce revenue and cut down 'War-tariff taxes. The gentleman from New York [Mr. HEWITT], who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, says he doubts whether it will succeed in reducing revenues or not. Is the object to do away with the constantly accumulating surplus in the national Treasury? Then repeal and wipe out the odious and infamous internal-revenue system, wi'th its army of spies and informers. Having done that, proceed to reform and revise the tariff in such a way as to give us a revenue sufficient to meet the expenses of the Government economically administered, and so adjusted as to give proper protection to our industries. Do that, and you will have earned the approbation and applause of the great majority of our people. Pass this bill, and continue an agitation that, if succ~fu.l, will give protection to English labor and English manufactures at the expense of American labor and American industries, and you will deserve and receive the condemnation of the people.

Mr. MILLARD. Mr. Chairman, when the House voted to consider the bill introduced by the distinoouished gentleman from Dlinois [Mr. MORRISON] it was not my intention or desire to offer any remarks during this discussion, but the .debate has taken such wide range and so many arguments have been advanced by the friends and advocates of the measure which seem to me to be not only fallacious, but calculated to mislead, I ask the indulgence of the committee that I may state very briefly my objections to the proposed legislation. In 1882 the President appointed a tariff commission, composed of nine practical men, outside of politics and outside of Congress, to investigate and report facts and opinions with a view of enabling Congr~ to make such a revision of the tariff as might be found to bene~.

This revision was asked for not only by the commercial and marmfacturing interests of the country but by the working classes, not 1~ than 80,000 bboring men sending petitions to the Forty-sixth Congress praying for the appointment of the commi sion. The commission presented its report in December, 18 2, and the Forty-seventh Congress made the revision asked for by the passage of a bill which not only added to the free-list and secured important reductions upou imports, but did. its work so well as to make any tariff tinkering at this time wholly unnecessary.

Now, Mr. Chairman, why this agitation at this time, why the disen ion of a measure day after day whlch is not only conceded by its advocates to be imperfect and incapable of just application, but in case it should become a law calculated to disturb, disorganize, and impair every industry of the country? Has any horizontal reduction of the tariff or any change in the duties as established by the Forty-seventh Congr~ been asked for? Has anyoneofthe80,000laboringmen who petitioned for 'the appointment of the commission demanded the proposed legislation? Have any of the great industries of the United States declared they wanted any change in the law as passed by the Forty -seventh Congress. As near as I can ascertain the only persons demanding the consideration and the passage of the bill are a few free-trade cranks claiming to represent the Free-Trade League, of the city of New York, but who in fact represent the Cobden Club, of London. I have not forgotten~ sir, the large sums of money contributed in 1879 by the English manufacturers to aid the New York Free-Trade L~o-ue in its warfare upon our domestic manufactures.

1\'Ir. Chairman, there is, perhaps, no question so imperfectly understood, yet of such vital importance to the whole people, as this matter of the protective tariff; and while I claim to po ~no superior knowledge of the subject, I do claim that the great indu trial intere ts of the country-the nooricultural, the commercial, and the manufacturing interests~are so linked together that you can not injure the one without injury to the other; that you can not advance or extend the one without a corresponding influence upon the other. For this reason, sir, this should not be made a political or sectional question.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to a'' tarifffor revenue only,'' or what is known as British free trade. It may work well in Engbnd, where an able-bodied man, if he works hard, can earn $3 to $4 per week, but

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3837 we want none of it in this country. Such a tariff is a discrimination against .American and in favor of the half-paid and pauper labor of Europe. Such a system is a discrimination against our domestic and in favor of foreign manufa.ctmes.

My distinguished colleague from New York says that the .American tariff must go. Sir, he talks like an English manufacturer. This, sir, bas been the determination of the English Government ever since the Colonies dissolved their connection with the mother country. From the earliest date England opposed the establishment of manufactories in the .American Colonies, its object being to confine their commerce to the exportation of agricultOial products and in return supply them with the products of her own manufactories. In 1817 the House of Commons declared that the erection of manufactories in the Colonies was calculated to lessen their dependence upon Great Britain. In 1831 the House of Commons issued an order to inquire into the affairs of the Colonies, charging that in certain localities in New York, New England, and Pennsylvania the people bad established woolen mills, and in Massachusetts they bad erected a paper mill. .All this was regarded as rank treason in the eyes of the mother country.

Horace Greeley says in his Political Economy 1' that when the Federal

Constitution was adopted in 1787, and it was announced that enough States had voted to ratifY it, there were instantly great rejoicings in all the seaboard villages, and great processions were formed wherein the laboring classes appeared parading the hammer and the ~vil, crying, '' Protection to .American industry.'' That since the war ended they bad bad free trade-the markets glutted with foreign goods and no demand for .American labor. '' Protection must go,'' 11 the .American tariff must go,'' says my distinguished colleague [Mr. HEWITT]; a remarkable declaration from the lips of the most ardent of free-traders, but more reJ;D.arkable when coming from the distinguished statesman ofN ew York, for if there is any one thing more than another which has made his State the grandest and most powerful State in the Union it is the advantages wbicbberpeopleandher variedindustries have received under the operation of a protective tariff.

I will not take the time to argue the question with the gentleman. .All I desire to say is that his declaration is against the history of the country under the operations of high protection.

Henry Clay, in a speech delivered on the floor of this House in 1834, said:

The proposition to be maintained by our adversaries is that manufactures without protection will in due time spring up in the country and sustain themselves in competition with foreign fabrics, however advanced the arts and wha~ ever the degree of protection may be in foreign countries. Now ,I contend that this proposition is refuted by all experience, ancient and modern, in every count.ry. If I am asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a struggle with protected industry, I answer, the fact has ever been so, and that is sufficient. I reply that uniform experience evinces that it can not succeed in such a struggle, and that is sufficient.

.And again, in 1832, speaking of the protective tariff passed in 1824, he said:

If · I were to select any term of seven years since the adoption of the present Constitution which exhibited a. scene of the most widespread dismay and desoation, it would be exactly that term of seven years which immediately preceded

the tariff of 1824.

If the term of seven years were to be selected of the greatest pro -perity which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present Constitution, it would be exactly that period of seven years which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.

1\Ir. Chairman, free trade as a theory is all right; nothing could be more plausible. But when put into practice, so far~ being applicable t.o the wants and conditions of our people, it is a stupendous fraud. It defrauds the farmer, it defrauds the manufacturer, and it defi:auds the laboring man. Sir, it is unfortunate for those who advocate and dema.nd the passage of this bill or w bo favor 11 a tariff for revenue only'' that the facts and history of free trade in this country are against them. When the low-tariff acts of 1834, 1846, and 1857 were passed our markets became glutted with the goods{)f foreign manufaeture, all branches of industry were paralyzed, and all kinds of labor went be~ui.ng for employment. But when the high-tariff acts of 1824, 1842, and 1861 were inaugurated all kinds of wages advanced, labor was in demand, activity in all branches of industry took the place of inactivity, and business throughout the country revived. If you ask me to givethereasonsfor such results, I answer that such was the fact, and that is sufficient.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is· this bill that splits the great Democratic party in two and occupies the attention of this House from day to day and week to week, to the exclusion of more'important legislation? Is it really a measme in the interest of the laboring man of the country ? I answer, no, for the reduction proposed makes no discrimination between the luxuries and the necessaries of life. I would vote to put certain articles upon the free-list upon which duties are now exactoo, and I would favor the reduction of the duties upon certain imports if such reduction could be made without injury t{) the laboring classes or the great industries of the country. But such is not this bill. Such legislation in my judgment would meet with no opposition from this side of the House. The bill under discussion makes a sweeping horizontal reduction of 20 per cent., making no discrimination whatever.

Should the bill become a law, how much would it lessen the reve-

nuesofthecountry? Noadvocateofthemeasureseemstoknow. Would the revenue under this bill prove sufficient to meet the cmrent expenses of the Government? No advocate of the measme seems to know. The only fact concerning which there is no doubt or obscurity is that it is legislation in the interest of free trade. This is disclaimed by some who champion the measure, but I quote from the speech of the futher of the bill [Mr. MORRISON], delivered upon this floor on the 15th of last month, in which he stated that his bill wa.c;; but the advance toward and a promise of a more complete revenue reform. Mr. Chairman, the current expenditOies of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1883, were $265;408,137; of this amount $59,160,131 was paid to meet the accruing interest upon the nation's debt and $66,012,574 was paid out in pensions to the soldiers.

Sir, the debt must and will be paid to the last dollar, interest and principal; and not less sacred is the nation's obligation to its Union defenders. The. pensions must be continued. Under our present system of tariff sufficient revenue is realized from the duties on imports and the internal-revenue taxes on whisky and tobacco to meet all these obligations. Not a dollar direct tax is levied upon the people. Free trade means direct taxation; it means that the farmer, the laboring man, the mechanic, and the manufactmer- shall be subjected to direct taxation, and that they and their accumulations shall pay the national debt, the soldiers' pensions, and theexpenditures ofthe Government, instead of a policy which now requires these obligations to be paid by duties on foreign importations and the internal-revenue system, the taxes on distilled spirits, fermented liquors, and tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of a protective tariff for the reason it protectsthefarmerandall thegreatagriculturalinterestsofthecountry. This is not only true of the New England :farmer, but the wool and grain producers of the West, the cotton-growers of the South. There is not a single agricultura.l interest in the country that is not more prosperous under a high than a low tariff. It protects them by providing a home market. What would the farms be worth without the manufacturer? It is a mistaken idea that the .American farmer is dependent upon a foreign market, or that Europe bas to come to .America for her supplies. .As has been stated, 90 per cent. of all the agricultural products of the United States are consumed at home; that while the total value of our agricultural products reached in 1880 the enormous sum of $3,600,000,000, the agricultural exports, all told, did not exceed in value $500,000,000. The Western farmer no longer leaves his crop in the :field unharvested or sells forty bushels of wheat for a pair of boots. Such was his actual condition prior to the revision of the tariff in 1824.

The distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS] in his very able argument-and to my mind the most subtle and ingenious that has been made in favor of the bill during this discussion-attempts to meet this question. He told you that between 1850 and 1860 we bad a low tariff and from 1860 to 1880 we bad a high tariff. He endeavored to give this House the relative increase in the wealth <;>four dome tic manufactures; but, sir, be forgot to give us the relative increase in the agricultural products of the country during those years. Now, l\Ir. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the House to the increase of our ~oricultural products from 1860 to 1880, a period of twenty years, and under a high protective tariff, as has been stated. From the official reports I find that from 1860 to 1880 there was an increase in the acreage in farms from 407,000,000to536,000,000, anincrea.sein the value of farms from $6,645,000,000 to $10,197,0DG, 770, and that the total value of agricultural products in 1880 was $3,600,000,000.

Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly heard it stated during this discussion that this legislation was in the interest of the laboring classes, that European labor was as well paid as in the United States. Gentlemen, this sort of talk may do here, but do not talk it to the laboring men themselves. They know bett-er. If all kinds and classes of labor is not better paid, better fed, better clothed, and better housed in the United States than in Europe, will the advocates of a " tariff for revenue only" explain why for the past fifty years there has been a constant stream of immigration from nearly all of t he European countries, and at this time more from free-trade England than any other country? From this source the United States bas acquired much of its power and greatness, for it is the labor of the country that makes the nation. During the past sixty years the total of this immigration is greater than the entire population of Scotland and Ireland combined, and nearly one-half the present population of England. Between 1820 and June 30, 1880, the aggregate of tho e who came from Europe to establish homes · in this country was 11,597,181; between 1 20 and 1879, 9,698,098.

From Ireland came 3,065,761, Scotland 159,547, Wales 17,893, Germany 3,002,092, Italy 70,181, France 313,716, Sw~en and Norway 306,092, Switzerland 83,709, Russia 53,147, .Austria and Hungary 65,588. Between 1820 and 1880 Ireland eems to have taken the lead. Why Ireland, unless it has enjoyed absolute free trade with the most powerful nation on earth for many years, and for what came these millions of men and women to .America unless to better their condition? No language can describe the condition of the Irish peasant and the men and women who fill the English manufactories. The most menial servant in this country enjoys a. paradise compared with. their condition.

The British .Almanac for 1881 states that but 59 per cent. of the


Irish laborers eat meat, and these but five ounces per week. From the State Department we find that the average wages of the farm laborer in England without board is $3.60 per week, Scotland $4. 25. A good J:>ricklayer in England can earn in a week, if he works industriously and attends closely to his business, :J,'7.60; in Scotland, $7.25; in New York, $12.50; and in Chicago, $11.50. A mason in England, if he is skilled and fully understands his trade, can earn per day from 50 to 72 cents; carpenters, from 71 to 75 cents; blacksmiths, from 67 to 80 cents.

The report of the Tariff Commission gives the following as the wages paid in England and Pittsburgh for the manufacture of iron:

-------------------------------------I--En-· -g-la_n_~ __ :I Pittsbwga

Puddling, per ton ...................................................... . Shingling, per ton ..............................................•..... Rolling and puddling mill, per ton ........................... . Rolling and heating, per ton ............... , .... ; ................ , Common laborer ......................................... ............... !

I

$1.94 29 29

180 56

$550 77 68f

480 130

In England the woolen manufacturer pays his operator an average of $4.50 per week; M:assachusetts and Connecticut, 13.43. Our protective tariff increases the wages of the workman. In proportion to the duty imposed his pay is increased, and no one so clearly understands this as he who has worked in the mills and manufactories of foreign nations.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this measure because it is hostile to our domestic and in the interest of foreign manufactures; and this is a matter quite as important to the South and the great West as the East. TheN ew England farmer has prospered because he has had the manufaeturer at his door providing him with a market for all of his products. It is an old saying, but none the less true, that the farmer needs the mechanic to consume his surplus of provisions, and the mechanic needs the farmer to use his surplu.S of fabrics. Alexander H. Stephens, speaking of the future of his State, said that cotton could be made into cloth and thread more cheaply in Georgia than in Massachusetts, and that the future of his people was great and hopeful in prospect if they would be true to themselves in working out their own high destiny.

We have heard a good deal during this discussion about England being the manufacturer of the world. Is it at all surprising that the American can not competewith the English manufacturer? The English manufactories are the growth of six hundred years, and for more than four hundred years they maintained a high protective system. Now, why can not the cotton, woolen, andiron industries ofthe United States compete with England? Simply because wages in this country are 50 per cent. higher than in England; and you attempt to reduce them to the level of the pauper labor of Europe and you would bring about a commercial revolution. This is not a question whether we may have free salt or a slight reduction in duties upon imports. It is a square issue between English free trade on the one hand and American protection on the other. ·

Pass this bill, and you would paralyze nearly every great manufacturing industry in the country. I have repeatedly heard it stated during this discussion that our manufacturers were stimding in their own light. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS], whose speech I have heretofore referred to, stated thattheofficialrecordsshow that our manufacturers were more prosperous between 1846 and 1860 than they have ever been since. The history of those years show directly the contrary, or I do not read it correctly. In 1850 the total value of the manufactured products of the United Stateswas$1 019,106,616; in1860, $1,885,-861 ,676; in 1870, '3,432,415,933; in 1 0, $5,369,579,191. The total value of the exports of the product~ of manufactures in 1860 was $45,-658,873; in 18 2, $103,132,481; in 1.883, $111,890,101. Take the woolen industry of tbe United States. In 1850 tl}e capital employed was $28,-118,650; in1860, $42,849,932; in1870, $132,382,319, andin1880, 159,-069,270, nearly six times the amount of capital invested in 1850. The total valu of the woolen industries in the United State in 1850 was $49,726,882; in 1860, $80,734,606; in 1870,$217,66 ,826, and in1880, $267,182,914, a sum nearly six times that of 1850, and more than three times that of 1860. What is tm~ of the woolen interests is equally true of the silk industry in the United States. Total value of silk manufactured in the United States in 1850 was $1 809,476; in 1860, $6,607,771; in 1870, $12,210,062; but in 1 0 it reached the enormous sum of 40,500,000, exceeding the total value of the silk product of Great Britain by upward of $5,000,000.

only apology is the great and vital importance of the question und~r consideration. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, it is not a bill in the interest of the laboring classes or any of the great industries of the country. They do not want it. They have not asked for it. On the contrary, they have entered their solemn protests against it. In the language of the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. EATON], it is a bad bill, and the people will have nothing to do with it. God forbid that the wages of the laboring men and women of this country shall ever be put in competition with the half-starved labor of Europe. God forbid, sir, that theconditionofthegreatlaboringclasses of the United States shall ever be reduced to the misery and wretchedness of the millions that exist in England and Ireland under the operation of free trade. I want to see labor ever honored and :ref'Pected in this country, ourpeoplethemo thappy and prosperous of all the peoples of the earth, and our nation the grandest the sun shines upon. It is for this, sir, that I oppose the passage of this bill and all attempts to establish free trade in the United States.

1\Ir. McCOID addressed the committee. · [See Appendix.] 1\'lr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, while opposed to the bill now under

consideration, yet being in full sympathywith any action contemplated by Congress looking toward a revision of the present tariff law, and the correction of the inequalities existing therein, and in deference to the expressed wish of a large majority of the Democratic Representatives in this body, and believing that no interest of my people would be jeopardized thereby, I voted for its consideration by the House. Whatever may have been my opinion as to the party policy of a discussion of this question at this time I cheerfully yielded to the demands of my colleagues. . I did this, sir, hoping that a full-and free discussion of this bill would

enable this House to see the gro inju tice of its provisions toward my own and many other sections of our country, and believing that it was possible the gentlemen who have framed it ·and are so persistently urging its passage could be induced to agree to so amend it as to make it acceptable to those who earnestly desire a,. revision and reform of the present tariff system. But, sir, the utterances of no less than t.hree of the distinguished gentlemen, members of the Ways and Means Committee, and the especial champions of this bill, to the effect that in framing it "they had yielded everything they intended to yield," coupled with the declarations of the advocates of the measure before this committee, force me to believe that it is the intention to pass it, if possible, just as it is, regardless of the consequences which may follow to the country. Believing now that the interests of all the people of my district are involved in the passage of this bill, I desire as briefly as possible to give my reasons for opposing it. Our national funds are raised chiefly by tariff anu internal revenue.

The internal-revenue tax, involving multitudes of officers and operating as a burden and hinderance to special lines of business, has never he en justified, except on the ground of necessity. It ought therefore to be repealed, except as to that on whisky, which nobody demands. The yearly surplus in the Treasury of millions of dollars will justify such repeal of part of the internal-revenue system and still leave more money than an economical administration of the Government will require.

The present tariff, in effect, was framed, like the internal-revenue law, to meet conditions growing out of the war. It is larger and higher than any necessity of the Government requires, and it is larger and higher than any theory of protection or revenue tariff will justify. It is also unequal and unfair in its application to different interests of the country, and the Morrison bill would make it more so. This bill, regardless of all principles of revision or reform, by a horizontal reduction perpetuates most of the inequalities of the existing law, and so far as my State i concerned aggravates them by leaving the rest of the country protected and placing West Virginia on the free-list.

The burdensofthepeople ought to belightened. We ought to return from a basis of war tax to a peace foundation. We ought not to impose upon our people in any form greater burdens than ~he necessities of the Government require. But when we shall have reduced our demands upon the masses for money to the amount of our necessities, then both the bene:fi. ts and the burdens of that amount should be fairly -and equitably distributed. This I understand to be the meaning of the Ohio platform, and also the substance of the platform adopted by the Democrats of my own State last month in convention assembled, and on that ;platform I stand. ·

This principle and its bearings and relations to the interests of the people of my district I shall discuss hereafter.

By this bill you charge my people with the fiill measure of burdens that all other protection now afforded to other sections imposes upon them, less your 20 per cent. horizontal reduction; but when I tell you that as a Representative from West Virginia I shall claim for her the same measure of protection which you accord to others of the great States~ you answer me with coal, salt, and lumber on the free-list .

I have heretofore alluded to the- Ohio platform, to wit: We favor a. tnriff for revenue limited to the necessities of the Government.

economically administered, and o adjusted in it application as to prevent unequal burdens, encour:1gc productive industries at. home, afford just compensation to labor, but not to create or foster Inonopolies.

The undisputed facts are that everywhere protected manufactures are in a heal thy and vigorous condition; unprotected manufactures sickly, feeble, and precariouS. The condition of Canada is a fair illustration of what a low tariff or no tariff at all will do. Until within the last few years she has had no protection; consequently no great manufacturing industries. Agricultural lands on the American side of the line . are at least 50 per cent. higher than on the Canada side. I have referred to Ireland. She has always had perfectly free trade with the richest manufacturing nation in the world. Turkey i another nation where the customs are low. Let the United States manu:fucture for itself, do its own manufacturing, and ·England will not long be the manufacturer of the world. A nation that does its own manufacturing and produces its own food creates two markets instead of one. This I conceive to be the true Democratic doctrine upon this great

My question, not only as promulgated by the Democratic fathers, but as Mr. Chairman, I have occupied more time than I intended.

J

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOU~E. 3839 announced by the Democratic party.in its declaration of principles in years past. Tb~re is no question as to the right and duty of Congress under the

Constitution to take care that under its tariff laws no detriment shall be done to home industries. One of the first reveuue bills passed by the American Congress contained in its preamble a recognition of the importance of adjusting the tariff to encourage American manufactures. And this is an important and valuable fact as a contemporaneous interpretation of the Constitution from a Congress many of whose memberS bad aided in framing that instrument. . Incidental protection is not only good constitutional law and policy, butitis sound Democracy. To Thomas Jefferson himself bas been attributed the authorship of the phrase "a discriminating tariff," which is the Ohio platform condensed. Jackson was a firm advocate of the doctrine, and in one of his messages he asserts that individual protection is needed as a means of diversifying our industries, as agriculture was being overcrowded. James K. Polk held tothesameidea, and Silas Wright first designated it as ''incidental protection.''

I take it that the Democratic platform of 1868, adopted by the convention which nominated Horatio Seymour, is a fair statement of the views of the Democracy both then and !low. That body was the first harmonious national convention of the party held in twelve years. In 1860 the party was torn by factions and rent in twain. In 1864 the South was unrepresented. In 1868 not only did the old Douglas and Breckinridge Democrats come together, but large numbers of Old Line Whigs, especially from the South, then began to co-operate with them. All were united upon the following resolutionfrom the national Democratic platform of 1868:

And a. tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal-revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures, and as will without impairing the revenue impose the least burdens upou and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country.

In 1872 a system of taxation was demanded which should not interfere with the interests of the people, and the discussion of the question of protection or free trade was remitted to the people of the Congressional districts. In 1876 and 1880 greater prominence was given to the main object of the tariff, namely, to raise the revenue; but this was because of abuses which bad grown up under Republican administration by which monopolies were protected and production crippled. It was not because the Democratic party bad abandoned its historic position as the friend and protector of American industries, nor do I understand that either at Saint Louis or Cincinnati the Democracy turned its back upon the policy of discriminating in favor of American toilers and American products. In fact, :Mr. Chairman, the great difference between the parties is not that of free trade on the one band, which would abolish custom-houses and raise all revenue by direct taxation, and on the other absolute protection, which would exclude foreign imports, and, like free trade, com:pel all revenues to be raised by direct taxes, but it is whether the tariff shall be adjusted in the interest of the masses or in the interest of the few.

I do not believe that a tariff should attempt to sustain by artificial stimulus enterprises that are alien here or that it Rbould create monopolies to oppress consumers. I do believe that a tariff for revenue can be and should be adjusted to establish business firmly, to develop the dormant resources of the country, and to work out the grand problem of it3 material greatness by fostering the thrift of toiling millions in the countless pursuits for. which a bountiful Providence bas furnished here the material and the .field.

I represent a district, Mr. Chairman, which bas several important interests affected directly by the tariff, and especially by this bill. Coal, lumber, iron, and salt, and, indeed, sir, the material interests of all classes in my district, the farmer, the mechanic, the miner, and laborer, will all be seriously affected by its passage.

Give the West Virginia producer or manufacturer a protection incident to the power of the Government of laying duties on imports, represented by a fair and equitable tax upon the product of his foreign competitor, and you give him what be has a right to demand and what his Government will not wisely deny him-a fair chance in his own markets. Refuse him this and you destroy his business; you lock up the resources be is engaged in developing. To no purpose do you open to him by your policy of free trade '' the markets of the world '' w ben by the same policy you bring in a stranger to drive him out of his own.

In my district there are now fifty-nine collieries in successful operation. Although mostly of recent establishment, the product last year was nearly 29,000,000 bushels of coal, besides large quantities of coke made at the mines. Over 13,000,000 bushels of this coal found itB way eastward and was marketed mainly in the Eastern seaboard cities. The miner was enabled to carry his product thither by reason of a protection, incident to the power of laying duties upon imports, of 75 cents per ton on foreign coal, which is an ad valorem duty of about 18 per cent. It was in evidence before the Ways and Means Committee of this Congress that the average profit 011 coal marketed in the Eastern cities does not exceed 15 cents per ton. This is true of shipments from my district. Take off the duty on coal and you give the foreign producer an· advantage in the American market of 60 cents per ton over

the miner of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. You compel us to carry all our coal West and South. You make us overstock that market and drive us into it. You deny us the opportunitytosell one-half our product at moderate figures and compel us to take halfprice for the remainder.

In my district, sir, the progress of material development has been phenomenal. Capital bas been invested there by millions. The wilderness of yesterday is now populous, busy, and prosperous. Thousands and thousands of honest laborers ba ve gone there to find homes. Working .in the mines and in the forests, and in industries relative thereto, they have felt the fostering care of incidental protection. Through their efforts, backed by capital and enterprise, the Kanawha and New River valleys are fast becoming the richest and most prosperous sections in either of the Virginias, if not in the entire South. Nor will this stop here if the true Democratic policy is pursued. Stimulated by the results of the past few years, with their vast mineral and timber resources as yet undeveloped, already are projects on foot to open up to the world by railroad communication the great coal-fields and vast forests of the Buckhannon, Elk, Gauley, Greenbrier, Coal, and Guyandotte valleys.

Free trade in coal and lumber means no market for those commodities and probably a stoppage of these enterprises, leaving the hidden and inaccessible wealth of these regions to sleep undeveloped for years. Free trade in coal and lumber · means the impoverishment of a large portion of my people and desolation to that country. When employers and employes shall, amidst the wreck of their industries and the ruins of capital; when the farmer of the mountain counties, deprived of the market for his products which he bas had at his very door by reason of these enterprises, come to reflect upon their confidence in a Government caring more for the stranger than for its own people, it will be small consolation for them to remember that you" have reformed the revenue system.'' It will be little comfort to him ''who hath not where to lay his head" to be told that you '"have opened wide to him the markets of the world."

It is a significant fact that much of the demand fur free coal comes from the manufacturing centers. In other words, ultra protection joins band with ultra free trade in the effort to cripple one of the leading industries of the country. It is said that free fuel means cheap fuel, especially in the East. This must be taken with its limitations. When foreign producers shall have driven American coal out of the markets consumers will be at their mercy. They will no longer be restrained by a healthy competition, and prices will be regulated. by their rapacity and the necessities of the consumer. But this is not all. The amount of business done bas its effect upon the cost of transportation. Lessen the amount of freight of one kind carried by the railroads and the loss must be made up on some other; if not in quantity, then in rate.

Three great railroads are now carrying coal to the Eastern cities. Who can doubt that the enormous coal trade of the Pennsylvania Central, Baltimore and Ohio, and Chesapeake and Ohio Railroads has its effect upon this tariff of rates, or that if this business were cut off other kinds of business must help bear the loss? If American coal be driven from the Eastern markets to any extent, to the same extent will the cost of carrying other freight be enhanced. The revenue will not be allowed to decrease. The difference will be made up. It may be on grain; it may be on cattle. TbeEasternconsumer'sdoubtfnlsaving in the coalscuttle will be more than set off by the certain loss in the pantry. In short, sir, if by the passage of this bill the coal of the British Provinces, with the great advantages of cheap labor and water transportation, is allowed to become a competitor with American coal, the latter will be driven from the Eastern market. The result will be an abandoned market, lower prices, limited production, and decreased wages.

In conclusion, :Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that I would cheerfully support a measure reducing our tariff taxes, revenue taxes, and all taxes to a peace basis. I am for placing them in the line of governmental necessities as exactions from the people. But the pending proposition, to perpetuate the inequalities of a system which would give elsewhere all the protection and to·west Virginia all the fi:ee trade, I can not support.

ltfr. HOPKINS. ltfr. Chairman, I voted against bringing the pending bill before the House for consideration, because I believed that agitation of the tariff question was uncalled for, unwise, and would be productive of no good result. I bad beard of no c1amorous demand by the people for legislation upon this subject. So far as I knew no considerable number of petitions bad been received praying for Congressional action. I beard of no delegations besieging the Committee on Ways and Means demandingrelieffrom what are called tbepresentunj ust burdens. The advocates of the measure were frank enough to say that they did not believe that any measure which the Honse might pass would secure the concurreuce of the Senate or the approval of the President. And hence it seemed to me that the mere pride of opinion was about to embroil the House in an angry and fruitless contest. Eminent and able gentlemen bad for years nursed and fostered their pet theory; they bad preached repeated crusades against the established policy of this Government; and they appeared to be more anxious that their views should receive the indorsement of this House than that any great public want should be gratified.

But, sir, the bill is before us. It bas been discussed for nearly three


weeks, and I fail to see any indication to justify this expendi1:ure of time, of energy, and of eloquence.

I should be content to sit silent until the close of this debate but for the fact that an attempt has been made to make support of this bill a test of party fealty; and the further fact that inasmuch as I represent perhaps the largest manufacturing district in the country, my silence might be misconstrued into a weakness of my convictions and a lack of interest in behalf of my constituents.

In the first pla-ce, ?tir. Chairman, I protest against the right of any one to make the Morrison bill an article of the political creed of the Democratic party. Such a claim can not be sustained by appealing to any authorized expression of the party's policy. It is not even in accord with t.he declaration in favor of a'' tariff for revenue only.'' With all their denunriation of the present law as incongruous, inequitable, oppressive, and extortionate, in the interest of manufacturing monopolies, and other like criticisms, not one of the advocates of the pending bill pretends tlli1tit will correct the incongruities and inequalities; that it will abolish the alleged oppressive and extortionate features. Not one of them pretends that this bill ha-s been framed upon the theory of ''a tariff for revenue only.'' All of the features of the present law are to be retained except the additions to the free-list; the same inequalities are to continue, for the horizontal reduction will remove none of them. If there is an unjust disproportion between one article taxed $1 and another article taxed 50 cents, the same unjust disproportion will continue if the :first is reduced to 80 cents and the second to 40 cents.

We have heard in this discussion a good deal about displaying the courage of convictions without regard to results. Is it claimed by any one that this bill is the bold and manly announcement of the views entertained by its advocates? Some of them are candid enough to say that it is not what they want, but they will accept it as the best they are likely to get. That, of course, is a practical and sensible view, but it silences the high-sounding pretensions to extra courage.

But, .Mr. Chairman, the point I wish to make is this: If party lines were to be drawn upon this question why did not the committee report a bill which they could hold up before the world and say, "Here is a tariff for revenue only;" the national Democratic convention declared this to be a cardinal doctrine of political faith; those who oppose it must be condemned as heretics. But the committee did no uch thing. Assuming that the general declaration stands as the creed of the party, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MoRRISON] is not bold enough to say that his bill embodies the thought of that convention. So that those who claim the binding force of the loose declaration in favor of a "tariff for revenue only" have no warrant for making this bill a shibboleth of party fealty.

And I deny the authority of a Congressional caucus to formulate a creed for the national party. The eloquent gentleman from Ohio [1\Ir. HURD] showed some disposition to invoke the terrors of an offended caucus, and to lash into the support of this bill all who follow the Democratic banner. But I rejoice in the fact that caucus is no longer king. Republican Congresses submitted to his inexorable rule. But all Democrats denounced his tyranny then; and I rejoice that there have been enough Democrats independent and brave enough to break the scepter of his power.

I take this occasion, Ur. Chairman, to how how unfair it would be to the masses of the Democratic party for the Representatives in Congress to make a national platform.

Pennsylvania has twelve Democratic Representatives on this floor. They represent more than 400,000 Democratic votes. The States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas combined have twenty-nine Democratic Representatives here, representing about the same number of Democratic votes as are cast in Pennsylvania. Here the Representatives from the five States referred to would outvote the Pennsylvania Democrats two to one. But in a national convention the votes from Pennsylvania will almost equal the votes of the five States combined. How unwise, then, to attempt to set up a standard of political faith here, and how futile to assert the coercive power of a Congre ional caucus ! When the effort is made to invest the caucus with the infallibility of a Delphic oracle, I repudiate its authority and appeal to the assembled representatives of the Democracy of the entire nation. · .

But I am told that my party is committed to the doctrine of "a tariff for revenue only." I answer, first, that this bill is in no sen e the embodiment or expression of tha,t doctrine. I answer, second, that the vague and general declaration referred to must be construed in connection with other declarations and acts of nation.'ll Democratic conventions if we would ascertain what the position of the party bas been upon this question.

Looking over the national Democratic platforms for the past thirty years I find that in 1852 it was resolved-

br'!:~:: ~'f~f~~u~~r~ :~~ S~l~f~!~~b~1 :~; !r:e~~a~r~~~~e~f:hn:b~0 i~~!~:S~~~ one portion t.o the injury of another portion of our common country.

Different schools of political economy will place different constructions upon this language. I shall postpone a discussion of this point until I get through with the historic portion of my remarks. The convention of 1856 reaffirmed the resolutions of 1852, adding a declaration

of opposition to all monopolies an~ exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Most of those who urge the passage of the Morrison bill claim that a protective tariff is the character of legislation condemned by the convention of 1856. But it is a significant fact that that convention nominated for President an avowed protectionist-James Buchanan. In 1860 the platform was reaffirmed.

In 1864 the country was in the extreme agony of internal war and no allusion was made to economic questions. In 1868 the convention declared in favor of "a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal-revenue laws a will afford incidental protectio:.: to domestic manufactures, and as will, without impairing the revenue, rmpose the least burden upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country."

Such language uttered to-day would drive the utterer from the household of Democracy if the decree of the caucus could be enforced.

In 1872 the convention said: "We demand a system of Federal taxation which shall not unnecessarily interfere with the industl\}' of the people." But " recognizing that there are honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion with r~oard to the respective systems of protection and free trade," they remitted the question to the different Congressional districts.

There was a disposition manifested in that convention from which the men of to-day might le.arn some practical wisdom. There was no effort then to force upon the party an issue upon which there were honest differences.

The convention of 1876 adopted an oration rather than a party code. It said:

We denounce the present tariff' levied upon nearly 4,000 articles as a. masterpiece of injustice, inequality, and false pretense. It yields a dwindling, not

r~:~td~~vfueu~e1~f~U:~:~::r:~~~~th~~e: ~~u::!~a~ a few.

The entire proclamation is admirable as a phillipic againstthemany existing abuses. But it indir.ated an anxiety for additional revenue, whereas it is confessed on all hands that wenowhavetoomuch. And it manifested some concern about the falling off of manufactures, whereas the complaint now is that the same tariff caused au excess of manufactures. Who will reconcile or explain the diverse conditions in 1876 and in 1883 under the same tariff?

In 1880 the declaration on this great question is grouped into and in a measure smothered under other issues in the announcement of belief in ''home rule, honest money, the strict maintenance of the public faith, State and national, and a tariff for revenue only."

But the convention declared that '' the Democratic party is the friend of labor and the laboring man.'' The true meaning of that I shall try to consider before I close.

Now, 1\ir. Chairman, in the fa{!e of this recital of the authentic utterances of the repr entatives of the Democratic party chosen n:om every section of the land, and a....QSembled for the express purpose of formulating the political creed of the party, how can any man, how dare any man, stigmatize as renegades and traitors those who favor the adjustment of imposts in a manner that will ''best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country?

1\fr. Chairman, if gentlemen wish to go farther back than the national convention in 1852, and appeal to the fathers of the Republic and the founders of our party, I will cheerfully go with them.

George Washington, in a message to Congress, said: The safety and interests of the people require that they should promote such

manufactures as tend to render them independent of others.

And the same George W ashi:ngton approved the first tariff bill enacted by Congress, the preamble of which, like a beacon-light, gleams through the intervening years. It is as follows:

Whereas it is n~y for the support of the QQvernment, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and tile encouragement and protection of manufactures that duties be laid, &c.

Thoma Jefferson declared proper protection to American indu try to be one of the " landmarks by which we are to guide ourselves in all our proceedings." And again he congratulated the country that under ''protecting duties '' new manufacturing interests would become permanent. And the quotation from Jefferson made by Mr. Morrison is a reassertion of his belief in the doctrine of protection, and only limits the extent to which it should be carried.

James Monroe, in his inaugural address, said: Our manufactures will likewise require the systematic and fostering care o

our QQvernment.

Andrew Jackson was more specific. He said these industries '' ought to have extended to them adequate protection, that our manufacturers and laborers may be placed in fair competition with those of Europe."

And so the succeeding generations of statesmen of the Democratic party felt tha.t proper encouragement to American manufactures . was judicious and promotive of the geneml welfare. And it wa.s reserved to modern theorists to anathematize the enterprising and successful manufacturers as "robbers," "plunderers of the people," " bloated barons a.ping royalty." These men who have developed the resources and added to the wealth of the country and have given employment to tens of thousands of operathes are made the targets for oratorical ordnance of caliber large and small.

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3841 Now sir I call attention of the House, and especially this side of

the Ho'use 'to one of the most recent deliverances upon this subject of any repres'entative body of Democrats. Shortly after the introduction of the Morrison bill a meeting was gotten up in New York for the express purpose of indorsing a,nd strengthenin_g that measure. Tammany assembledinforce. TwooftheRepresentat1vesfromNewYork [Messrs. DoRSHEIMER and BELMO~T] left their official duties here to instruct their clansmen upon this great economic question. Listen to the result: R~olved, That we favor a tariff so adjusted~ to derive ol?-rrev~nue_, w~e~ever

possible, from luxuries rather t~an nec:essanes, and whlCh will diSCrunmate judiciously in favor of our home mdustr1es and manufactures.

If there is any Democrat who contends for more than that I do not know whe1·e h~ is.

It is true the Morrison bill was indorsed at the Tammany meeting, but it had to be sugar-coated with three resolutions similar to the one I have quoted.

Call the tariff by whatever name you please, only raise from it all the revenue which the Government requires, and adjust it with a judi(!ious reference to our industrial interests, and those who are called protectionists will make J?-O co~p~~t. . . .

Mr. Chairman, the gravity of this discussiOn might be enlivened somewhat by a comparison or contrast of the various arguments that have been presented in support of the bill. Some gentlemen asseverate that the present tariff does not protect the laboring men; others, and con.spicuous among them the very able and philoso~cal gentleman from New York [Mr. HEWITT], declare with equal solemnity that it does not protect the manufacturers. But all agree in denouncing it as ·a protective tariff. So we have the anomaly of protection that does not protect. . . .

AO'ain, some of the advocates of the bill declare that 1t will reduce -the ~evenue; others believe it will have the contrary effect.

While I am opposed to this bill, Mr. Chairman, there are certain -thoughts embodied in most of the speeches made on this side of the House in which! am in full accord, and upon whichlbelievetheentire Democratic party could unite. I believe in rigid economy and the :Strictest integrity in the administration of public affairs. I believe that the Government is collecting too much revenue, and that the sur- . plus in the Treasury is a dangerous temptation to extravagance and corruption. I believe that taxation should be reduced, and I would commence the reduction by the entire abolition of the internal-revenue .system, thereby ridding the country of a tax upon agriculture, of an inquisitorial tax, and of a political bureau .for campaign purposes. Then, sir, if it should be found that the revenues were still too large, I would apply the pruning knife to the customs duties. But I would nave it done with judgment and skill, and not by an indiscriminate .slashing at every dutiable article.

I have already said that there has been no public demand for tariff revision at this time. Neither farmers nor mechanics, producers nor con.sumers, manufacturers nor workingmen have asked for it.

I was glad to hear thegenerousanddeserved tribute which my friend from New York [Mr. HEWITT] paid to the intelligence and usefulness .of trades-unions and labor organizations. These associations have a thorough knowledge of their own condition and interests. And they know the condition of and compensation received by competing work'Jllen abroad. They know this, not from casual interviews with foreign manufacturers in their offices or parlors, nor from a holiday inspection -of affairs in England and on the continent, but they send their shrewdest and best-informed members to mingle with foreign operatives and Teport upon their modes oflife, the wages they receive, and ~he cost of Jiving. And these associations, thus intormed, have no desire to enjoy the fancied benefits of English free trade.

I think every gentleman who has spoken has professed a desire to promote the interests of the laboring people. I present their united protest against the doctrine of free trade, their united protest against the passage of this bill. And I demand of gentlemen to prove the sin.cerity of their professed regard for the laboring people by voting against .a measure which those people condemn. The judgment of the tradesunions, intelligent and well informed as they are, ought to be conclu

.sive as to whether or not this bill will promote their welfare. I ask Democrats who are the avowed and natural friends of labor to pause before they array against our party this large and influential class of

-our fellow-citizens. The gentleman from Kentucky [1\Ir. HALSELL J has quoted a letter

from an anonymous correspondent in Birmingham, England, to the Pittsburgh Dispatch, extolling the prosperous condition of the workmen in Birmingham as compared with those of Pittsburgh. Whoever the writer may be, I venture to assert that he can not find among the tens of thousands of workingmen in Pittsburgh a single one who would ~xchange conditions with those in similar employment in Birmingham.

And in this connection I refer with pride, as a citizen of Pittsburgh .and of the United States, to a fact which illustrates the effects of the protective policy upon the energy, the aspirations, and the realizations -of the working people. The fact that I allude to is that very many of -the wealthiest and largest manufacturing establishments of Pittsburgh ;were founded and built up into complete uccess by men who them-

·xv--241

selves toiled at the puddling-furnace or the Tolls, or the ovens of a glasshouse. I put that fact against all the rhetoric of doctrinaires as to the practical results of encouragement t o our manu1acturing enterprise in so far as the laborers are concerned.

Gentiemen tell me that protection has not benefited the wage-workers of the land ! Let them go with me to Pittsburgh and see thousands of operatives the owners of their own homesteads, the banks for the savings of the earnings of industry showing millions of dollars on deposit, the children of the toilers educated and their families well housed and well dressed. Can any manufacturing city in free-trade England present such a proud spectacle as this?

It is true there is now great, unusual depression in manufacturing and in some places much suffering among the poor. But it is absurd to say that this is the 1·esultof protection. It is much truer to say that it is partly the result of too much tariff tinkering.

The legislation of last year struck down several industries and threw out of employment all engaged therefu. I assert, upon the authority of the American Iron and Steel Association, that tin-plates and cottonties are not now made in this country, and that our iron-wire-rod industry has been almost entirely destroyed by the reduction of the duty in 1883. And it is now proposed to drive additional nails into the coffin of these dead industries, and to c.:'trry others to the same cemetery, over whose gates ma,y be written 11 Free Trade. ' '

Mr. Chairman, I repeat once more that this bill is uncalled for. No one, except the importing merchant, can complain of the duty upon any foreign products. Manufactured goods of all kinds never were so cheap as now, except in 1877 and 1878, when clouds of gloom enveloped our commercial horizon.

And if I had the time I believe I could demonstrate the fa.ct, that farmers and all other consumers of manufactured goods have had to thank the protective policy for a reduction of prices on all the articles in common use. But for this policy we would have been entirely dependent upon foreign manufactures, and, without competition here, who believes that prices would have been lowe;red? Remove this competition by striking down our manufactures, and prices will inevitably advance.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely regret these differences in our political household. I regret that I can not agree with gentlemen for whom I have the sincerest and profoundest respect. But my view of duty to my constituents, my party, and my country alike prevent.

I have tried to vindicate the Democratic party from the false position in which some of its eminent members seek to place it. I have objected to the bill as anti-Democratic, impracticable, uncalled for, and injurious to the country. If this needless agitation shall cause the defeat of the Democratic party, I wash my hands of all responsibility. If commercial disasters ensue and the land should be overshadowed with gloom, the brilliant gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HURD] will have to find some other figure of .rhetoric than ''the giant of protection'' to account for the shadow::~ upon the fair fields and firesides of our people.

Let the tariff cease to be a foot-ball for political aspirants; remove it from the arena o(partystrife; let it be settled upon business and upon patriotic principles; let our great industries adjust themselves to the demands of the times, una wed by fears of the intervention of theorists, and prosperity, plenty, and contentment will come again, typified by this glad spring-time, bringing warmth and health and beauty, filling every eye with brightness, every heart with happiness, and every home with joy.

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, though usually averse to occupyingthe time of the House in presenting my sentiments upon any subject, ye_t it has occurred to me that in this :instmce I ought to give expres ion to my views upon the subject of tariff revision, particularly as my vote was not in line with that of my party upon the question of taking up for consideration House bill5893, "a bill to reduce import duties and wartariff taxes," introduced by the honorable gentleman from Illinois [1\Ir. MORRISON]. I do not wish to be misunderstood because of my course on that occasion. I am and always have been thoroughly in sympathy with tbe policy of protection, but I thought that by the discussion of the question of tariff revision some good might be accomplished through the modification of the existing tariff law, enacted hastily during the short session of the last Congress. The end sought in the enactment of that law was to reduce revenue and to lessen the burdens resting upon the people without disturbing the prokcted industries; but the unfortunate fact remains that the revenue has not been materially reduced, nor is it likely to be under this law, ,and into the coffers of the United States Treasury the surplus is flowing at i.he rate of $100,000,000 during the fiscal year, and is a constant temptation to extravagance and improper appropriations, besides being a needless burden upon the people.

I am clear in my convictions that the policy of protecting the infant industries of our country is the only sound one, and I say this as a commercial man, as an importer of foreign merchandise, doing business in the great commercial metropolis of this nation, the place of all others where one would expect to ~d free-trade principles and followers, where one would expect to meet it champions in olid phalanx. I venture to assert that altbough it is the headquartera of the America.nbranchoftheCobdenClub, yetthatthesub tantialmerchants,

3842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY. 5,

bankers, and intelligeJ?t citizens are, in the majority of cases, favorable to protection to home industries. It was clearly illustrated in the Presidential election of 18 0. New York was the pivotal State. New York was carried by the Republicans upon the platform of protective tariff, and the m::tjority of 21,033 was the result and the outcome of the· unusual interest taken in the success of the candidate of the party of protection by these same merchants, bankers, brokers, and citizens generally, who organized clubs and turned out en masse and worked diligently for the enlightenment of the people upon the subject of a protective tariff.

The unfortunate utterances of the candidate of the Democratic party upon this question brought about the defeat of th::tt party and its candidate. The working people took up the su~iect, and the issue was fought squarely inN ew York and Brooklyn, and the usual large Democratic majorities were sufficiently cut down to admit of the State giving a majority for the Republican, G::tr:field. Protective tariff was clearly the issue and protection won in that race.

To show the wonderfully stimulating effect of the protective tariff system upon manufacturing interests I propose to take for illustration the cities of Brooklyn and New York, where the foreign commerce of the country has been so largely concentrated, these two cities being practically one in all business and commercial matters. I have prepared ·a few statistics, showing the population, number of hands employed in various industries, capital invested, and annual product of said industries; also the amount of the foreign commerce at the part of New York, as ascertained by the United States census in 1860, 1870, and 1880. . According to the census of 1880 the city of New York ranked first in the number of its manufacturing and other industries, there being 11,339; but in amount of capital invested and the value of the annual product she ranked second, the city of Philadelphia being first. The city of BrGoklyn, which I have the honorin part to represent, ranked third in the number of its manufacturing and other industries, there being 5,201, but in amount of capital invested and the value of the annual product she ranked fourth, the city of Chicago being third.

The population of the city of Brooklyn rather more than doubled during the twenty years from 1860 to 1880. The number of hands employed in its varied industries ran up from 12,758 in 1860 to 47,587 in 1880, nearly four times as many. The amount of capital invested increased from 12,320,876 in 1860 to $61,646,7 49 in 1880, an increase of 500 per cent. The annual product ran up from $34,241,520 in 1860 to $177,223,142 in 1880, an increase of over 500 per cent.

The population of the city of New York in 1860 was 805,651, and in 1880 it was 1,206,299, an incr~eof 50 percent. Thenumber of hands employed in manufacturing and other industries increased from 90,204 in 1860 to 227,352in 1880, an increaseof250 per cent. Theamountof capital invested increased from$61,212,757 in 1860, to $181,206,356 in 1880, an increaseofnearly300 per cent. The annual productincreased from $159,107,369 in 1860 to 472,926,437 in 1880, a like increase of nearly 300 per cent. In both cities the percentage of increase was much larger from 1870 to 1880 than from 1860 to 1870. Eight per cent. of the inhabitants of the city of Brooklyn are employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries, and 20 per cent. of the inhabitants of the city of New York are so employed.

This enormous increase in manufacturing and mechanic..'tl industries of the two cities is remarkable in view of the fact that foreign commerce has been supposed to be the interest to be first considered; and yet the increase of foreign commerce at the port of New York has been almost as remarkable, although the manufacturing interests have been gaining upon the foreign commerce. I shall not allude to domestic commerce or the coastwise trade. The foreign commerce at the port of New York in ·the year 1860, imports and exports, exclusive of specie, was $354,323,895; the value ef the industrial product of the two cities, New York and Brooklyn, that yearwas$193,328,889, rather more than half as much. In 1870 the imports and exports, exclusive of specie amounted to $499,281,111; the value of the industrial product of the two cities was $393,800,193. In 1880 the imports and exports, exclusive of specie, amounted to $879,999,827, and the valueoftheindustrialproduct of the two cities was $650,149,579.

During the twenty years the foreign commerce increased 250 per cent. and the manufacturing and industrial products nearly 350 per cent. Fifteen and three-fourths per cent. of the population of the two cities were in the year 1880 employed in these manufacturing and industrial interests. I have gone somewhat minutely into this subject because! have thought it a good illustration of the beneficent results of the protective-tariff l::tws of which the Republican party has been the exponent. I propose to go a step further, and to show the prosperity of the working people of the two cities and of the State of New York through their accumulations of savingEt, as indicated by their deposits in the savings-banks of the State. I believe there is no better way of arriving at t he :financial prosperity of the people than in EOtudying their institutions for savings, but in this exhibit I leave out all trust companies, building and other co-operative organjzations, and confine myself simply to the savings-banks. In 1860 the savings-banks of New York and Kings Counties held on deposit to the credit of customers $49,034,133, an average of$215.92 each. In 1870 the a.mount ondepositwas $147,-204,226, an average of $305.34 to each depositor. In 1883 t he amount

-on deposit was $294,208,390, an average of $384.03 each to 766,094 de-

positors. One in every three of the people of these two counties had a deposit of $384.03 in a savings-bank. .

The savings-banks of the entire State of New York held to the credit of their customers in the year 1860 $58,178,160, an average of $208. 911;() each depositor. On J ::tnuary 1, 1870, they held $194,360,217, an average of $296.80 to each depositor. On January 1, 1883, they held $412,147-213 to the credit of 1 , 095,971 depositors, an average of $376.05 to each· in other words, one in every five of the inhabitants of the State had o~ deposit in a savings-bank $376.03.

I do not wish to be understood as saying that all of the industries at which the people of the two cities are employed are protected, or that the depositors in savings-banks are all employed in manufacturing or industrial pursuits; but I claim that the great growth of these interests and the general prosperity of the people are largely the result of the protective policy.

I have no thought that the prosperity of the people of the State of New York andofthe cities of New York and Brooklyn is exceptional; far from it. I believe that the entire country has shared in a prosperity perhaps the most remarkable in the history of any country at any age of the world. With few exceptions all industries have flourished, the most important exception being the ocean carrying trade, and the decline in this industry is owing to other cau8es than protection, in fact, is owing to the lack of protection. I copy a ~ew sentences from a. memorial to Congress adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of New York city February 4, 1864, and accompanying a carefully prepared comparative statement of the growth of the British and decline of the American carrying trade, with other valuable statistics. It is as follows:

Your memorialists have endeavored to lay before you the importance of ocean steam navigation and i!'S. dependence, in tb~ present stage of mechanical art, upon Government substdies. They have pomted out the steadiness and regularity with which the British Government, through all periods of distress and financial difficulty, has faithfully supported the system which it inaugurated establishing regula r communication with point after point, as commerce, which the introduction of steam develops, has demanded new facilities. They have endeavored to estimate the harvest of wealth which Great Britain haf! reaped from the careful husbandry of its statesmen. * * * Our steamers have been driven from the ocean, until now nota solitary one carries our flag to any European port. * * * Not for want of enterprise on the part of h er citizens for the steamers already built can not held their own upon the seas for the wa~t of that aid and fostering legislation which other governme nts so libe rally supply and without which competition is ruin.

As to wha;t the future of this industry is to be no one is wise enough to tell, but under any circUII18tances its revival will be slow even with the removal of all surrounding difficulties.

Believing as I do that the policy of protection has been a wise one, I would not propose to change it; but l am thoroughly convinced that the time has come for a modification of the tariff laws with :1 view to a large reduction of the revenue and a lifting of the burdens resting on the people. The policy of the people ofthiscountryhas been to collect its revenues largely through a tariff tax upon importations, and I do not believe any other way would be equally acceptable. The question at issue is, and has been almo t from the beginning, whether the tariff tax should be for revenue only or for revenue with incidental protection. Upon this question the great statesmen h::tve fought their battles until the subject has been thoroughly canvassed.

But the question of paramount importance now, the one which is staring the nation and its lawmakers in the face, is the reduction of the revenue. The revision of the tariff laws by the Forty-seventh Congress, undertaken with a. view to a large reduction of revenue, does not seem to have accomplished that desirable end. and it is estimated that the surplus during the present fiscal year, as' I have said before, will rea.ch a hundred million dollars. The effect of the continued accumulati0n of an enormous surplus is unfortun::tte; it leads to conE?tant raids upon the Treasury and the bringing in of all sorts of schemes of extravagance, leading to improper appropriations, besides being an unnecessary burden to be borne by the people. To reduce revenue there are three ways: First, through removingpartoralloftheintemal taxes; second, readjusting the tariff laws, adding largely to the free-list; third, raising the tariff so high that it becomes prohibitory, thereby cutting off foreign trade and drawing a wall around our country, isolating it from the brotherhood of nations.

The plan proposed in the bill under consideration is a horizontal re.ductiOJ?. of somewhere about 20 per cent., and the addition of coal (except from the Dominion of Canada), salt, and lumber to the free-list.. From the discussion of the bill on both sides of the House I am in doubt if it would materially reduce the revenue. It is asserted by those who are favorable to its passage, as well as by those opposed, that it will not effect much reduction. As to the plan itself I have little to say. I think it an exceedingly awkward one, and one which I could not support. I have no doubt but that the effect of its enactment into a law would be ruin to many branches of indllStry, while others could safely be red need more than is provided for by the provisions of this bill. In voting to consider the bill I had no expectation that I could vote for the clauses providmg for the horizontal reduction, and the discussion which has ensued has convinced me that my judgment was correct, and that the enactment of such a law would be fraught with serious mischief . .

To accomplish the end of a reduction of the revenue I would propose

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3843 a further reduction in the tariff on sugar; I would add largely to the free-list articles which are classed as raw materials, such as jute, jute butts, manila hemp, sisal, tin pl:1tes, and a variety of articles which enter into the great manufacturing industries, as well as articles which enter into daily use but are not the product of our own country. By removing the duty on hemp and sisal, for instance, one of the heavy burdens resting upon the ship-building industry would be lifted and the product of our rope manufactories could be sold in foreign countries. The plan suggested would reduce revenue, help our manufactories, and would relieve the farmer and workman.

Mr. SKINNER, of New York. !yield to my colleague [Mr. SPRIGGS] for five minutes.

Mr. SPRIGGS. l\Ir. Chairman, I have no ambition to add to the tariff literature of our country over which Jefferson, Jackson, :l'tfadison, Clay, Calhoun, and Adams made their greatest, most exhaustive, and brilliant efforts. I desire only in the brief space allotted to me by my distinguished friend from New York to emphasize my action in regard to this bill.

The policy of legislation, or rather the most hopeful one to be adopted, is to legislate as little as possible, disturb affairs as little as may be, let all business pursuits bring things to an equipoise; as it is a practical. truth that almost any law if stable is better than the everchanging and unstable.

I would encourage the vital interests of all our varied industries. I would so legislate as to protect the laboring classes of our countrymen, and at the same time I would not disturb or distl.-act. I would not have the manufacturer crushed and driven from business. I would not legislate so as to destroy his capital or hush the busy hum of his machinery. I would not see our laborers crushed by forcing them into competition with pa.uper labor of foreign lands. Protect the poor from the rich, the weak from the strong, is the voice uttered to us all from the policy of that Government that rests upon the shoulders of her people as the sovereign whole in unity.

It is urged that we raise too much revenue. It may not be desimble to have surplus revenue unappropriated, still it is far from an oppressive evil. To seek a remedy which will crush out our manufacturing interests and bring our labor into competition with cheap labor of foreign countries would be a greater evil than that we seek to remove.

Better bear the ills we have than fly to otbers we ~now not of.

I am, therefore, for non-interference at present. Let business affairs settle down upon a system of quiet; or if adopted to laws of adjustment, not hastily or inconsidemtely to be disturbed. At any rate, hasty legislation is too far from the advisable for me to approve at this time. There are no products of our own that can allow of free importations without affecting the labor that produced them.

Labor is the foundation of all business affairs; it is the power, wealth, and glory of our nation, and is the only true productive capital of any people. Moneyed capital is its auxiliary; they should go hand in hand; the rights of either are not to be ignored, nor one protected as against the just rights of the other. Tariffs affect more or less either and both, and hence the importance of great caution and study in adj ustiilg them. The author of this bill shouldatleasthave been able to have said: "We have <!arefully considered this bill, and we are satisfied it is wise and will accomplish the needed reform.'' But instead of that he brings it to us with an apology and says a. horizontal reduction "is not the most logical or best, but none other was practicable,'' and it is with this apology for his deformed bantling that he would send us before the people to excuse ourselves for disturbing the business interests of the country and alarming the laboring masses of our people in this unsettling of the untried laws not yet a year old.

This is of a character with the reasons given by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for favoring this bill. He supports the bill because he believes it is in the interests of manufacturers and laborers. Nevertheless he said:

I have been surprised at the want of knowledge exhibited by manufacturers with whom I have talked upon this subjeet.

Again, speaking of the intelligent laborer of the country, he says: I would the workers of this country would cease to hug to themselves the de

lusion that protection is a help to them.

Then we are told the intelligent, practical employer and the practical, common-sense employe neither understand their true interest.

As well might a distinguished advocate seek to win his cause before a jury by saying: "Gentlemen of the jury, I concede that the law and the evidence are against me in this case, but I invoke you to remember that you have nothing to do with the law, and I ask you to ignore the evidence; listen to my eloquence and my theory of what the fiu;ts ought to be, and I will convince yon that I am entitled to your verdict."

I believe, 1\ir. Chairman, that the employer and the employed of this country know better in what their interests consist than the mere freetrade doctrinaire.

Such, briefly, are my views of the policy and principles by which my action should be governed on this bill.

Mr. SKINNER, of New York, addressed the committee. [See Appendix.]

Mr. MILLER, of Texas. 1't11:. Chairman, in our Constitution the

jurisdiction and duties of all the departments of the Government are defined and limited. The power of each separate branch or departmentis limited to the expressed grants of power contained in it, or to those acts necessary to e:a,rry out powers expressly granted. By its terms all power not expressly granted to the General Government are reserved to the States or the people. This limitation is contained in the tenth amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sta.t-es, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people~

In connection with this, and as showing the design of the framers of" our organic law to limit the powers of the General Government, I read the ninth amendment to the Constitution, as follows:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As I construe this language it limits the power of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial departments of the Government, to certain and well-defined subjects of legislation, and limits its right to legislate upon the subjects committed to it to defined objects and purposes. I do not believe that under a proper construction of the Constitution Congress has unlimited power of legislation npou any subject unless power to do so is given it without restriction. Its powers are limited in legislating upon any subject by the expression of the purpose and object to be accomplished.

The framers of our organic law did not entertain the idea that Congress could by law create wealth and make itself self-supporting. They knew that in the carrying out of the powers committed to the General Government expenses would be incurred, and the money to .pay these expenses was to be collected from the people who participated in the benefits it secured. And this power to raise money is contained in the eighth section of the first article:

The Congress shall have power to layand collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

The terms of this grant of power to raise money define and limit the purposes for which it is to be raised to three, namely : first, to pay the debt ; second, to provide for the common defense ; and third, the general welfare of the United States. As to the two firstthereislittleroom to enlarge them by construction; their meaning is plain and certain. In other sections of the Constitution the Federal Government is expressly given authority to incur debt, to declare war, to suppress insurrection, and to defend the country against foreign invasion. So these two phrases only give the Congress the power to raise money to meet the expenses necessarily incident to the carrying out of powers expressly granted by other sections of the Constitution, and are not independent grants of a new power. But when we come to the third clause, the general welfare, we are met by the claim that this is a new and independent grant of power, not limited to the carrying out of the other powers granted. To this doctrine I can not agree, and particularly to that broad and most dangerous construction of these words which claims that they give to to the Congress general power to raise money for any purpose that it may for the time consider necessary to the special welfare of particular sections or particular industries. .

It is from this simple phrase that gentlemen upon the other side of the House base their claim that Congress has the constitutional right to levy a tribute upon the general public for the benefit of a particular class. It is under this clau~ that they claim the authority to lay import duties, in order to protect and build up our "infant industries,'' some of them now more than a century old, yet as clamorously asking for protection as they did in the days of Washington and Jefferson. Each and every species of class legislation, every grant of a monopoly to individuals or corporations, evety dollar of the people's money that has been taken directly or indirectly for the benefit of the few and at the ·expense of the many, has been justified under this "general-welfare " clause of the Constitution.

·Is it for the "general welfare" that we are asked to continue a system of protective duties, thereby piling up in our Treasury 100,-000,000 annually for which we hav~ no use, and which is over and above all the necessities of a sinking fund and the healthful payment of our public debt as it matures? Is it for the general welfare that we are asked to continue to exclude a healthy and legitimate competition from our commerce, and compel our people to pay a tribute averaging 43 per cent. ·above the real market price to certain favored interests by which fabulous fortunes are being more rapidly accumulated than ever before known in the world's history? Is it for the general welfare that the workingman is compelled to pay an American manufacturer $20 for a. serge overcoat worth in Liverpool eight and one-half dollars? Is it for the general welfare that the poor man has to pay $3 for the wool hat which he can import at .1.50, and in about the same proportion for anything he wears? Is it for the general welfare that when the poor man sets about to build his humble cottage to shelter his wife and children, he must pay a. royalty of 100 per cent. upon his nails, 18 per cent. upon his lumber, 60 per cent. upon his window-glass, 41 per cent. upon his linseed-oil, 54 per cent. upon his white lead, 25 per cent. upon his wall-paper and slate, and 14 per cent. upon his shingles, when little or none of these percentages and extra

:1844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 5,

costs go to the upport of his Government? For it is only when consumption exceeds the home supply that the Government gets the benefit of the duty laid by the tariff act. So long as the home manufacturer can supply the home demand every retail dealer in his goods is a collector for him of these royalties laid upon consumption, and it is only when the foreign article comes into our custom-houses that the Government official gets the duty for Government use. All the rest goes to build up the splendid private fortunes of the protected industries.

But we are told by gentlemen on the other ide oftheHousethatthe benefit to the general public from these protected industries consists in the fuct that it enables them to pay better wages to their operatives and preserves American labor from competition with foreign labor. If this were true, which I shall hereafter try to show is not the fact, yet it could not be justified under the general-welfare clause, because, according to our last census, our total laboring population was 17,392,000 and of these only 2,739,000 were engaged in these protected pursuits; therefore it can not be for the "general welfare" that over 14,000,000 oflaboring men are oppressed for the benefit ofless than 3,000,000.

But these gentlemen say that these protected laborers are consumers of agricultural products and build up a home market for our farmers and give a better price for our agricultural products, and thus enable us to regulate the price of our agricultural products by a home market. In relation to that I read the statement made by 1\Ir. Shearman before the Committee on Ways and 1\Ieans:

The cen us shows that the entire products of American agriculture in 1880, in(!luding all that was consumed by the agriculturists them elves, was valued at :$2,213,402,000; agricultural products exported in same year, $683,000,000; amount .consumed .at home, $1,030,402,000.

The total working population was 17,392,000, of which there were: Farmers and farm laborers ............•.. :.. ........... ........................... ............ 7, 670,000 Nan ufacturers, mechanics, and manufacturing workmen . . . ........ ..... ... 2, 739, 000 .Others . . . . .. . . . .. .... .. . .. ......... .. . . . . . . . .................... .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 983, 000

Total. ........................................................................................... 17,392,900 Now, as one man eats about as much as another (especially if the first is a

farmer), it is perfectly fair to assume that the consumption of agricultural products should be divided equally among all these persons; and, as there are at least as many persons to a family among farmers as among manufacturing workmen, it is not nece ary to make any separate computation as to the families supported by the 17,392,000working population. The agricultural produce of the country wa , therefore, diilposed of as follows: Farmers consume of their own products......................................... $673,372,000 Manufacturers and mechanics of all kinds...................................... 244.863, 000 Other Americans..................................................................... ........ 612, 156,000 The foreign market.................................................... ......... ...... ....... 683, Oil., 000

Total. .. ......... ....... .............. .......... ..... ............ ........... ................ 2, 213, 402, 000 Thus it appears that the much despised foreign market is worth nearly three

times as much to the American farmer as all the manufacturing classes put together. But this i far from being the end of the matter. Deducting from the 2,700,000 persons reckoned as the ma!lufactur:ing clas es all the flour-makers, provision-packers

1 carpenters and builders, With hundreds of thousands more

who are engaged m those kinds ofmanufacturingwhichnevercan be benefited by the protective system (except in the same way that it is uppo ed to benefit farmers, namely, by providing them custom among protected industries), it is an extravagant estimate to a ume that there are as many as 700,000 per ons employed in those branches of manufacturing which can po ibly derive any benefit from a tariff. As this number amounts to only a trifle more than 4 per cent. of the whole working population, it follows that the entire classofprotected manufactw·ers and mechanics furnished a market in 1880 for less than 2,000,000 of agricultural produce, while the much contemned foreigners provided a market for $683,000,000, or more than eleven times as much as all the protected classes put together.

In order to Ihaintain this paltry market for $62,000,000 of his produce, the American farmer Sl.J bmits to an annual taxation which draws from the country not less than 100,000,<AJO in excess of anything which bone t government require , with an additional taxation of from $500,000,000 to $700,000,000 per annum in the exces ive price of domestic manufactures, exacted for the ole purpose of enabling the manufacturer to pay to his workmen the same wages as the farmer does. Taking the lowest estimate of the amount thus annually paid, and of the proportion which farmers J?aY out of the whole, the annual expense to the farmers themselves of maintaimng this market for $62,000,000 is not less than $250,000,000.

The price of agricultural products are in fact, as we all know, regulated by the foreign demand for our surplus.

It was necessary to show these absurdities of this claim of authority for a protective tariff in order to show what I think is the correct construction of the clause of the Constitution now under consideration. Those of us who deny the correctness of this latitudinarian construction of this Constitution hold that under the term 1

' general welfare," properly construed, there was no substantive grant of independent power to raise money for any purpose, but that tho e words only grant power to raise money for the general welfare as defined and limited by all the other clauses in the Constitution. I hold that all and the only general welfare for which the Congress has the right to raise money is defined in other sections of the Constitution by express grants of power, just as the clauses to pay the debts and provide for the common defense are given powers in other sections.

In other words, the ' 1 general welfare '' about which the Congress is given power to rai e money is set out in the Constitution itself and limited to these and these only. There may be and are unquestionably a great many things ab olutely essential t{) the general welfare which are not and never have been claimed as subjects ofFederallegislation, such as the protection of life and property in the States and the due and proper administration of , tate laws. If Congress bas the general power to legislate for the general welfare, it can raise money to pay the debts of the cities, counties, and States of the Union. It can raise money to build churches, to establish factories, schools, newspapers, art galleries, in the States as it now does in the District of Columbia. It seems to

me, therefore, absolutely essential that the interpretation of this clause should not in any case be ext~ded beyond the rai ing of money to carry out the powers granted m other sections of the Constitution w~ch define and limit the general welfare, about which Congress may leg1slate.

Again, while this clause has not, so far as I know, and in the nature of things can not be, the subject of judicial interpretaLion, yet cases arising under State law5 have been the subject of judicial determination by our highest courts, and I ·shall briefly refer to a few of the e as showing how this clause would also be construed.

The Supreme Court ofthe United States in the case of The Citizens' Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland vs. The City of Topeka (20 Wallace, R., 655), the question being the constitutionality of a law authorizing cities and towns to tax themselves in aid of manufactories, held (I quote from the syllabus of the opinion):

Among the limitations of the right to tax is that it can only be used in aid of a public object, an object which is within the purpo es for which governments are established. It ean not therefore be exercised in aid of enterprises strictly private or for the benefit of individuals, though in a collateral or remote way the local public may be benefited thereby.

J\1r. Webster defines a tax as a rate or sum of money assessed upon the person or property of a citizen for the m;e of the State.

In Northern Liberties vs. St. John's Church (13 Penn ·ylvania State Reports, 104) J\Ir. Justice Coulter, in delivering the opinion of the court, said:

I think the common mind has everywhere U:ken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition levied by the government for the purpose of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations; that they are imposed for a public purpose.

Can it be said that duties levied upon imports to build up individual enterprise, to encourage and foster the particular industries of a few at the expense of the many, comes within these definitions of a tax? An import duty is a tax, and according to these learned and distinguished authorities it must be levied for a governmental purpose, and not to foster private enteTpri e, even though the public may remotely receive a benefit thereby.

Even if the terms 11 general welfare'' are given the broadest si~fica- : tion, yet they can not be made broad enough to cover a protective tariff as defined by the gentleman from J\iassachusetts [Mr. RussELL], '' Protection for the sake of protection.'' It can not be for the ''general welfare" that the indust:ties of the few are builded up at the expense of the consuming millions. It can not be for the "general welfare" that capital is protected and ,given illegitimate profits at the expense of the great body of the p~pl~ who live by their daily labor. It can not be for the general welfare that by the operation of these tariff Jaws the rich are made richer day by day and the poor grow poorer as the years roll on. It can not beforthegeneral welfarethatproduction is limited to the supply of an exclusive market, and when a surplus is made that work stops, wages cease, and the idle workman becomes a tramp in the land. The great majority of our people are of that class who day by day earn wages to support themselves and their families, and every discriminating duty upon articles of their daily coru;umption but makes their burden harder to bear and their lives more and more cheerless and hopeless.

The furmer and hi5 help must toil on from ea,rly morning until late at night, with no shelter from the summer's sun or winter's rain, and at last he must trust to the seasons and the good providence of the Almighty for his harvests. And yet no law protects him from competition with the world; his surplus products must be sold for what they will bring; there is no plea made to give him a market from which all competition is excluded. He can not shorten hours of work or limit his production; if he does; his children will go unclothed aud unfed. But it is not in fact trne that these protected industries pay any higher wages than is paid by unprotected industries in proportion to hours of work, skill, and capacity for production.

It is true that American artisans produce more in a given time than most other nations. It is true that American skilled labor is the best and most valuable skilled labor, and therefore most profitable to the employer; but it is not true that protection adds to his wages or gives him any better living.

It has been argued upon this floor that protection equalized itself because of the fact that .if A used the articles made by B under protection he paid B a bonus for making it; but on the other hand B used in return articles made by A and paid him back the bonus in that way. In the mean time what becomes of the workmen who made these articles and the balance of the great body of consumers of the articles made by A and B? No equalizing processes come to them to return the bonus they have paid to A and to B; and thus in the name of the revenue A and B gather taxes into their private coffers and grow richer and Ticher, while the unprotected public grows poorer and poorer by reason of these illegal exactions. .

The universal law is that the price of labor is regulated by the inexorable law of supply a.nd demand. When there is little to be done and many seeking work labor will be at starvation prices, while on the other hand when there is much to be done and labor is BCa;I'Ce wages will be high. No amount of legislation, no tariff can be made so high as to change this law; both individuals and corporations do and will continue to act upon this J.aw until the millennia! dawn. They g~t the cheapest

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3845 labor that n.nswers their purpose to be had in the market; and when, as with us, there is free intercourse between nations and peoples labor, like gold and commodities, will be imported and exported as is profitable to employers and employed. Labor is not protected. There is no law upon our statute-books which prohibits the foreign artisan or skilled laborer from coming to this country and engaging in any of these protected industries. There is no law to prevent the protected manufaetUl'er from employing foreign operatives if they are willing to come here.

If wages were so much better here, as has been intimated on this floor, than in Europe, why is it that these foreign laborers do npt come flocking here to better their condition? As a fact it is stated that foreign skilled artisans have come here and have gone again because the wages they had in Europe were really better than their wages here in its power to purchase comfort for their families. The workingman has no assurance that the next steamer from Europe will not bring a competitor for his place, and perhaps competition maybe so sharp as toreduce the price of his labor, while protection takes nothing off the price ofhis living by reason of all this. His wages may bereduced by competition from abroad, but the price of his living can not be because of protection.

Protection, if it protects at all, does itbyincreasing the marketprice of protected articles, and thus increases the cost of those articles to the consumer. Probably 40,000,000 of th..e people of the United States are absolutely dependent upon the toil of muscle and brain of those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. To them protection comes in the guise of giving them wages for work or a market for the fruits of their labor, while in fact it exacts from them 43 per cent. of their earnings, not to support their Government, but to build up the fortune of more favored citizens. To the workingman it means a reduction in the purcha ing power of his wages; it means a decrease in his ability to support himself and his family, a decrease in his ability to lay up anything out of his earnings for old age and sickness or other misfortune; it means to him less of ability to educate his children and make them useful citizens.

In the beginning of our Government we were asked to protect our ''infant industries '' for just a little while and we will stand alone, and so it has gone on fora century, and still comes the cry, give us ten more years of protection and we can stand alone. One gentleman said Eng~and had six hundred years of protection to develop her industries, and so it goes on; like Oliver Twist, they still cry for more.

These protected industries are selfish as other people are, and desire to make all the profit they can with as little outlay as possible, and just so long as Congress will continue to give them a market for their wares, from which all real competition is excluded, they will continue to ask it.

If it be true, and I think it is, that where territory is given from which real competition is excluded, manufacturers having the privilege of this exclusive market will limit their production to the amount necessary to profitably supply this market and no more. In addition to this, protective tariffs increa e the cost of mo t manufactures so as to prevent them from successful competition in the open markets of the world, and thus it diminishes the quantity of production, the demand for labor, and thereby the wages of labor. No one will deny that our skilled labor, our factory labor, is as good as any in the world, that our capaeity for machinery is equal or better than any, and yet we are far behind in the amount and value of our manufacturing products exported to a market, and for the same reason that France and Germany are behind England and ahead of us. To show this, I refer to the statement prepared by 1\fr. Jacob 8choenhoff for the Committee on Ways and :Means, as follows:

I take Germany and France, therefore, as examples. English wages are fully 50 per cent. above those of Germany, and on the average at least 30 per cent. above those of France. Besides, the English working week is one of fifty-six hours, while that of Germany is from sixty-six to seventy-two (often seventyeight) hours, and that of France of seventy-two hours. Yet they all guard themselves by protective tarifl's, not against their w eaker rivals, but against the very country which pays the highest wages and has the shortest hours.

In cotton goods the imports and exports are :

Countries. Imports. I Exports.

~~;~;i·{;;~i·<:o~;~i~~g·y~~y::::::::::::::::·.::::::::::::::::: .~:~:.~ .. ~: ~: ~ France (not containing yarns)... ............................... .... 19,000,000 15,000,000

England's position in the commerce of the world in cotton goods is as follows: Wages-From one-half to one-third higher than in any othe r European states.

Weekly hours- Fifty- ix, again tsi.x:ty-si.x: and seventy-two on the continent.

English exports in cotton goods and yarns ........ .. .................... ......... $380, 000,000 Germany exports in cotton goods and yarns.................. 21, 000, 000 Germany exports in hosiery, &c ............ . ....... .................. 10, 000,000 France exports in cotton goods and yarns .. ... . .. ...... ... .. ... 19, 000, 000 United States exports in cotton goods.... .... .............. ...... .. 13, 000,000 Holla nd exports in cotton goods and yarns... ................. 11,000,000 Belgium exports in cotton goods.................. .. .... ....... ...... 5,500,000 Switzerland exports in cotton goods and yarns .............. 10,000,000

90, 000,000

Excess of English exports in cottons over the rest of the world ...... .. . 290, 000, 000

If we deduct the exports of yarns, because they are more than balanced by imports from England-nineteen millions-then we have STI,OOO,OOOagainst S380,-

000,000. This is astrikingillustrationofthefallacy of the " pauper-labor theory" in the tariff.

Our faetories are not worked to more than half their capacity. Our mines and forges are over half the time idle, to avoid overproduction, because we do not produce for the world's markets, but only for our own. · The laborer who is idle has to feed and clothe his family, just as if he was working at fair wages. His life and his strength, which are his capital, are wasting away day by day without profit to him, while the employer's capital remains intact. He only loses ihterest by its lying idle, when but for protection our manufacturers would have to depend upon the markets of the world and sell in competition with the world; they would run their machinery to the full capacity, they would work full time, make larger quantities of their fabrics at a smaller profit, in order to realize the income which they now get from limited production, and this would give more employment to labor, increase the demand for it, and thus increase wages.

It is a grand mistake to suppose that the cheapest labor is the most profitable. On the contrary, skilled labor which produces most in a given time gets the best price and is the most profitable to employers. Pauper labor and cheap labor is the worst labor and least profitable; it does not and can not compete with skilled or high-priced labor, as has been so fully shown in statements make upon this floor that it is unnecessary for me to repeat them.

Nor is it true, as seems to be assumed upon the other side in this debate, that the price of labor is governed by either the price of or profit upon the article made, but is governed, a.q I have stated before, by the law of supply and demand.

As an evidence of this I am told that in certain steel-rail works in this country when the price of steel rails was $56 per ton wages for certain laborers were $2 per day. Afterward the price of steel rails was reduced to $40 per ton, but the wages of these same workmen had advanced to $3 per day.

The protective system is not fair to our agricultural population. The surplus of agricultural prnduction is of a character that it can not be long held from market. If more is made than will supply home consumption it must be exported and sold for whatever it will bring, and the price of the whole crop is regulated by the foreign demand. The prices of the cotton, corn, hog product, beef, &c., are regulated re::illy by the foreign market, }Vhere it has to compete with the productions of theworld. The wheat crop in India has reduced the price ofwbeat in Chicago to 80 cents per bushel. The cotton crop of Egypt regulates in a great measure the price of cotton in New York, because they come in open competition in the world's markets.

On the other hand, the agriculturist, when he comes to'_purchase supplies, must go into a market from which ail reasonable competition is excluded. If he desires to buy English goods he has to pay freight and tariff in addition to original cost, which practically compels him to purchase from the American manufacturer at a much larger price than he would have to pay in an open market. Thus he is compelled to sell his produce in the cheapest market, because he competes with all the world, and to buy his supplies in the mostexpensive one, because competition is excluded. And it has only been that our farmers have been able to sustain themselves in this unequal contest by re~n of their energy and industry and the natural fertility of our soil.

If the principle of protection is correct, then the Chinese were statesmen and philosophers when they built their wall to prevent communication with the world. Statutes levying taxes and imports just as effectually exclude the world's productions from our country as did the Chinese wall exclude them from China. Legal walls and statutory prohibitions aJ<e more powerful than walls of stone and mortar to keep out commerce.

We have heard much of the decadence of American shipping on the floor of this Hou e, and had many touching appeals to our patriotism to relieve our shipping industries, to build up our Navy and our merchant marine, from the other side of this House, and yet when we have clearly pointed out to them the cause of this to be excessive tariff imports they affect not to believe it.

ln the literary bureaus for the diffusion of high-tariff ideas, which we call Departments, among the many arguments printed for circulation at the expen e of the Government I find the following statement from Mr. Consul Crawford in reference to the effects of the protective policy in Canada upon its shipping interest:

EFFECTS OF THE PROTECTIVE POLICY.

Previous to the adoption of the national policy Canada was almost entirely an agricultural country. The surplus capital soug ht an investment, and in this, as in all other countries, it sought tha t which would pay the greatest percentage of profits. In the ab ence of protection manufacturing industries offe red no induC'ements . Manufactured goods w ere furni bed by England and the United State at prices with which she could not compete.

The Dominion Government followed the e x ample of England in regard to trade and also the policy of granting subsidies to o.id in building up and maintaining h e r commer ce. She held out such inducements to capital that the surplus wealth was largely invested in ships and shipping until she stands fourth in rank of commercial nat.ions.

The adoptio n of the nat ional protective policy iu 1878 has had the tendency to turn capita l into otherchannell!. Under the fostering care of protection manufu.c~ures sprang up all over the Dominion, immen e profits were realized, and the manufacturing industries are fast a.b orbing the surplus capital of the country and drawing large amounts from the outside world. The result of this can not be otherwise than (in spite of subsidies) the decline of her commerce; less numbers of vessels will be built, and the same complaint that is made in the United States will be heard.

'

I·


The tonnage of vessels built, registered, and entered inwards and outwards, inclusive of coasting ve seJ , in 1883 is as follows: Tonnage buHt, 73,576; tonnage registered, 78,229; tonnage entered inwards and outwards, 13,770,735. The quantity of freight handled by the last-named vessels was 3,971,393 tons' weight, and number of crews, 537,668.

Of these vessels which entered the Dominion ports 2,680 bore the United States tla.g and 7,305 the British flag; 635 were Norwegian and Swedish, 46 were French, aml the remainder, 10,781, were distributed among other nationalities. Number of sailing vessels 8,138, and of steamers 2,593.

The number of vessels employed in the coasting trade of Canada, as shown by the arri mls in port, is 38,244, of which 38,085 are British and 158 foreign.

The total tonnage is 8,056,736, and crews numbered 369,524. Of these vessels 17,782 were steamers and 20,462 sailing vessels.

hips, old or new, sold to other countries numbered 44; tonnage,23,896; value, $506,538.

From this statement it will be seen that in Canada as in this country like causes produce like effects. Up to 1878 Canada, small in popular tion and wealth, had become fourth in the nations in the amount of her tonnage. Yet since she adopted a protective tariff, in 1878, she is rapidly losing her merchant. marine, just as we under a revenue tariff had a merchant marine and a gallant navy. Now, after twenty years, we have no sailors and no ships to carry our merchandise, and no menof-war to carry our admirals, commanders, and captains out to sea. We are only able to carry them on the pay-rolls of our naval establishment. We have also the pleasure of knowing that we have John Roaeh & Co.; that we have had a Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robeson, and that some hundreds of millions of dollars have been appropriated to build war vessels with no results to show for it.

The President recommends a reduction in the revenues so that we may not take from the people more money than is necessary for governmental purposes. Gentlemen on the Republican side of the House propose to do this by increasing the protected features of the tariff and thus prevent importation of goods, which in effect may reduce the revenues of the Government, but will not reduce the burdens of taxation upon the people. It will simply add more of the people's money to the capital and profits of the protected industries. Some on this side of the House propose to repeal the internal-revenue laws; in effect to relieve the consumers of whisky and tobacco from tax'es and place the burdens of supporting the Government upon woolens, iron, salt, coal, and all other nece saries of life. People can live without whisky or tobacco, but can not live without clothe.C~, iron, tools, and something to eat.

We propose to reduce the revenue by reducing the revenues from the tariff one-fifth, thus reducing the burdens of the people upon the necessaries of life, thus reducing the cost of living to the great body of the people.

From the foregoing illustrations of its workings I conclude that a protective tariff is not for the general welfare of the United States; that it is not a tax laid fo.r a public purpose, and is therefore unconstitutional.

l\1r. NEECE. Mr. Chairman, we are confronted with the Treasury of the United States filled to the overflowing. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury April 30, 1884, shows a surplns of '152, 652,973.75. We see by reference to the Bureau of Statistics that there lw..s been a gradual increase in the Treasury for the last niue months, and at the same time there has been a rapid payment of the public debt. The decrease of the public debt since June 30, 1883, is 565,007,487.62. The payment of the public debt in the month of .April just passed was '11, 958,003.94.

Notwithstanding this rapid payment of the public debt, we see the rapid increa e in the Treasury. Where does this money come from? There is but one answer: it comes from taxes collected by the various modes of the Government, which are paid by the people of the United States, not in proportion to what each tax-payer is worth, but upon what each person consumes. The fumily that is worth comparatively nothing, if provided with the comforts of life, pays as much of this tax in actual dollars and cents as the family who are wort.h their thousands. We are told by the opponents of the Morrison bill thatthe present rate of high taxation mu t be kept up in order to protect the poor-to protect labor, as they put it-a very good thing if true, the truth of which is not sustained by the facts and circumstances, which I shall notice further on.

First, as to the necessity of the present high rate of taxation. It is an admitted fact. by all that there is more money in the Treasury than is needed for the wants of the Government. No one denies that proposition. No one denies the fact that at the present rate of taxation money will continue to flow into the Treasury faster than is or will be needed for the legitimate wants of the Government. I have before me the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount of money necessary to run the Government for the fiscal year 1885. The Secretary is a very modest gentleman, but I never heard of an instance where the estimated receipts were too high or the expenditures too low. It has been the custom of both Republican and Democratic Congresses to make the appropriations considerably under these estimates. Here is the report:

The Secretary of the Treasury in his estimate of receipts for 1885 places them at$34&,000,000 and the expenditures at $283,125,304.93, including the sinking fund, or an e timated surplus of $.39.874,695.05. Excluding the sinking fund the estimated expenditures will be · 236,&35,548, showing a surplus of 106,144,452. Assuming that Congre swill continue to comply with the law in relation to the sinking fund, we will be collecting from taxation 59,874,695.05 more than it is

estimated we need for the Government. Tbe revenue of this fiscal year are thu estimated on the basis of existing laws by the Secretary of t.he Tteasury: From customs......................................... ................. ..................... ..... l95. 000,000 From internal-revenue...................................................................... 120,000,000 From sales of public lands................................................................ 8, 000,000 From tax on circulation of national banks....................................... 3, 000,000 From repayment of interest and sinking fund, Pacific railway com-

Ffo~i~~~i~~~·i~~~:fu;·~~;·p~;;;,.yij;;:·&;;.'.'.'.'.:·::.'.'.'.'.'.'.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From fee~onsular, letters patent, and lands ................................. . From proceeds of sales of Government property ........................... . From profits on coinage, &c ...................... ........ ....... ................. ........ . From deposits for surveyin~ public lands ............................... ........ . From revenues of the Distnct of Columbia ................... ...... ............ . From miscellaneous sources ........................................................... .

2,ooo,ooe 1,200,000 3,300,000

800,000 4,000,000

500,000 1,900,000 3,800,000

Total estimated ordinary receipts................... ......................... 843,000,000 It appears that from customs we will get 8195,000,000; from internal-revenue,

$120,000,000; from both, $315,000,000; and from all other sources, $28,000,000.

Making the usual deductions that both Republican and Democratic Congresses have heretofore made, we will have for the year 1885 a surplus in the Treasury of at least $100,000,000 over and above what is needed or required for the legitimate needs of the Government. s~.y that we appropriate every dollar that is asked for by the Secretary of the Treasury and the various Departments of the Government, yet we have the enormous sum of$59,874,695.05ofthe people's money, taken from them against their consent, placed out of circulation, not needed by the Government for any legitimate purpose, locked up in the Treasury, or supposed to be.

How are we to justify the continuance of this large surplus in t4e Treasury with the certainty before our eyes that the surplus is to increase month after month and year after year? To my mind it is a dangerous state of affairs, both as to the moral and financial condition of the country, if this drain upon the people's money is allowed to continue. A scarcity of money among the people is inevitable. "The stream though small will exhaust the fountain, although it be ever so large." The danger to the moral cendition of the country is in the enormous amount of money in the Treasury idle. It is agreatinducement to misapplication, extravagance upon the partofthose who have the management of the Government under their control. Lavish appropriations will be asked for and granted, simply because the money is in the Treasury idle. Appropriations will be made for hundreds of things that ought not to be, simply in order to get the money out of the Treasury. The people's money will be spent with a lavish hand.

And lastly, the great inducement to theft and fraud, for which it seems from recent experience the Government has no remedy in court. The remedies in recent cases have proven to be worse than the disease. Now, if this money could be applied to the payment of the public debt or appropriated for any legitimate purpose for which the interest of the whole people could be benefited I would say "amen." But to maintain a higher rate of taxation than is required for the purpose of raising necessary revenue for the legitimate wants of the Government in my judgment is a crime. The theory that by law you·can or ought to take the earnings of one person and without compensation or his consent transfer it to another can not be upheld upon any principle of right or justice. It violates every principle of equity.

Here is the theory (the Ohio theory): a man of means not desiring to go into the more active pursuits invests his money in cheap lands, hillsides, and valleys, and having heard the oft-repeated false theory that sheep will live upon brush and without other food, without labor, and return to the owner a large profit upon his investment, he invests largely in sheep, to learn in a short time that sheep-raising, like other industries, in order to make it profitable requires skill, perseverance, and close attention. Instead of adopting skill and energy like the furmer that raises horses, cattle, hogs, and ~rain to sell in the markets of the world without any protection only such as the laws of supply and demand afford him, he appeals to Congress to make good his mistake in his attempted speculation. Finding Congress not a very ready listener to his wants, he then appeals to the ring of protectionists to allow him to become one of protection's most exalted members. And after receiving his first le on he returns and says: ''I ask protection in the name of labor. We wool-growers in Ohio must have protection against the pauper laborers of En~land. You furmers who raise cattle, swine, and grain, and send it broadcast into the world to find a market without any protection, after contributing your mite to save us, can do the best you can for yourselYes; the small pittance we exact off of you is very small to make our bad speculation good."

For this we propose to deliver our votes to protect othermonopolies, and they are to give us protection, aUto be an additional burden upon the other unprotected industries of the United States, and to bear most heavily upon the very cla in whose name we received the donation, because at last the increased price, if any, is paid by the consumer. The laborer who clothes his family and himself pays it all at last with interest, and those who wear the cheaper· grade of clothing pay more than tho e who wear the better grade. Examiningthe schedules, yon will see that the tax on the coarse grades of woolen goods are much higher in proportion than the finer grades.

I am in favor of a tariff for .revenue; that far have we a right to go, and no farther. I would be opposed to disturbing the present ·tariff if it wa not so apparent that the revenues were o greatly in excess of the

\

1884. CONGRESSION .AL RECORD- HOUSE. 3847 111ecessities of the Government. Such is the fact, and we must meet it. Let us do our duty. Certainlyweoughtnotto be afraid to do our duty, :and in the discharge of our duty patriotism ought to be greater than .avarice. Selfishness ought not to overbalance our judgment, but in the .adjustmentofthetariffafterdete1·miningtheamountofmoneynecessary to be raised it ought to be so adjusted as to give the greatest possible protection to labor, and to encourage the investment of capital in manufactories and other industries.

A tariff beyond the requirements of the Government in many instances acts as a prohibition to commerce and, in fad, destroys commerce, breaks down the industries of the country, and instead of protecting labor it impoverishes and robs it. Take, for instance, the present protective tariff made for the necessities of war, but continued nineteen years in peace, and what has been the effect upon our commerce, upon our shipping interests? The Stars and Stripes have ceased to be a common thing upon the high seas, ourmerchantmarinehas been compelled to giveway to the ships of foreign nations; oursailorsand seamen have been driven into the mines and shops, thereby destroying one of the .greatest industries in the world, instead of having hundreds of thousands of our people happily employed in the shipping business, who would have been proud to protect the American commerce and make it respected among the nations of the earth.

We have taken a different course; we have killed the goose to get the ;golden egg. Our carrying trade upon the seas has been transferred to foreigners. Year by year has our commerce been withering, until to.day it is a thing of the past. Here is a table:

.Among the details furnished by the report from the Bureau of Statistics upon -the commerce and navigation of the United States for1883 are those relating to the ship-building of the country.

The comparison made by this showing with that of other years is presented !in the followin~ table. It gives the total number and tonnage of vessels of all -classes, both sa1l and steam, built in the United States in the years stated:

Year.

1874 .................................................................................. . 1875 . .... .... ............... .......................................................... . ~876 .................................................................................. . 1877 ................................................................................. .. 1878 .................... ............................................................. .. 1879 ................................................................................. . [880 ................................................................................. ..

Number.

2,147 1,30L 1112 1:029 1 258 1:132

902

Tonnage.

432,725 297,638 203,585 176,591 235,503 193,030 157,409

The whole number of iron vessels built in the United States in 1883 was thirtylive, of which only one was a. sailing vessel. These were nearly all built at the yards along the Delaware-twenty-three at Philadelphia nnd Chest~r, eight at Wilmington-the others coming, one from Baltimore, one from Buffalo, and -two from New York.

This table makes a stronger argument than I can make. It shows a gradual decrease in the number of our ships, a fearful shrinkage in their tonnagecapacity; and, .M:r. Chairman,agradualdiminution ofmerchant marine can be traced by the statistics from 1866 tp the present time. Is not this the result of protection? If not, then some gentleman please explain, for there is something fearfully wrong somewhere. Our carrying trade on the high seas is dead. I charge it to be the legitimate .effect of the protective tariff. No American wishes to go in to the carrying business upon the seas, for the reason that our commerce among foreign nations is destroyed. He may load his ship in the harbor at Baltimore or Philadelphia and deliver it at London and the cargo may be sold for a reasonable price, no tariff being charged or exacted by the British Government. How is it with his cargo ~hat he gets in London to return? When he reaches his home he :finds his cargo is taxed, if it be woolen goods, all the way from 40 to Qver 100 per cent.

This great difference of the tariff between the two nations works .greatly to our disadvantage. The American ship must return. home .empty oT else bring a load of unprofitable merchandise. The Englishman living in London can load his ship with the goods and wares of his country, deliver them in Canada, and dispose of his cargo free of tariff, drop his ship down to Boston or New York, and there t.ake on -a. cargo of our grain or pork, and return home carrying an untaxed cargo each way. To my mind it is no wonder wehave no merchant m11rue, notwithstanding we have more natural advantages for ship-building -and ship-owning than any nation on the :face of the earth. We have more educated mechanics, more material necessary for ship-building. We have the timber, iron, copper, and coal, and can feed our mechanics -cheaper and better than any country under the sun.

Why not go upon the high seas and compete with all the nations of the earth for this carrying trade? Why not have hundreds of thou.sands of our people engaged in this industry? It is because our men of capital have in vested in manufactories, and instead of depending on their .energies, skill, and science in their business, they have hired lobbies, and from year to year hang around the halls of Congre..o;;s to get legislation so that they can enrich themselves at the expense of their custom·ers, and they can not help themselves, and all this they ask in the name of labor-a cheat and deception. Look at the persons operating coalmines in Pennsylvania. importing foreign labor to operate their mines in order to force down the labor of their own citizens.

Look at the glass manufacturers in Ohio importing foreign labor in .order to break down the wages of their own citizen . Look at the nail

manufacturers in the United States combined as one body, and •vhen it is necessary in order not to have a surplus that will affect the market one institution is ordered to stop operation, the employes are discharged or suspended without pay1 whiletheownerreceives his regular profits as though his mill was running. They point how anxious they are to protect labor; everything is done in the name of labor; yet the money or bounty pretended to be given to labor must first pass through the hands of the persons who control these institutions, and of the magnificent bounties bestowed to labor they pay to the laborers just that portion that the monopolists do not want. If we are to keep up this high rate of taxation for the benefit of labor, let us change the laws so that the.money will go direct to the laborer. Let us not have any lmmbuggery about it, no middlemen, no guardians without security to handle the bounty for the laborer; he is competent to handle it for himself; if it is his, give it to him, not to a trustee.

Let us see how this tariff is ad.j usted. Is there a laborer or his employer in the State of Illinois who derives any benefit from the present tariff? We have manufacturers of agricultural implements who use iron and steel in their business, all of which is made dearer by the operation of the tariff. They use lumber of various kinds made higher by the operation of the tariff. The clothes upon the backs of every mechanic, laborer, and their families are made dearer by the operation of the tariff. If he is a manufacturer of wagons the pine lumber necessary for the wagon is taxed from two to three dollars per thousand. The article, whether it be a plow or a wagon, is increased in price by the operation of the tariff. This increase of price-does it benefit the mechanic or laborer whose labor produced the article? Not one cent .

The increased cost in producing the article is placed upon the article when it is put upon the market. The consumer has it to pay in the end, and the article being unavoidably high the consumer economizes all he can, often refrainingfrompurchasingwhenitisnecessaryforhim to do so, on account of the cost, greatly to the disadvantage of the manufacturer, mechanic, laborer, and purchaser, whose interests are identical, for when the farmer who purchases these farm utensils flourishes the manufacturer reaps a portion of the benefit in increased sales, at fair prices, and in return the mechanic reaps his share of the benefit by the increased demand for his labor. Then whatever prospers agriculture in our country redounds to the benefit of both manufacturer, mechanic, and laborer.

When the farmer is prosperous, then the merchant, mechanic, laborer, and professional man are prosperous, and whatever depresses agriculture injures every person, let his avocation be what it may. We are one people in interest; the law should be made for the benefit of all; it should have its foundation in justice; it ought not to be made for the benefit of one class to the injury of another; the· earnings of one class ought not to be taken for 'the benefit of another without just compensation. The laws ought not to be so adjusted that any one class would have to l·ear all the burdens of the Government, but each per son should pay tax to support the Government in accordance with his ability to pay; no selfish motive should influence our action; every citi zen ought to feel that he is to enjoy equal rights under the law.

This bill is not bound to pass in its present shape; you can amend it to your satisfaction; but there is no sincerity in complaining of this bill and at the same time neglecting to offer a better one.

Let us see how the present tariff affects the people of my State, who are largely engaged in farming. Do the farmers of Illinois get any bene fit from overtaxation, or what you style protection? Do the laborers on the farm, who to-day are working for less wages than any other class, get any benefit from this system? I think not. Here is a table furnished by the Bureau of Statistics:

The proportions of exports by classes of industry for the past two years are as follows:

Products of-

Agriculture ........................ ..... . Manufactures .......................... . Mining (including mineral

oils) ..................................... . Forestry .................................. . The fisheries ................. .... ....... . All other commodities ........... .

1882.

Value.

$552,219,819-103, 132, 481

56,278,887 9,138,934 6, 197,752 6,271,859

Total............................... 733, 239,732

Per cent. of total.

1883.

Value.

75. 31 $619, 269,449 14.07 111,890,001

7.67 51,444,857 1. 25 9, 976,143

• 85 6, 276, 375 .85 5,366,f!IJ7

100. 00 804, 223, 632

Per cent. of total.

77.00 13.91

6.40 1.24 .78 .67

100.00

This table bows that we exported from the United States during the year 1883, 04,223,632, and that 77 per cent. of that amount was the product of agriculture. This product is shipped abroad to :find a market. It is sold in the markets of the world without protection for the be.<~t price the owner can get; that is not all, the foreign market deter mines the price at home. The census of 1880 shows that 43.7 }>f'r cent. of the persons engaged in labor in illinois are agriculturists, while in Pennsylvania only 30.7 of the labor of that State are agriculturists; in Maine only 20.4 areagriculturists. Neither of the two last States im

----------- ----------------------------------~~~------------------------------------------------~--------------


port scarcely anything; in Maine-the late census shows that Maine in the year 1880 rai ed ubstantially 8,000,000 bnshels of potatoes; she finds a home market for her potatoes; there is a tax on potatoes of 15 cents a bushel, which has an effect of keeping the Canadian out of the markets of Boston and New York; the Maine man is protected against the illinois farmer by 1,500milesofrailroad, while the Wisconsin lumberdealer is protected from 2 to 3 per J ,000 against the Canadian, although he, with impunity, hires the Canadian to chop his logs and raft them-no tax on hiring Canadians to come into this country to work. Louisiana is protected on her sugar; the New England States upon their woolen manufactures; Pennsylvania upon her iron production; Illinois is by the present tariff compelled to purchase of all of those protected States and submit to the enhanced price, although she could purchase cheaper elsewhere if permitted, while she is compelled to hip her products, as the above table shows, to foreign countries to find

a market. J nst in proportion as the above table shows that the agriculturist has been compelled to go to foreign markets with her product, just in that proportion is she and all the mechanics and laborers depending upon agricultUre for employment cheated by the present tariff. Agriculture forced into f<?reign markets with 77 per cent. of her products, whilernanufacturersonlyhavetoexport13.9lpercent.oftheirproducts; and all the manufacturers of the Western States who export their products are cheated in the same proportion as the farmer. We have given away millions of acres of our pineries, and now we are taxing the farmers of illinois to give the recipients of the great donations already bestowed upon them additional-bounties. To-day weare giving away the public lands to encourage timber-raising, and at the same time paying a bounty to destroy the forests of this country. ·

What will be the result if tliis bill is defeated? The revenues must be reduced-every one knows that. The next move upon the part of the protectionists is torepealthe tax upon whisky and tobaeco; there is no disguising their design. They seem to prefer cheap whisky and dear sugar. The proposition is to keep the tax up upon the necessaries of life, upon the articles which the poor are compelled to have, and to reduceituponluxuries. Thisisastrnggletotakethetaxoff ofwhiskyand place it upon the clothing andothernecessaries of life. I prefer to let the tax remain upon whisky and reduce it upon the clothing that rich and poor are compelled to have.

The• following extract is taken from a document issued by the representatives of the Louisiana protected industries, and dated New Orleans, March 12, 1884, and I suppose a copy has been furnished every member upon this floor. It seems that Judge Taylor was sent by that ociety to look after the sugar interests. Here is the extract taken

from that document: We urged upon them the absolute nece sity, as we understood it-, of combi

nation. They answered thi argument by saying that the question of putting ugar on the free-list was a mere question of time, and that they would advise

the Louisiana planters to prepare for it and go into some other business. We saw many members of Congress from different sections of the country,

belonging to both political parties, and the expre ion of opinion by those who are called protectioni ts in regard to Louisiana interests was this: that Louisiana was knocking at the doors of Congress for protection for one industry, but he was averse to giving protection to other industries; that it was nonsense

to talk about protecting sugar if the manufactures and other industries of the United States were uot protected.

Mr. KELLEY said he was looked upon a.s the father of the protection movement, and that he wa in favor of protecting sugar and would stand by it as long as he could; but that if Louisiana Representatives voted to place everything el e either on the reduced list of tariff duties or the free-list, that so far as he was concerned, if it became necessary, he was willing to sacrifice sugar. He aid an argument could be made against sugar which was more taking with the

people of the North than that in regard to any other article, because sugar went into the mouth of every man, woman, and child. He further stated that by combination the passage of the Morrison bill could..,be prevented, and that it would result in the adoption of some policy by which the industries of the whole Union could be protected. .,.. .

We found it very difticult to get members to talk on the tariff question and this Morrison bill. There were some people who appeared willing to give us a bounty. We said we did not wish a bounty, but de ired to be placed on the same basis as other industries which were protected.

This extract shows the means by which votes are to be secured to defeat the Morrison bill.

I will publish with my remarks a letter I have received from alumber company signed bythemselves and their attorney, which howsthat they regard it nece sary to employ an attorney to look after their interests before Congress, and it also shows how small they regard 10 per cent. when taken out of the pockets of the consumer, but what a. tremendous large thing it is when it is to be omitted from the bounties taken from the consumer and transferred to them without con ideration:

TONAWANDA, N.Y., Marchll,l884. DEAR Sm: We notice the progressofthe Morrison tariff bill in Congress, and

observe that lumber is therein placed upon the free-list. .A.s busine s men, and in a position to know thoroughly whereof we speak, we beg to bring to your careful consideration se>eral reasons why the bill in its present shape, as regards lumber, should not pass:·

Fir t. Everything nece sary to produce lumber in Canada is at least 25 per cent. cheaper than in the United States.

Secoud. Three hundred million dollars and 1,000,000 men are engaged in the bu iness, and a tarifl"reduction if made would be a wrt:ct blow at both the labor and C'apital therein represented.

Third. The average value of lumber to the consumer may be placed at. say, $!!()pet· thousand. The pre ent duty of$2 per thousand is therefore only io per c nt., aud probably nine-tenths of the people who use lumber are people above tho laboriug classe ; the duty is not in any en e a burden upon the community.

Fourth. The Canadian lumber mills being situated nearer the Eastern States than the mills of theproducingpineregionsoftbe United States they have an advantage in the item of freights of at least one-half of the present duty, and if such duty was removed it would give to the Canadians control of the markets of the Eastern States, whither their product is most largely imported, so that the present rate of duty is absolutely necessary in order that 'Vestern pine lumber may be shipped to Eastern markets.

Fifth. Careful estimates by practical lumbermen sbow that there is enough standing timber in the States of 1\Iichigan::md Wiscon in to last fifty yea.rs, thus showing the Government's Foresty Bulletins to be entirely erroneous.

Sixth. There can not po ibly be any scarcity of lumber for a century after every tree has been cut in Michigan and Wisconsin, for the rea on that there are larger tract of yellow pine in the Southern States than ever existed of wh1le pine in the Northern States. This can all be u ed where white pine is now u ed, and the duty on lumber should be retained, o that the Southern States may have the benefit of Northern capital to develop this vast industry, which will not be done for years if Canadian lumber is admitted free.

Seventh. Consider the difference it will make to the States having these lar~e tracts of yellow pine-Mississippi1 Georgia., Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, 1\11 -so uri, and North and South Carohna-whether they are developed or left comparatively untouched, as they certainly will be for years if CanadiAn lumber comes in freeofduty.

We certainly hope you will use your influence and vote to prevent the consummation of such a glaring injustice to this large industry, as would be involved in the removal of the pre ent lumber tariff.

Very truly, yours,

Hon. WILLIAM H. NEECE, Wa.shington, D. C.

GRATWICK, SMITH & FRYER LUMBER Co. ERASTUS CORNING, AUorney.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE addressed the committee. [See Appendix.] Mr. OATES. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult if not impossible to say

anything new upon the tariff. The first law enacted upon the subject in this country was in the year 1789, immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, and during the ninety-five succeeding years the tari1f has been in American politics and policy a great economic question, and the most fruitful theme for learned essays and eloquent discourses. The collection and disbursement of its revenues are the most complicated, difficult, and dangero"Q.S functions which this or any other government has to perform.

Difficult, in laying taxes and duties fairly and honestly so that there shall be no unjnstdiscrirninationsor exactions upon persons or classes; complicated, because many things in conflict require careful consideration to produce harmonious action; and dangerous, because nothing begets greater distrust or sooner destroys the confidence of the citizen in the Government than to feel that he is compelled to contribute unduly to its support, or that when the exactions are just and reasonable his contribution is diverted from the purposes for which he paid it into theTreasury and stolen or converted into a jobbery fund, or applied tosome purpose foreign to that for which the Government was ordained and established. No people ever felt more keenly or suffered more flagrant outrages of this character than the white people, the propertyowners of my own li.D.d other Southern States, during the carpet-bag and negro domination of the recon truction era.

The spoliation was complete. They stole everything that could be transported and mortgaged the immovables. 'I he people have not forgotten the misgovernment which robbed them then through State action, upheld by Federal bayonets.

The patience and submissiveness with which the people of the United States have endured the inequalities and iniquities of the tariff and internal-revenue laws is marvelous, and proves, if proof were wanting, the patriotism and self-sacrificing disposition of the worst abused and least complaining-the agricultural class-{)f our population. But, sir, it is not my purpo e to enter upon a general discns ion of the question, nor to present in detail the various arguments pertaining, to it. I shall content myself at this time with a simple statement of facts and conclusions.

It is unnecessary to have recourse to the history of tariff legislation and discussion abroad. All the learning upon the subject throughout the world has at some time in our history been brought forward and utilized in the debates of this Honse or the other end of the Capitol;and much that is useful, but more that is confusing and mischievous, has gone to the country. I shall not invoke precedents from other countrie , since we have a sufficiency in our own, and for the better reason also that the Government of the United States is different from every other in the world, differently situated and surrounded, which modifies the force of foreign precedents and renders them unimportant except as mere abstract information. I shall not pr ent table of statistics to encumber the RECORD and fill out to respectable length what I may not be a.ble otherwise to ay. Figures tell the truth if they do not lie; and statistics, like peculative science, yield a larger dividend to the amount of capital invested than any other enterprise known to-rnorUM8. .

The taxing or revenue power of the United States i found in ection 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, which declares that-

The Congre shull have power to Jay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excise , to pay the debts and provide for the common dcfen e and general welfare of the United States.

"Impo ts and excjses" are the two sources from which the Government derives the bulk of it revenues. From impo ts orta.riff duties. under the existing law, there will be paid into the Treasury during. the pre ent :fi cal year about 200,000,000.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3849 From excises or internal-revenue taxes the Treasury will receive

tluring the same period omething over one hundred millions. These amounts, with the income from the Post-Office, sale of public lands, and other sources, will, after defraying the current expenses of the Government, including the large appropriati<'n for pension , leave in the Treasury a surplus annually of from 50,000,000 to $100,000,000. Now, what shall be done with this redundant revenue? There are three ways in which we can dispose of it:

1. We can spend it. But this leads to profligate, extravagant, and perhaps corrupt or unconstitutional and mischievous legislation.

2. We can pay it on the national debt. That is better, but difficulties are there encountered. Only .about 254,000,000 of the bonds of the Government, bearing 3 per cent. interest, are now subject to call on thirty days' previous notice. When these are paid the next class to mature are the 4} per cents, September 1, 1 91, by which time a more than sufficient surplus will have accumulated to discharge the whole $250,000,000 of that class. And the only remaining class of bonds then would be the 4 per cent. con!'luls, whlch are not payable until the year 1907.

The best economy for States and individuals is to stop the running of interest against them: :Millions of dollars would thereby be saved to the people. Interest is the great factor in the solution of :financial problems. The stream, though small, will in time exhaust the capacious reservoir at its source, while the receptacle of its accumulated flow will float a palace of wealth.

But there is another side to the question of immediate extinguishment of the public debt. The people of this generation have borne burdens enough. Henceforth lift from their shoulders every burden possible. They will leave to those who succeed them the most magnificent and the wealthiest country in the world, with all the blessings that man in this life is capable of enjoying.

Mr. Chairman, I shall during my service here on all occasions when an opportunity is presented cast my vote to relieve the people of every tax or other burden now imposed upon them beyond the requirements of an economical administration of the Government.

The operation of the sinking fund, and the probable surplus in any event, will gradually extinguish the public debt without imposing greater burdens upon the overtaxed people. The Republican party of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, including, in newspaper phra-se, "the Plumed Knight of Maine," advocate the distribution of the surplus among the States. This is inexpedient and expensive, if not impracticable and unconstitutional. But little or none of it would ever be returned to the pockets of the people from whom it wa-s drawn. In the language of Andrew Jaekson in his last annual message I say that-

The safest and simplest mode of obviating all the difficulties which have been mentioned is to collect only revenue enough to meet the wants of the Government and let the people keep the balance of their proporty in their hands to be used for their own benefit. .

Thus we see from every consideration that the true measure of justice , to the people is to reduce taxation until that point is reached to which

the absolute necessities of the Government fix a limit. All the Democrats upon this fl~or, Mr. Chairman, if I am not egre

giously mistaken, are in favor of reducing taxation. If! am misinformed-if there be a Democrat here who is opposed to a reduction of taxation, let him put on whatever manhood be possesses andrisein his place now and speak out and let the country as well as the members of this House know who he is; and the places which know him now will after November next know him no more forever.

All, I am happy to know, are in favor of reducing taxation; but just here a divergence begins. Just here, unhappily; begins another trouble. How shall that reduction be made? Reduction! All agreed; but bow, when, and where divide us.

The Pennsylvania Democrats, and in fact all who favor the protective policy, advocate the abolition of the internal-revenue system and oppose agitation of the tariff at this time. The abolition of that system would unquestionably relieve against a redundant revenue, and would probably create a deficiency. That system was not too severely characterized by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] when he called it ''an infernal system," and the people of the country would rejoice to see it wiped out, and the army of political spies and informers, who have grown fat on official plunder, disbanded and sent to honest vocations for a livelihood. The excise is now collected, I believe, but from three articles-distilled spirits, tobacco, and bank circulation.

The people, with some few exceptions, care nothing about the repeal of these taxes. There has always been discrimination against liquors and tobacco. Nearly or quite all the States thus discriminate in their license bws. I do not believe that the people of Alaballl:1 object to the taxes on liquors and tobacco provided the same were collected by some more simple and less offensive method. These are in their nature luxuries, and bad lm. .. 1uies at best. I would not deny to the people the use of either, for I am opposed to sumptuary laws and believe in allowing the largest po ible liberty to the citizen. But who would not prefer that his whisky be taxed rather than his salt? The one is a luxury, the other a necessity. No farmer, merchant, mechanic or laborer can bel itate to choose between a reduction of taxation upon his food his

clothing, and implements of industry on the one hand, and upon his whisky and tobacco on the ot.ber.

It is proposed, however, as a measure of compromise to amend the Morrison bill so as to reduce the tax on tobacco in the same ratio that that bill reduces impost duties, and to fix the duty on fruit brandies at 10 cents per gallon.

:M:y views as to what tariff legislation should be had at the present session were well matured and made known to many before the organization of this House. An evil far greater than a redundancy of re\·enue cries aloud for remedy. _;

The shockingly outrageous and unjust monopolies maintained for twenty years will remain, modified, but not eradicated, by the passage of the bill now under consideration. I believed then, and have seen no cause to change my opinion, that the Ways and Means Committee should have gone to work upon a thorough revision of all the tariff schedules, reducing the tariff on some articles 10, 20, 50, or 100 per cent., leaving others at existing rates, and ultimately fixing the duty on all articles upon which the tariff is to operate at the difference in the cost of production of like articles in this country and those manufactured abroad. Had it required this entire session to have perfected such a bill; if it h;l.d merely been printed and gone to the Calendar at adjournment, the Democratic party could have gone to the country upon a broader issue and more united than I fear they will upon this great business question.

I trust that the wisdom ofthe party, when by its representatives assembled at Chicago, will present it thus broadly, though I would not be understood to insinuate that it overshadows in importance all other questions for that body to consider. My opinion, sir, is that the ra'te of duty in no case can, withjustice to the consumer and a fair regard to the producer, be laid at a higher rate than the difference in the cost of production. If manufacturing will not pay when the manufacturer in this country :finishes his goods at the same cost that the Englishman does with the advantage to the American of the intervention of an ocean 3,000 miles wide, then it had better be abandoned, for this Government can not afford to continue the perpetration of the great wrong of taxing one class of its citizens for the benefit of another, however desirable it may be that the business of the latter may be firmly established and prosperous. This Government must be fair to all classes of the people to insure their confidence and affection.

American labor and capital must be content with this. Revenue would be under such a tariff the primary and incidental and protection the secondary object. Revenue is constitutionally the primary object of all tariff legislation. But that Congress may also constitutionally make that protection to American industries which necessarily results from and is incidentaJ to the duties laid, an object of no small moment, there can be no doubt. The best advocates of constitutional legislation in this country admitted and utilized it. Mr. Madison said in regard to the enactment of the first tariff law that-

The States that are most adva.nced in population and ripe for manufactures ought to have their particular interests attended to in some degree. While these States retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to protect and cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution they have thrown the exercise of this power inl<> other hands. They must have done this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here.

But further than I have indicated, further than incidental protection, Congress has no constitutional nor moral right to go. Beyond this the Government fails to get its revenue, because the duties are laid at so high a rate that foreign goods can not pay it. This gives to the home manufacturer a monopoly until he is reduced in prices by home competition, which then too often results in overproduction, the market is ultimately glutted, wages of the operatives are reduced, strikes ensue, the mills stop, and discontent, lawlessness,. and communism are theresults which illustrate the beneficence of protection for protection's sake.

The other dark side of it is that all the people not thus protected (until relief comes from competition, which require3 time, frequently beyond one generation) are coerced into contributing to the enrichment of the protected. All protection, no matter bow beneficent in its results it may ultimately prove to be, beyond that which is incidental to or logically results from a tariff for revenue is but legalized robbery. It deserves no milder designation. I am borne out in this assertion by Robert.J. Walker, a man whose acquaintance with this subject was quite equal to that of any gentleman on this floor. Mr. Walker says: If the marshal were sent· by the Federal Government to collect a direct tax

from the whole people to be paid over to manufu.cturing capitali ts to enable them to sustain their business or realize a larger profit, it would be the same in effect as thP. protective duty, which, when analyzed into its simplest elements and reduced to actual results, is a mere subtraction of so much money from the people to increase the resources of the protected property.

The argument of protectionists that exclusive or prohibitory protection cheapens the good in consequence of home competition has borne and will continue to bear it~ legitimate fruits. Its tendency is not only to overproduction, failures, and disturbances; but to build a Chinese wall around us and cut off from us all foreign commerce. The United States consume but one-third of the cotton they raise. The other two-thirds go abroad and the price of it in this conntry is regulated by the Liverpool market.


There were over 100,000,000 bushels surplus of wheat produced in the United States last year, and this, with the surplus of beef, hog, and other products, can not find a home market. They must go abroad to command remunerative prices. Under this policy of high protection and exclusiveness nothing but bullion or gold coin can be exchanged for the surplus products of the farmers and husbandmen of this country, instead of merchandise, and every one knows who has information or capacity to reason that a less price is realized.

Mr. Chairman, while the Morrison bill in my judgment is not the tariff bill upon which I desired to seethe Democratic party go to the country-for it does not revise-it removes none of the inequalities, monopolies, and great wrongs of the existing law; nevertheless it has merit. It provides for free lumber, free coal, and free salt, and I regret to say halts too so<>n in the enlargement of the free-list. I am not, however, a free-trader, and no one can be unless he is also an advoc.<tte of direct taxation. Nor am I in favor of "a tariff for revenue only," since that is impossible unless the duties be laid upon coffee, tea, and such articles only as are not produced in this country. But the Morrison bill offers some relief to the people. It cuts down horizontally about 20 per cent. the duties now existing. This brings them down to the recommendation of the Republican Tariff Commission, and would be enough to commend the bill to the favor of the other side of this Chamber if cheek had not already usurped the place of estoppel in their code of political ethics.

But, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the difference of opinion between myself and the committee, an all-sufficient reason why I shall gi Te the bill my cordial support is that a. large majority of my party, in free conference, agreed to support it~ and as a. true party man I will upon all questions of expediency subordinate my own views to the concurrent opinion of my party friends. I am ready to vote for the bill.

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR addressed the committee. [See Appen-dix.]

Mr. OATES. I move that the committee rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. McMILLIN having resumed

the chair as Speaker pro tempm·e, :MJ-. BAGLEY reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893) to reduce import duties and war-tariff taxes, and had come to no resolution thereon.

And then, on motion of Mr. OATES (at 11 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as follows:

By Mr. BARBOUR: Petition of Peter H. Hill and others, merchants of Washington city, asking for an amendment of the present license law-to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By :Mr. CALDWELL: Memorial of the Merchant ' Exchange of the city of Nashville, Tenn., against the passage of the bankrupt law-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. QALKINS: Memorial of the Christian Brothers, for pay for use of college buildings-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\.Ir. CARLETON: Petitions of John J. Wixson, W. M. Grice, W. D. James, J.P. Niggeman, and 140 others, of Lexington; J. W. Benedict, J. H. White, James Bradley, Martin Huner, W. J. Boyce, E. G. Spalding, John H. Balmer, John G. O'Neill (mayor), and 1,000 others! citizensofPortHuron, SaintClairCounty; ofJamesCraig,W.W. Smith, Robert Leaeh, A. J. Wonsey, V. A. Saph, and 500 others. citizens of Marine City; of C. H. Waterloo, T. D. Barron, Fred. H. Blood, A. A. Currie, William Grace, and 900 others, citizens of Saint Clair; of S. F. Hopkins, H. Whiting, J. M. Sanborn, and 400 others, citizens of the same place; of C. C. Smith, George Kendall, Thoma~ Currie, S. McCormick, Henry Jackson, Chester Kimball, and 300 others, citizens of Algonac, Saint Clair County, all of Michigan, asking Congress to set. aside the United States overflowed and marsh lands of Lake Saint Clair as a preserve for the people for a hunting, fishing, and pleasure resort-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By M:r. COBB: Petition of 20 citizens of Lawrence County, Indiana, asking Congress to pass a law restoring the Nez Perce Indians to their possessions in Idaho-to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By 1\fr. S. S. COX: Papers relating to the bill for the relief of Louis Magnus-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. DEUSTER: Petition of the members of the Milwaukee Association of ex-Prisoners of War, praying for tho passage of H. R. 1189-to the same committee.

By Mr. DIBRELL: Resolutions of the Merchants' Exchange of Nashville, Tenn., in opposition to the passage of the bankrupt law~to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FOLLETT: Remonstrance of business and river men of Cincinnati, Ohio, against the pa~ge of H. R. 6562-to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, memorial of inventors and others, on revision of patent lawsto the Committee on Patents.

Also, memorial of merchants and business men of Cincinnati, Ohio,

·.

protesting against the passage of the bankrupt law-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of h'lboring men of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the ·passage of certain bills affecting the interests of laboring men-to the Committee on Labor. •

Also, petition for the relief of John G. Baxter-to the Committee on War Claims. ·

Also, petition for the relief of Nancy Mason-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. FORNEY: Petition oflOO citizens of Calhoun County, Alabama, for the passage of the Blair educational bill-to the Committee on Education.

By. 1vir. FUNSTON: Petition relating to the pension claim of James McLaughlin-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. GEDDES: Petition of C. Robinson and 24 others, and of H. L. Rud and 36 others, all citizens of Mansfield, Ohio, for the passage of a law for the restoration of the Nez Perce Indians, known as Chief Joseph's band, to their kindred and friends in Idaho-to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. GREEN: Petition _ofC. J. Ahearn, J. B. Starr, J.D. Cook, and 50 others, in favor H. R. 5057, relative to the militiar-to the Com-mittee on the Militia. ·

By Mr. HERBERT: YetitionofC . ..A. Newton and others, in favor of the passage of the Senate educational bill-to the Committee on Education.

By Mr. D. B. HENDERSON: Remonstrance of citizens of Kossuth County, of O'Brien County, of Plymouth County, and of Allamakee County, Iowa; and of citizens of Yankton, of Lincoln, of Hutchinson, and of Brule County, Dakota, against the reductioR of duty on linseedoil, &c.-severally to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, resolution of E. C. Little Post, of Independence, Iowa, and A. P. Morton Post, Grand Army of the "Republic, New Hampton, Iowa, relative to pensions-severally to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, resolutions of Morse Post, Grand Army of the Republic, Manchester, Iowa, for the passage of bill creating a soldiers' home in the West-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, joint resolution of the General Assembly of Iowa, relating to swamp-land indemnity-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Also, resolution of Andersonville Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of Beaman, Iowa, asking one hundred and sixty acres of land to each Union soldier of the late war-severally to the same committee.

By Mr. HEPBURN: Petition of James W. McDill and 25 others, citizens of Afton, Iowa, asking for the passage of H. R. 5057, relative to the militia-to the Committee on the 1\.filitia.

By l\1r. KING: Petitionforasurveyfor closing Bayou Lafourche and other outlets of Breuf River, Louisiana-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. MANZANARES: Petition of citizens of Bernalillo County, Albuquerque and vicinity, of Golden, Santa Fe County, and of Gallup, Bernalillo County, all in New Mexico, relative to the Legislature of said Territory-severally to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MONEY: Petition for national aid to education-to the Committee on Education.

By Mr. J . J. O'NEILL: Papers relating to the claim of Alfred Lylesto the Committee on Accounts.

By Mr. PRYOR: Papers relatingtotheclaimofSamuelC. Painterto the Committee on War Claims.

Also, petition N. A. Flournoy and others, of William L. Martin and others, of W. R. Hanserd and others, for the passage of an educational bill-severally to the Committee on Education.

By .Mr. RANDALL: Petition of citizens of Philadelphia, relative to the duty on earthenware-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SLOCUM: Petition of merchants, ship-owners, and others of New York, asking for the deepening and improvement of the entrance to the port of New York-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Ur. STRAIT: Petition of Litchfield Post, Grand Army of the Republic, Department of 1\.finnesota., favoring H. R. 6463, relative to pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. TILLMAN: Petition of sundry citizens o(Barnwell County, South Carolina, asking for an appropriation in aid of education-to the Committee on Education.

By Mr. T LLY: Petition of the Grape-Growers' Association of the State of California, relative to the tariff on wines, &c.-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Ur. E. B. WINANS: Petition of James W. ffil,milton, A. J. Hall, Ida Forsythe, and36others, citizens of Genesee County, Michigan, and of William L. Flam boy, Charles De Lou jay, and others, for the enforcement of the eight-hour law, &c.-severally to the Committee on Labor.

By 1\.fr. JOHN WINANS: Petition of James Van Etta and 46 others; of Anson Rogers, Ogden H. Fethers, and 40 others; of William D. McKey, George McKey, D. S. Coon, and 39 others, all of Rock County, Wisconsin, against the importation of Sumatra tobacco at a less duty than 75 cents per pound-severally to the Committee on Ways and Mean.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1\lAY 5,

Documents

Transcript of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1\lAY 5,