House for its consideration at this time is, whether it was competent for the Governor of the Territory of Nebraska to reconsider his original motion of issuing the certificate to Mr. Morton, and to issue a counter one to Mr. Daily. That is the question for the consideration of the House.

Mr. RICHARDSON. With the permission of the gentleman, I desire to state that the canvassers who determined the vote were the Governor, the chief justice, and the district attorney. Mr. Black may have been overruled in the disposition of that testimony before those canvassers.

Mr. CONWAY. The organic act of the Territory of Nebraska provides that in elections for Delegate to Congress the person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given him.

Mr. WASHBURNE. The Governor alone? Mr. CONWAY. Yes, sir; the Governor alone. It is, therefore, necessary that this House shall have before it a certificate from the Governor of Nebraska, in order to determine who has received the highest number of votes in the election.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I desire to make one inquiry. I understood my colleague [Mr. RICHARDSON] to say that by the law of the Territory the votes were to be canvassed by the Governor, the chief justice and the attorney genGeneral.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The district attorney. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Well, the district attorney. And that they were, after having canvassed the votes, to determine upon the number of votes given. I wish to ask the gentleman from Kansas if that is a correct statement, and according to the law?

Mr. CONWAY. I am not acquainted with the fact.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. That seems to me to be an important matter.

Mr. RICHARDSON. If there is any dispute about it, I will send and get the law.

Mr. CONWAY. It is not important at all. As a matter of course, we presume that the officers whom the law required to canvass the votes discharged the duty, for we have the certificate of the Governor as evidence.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question which seems to me to be important? Is he advised whether, in the second count mentioned in the second certificate, the chief justice and district attorney were associated with the Governor?

Mr. CONWAY. Well, sir, the chief justice and the district attorney were not associated in either certificate. It would be improper for them to be so associated. It is only necessary that we should have before us the certificate of the Governor of the Territory, in order to inform us of the fact.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. My inquiry was in relation to the count.

Mr. CONWAY. I propose to make my statement, and give my version of the case, and then the whole House can discuss it if they please.

The point disclosed by the testimony in this case, which is the important point in it, and the one which decides it, is this: that the certificate of of election testifying to the votes cast and to the person elected, is the certificate which was awarded to Mr. Daily. The certificate which was given by mistake to Mr. Morton was no certificate of election. The Governor of the Territory himself declares that it does not certify to the election of Mr. Morton. The organic act of the Territory provides that the Governor shall certify who has received the highest number of votes; and it is upon that certificate that a prima facie case is made out, which entitles a member to a seat upon this floor in the first instance.

Now, the point which I make is this: that the certificate which has been given by the Governor is the one which is held by Mr. Daily; and that the original certificate of the Governor does not certify that Mr. Morton received the highest number of votes cast. It certifies no such thing; and the proof of that is, that the Governor of the Territory, in the most solemn and formal manner, under the seal of the Territory, has declared that it does not certify to the election of Mr. Morton; that, in consequence of having discovered that fraudulent votes were cast, he is disabled from so certifying; and he has formally

issued a certificate to Mr. Daily as having received the highest number of votes cast.

It would, therefore, seem to me to be impossible for the House to admit Mr. Morton to a seat upon the floor as bearing the certificate from the Governor of the Territory. We have the Governor's formal declaration to the contrary.

have the gentleman's authority for that assertion. Doubtless the gentleman is sincere in it. But we are to determine whether the certificate was issued through mistake, in view of the facts. We have reason to believe indeed, we are authorized to say that, not only was the Governor present at the time the returns of this election were canvassed, but the judge and district attorney were also present; and that when they were canvassed, it was found that Mr. Morton had received a majority of the votes. It was upon this majority, thus ascertained, that the certificate was issued. How, then, I repeat, can it be said that the certificate was issued through mistake? Upon what authority does the gentleman predicate his assertion?

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] has stated that Mr. Daily had served a notice of contest upon Mr. Morton, and he desires that that shall be taken as the basis of action in this House in order to admit Mr. Morton to the seat over Mr. Daily. Mr. Daily very properly served notice of contest upon Mr. Morton upon ascertaining, as he did at first, that the Governor had issued a certificate to Mr. Morton. It was perfectly proper for him to do so. He based his action upon the error which had been committed by the Governor. Upon the correction of that error by the Governor, and upon the issuance of a certificate to him, the necessity for such a proceeding fell to the ground. Mr. Daily then assumed the position which Mr. Morton had originally occupied by virtue of having the Governor's certificate, and it became necessary for Mr. Morton to serve notice of contest upon Mr. Daily. It is said that Mr. Morton must suffer in case Mr. Daily is admitted to the seat by reason of not having served such notice on Mr. Daily. That is the fault of Mr. Morton. If he failed to serve notice of contest on Mr. Daily upon ascertaining that the Governor had determined to issue a certificate to that gentleman, it was his own delin-high constitutional privilege; and it was a usurpquency; and this House cannot be held responsible for it, or asked to admit him to the seat in consequence of it.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in no view of this case can the House come to the conclusion to admit Mr. Morton to the seat, but that Mr. Daily is fully and fairly entitled to it.

Mr. McCLERNAND. Mr. Speaker, I can only account for the very wild and extravagant statement which has been made by the gentleman from Kansas, upon the supposition that he is totally ignorant of the facts and the law of this case. Among other very peremptory statements made by the gentleman, as I understood him, was this: that at the first canvassing of the returns of this election, neither the judge of the Territory nor the district attorney was present. I am authorized to say that that statement is not true.

Mr. CONWAY. The gentleman from Illinois will allow me to correct him. I said no such thing. Mr. McCLERNAND. What was it the gentleman did say?

Mr. CONWAY. I said that there was nothing in either of the certificates to show that any other member of the board was present, except the Governor himself, at the counting of the votes.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I am willing to accept the gentleman's explanation. That is what the gentleman may have intended to say, but, with all respect to him, I think he stated differently in response to an inquiry my colleague [Mr. KELLOGG] put to him as to the number

present.

But the gentleman says that afterwards-four months afterwards-the Governor assumed the prerogative of canceling the first certificate and issuing another to the other candidate, Mr. Daily. Does the gentleman assume to assert, as a sound legal proposition, that the Governor had the legal power, the right to do that? Suppose that Mr. Morton had been admitted to his seat, and that after he had been admitted the Governor had cancelled the certificate under which he took his seat: would that cancellation have been validwould it have been sufficient to oust Mr. Morton of his seat? No man who is at all acquainted with legal principles would say so-would assert such an absurdity. The right to pass upon the election, returns, and qualification of the members of this House belongs to the House itself, as a

ation of authority on the part of the Governor to go behind the returns and the result, as declared by the canvassers, and to issue a certificate determinate of a different result. After having issued his certificate declaratory of the result as determined by the board of canvassers, his power was at an end. Upon what pretense can it be claimed that he had the right to reconsider the certificate, to cancel it, and to issue another? It was a violation of the law of Nebraska, which authorized canvassers, three in number, to determine the result. Not only so, but it was a usurpation of the constituted prerogative of this House to judge of the returns, election, and qualification of its own members. That was the very point made by gentlemen on the other side of the House in the case of Butler against Lehman, debated and decided yesterday. It was insisted in that case that inasmuch as the returns showed Butler to be elected, the Governor was bound to issue his certificate accordingly, and that it was a usurpation on his part to go behind the returns and issue a certificate upon a state of facts not shown by the returns, although the returns may have been fraudulent. It was argued that in doing that he had trenched upon the privilege of the House, and hence that the certificate granted to Lehman' was void. I understand that to be the position maintained by gentlemen on the other side. If it was good yesterday, is it not good to-day?

Mr. Speaker, the act of 1854, under which the Territory of Nebraska was organized, creates the office of secretary of the Territory, and makes the secretary the custodian of the seal of the Ter

Mr. CONWAY. That is not so. Mr. McCLERNAND. That is what I under-ritory; and it further provides that, whenever a stood you to say. You have a right to disclaim it. The gentleman, in his very wild and extrava gant expressions, said that the certificate does not declare that Mr. Morton was elected. I took down the gentleman's language, or the substance of it. Now, I call for the reading of the certifi

cate.

The Clerk again read the certificate.

Mr. McCLERNAND. There, sir, is the highest evidence that can be affordedMr. CONWAY. I request that the counter certificate be also read.

Mr. McCLERNAND. Not at this point of time, with my permission.

Mr. CONWAY. I suppose not.

Mr. McCLERNAND. We will not bandy words.

The gentleman, as I before observed, is mistaken in this point. The certificate is a full and complete one. It affirms, not only the fact that Mr. Morton received a majority of the votes polled at that election in June, 1860, but that he was duly elected Delegate to Congress from the Territory of Nebraska. So much for that point.

But the gentleman says that the certificate issued to Mr. Morton was issued through mistake. We

document or record is to be authenticated, the secretary shall affix the seal thereto. What is the case here? Why, it has been alleged by my colleague who preceded me in this debate, that the seal affixed to Mr. Daily's certificate was not affixed to it by the secretary, but by the Governor; the secretary refusing to do it. It is needless to say that the Governor in doing so violated the fundamental law of the Territory-the very law under which the Territory was organized.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr.Speaker, I omitted to state when I was up, that by the laws of Nebraska, the returns are to be made within a given time-ten days, I believe-and that then the canvassers are to examine the votes; and upon their examination, the Governor is to issue his certificate, in issuing which he ceases to have any further power in the matter.

Mr. McCLERNAND. In addition to that, a law of Congress authorizes any person claiming to have been elected as a member or Delegate to this House to serve upon the adverse party, at any time within thirty days after the result of the election has been announced, notice that he will take evidence to sustain his claim. In pursuance of that law, Mr. Daily served Mr. Mörton with

notice that he would contest his right to a seat upon this floor, and he proceeded to take evidence accordingly. After Mr. Daily had finished taking testimony in support of his claim, Mr. Morton proceeded to take evidence in support of his right as declared by his certificate; and at the end of sixty days, this mutual examination of witnesses was closed by law.

Now, some time after the close of that period, Mr. Daily served, or undertook to serve, another notice upon Mr. Morton, and accordingly proceeded to take other and additional testimony, which, I suppose, forms the basis upon which his subsequent certificate was issued. Whether this evidence was competent, whether it afforded a sufficient basis for the second certificate, is a question for the Committee of Elections to consider and for the House to decide. As for myself, I think it was unauthorized and amounts to nothing. Again: I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that it was after Governor Black had issued the second certificate to Mr. Daily, that that gentleman served upon Mr. Morton the second notice that he would take testimony; thus recognizing the validity of Mr. Morton's certificate, and the fact that he had a prima facie right to a seat in this body. But now, by some operation, the relation of the parties is changed, and Mr. Morton made the contestant, while Mr. Daily is to be made the sitting member. The effect of such a change is not only to give Mr. Daily the seat in dispute, but to deny Mr. Morton of all right, under existing law, to contest it. Such must be the effect, because the thirty days allowed by law, in which to give notice of his intention to contest the seat, has elapsed. Now, is such a procedure right? Is it just? Is it fair?

Mr. DAWES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois to distinguish this case from the Oregon case of yesterday, in which the House decided that a certificate given by the Governor of Oregon some six months after he had given a certificate to another person, was itself prima facie evidence upon which the member producing it should be sworn in. If the argument of the gentleman, that the Governor of Nebraska had performed his duty so that he could not afterwards issue a second certificate to another person, is good now, then certainly it was good yesterday; and if the House would preserve its consistency, there is no other way for it except to retrace its step of yesterday, or swear in Mr. Daily now.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I will answer the gentleman's question by asking him another. I believe the gentleman is a sound lawyer, and I ask him whether he affirms the proposition, that when an executive officer has issued a certificate of election upon returns made, canvassed by the canvassers, and the Delegate elected has received the certificate, the same officer can afterwards set it aside and issue another?

Mr. DAWES. I do not understand that the gentleman has answered my question at all. I understand my friend to put a question to me in answer to mine. I answer the gentleman that I believe no such thing. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois precisely. I only say that the House yesterday set the precedent that it would give the seat, as a prima facie case, to the man who bore the last certificate from the same Governor; and if the House desires to preserve its consistency, I said they must do one of two things: either retrace the steps taken yesterday, or swear in Mr. Daily. That is all I said. I do not express any opinion upon this question, and the argument of the gentleman from Illinois I do not controvert. I desired to call the attention of the House to their action yesterday. I stood up alone here in the House in voting against that proposition yesterday, when the House, by an almost unanimous vote, decided that the gentleman in the Oregon case bearing the last certificate of the Governor should be sworn in.

Mr. McCLERNAND. In answer to the gentleman, I would state respectfully that he begs the whole question in his statement of it. Upon what authority does he assume that the House decided the Oregon case yesterday upon the ground he has stated? All that was said upon that subject was what I said on one side, and the simple motion made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HUTCHINS] on the other, to lay the resolution which I had moved on the table. That resolution suspended the right of both of the contestants from

Oregon to take a seat until the House had decided between them.

Mr. DAWES. I have only to say there was no other ground to put it upon.

Mr. McCLERNAND. Did that ground exist? The SPEAKER. The Chair must remind gentlemen that conversation between them is out of order.

Mr. McCLERNAND. In regard to what the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, I wish to say further, that I do not believe you can find a man within the precincts of this Capitol who will seriously affirm that the election under which Mr. THAYER took his seat upon this floor yesterday was had under any shadow or color of authority. It was purely a voluntary act; a gratu

itous matter.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. The case put by the gentleman from Massachusetts is not at all analogous to the present case. The question now discussed is, whether a Governor can give two successive certificates for the same election; whether, having executed his duty in one election, he may afterwards 'reverse his action and give another certificate. That is the present case. In the case yesterday that kind of action did not come in question. In the Oregon case, as I recollect, the Governor gave one certificate upon one election. Afterwards there was another election, in reference to which the Governor gave another certificate. The second certificate was based upon an election entirely independent of the election upon which the first certificate was based. It was the duty of the Governor, in each case where there had been an election, or an assumed election, to issue a certificate. Now, in this case, while I contend that the Governor's duties ceased at the giving of the first certificate, yet, if there had been another election by the people, it would have been his duty, under the law, to give a certificate of the number of votes cast. Then it would be a parallel case to that put by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, there is this difference between the case yesterday and the case to-day, and this difference only; in the case yesterday the Governor of Oregon issued two certificates without stating in the last certificate the reason why he gave two certificates to two individuals that they had been elected to the same seat in Congress. That was the case yesterday. I understand the reason to be that between the issuing of the two certificates the Governor had a quarrel with the man to whom he had given the first certificate, and therefore he gave a certificate to the second one. I suppose the fact that there were two elections makes no difference. It depends upon the question whether there was any law for the second election or not. If the fact that a man gets up an election, or that a body of men, without the sanction of law, get together and vote for a man, imposes upon the Governor an obligation to issue a certificate to that man that he is elected according to law, then I suppose I can get up an election now in the district of my friend from Illinois, [Mr. KELLOGG]-it is not too late-and I can impose thereby upon the Governor of Illinois the obligation to give me a certificate that I am elected to represent that district. I suppose my friend would be content with the certificate that he has got, as Mr. Shiel was content with the certificate he had got that he had been elected according to law.

The truth is, that there could be but one time to hold an election for Congress in the State of Oregon; whether it was the time when Mr. Shiel was elected, or the time when Mr. Thayer was elected, it is not proper for us to decide now. But one or the other was the proper time. When the Governor had certified once that the first man was elected, and elected according to law, he had discharged his duty. He had no authority to assume that an election, not according to the forms of State law, imposed upon him the obligation to give a new certificate.

Now, here is a case precisely like that, except with this difference, that the Governor of the Territory of Nebraska has seen fit to insert in his second certificate what he deemed to be a sufficient reason why he should issue a new certificate. In the case of Oregon, the Governor of the State did not take any notice of the fact, in his second certificate, that he had given a certificate before. If the Governor of the Territory of Nebraska had

simply given Mr. Daily a naked certificate, without stating any reason whatever, Mr. Daily would have come here precisely as Mr. Thayer came here from Oregon. He would have had a certificate bearing date six months after the certificate given to Mr. Morton. I say, therefore, that the cases are precisely alike, with this simple difference: that the Governor of Nebraska, in this case, saw fit to insert in his last certificate the reason which influenced him in granting it.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I admit the ingenuity of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Nevertheless, I think he has failed to establish the identity or the resemblance between the case of yesterday and the one of to-day. As was correctly observed by my colleague, [Mr. KELLOGG,] in the Oregon case there were two elections, and the Governor of Oregon issued a certificate upon each election, and each election afforded the reason why the certificate issued upon it was issued. There was but one election in the Territory of Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska has undertaken to issue two certificates upon that one election. Under these circumstances how is it possible to establish a parallel between the two cases? The gentleman has endeavored to do so, and has thrown some mist around the question; but he certainly has failed in his object. The gentleman was with me yesterday, or I was with him; and I hold that he ought, in consistency, to be with me to-day. We agreed yesterday that the first certificate issued was the one which ought to control the action of the House. The gentleman shakes his head. At all events we agreed that the action of the House was incorrect, under the circumstances; and we ought to labor to-dayto enlighten it, and induce it to correct the error which it committed. I know it is a rather hopeless undertaking, nevertheless we ought not to despair. It is our duty to persist in the effort to vindicate right.

There could be no greater usurpation of power than has been committed by the Governor of Nebraska in this case. He has not only assumed to go behind the result as declared by the three canvassers when two of them were absent; but, as I before observed, he has usurped the constitutional prerogative of this House to judge the returns, qualifications, and election of its members. What more dangerous usurpation could there be than this? What safety can there be under the sanction of such a precedent?

Now, Mr. Speaker, one or two words more, and I have done. I really did not know the politics of either of these contestants until a moment or two ago. I do not know at this moment what are the politics of Mr. Daily. I do not want to know. This is purely a legal question presented to this House for its consideration and determination. Will it set aside the regular certificate, showing that Mr. Morton received a majority of the votes cast and was duly elected, and give the seat to another gentleman who has no apparent right to it, thus depriving Mr. Morton of all chance of contesting the seat with Mr. Daily? Will it do this? I hope not, in respect for itself, if not in regard to justice and right. If my colleague's motion fails, Mr. Morton will be denied of all remedy; while on the other hand, if he is allowed to take the seat in controversy temporarily, the contest will still go on, because Mr. Daily is in court; because he will still be in a position enabling him to have the evidence on the Clerk's desk referred to the Committee of Elections, and to invoke the decision of the House upon it. I repeat, that I think the equity as well as the right of the case requires that the amendment of my colleague [Mr. RICHARDSON] should be adopted. I did not intend when I rose to say half as much as I have said, and I will now take my seat.

Mr. TRAIN. I move the previous question. Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to hear a simple suggestion.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts withdraw the demand for the previous question?

Mr. TRAIN. I cannot withdraw it.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to make a simple request, if the House will permit me to do it.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order, as the demand for the previous question is insisted

upon.

The SPEAKER. That would depend on the action of the House afterwards.

Mr. STEVENS. If the motion to lay upon the table should prevail, that would be the result -would it not?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will decide that question when it arises. The motion to lay upon the table is in order. Does the gentleman make it? Mr. STEVENS. I make that motion. Mr. WASHBURNE. I suggest to the gentleman that he had better allow this question to be disposed of by a direct vote. His motion will probably involve two votes.

Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I withdraw the motion to lay upon the table.

The question was taken on Mr. RICHARDSON'S amendment; and it was decided in the negativeyeas 57, nays 75; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Ancona, Joseph Bailey, Beaman, George H. Browne, Burnett, Calvert, Cobb, Cooper, Cravens, Crisfield, Dawes, Delano, Dunlap, Englisli, Fisher, Fouke, Grider, Haight, Harding, Harrison, Holman, Jackson, Johnson, William Kellogg, Law, Lazear, Leary, Lehman, Logan, McClernand, Menzies, Morris, Noble, Noell, Norton, Odell, George H. Pendleton, Perry, Reid, Richardson, Robinson, James S. Rollins, Sheffield, Smith, John B. Steel, William G. Steel, Benjamin F. Thomas, Vallandigham, Vibbard, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Woodruff, and Wright-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Buffinton, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Covode, Cutler, Davis, Duell, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Fenton, Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Granger, Gurley, Hale, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKnight, McPherson, Marston, Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Patton, Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins, Sedgwick, Shanks, Shellaberger, Sherman, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Francis Thomas, Thayer, Train, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Horne, Van Valkenburgh, Verree, Wall, Wallace, Charles W. Walton, E. P. Walton, Washburne, Albert S. White, and Windom-75.

So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CONWAY's motion was adopted.

Mr. CONWAY moved to reconsider the vote by which the motion was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Hon. SAMUEL G. DAILY appeared and took the usual oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

SOLDIERS' LETTERS FREE.

Mr. VAN WYCK. I offer the following bill, and hope that there will be no objection to its passage.

The Clerk read it, as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That the colonel of every regiment now or hereafter to be in the service of the United States shall appoint the chaplain of his regiment, and in case there be no chaplain, then any other person he may deem competent, to act as postmaster for the regiment, whose duty it shall be, without receiving or being entitled to any compensation therefor, to frank with his name all letters and papers not weighing over one ounce for all officers, musicians, or privates in said service. All letters and papers so franked shall be carried free of postage.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any letter or paper directed to any officer, musician, or private in said service, addressed to the regiment to which such person belongs, shall be carried free of postage in all mails or boxes put up to receive letters and papers to be carried to the post offices or mails of the United States.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That all letters and papers directed to any officer, musician, marine, or sailor, in the service of the United States, directed to the station or ship where he may be serving, shall be carried free of postage in all the mails and boxes put up for the purpose of receiving letters and papers to be carried to the post offices and mails of the United States.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the appointment referred to in the first section of this act shall, by said postmaster, be filed in the office of the Postmaster General.

Mr. MORRILL. I trust that that bill will not be pressed on this occasion. While I approve its general objects, yet there may be some scheme hereafter suggested which will better secure the purpose designed. At any rate, the bill cannot pass without debate, and I hope that it will be withdrawn for the present.

Mr. BURNETT. We have had enough of this franking privilege, and I object to the introduction of the bill.

And then, on motion of Mr. PERRY, (at half past four o'clock, p. m.,) the House adjourned.

ELECTION OF ASSISTANT DOORKEEPER.

Mr. HALE. I move that the Senate proceed to the election of an Assistant Doorkeeper.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is it the pleasure of the Senate to proceed to the election of an Assistant Doorkeeper?

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to ballot.

The ballots being collected and canvassed, The VICE PRESIDENT announced the result as follows:

Whole number of votes, 40; necessary to an election, 21; of which

Isaac Bassett received.........
Charles S. Jones..

Charles T. Jones...

30

8

2

Mr. BASSETT, having received a majority of the whole number of votes cast, was declared duly elected Assistant Doorkeeper of the Senate. The oath of office was administered to him by the Vice President, and he entered upon the discharge of his duties.

THE SENATE CHAMBER.

Mr. HALE. I want to present a resolution, which I shall not ask to have acted on this morning; but let it be read for information, and lie over. The Acting Secretary read it, as follows:

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Chair to consider the expediency and practicability of so altering and changing the construction of the present Chamber for the use of the Senate, that it may be made a comfortable and convenient place for the meeting of the Senate.

Mr. HALE. I give notice that in a day or two I shall call up the resolution. That matter was referred by the Senate to a committee last year, or the year before, and they reported. While

I am up, I want to say, and let it go for what it is worth and I am ready to stake what little reputation belongs to me on it-this is the worst, the most inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unhealthy place that ever I was in in all my life, for holding the sessions of a public body; and I do not believe human ingenuity can make it worse than it is.

NOTICE OF A BILL.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I desire to give notice that I will, on Monday next, or some subsequent day, ask leave to introduce a bill directing, from and after the 1st day of August, 1861, commanders in the Army and Navy of the United States to assemble, from their several commands, courtsmartial, and defining the duties and jurisdiction of said courts.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. WILSON, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1) to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

He also, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 2) to increase the present military establishment of the United States; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

He also, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 3) providing for the better organization of the military establishment; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

He also, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 5) for the organization of a volunteer militia force, to be called the National Guard of the United States; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

He also, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. No. 1) to approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States, for suppressing insurrection and rebellion; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

RETIRED LIST.

Mr. WILSON, in pursuance of previous notice, obtained leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 4) to promote the efficiency of the Army; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. GRIMES. I move that that bill be referred to a select committee, and I propose that it be a large one, to be composed of nine members. My reason for this motion I will state very briefly. I have looked into the bill which has been submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts. I have no doubt that the efficiency of the Army, and the best interests of the country, require that there should be a retired list of the Army, as is provided for in the bill. Of course, I have no judgment to pronounce as to the details of the bill; I have no criticism to make upon that subject.

I am aware, sir, that some of the commanders of regiments in the regular service are utterly incapacitated for the performance of their duty, and they ought to be retired upon some terms, and efficient men placed in their stead. But the same reason that prevails for the creation of a retired list in the Army, prevails to quite as great an extent, and I think to a greater extent, in regard to officers of the Navy. I therefore desire that this bill may be referred to a committee composed of nine members, for the purpose of applying it not only to the Army officers, but to the Navy officers also. There is a relative rank existing between the officers in the two services, and I want the same justice done to the officers in the one service as shall be done to the officers in the other service.

The bill submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts provides that after an officer has seen forty years' service, he may voluntarily retire on a given pay. Now, sir, if you will examine your Navy Register, you will see that there is not a single captain in the American Navy that has not been more than forty-two years in the service.

There is also a provision in the bill, that the head of the Army may direct a board to assemble, composed of officers of the line and medical officers, to pass upon the competency of any officer as to his mental, military, and physical abilities to discharge the duties of his office. The same

THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

rule ought to be applied to naval officers. There are lieutenants of the Navy who have for four years been the inmates of insane asylums, and who are regarded as utterly incurable. They stand in the way of the promotion of junior meritorious officers, and such men ought to be assigned to a retired list.

I apprehend sir, that it is quite as desirable that the Navy should be put upon an efficient footing at this time as the Army. I apprehend that we are to derive more actual benefit from the closing || of the ports-I will not call it a blockade that is now being carried on under the direction of our naval officers-than we are from the operations of our armies; and although they are not to acquire any great glory by their performances in the Gulf of Mexico by the closing of the ports there, yet they are to endure fatigues and hardships that the officers of the Army will not be subjected to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The motion, I suppose, is simply to print.

Mr. GRIMES. I move to refer the bill to a select committee.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator will waive that for a moment, I should like to make a motion in regard to the standing committees, and then business can come properly before the Senate. Mr. GRIMES. Very well.

THE STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I gave notice yesterday, that to-day, at twelve o'clock, I should move to proceed to the appointment of the standing committees of the Senate by ballot, in the mode which is prescribed by the rules. I have here in my hand a list of committees prepared, which has been submitted to gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber, and I believe is not objected to in any quarter. Under these circumstances, I move that, by unanimous consent, the list which I send to the Chair be adopted as the list of standing committees for this session.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maine submits a list of standing committees of the Senate, which he asks may be adopted. The Secretary will read the list.

It was read as follows

On Foreign Relations-Messrs. Sumner, (chairman,) Collamer, Doolittle, Wilmot, Browning, Polk, and Breckinridge.

On Finance-Messrs. Fessenden, (chairman,) Simmons, Sherman, Howe, Pearce, Bright, and McDougall.

On Commerce-Messrs. Chandler, (chairman,) King, Morrill, Wilson, Ten Eyck, Saulsbury, and Johnson of Tennessee.

On Military Affairs and the Militia-Messrs. Wilson, (chairman,) King, Baker, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Rice, and Latham.

On Naval Affairs-Messrs. Hale, (chairman.) Grimes, Foot, Sherman, Thomson, Kennedy, and McDougall.

On Judiciary-Messrs. Trumbull, (chairman,) Foster, Ten Eyck, Cowan, Harris, Bayard, and Powell.

On the Post Office and Post Roads-Messrs. Collamer, (chairman,) Dixon, Wade, Trumbull, Rice, Bright, and Latham.

On Public Lands-Messrs. Harlan, (chairman,) Bing ham, Clark, Pomeroy, Johnson of Tennessee, Rice, and Nesmith.

On Private Land Claims-Messrs. Harris, (chairman,) Foster, Sumner, Polk, and Bayard.

On Indian Affairs-Messrs. Doolittle, (chairman,) Wilkinson, Cowan, Foot, Lane of Kansas, Harlan, and Nes

faith.

On Pensions-Messrs. Foster, (chairman,) Bingham, Lane of Indiana, Howe, Wilmot, Pomeroy, and Saulsbury.

On Revolutionary Claims-Messrs. King, (chairman,) · Chandler, Wilkinson, Hale, and Nesmith.

On Claims-Messrs. Clark, (chairman,) Simmons, Howe,

Wilmot, Pomeroy, Polk, and Thomson.

On the District of Columbia-Messrs. Grimes, (chairman,) Dixon, Morrill, Wade, Anthony, Kennedy, and Powell.

On Patents and the Patent Office-Messrs. Simmons, (chairman.) Sumner, Cowan, Thomson, and Saulsbury. On Public Buildings and Grounds-Messrs. Foot, (chairman,) Anthony, Chandler, Bright, and Kennedy.

On Territories-Messrs. Wade, (chairman,) Baker, Wilkinson, Hale, Browning, Johnson of Tennessee, and Breckinridge.

To Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate-Messrs. Dixon, (chairman,) Clark, and Jolinson of Tennessee.

On Printing-Messrs. Anthony, (chairman,) Harlan, and Powell.

On Engrossed Bills-Messrs. Lane of Indiana, (chairman,) Morrill, and Latham.

On Enrolled Bills-Messrs. Bingham, (chairman,) Baker, || dulged in even this short talk if I thought I was and Saulsbury.

On the Library-Messrs. Pearce, (chairman,) Collamer, and Fessenden.

The motion of Mr. FESSENDEN was agreed to; and the list was adopted as submitted

RETIRED LIST.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Iowa, to refer to a special committee of nine members the bill (S. No. 4) introduced by the Senator from Mas

sachusetts.

Mr. GRIMES. Permit me to say-what I ought to have said and intended to say when I was on the floor before-that, should the proposition which I have submitted, to refer this bill to a select committee, be adopted, I hope the Chair will not regard any precedent, or anything of that sort, in the way of appointing the committee; but that the Senator from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of the Military Committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, who is the chairman of the Naval Committee, will be placed upon the special committee, as I do not desire to serve upon it. I only wish that each of those committees shall be represented upon this select committee, so that each branch of the service may stand upon an equality.

Mr. WILSON. shall not oppose the motion made by the Senator from Iowa, to refer this bill to a special committee. The Senator says that such a bill is needed for the Navy, as well as for the Army. I am very sure that it is needed for the Army, and as soon as it can be passed. The Senator from Iowa has, doubtless, examined the subject in connection with the Navy, and laccept his opinions. I am willing, therefore, that this bill, instead of going to the Military Committee, shall go to a special committee. I hope, however, that no action will be had which will interpose any obstacle to the passage of the bill at this session. I am willing that the Senator's motion shall be adopted, and then I desire that the other bills, after being ordered to be printed, shall be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

taking up time that could be more profitably employed. I have no objection to a liberal pension bill, prospective in its operation, that shall take a man who has rendered service for a given time, and who is unable to render more, and put him on a pension list; but I am utterly opposed to this idea of keeping men in office who are incapable of rendering service. I venture to say that there are men in office to-day in the United States who have not for the last twenty-five years devoted a minute's service to the Government, and who have been receiving salaries of two, three, or four thousand dollars a year. I am opposed to the whole thing from beginning to end, root and branch. I am for applying the same rule in the naval and military service that we apply in the civil service; and that is, to pay a man as long as he performs duty; and when he cannot perform it, let him go.

Why, sir, I have in my eye now a most distinguished statesman from my own section of the country who was actually shocked because I proposed to pay the late Sergeant-at-Arms his salary for six months after he went out of office! He came to me as if I had introduced a proposition that was going to upset the whole theory of Government; and yet, sir, you are paying men salaries, year after year-not for six months, but for six years and sixty years-who do not render a month's service, and who cannot. They are paid long after they are unfit for service; but Senators are filled with holy horror the moment the idea is suggested of paying a man here for six months after he has ceased to render service.

I hope that some day or other-I do not know when-this thing will be abolished. I do not think we shall come to it very soon, however. The war fever is up now, and I am glad of it, and it is difficult to say anything against any proposition to give liberal salaries to every one that belongs to the Army, or ever did belong to it. I do not think that the present is exactly the time to attempt to reform it; but I desire now and forever, here and everywhere, to utter my protest against the whole principle. I have always been opposed to it. From the time I was first honored by my constituents with a seat on the floor of the House of Representatives to this day, I have been opposed to it, and I hope I ever shall be; and I hope and trust in God that I shall live to see the day when this whole idea will be discarded. It is an aristocratic notion. It is paying the public money to men who have no earthly right to it, making them beneficiaries; whereas the theory of the Government is to pay for services rendered. If this system is carried op it will not be long, and it ought not to be long, before the same thing will be extended to the civil list, and we shall have a bill to pay retired Senators-men who have served their country long and faithfully in this body.

Mr. HALE. I want to say a single word in relation to this subject. It is not new to me. have not seen the bill, and I do not know what it is; but I have heard the remarks made by the Senator from Iowa. My ideas on this subject I have had occasion to express heretofore; but probably nobody has taken pains to remember them. I am opposed on principle to the whole organization of our Army and Navy in this respect: to paying salaries where there is no capability of rendering service. I do not know any reason why the Government should do it; but they do it. It is one of the things that have come down to us from our English ancestry. We have got a great many good things from our English ancestry, and some very bad ones; and among the very bad ones is the idea of keeping in office Army and Navy offi- I simply throw out these suggestions, not excers years and years after they are utterly inca-pecting to effect anything by them, but to enter pable of rendering any service. It is an anomaly my protest here and now against the whole sysin this Government. I am opposed to it. I do not expect to remedy it very soon; but I hope that, in the progress of time, we shall remedy it. I think that the idea of paying salaries year after year-ten, twenty, or thirty years-to men that cannot render any service at all, is inconsistent with what ought to be the practice of a republican Government-a Government of law. I am so utterly disgusted with the proceedings of the late retiring board of the Navy-I have such an utter disgust of the selfishness which, in my humble judgment, governed that board, and of the principle upon which it was organized, of trying men for moral offenses behind their backs, and condemning them to a life of infamy, so far as they could do it, that I am sick of the very name of retiring board.

I have no objection to the bill being passed; but I hope, for mercy's sake, that I shall not be put on any committee called upon to sanction anything of the sort. If you have got any men in office who cannot render service, dismiss them; but do not have a retiring board. I would not have in

tem.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Iowa, to refer the bill to a select committee to consist of nine members.

The motion was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion of the Senator from lowa does not indicate the method

by which the committee shall be appointed.

Mr. GRIMES. By the Chair, of course. The VICE PRESIDENT. If not objected to, the committee will be designated in that manner. The Chair hears no objection.

Messrs. WILSON, HALE, LATHAM, SHERMAN, POWELL, COWAN, KING, KENNEDY, and Howe, were appointed the committee.

REFERENCE OF BILLS.

Mr. WILSON. I move that the other bills and the joint resolution which I have presented this morning be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and Militia.

The motion was agreed to.