ator from Ohio representing that part of the State wrote a letter, which was published, complaining of their tardiness and urging them to come up. It was long after the rest of the State had responded, that the Reserve answered the call. These men from the Reserve, who are partly responsible for this war, and who are as much country-killers and parricides as the men South-these men, to whom belongs the responsibility of fighting this war as much as to any one, were slow in coming up to the work, compared to the rest of the State of Ohio. I can show that by statistics and returns, if necessary. I do not choose to go into the matter here. If the gentleman had spoken to me, I would have corrected my statement if it was wrongfully reported. I told one of my colleagues yesterday, that I would seek an early opportunity to correct it; but the gentleman insists on attributing to me an incorrect statement, for the sole purpose of displaying this very curious sort of slow patriotism which the whole State of Ohio knows has been demonstrated upon the Reserve. Mr. RIDDLE. I desire to say a few words in reply to my colleague. Mr. LOVEJOY. I object. Mr. RIDDLE. A few words only. Mr. ROBINSON. I object. Mr. COX. I shall claim the right to respond. I shall object otherwise. Mr. EDGERTON. I hope my colleague will be allowed to reply to the aspersions cast on the people of the Western Reserve. Mr. LOVEJOY. I withdraw my objection. Mr. ROBINSON. 1object to the whole thing. The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman from Ohio cannot proceed. VOTE RECORded. Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois. I was not in my seat yesterday, and I desire to have my vote recorded in favor of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. CRITTENDEN.] I ask permission of the House to record my vote now. There being no objection, Mr. KELLOGG recorded his vote in the affirmative. ENROLLED BILLS. Mr. GRANGER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An act making additional appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1862, and appropriations of arrearages for the year ending 30th June, 1861; An act for the relief of certain musicians and soldiers stationed at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina; An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to remit fines and penalties incurred in cer tain cases; An act in relation to forwarding soldiers' letters; and An act for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers. THE PERMANENT MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to take from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 2, to increase the permanent military establishment of the United States. The House amended the bill, and the Senate have disagreed to the amendment of the House. There being no objection, the bill was taken up. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. The difference between the Senate and the House consists in the simple fact that the Senate have passed a bill to increase the regular Army by the addition of eleven new regiments; the House have so amended the bill as to convert these eleven regiments into volunteers; and the Senate have disagreed to that amendment. I now move that the House insist on its amendment, and ask a committee of conference. That is probably the shortest mode in which the matter can be disposed of. The question was taken; and the motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER thereupon appointed Messrs. BLAIR of Missouri, OLIN, and MALLORY, as such committee of conference. COMPENSATION OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. pay the widow of the late Stephen A. Douglas his death. There being no objection, the joint resolution was taken up. Mr. RICHARDSON. I move, for the purpose of getting the joint resolution before a committee of conference, that the House insist on its amendment, and ask for a conference. The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER thereupon appointed Messrs. RICHARDSON, MORRILL of Maine, and LEHMAN, as such committee of conference. UNITED STATES COURTS IN KENTUCKY.. district of Kentucky; which was read a first and Mr. PORTER. I ask that the bill be put upon The bill was read. The question being on the engrossment and third reading of the bill, Mr. BURNETT. I desire to present a few remarks in reference to this bill. So far as the first section of the bill is concerned, which abolishes a district court in the State of Missouri, I have nothing to say in regard to it, for I know nothing about it. Three years ago I was under the impression that the business of the Federal court in Kentucky required the division of the State into two judicial districts; but, on further examination and investigation of this subject, I am satisfied that such division is not required, as the judicial business of the State can be attended to by one judge. It is done by one judge now, and his whole time is not occupied in his duty, nor anything like it. I do not understand why this measure should be forced on the consideration of the House in times like these, when we are resorting to every means within our reach to raise money for the purpose of meeting the expenditures of the Government. Why should we now create new offices for which there is no sort of necessity? I say here, that the records of the district court of Kentucky, held by the judge who is now presiding over it, show conclusively that there is no need of two judicial districts in that State. This bill is merely for the creation of new offices-a judge, marshal, clerk, &c.; and I here enter my solemn protest against it. I will not vote for such a bill. I am opposed to it. I desired to say this much in order that my position in voting against it may be understood by the people of Kentucky. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I desire to offer the following amendment to the bill, which I think will obviate the principal objection which the gentleman from Kentucky makes to it: At the end of the bill insert as follows: That so much of the act entitled "An act to divide the State of Missouri into two judicial districts," approved March 3, 1857, as establishes a court for the eastern district of Missouri, and as establishes said eastern district, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the seventh section of said act be, and the same is hereby, repealed; and that the office of district judge for said eastern district of Missouri is hereby abolished. SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That all that part of the State of Missouri which by said act now composes the eastern district of Missouri shall be, and is hereby, attached to the western district of Missouri, and made part thereof; and that the jurisdiction of the district court for the present western district of Missouri shall extend to every part of the State of Missouri, and that the judge thereof shall hold terms of said court in the city of St. Louis on the third Mondays of February, May, and November, of each year; and shall exercise all the powers and duties which by said act were authorized to be heretofore exercised by the district courts for the eastern and western districts of Missouri. SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the salary of the judge of the western district of Missouri shall hereafter be $3,500 per annum. The adoption of that amendment will, I think, divest the bill of one of the objections alleged against the bill, for the expenses added on to the State of Kentucky are saved from the State of Missouri. the passage of a bill of this kind—to divide Kentucky into two judicial districts. They have stated that on account of the length of the State, the convenience of suitors required it. But the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BURNETT] says that the business of that court is not sufficiently large to justify the creation of this second judicial district. It is true that there are not so many cases on the docket of the district court of Kentucky now, as there are on the dockets of some single district courts. But the reason of that is, as the committee were informed by gentlemen of distinguished character from Kentucky, that the inefficiency of the judge is such as to prevent the institution of suits in the court which would otherwise be commenced there. Mr. BURNETT. I would like to make one remark at this point. Mr. PORTER. I cannot yield at present. Gentlemen of distinguished character have stated to the committee, that if a second judicial district were created, it would have more business than the present district court has had during the incumbency of the present judge. It is for the reason that the legal business of the State of Kentucky would be sufficient for two district courts, that the Committee on the Judiciary have reported this bill. Mr. MALLORY. I desire to say a word in reply to my colleague, [Mr. BURNETT.] I differ with him as to the propriety of the passage of this bill: and I will take the liberty of stating to my colleague, that one reason for my differing with him has been furnished by himself and others, who about three years since strenuously contended for the division of Kentucky into two judicial districts. I remember distinctly, that at the last session of Congress my colleague and myself coöperated in getting a bill through this House, increasing the number of terms of the Federal court, on account of the increased business in different parts of the State, and the consequent difficulty of transacting business. I suppose that the gentleman thought then, as I did, that the business of the Federal court in Kentucky was increasing, and that in the course of time there would be a necessity, if the necessity did not then exist, for two judicial districts in that State. I do not know what has occurred since then to induce my friend and colleague to change his opinion. He says it has been an examination of the docket; but I apprehend that he made that examination thoroughly before he contended for the establishment of two judicial districts a year ago. Besides, an act has been recently passed by the Legislature of Kentucky, suspending the action of our State courts. That act, as my colleague knows, has thrown into the Federal court of Kentucky a large amount of business-an amount of business which never before found its way into the court. I believe that that adds to the necessity which existed before, of dividing the State into two judicial districts. I shall therefore vote for the bill. Mr. BURNETT. May I be permitted to say, that I do not know who are the distinguished gentlemen and men of high character who stated that the district judge is incompetent. I have not the honor of an intimate personal acquaintance with the judge; but I know him, and it is the first time I have ever heard him, in my State or out of it, charged with incompetency. In response to my colleague, [Mr. MALLORY,] let me tell him, that I acted three years ago, as perhaps he and other gentlemen on this floor did, on petitions and memorials asking for a division of the State into two judicial districts. They said that business demanded it. Last winter I had occasion to attend a term of this district court of Kentucky, and I then took the opportunity of making some examination as to the amount of business before the court. I became thoroughly satisfied, as I am to-day, that a competent man, who will attend to his duties as judge, can attend each of the four terms and go through with the whole docket in less than three weeks. He can go through the docket and render judgment in every case, not including those involving offenses against the laws of the United States, such as mail robberies and such like offenses, which are of ex Mr. BURNETT. I made no remark or objec- Mr. PORTER. For several sessions past, a Another fact. My colleague says I advocated the passage of an act in the last Congress for holding four terms of that court in four different places. | That, sir, is true, and for this reason: under the law as it before existed, the people living in my end of the State were required to travel from the extreme southwestern portion, as witnesses, jurors, or parties to suits pending; and therefore it was that I voted for holding terms of the court in four different places. Now, then, Mr. Speaker, I say to gentlemen to-day, bring up your docket; exhibit the number of cases; and there is no member of this House who will say the amount of business is large for a single district. No man will say the State should be divided into two judicial districts. That is the reason, sir, which actuates me in my opposition to this bill; and at the proper time I shall ask for the yeas and nays upon its passage. Mr. PORTER. Living as I do in a State adjoining the State of Kentucky, I am tolerably well acquainted with the business in that State; and, in my judgment, it is necessary that it should be divided into two judicial districts, in order to have the business of the State properly attended to. Now, sir, I think this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I demand the previous question. Mr. SHEFFIELD. I ask the gentleman to withdraw his demand for the previous question for a moment. Mr. PORTER. I think the matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I must decline to withdraw. Mr. SHEFFIELD. I do not wish to discuss the bill. I merely wish to ask a question. Mr. PORTER. I must insist on my demand for the previous question. Mr. NORTON. I trust the gentleman will withdraw his demand for the previous question. I desire to say a word upon the amendment which has been submitted by one of my colleagues from Missouri. Mr. PORTER. I must decline to withdraw. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put. The amendment submitted by Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri, was agreed to-ayes 83, noes 10. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, was accordingly read the third time." Mr. CRITTENDEN. I desire to say a single word upon the passage of that bill. However necessary some gentlemen may think it that another judicial district in Kentucky should be established, I shall be compelled to vote against the passage of the bill. I only ask to say this, in reference to the matter: 1 doubt the constitutionality of the measure. While I acknowledge the power of Congress to abolish certain district courts, and to establish other courts, I think it has been admitted that it is an abuse of the powers of Congres, and an evasion of the constitutional mode of removing judges, when such legislation is entered upon simply for that purpose. Now, sir, it appears to me that these cases come within that prohibition of the Constitution. If gentlemen conceive that there is really a substantial object of public good to be accomplished by the abolition of this court, they are warranted by the Constitution in voting for it; but if the object is really to get rid of one set of judges and to appoint another, then it appears to me to be in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, which provides a special mode of removing judges-by impeachment-and provides that otherwise they shall hold office during good behavior. Other gentlemen may differ with me, apprehension is that there has not been a sufficient reason assigned for the removal and changes which this bill makes provision for. but my Mr. NORTON. As this bill now stands, I shall not be able to give it my vote, for the following reasons: my colleague [Mr. BLAIR] has submitted an amendment, which has been adopted by the House, abolishing one of the judicial districts of the State of Missouri. About four years ago, an act was passed by Congress dividing that State into two judicial districts. Now, sir, if there was a necessity existing four years ago for the establishment of two judicial districts in the State of Missouri, I should like to know of the gentleman who offered this amendment, what has transpired within the last four years to diminish the business of that State? If a necessity existed four years ago for the establishment of two judicial districts, does there any reason now exist for abolishing that act? Surely, sir, that great State has not diminished in population within that Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I ask the gentle- Mr. NORTON. My colleague says there never was a necessity for the passage of an act dividing the State into two judicial districts. Sir, that Congress, representing the wisdom of the nation at that time, differed from the gentleman. Since that time, what has transpired? That great State has been steadily increasing in population; and there has a state of things arisen in consequence of the existing condition of public affairs that must necessarily increase the business to be transacted in those courts. And, with these facts before him, my colleague wants to abolish one of the courts in Missouri, while, at the same time, he proposes to establish two judicial districts in the State of Kentucky. Sir, I shall be compelled, in justice to myself, in justice to my constituents, in justice to reason and equity, as I understand the facts of the case, to vote against the bill as amended on motion of my colleague. Mr. DIVEN. I voted for the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri because I am satisfied one district is enough for Missouri; but I shall vote against the bill if it retains the provision for two judicial districts in Kentucky. Mr. NORTON. I desire to ask the gentleman from New York a question. If there is a necessity for only one judicial district for Missouri, upon what process of reasoning does he arrive at the conclusion that there is a necessity for two districts in Kentucky, which to-day contains a less population than Missouri? Mr. DIVEN. If the gentleman had listened to me he would have heard me say that I should vote against the bill in its present shape, for the reason that I do not believe two judicial districts are necessary for the proper transaction of the business to be done in this court in Kentucky. ENROLLED BILL. Mr. GRANGER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled House joint resolution No. 1, authorizing the appointment of examiners to examine a steam floating battery at Hoboken, New Jersey; when the Speaker signed the same. COURTS IN KENTUCKY-AGAIN. to withdraw his demand for the previous question, in order that I may move to strike out that portion of the bill which refers to Kentucky. The SPEAKER. It is not in order at this stage of the bill. The question now is, "Shall the bill pass?" The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered. Mr. BURNETT demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 79, nays 50; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Buffinton, Campbell, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Cravens, Cutler, Davis, Delaplaine, Duell, Dunlap, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Fessenden, Fisher, Franchot, Goodwin, Granger, Gurley, Hanchett, Harding, Horton, Hutchins, Kellogg, Law, Leary, Lovejoy, McKnight, Mallory, MenJackson, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William zies, Mitchell, Moorhead, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Olin, Patton, Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sherman, Sloan, Stevens, Stratton, Vandever, Van Horn, Verree, Wadsworth, Wallace, E. P.Walton, Washburne, Webster, Wheeler, Whaley, Albert S. White, Windom, and Worcester-79. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Ancona, Ashley, Joseph Baily, George H. Browne, Burnett, Calvert, Clark, Cobb, Cooper, Corning, Cox, Crisfield, Crittenden, Delano, Diven, Eliot, English, Fouke, Gooch, Grider, Haight, Holman, Johnson, Logan, Loomis, Morris, Noble, Norton, Nugen, Odell, George H. Pendleton, Perry, Reid, Richardson, Robinson, Sedgwick, Sheffield, Smith, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Train, Vallandigham, Van Valkenburgh, Vibbard, Wall, Ward, Chilton A. White, Woodruff, and Wright-50. Mr. RIDDLE stated that his colleague, Mr. The vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. PORTER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to. DIRECT TAXATION. Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill to provide additional revenue for defraying the expenses of the Government and maintaining the public credit by the assessment of a direct tax and internal duties; which was read a first and second time by its title, referred to the Comand ordered to be printed. BILLS OF EXCHANGE, ETC. Mr. F. A. CONKLING, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I call for the regular order of business. Mr. DIVEN. New York, Mr. Speaker, with three million inhabitants-more inhabitants, prob-mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, ably, than Kentucky and Missouri togetherwith her immense commerce at the port of New York, giving rise to vast business for these United States courts, gets along with two districts and two courts. In my judgment, this House, in the passage of this bill, is now about to set a precedent that it will hereafter regret. The object of the bill seems to be to get rid of judges who, by the terms of the Constitution, are designed to hold their offices for life, or during good behavior. If they misbehave, they can be impeached, and that is the only constitutional mode of getting rid of them that I know of. If we are to get rid of judges who hold their offices constitutionally for life, or during good behavior, by abolishing the courts over which they preside, then let me say to gentlemen, that by and by, if the precedent be established now, it will come to be the practice at every change of the Administration of the General Government to resort to this expedient; that is, to repeal the law authorizing these courts and to remodel the districts, so as to override the Consti tution. There will in fact be a change for political Mr. PORTER. I demand the previous ques- Mr. BURNETT. I appeal to the gentleman!! The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the call of committees for reports. CAPTAIN CHARLES FIERER. Mr. DUELL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, moved that that committee be discharged from the further consideration of the claim of the administrator of Captain Charles Fierer, and that it be referred, together with the accompanying papers, to the Department of the Interior. The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs to report back Senate bill No. 3, providing for the better organization of the military establishment, with a sub stitute. Mr. Speaker, the bill of the Senate is for the increase of the staff corps of the Army, and for retiring disabled officers from the Army. The House has passed and sent to the Senate two bills on the same subjects-one applicable to the staff corps, and the other to the retiring of disabled officers. The committee have instructed me, inasmuch as the two Houses differ in almost every clause, to report a substitute covering the two bills passed by the House, in order that we may bring this matter to a committee of conference as soon as possible, to settle the disagreeing votes between the two Houses. The substitute was adopted. The Senate bill, as amended, was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. MARINE CORPS. Mr. SEDGWICK, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported back Senate bill No. 4, for the better organization of the Marine Corps, with sundry amendments. The amendments were agreed to; and then the bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a third time; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. SEDGWICK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to. REFERENCE OF BILLS. On motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the following bills were taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs: An act (S. No. 20) authorizing the appointment of an Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and fixing the salary of the same, and for other pur poses; An act (S. No. 36) to provide for the construction of one or more armored ships and floating batteries, and for other purposes; and An act (S. No. 31) to increase the medical corps of the Navy, and for other purposes. JOHN C. M'CONNELL. Mr. CURTIS. When the Committee on Military Affairs was called, I forgot to call up a bill I had in my possession; and I now ask unanimous consent to present the bill, and put it upon its passage. Mr. WASHBURNE. I want the regular order of business proceeded with, as I desire to reach the Committee on Commerce. Mr. CURTIS. My committee has been called. Mr. WASHBURNE. Yes; but mine has not; I am always reluctant to object to anything; but I think we ought to proceed in regular order, and thereby give the committees a fair chance. However, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. CURTIS. Lask the unanimous consent of the House to discharge the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union from the further consideration of House bill No. 59, for the relief of John C. McConnell, and to put the same on its passage. Mr. BURNETT. Let the bill be read. The bill, which was read, directs the Secretary of War to adjust the accounts of John C. McConnell for commissary supplies and medicines furnished by him to the United States volunteers of Maryland now in service, on the principles of equity and justice, provided that the same shall not exceed $8,500, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Mr. BURNETT. Is that bill admissible, according to the rule we have adopted? The SPEAKER. It appropriates money, and it requires unanimous consent to discharge the committee from its further consideration. Mr. BURNETT. I cannot, from hearing the bill read, see any reason why the committee should be discharged; and therefore I enter my protest against the bill being taken up now out of its order. The SPEAKER continued the call of committees for reports. EXPENDITURES OF THE GOVERNMENT. Mr. F. A. CONKLING. I offer the following resolution as a report from the special committee appointed to inquire into the expenditures of the Government: Resolved, That the committee appointed to report in what manner, and to what extent, the expenditures of the Government may be reduced, have power to sit during the recess of Congress, and to send for persons and papers; and that a clerk may be employed at the usual rate of compen sation. I desire to make a brief explanation of the reasons for making this report, and asking for this enlargement of the powers of the committee. The committee was appointed a few days since, with the unanimous consent of this House, and I believe I may say it has met with approbation in every part of the country. It indicates to the country the intention of this House to carry out the ancient Democratic doctrine of "economy in the public expense, that labor be lightly burdened." It indicates to all parties that it is the purpose of this House to reduce the expenditures of the Government to the lowest possible sum, to the end that in this great crisis in our history, involving, as it does, the very existence of the Government, the resources of the country may, to the utmost possible extent, be applied to suppress treason and rebellion in the land. The Speaker of this House, under the authority given by that resolution, appointed the following gentlemen to constitute that committee: Messrs. CONKLING, KELLOGG of Illinois, BURNETT, NIXON, BLAIR of Pennsylvania, CHRISFIELD, and BROWN. I have taken the liberty to name them here because their names, so far as I am informed, do not appear upon any printed list of the committees of this House, though the regularly printed list does contain the names of those composing other select committees. The committee have held one meeting, and they have found that they can make no essential progress in the discharge of their duties, without the facilities which are now asked. They have ascertained that a very great necessity exists for the prosecution of the inquiry provided for in the resolution; and I will mention one single fact here which has come to the knowledge of the committee. The receipts of the revenue from customs, during each quarter of the five years preceding the 1st of January last, averaged a little more than thirteen million dollars. For the quarter ending with the close of the last fiscal year, the amount of revenue received from this source was but $5,500,000-or considerably less than one half the average which I have named. But notwithstanding this diminution in the receipts, there is no evidence and I think it may be safely asserted that no evidence can be produced-that any office in the custom-houses of the country has been dispensed with. I will not detain the House by the mention of other facts which have come to the knowledge of the committee. It is under these circumstances that we come here and ask for an enlargement of our powers. On yesterday I offered a similar resolution, and modified it in accordance with the suggestions of some gentlemen upon this floor. That resolution was voted down, or rather, it was laid on the table; and that act of the House would seem to indicate that its judgment had been reversed in regard to the necessity of this inquiry. For one, I hope that such a construction of the vote of yesterday is erroneous and unfounded; and I hope a majority will now permit this resolution to be passed. If, in any of its terms, it be objectionable, the committee are prepared to have it amended. If there be any power vested by the resolution in the committee which is unusual, or which is deemed too great, the committee are perfectly willing to have its terms amended in that respect. But we do desire that the powers of the committee may be sufficiently augmented to enable us to prosecute the inquiry with effect. continuing powers, that the objection should be made. Now, sir, what does this committee propose to do? Why, to examine into the public expenditures of the country. They propose to do nothing more than the standing Committee on Public Expenditures, if I understand the rules of the House, ought to do, if they do their duty. Mr. F. A. CONKLING. I will state, for the information of the honorable member, that the terms of the resolution under which this committee was appointed are these: "That a committee be appointed by the Speaker to report to this House in what manner and to what extent the expenditures of the Government of the United States may be reduced, and what officers may be dispensed with." It will be perceived, then, that the scope of the committee's investigation is entirely different from that of the committee to which the gentleman has referred. I have alluded to the fact that in the department of customs there has been a very great diminution of receipts; and of the further fact that there has been no reduction in the number of officers employed. Now, sir, we do not come here to make war in any way upon the collectors appointed at the various ports. We believe it is the desire and the wish of the collectors to reduce their force; but we know well the pressure that is brought to bear upon them, and the difficulty of their acting without authority of law. Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman thinks the scope of the duties of that committee is different from that of the committee to which I referred, and that they would occupy a different field of investigation from that assigned by the rules of the House to the standing Committee on Public Expenditures. The rules provide that it shall be the duty of the Committee on Public Expenditures to examine into the state of the accounts and expenditures of the several public Departments of the Government, and to inquire and report par ticularly, whether the expenditures of the respective Departments are justified by law; whether the claims from time to time satisfied and discharged by the respective Departments are supported by sufficient vouchers, establishing their justness both as to their character and amount; whether such claims have been discharged out of funds appropriated therefor; and whether all moneys have been disbursed in conformity with appropri ation laws; and whether any, and what, provisisions are necessary to be adopted to provide more perfectly for the proper application of the public moneys, and to secure the Government from demands unjust in their character or extravagant in their amount. And also to report, from time to time, whether any, and what, retrenchment can be made in the expenditures of the several Departments without detriment to the public service; whether any, and what, abuses at any time exist in the failure to enforce the payment of moneys which may be due to the United States from public defaulters or others; and to report, from time to time, such provisions and arrangements as may be necessary to add to the economy of the several Departments and the accountability of their officers. I do not object to the committee which the gentleman has named. I concede their respectaability, and I claim as much for the Committee on Public Expenditures, consisting of a greater number of gentlemen of this House. The sole question with me is, whether it is expedient-whether, I had almost said, it is properthat, as a mere matter of inquiry, those duties which fall within the province of a standing committee shall be taken from them, and assigned to a select committee? This 1 suppose to be the question raised, and I cannot think it expedient to adopt such a course. There may be cases, I admit, where a committee is overburdened with business, or where there is a particular question arising, of such breadth and importance that it may be right to assign its investigation to a spe cial committee; but I can see no necessity of the kind in this case. Mr. EDWARDS. As I have had occasion, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this application on one or two other occasions, I think it but justice to myself that I should submit a very few remarks in relation to the resolution which is now pending. It is true that the resolution authorizing the appointment of this committee passed the House without any opposition. So far as I am concerned, I at that time regarded that resolution in this point of view: that it came from a gentleman who was now, for the first time, a member of this House; and I supposed that the duties of the committee would terminate with the session; and in the form in which it then stood, I did not think it important to raise any objection to the appoint-penditures to inquire into those particular subjects ment of the committee. But when, yesterday, it was proposed to add to the powers of the committee, to recognize it as of a permanent character, I thought it was proper, if it was objectionable to clothe this committee with additional and If gentlemen wish inquiries to be made into particular expenditures, they can have resolutions passed instructing the Committee on Public Ex which they think require investigation. Suppose the course taken in this case should be pursued in relation to all the committees; suppose that at the beginning of the session, gentlemen should come forward and move special committees to inquire into the various subjects that are within the province of the Judiciary Committee: we might have select committees upon every matter that belongs appropriately to that committee. So in relation to the Committee of Ways and Means; we should have a select committee to inquire how much money the Government needs to borrow, and a select committee to inquire how much can be raised by a tarif. We should have select committees upon all the duties of the Committee of Ways and Means, and so with reference to the Committee on Military Affairs, and all the other standing committees of the House. Why, I ask, should an exception be made in the case of the Committee on Public Expenditures? I have no anxiety on my own account, personally, to be invested with this particular labor, but I thought when I rose before that it was due to the committee that the House should properly understand what their idea is upon the subject, and see if there is any necessity for taking this investigation out of their province, and assigning it to a select committee, clothing that select committee with powers which the standing committee do not possess, and do not see occasion to ask for at the present session. With these remarks, I submit the matter for the disposition of the House as they, in their judg ment and pleasure, shall see proper. The question was taken on the resolution, and it was not agreed to. STEAMER ESTELLA. Mr. WARD, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill to authorize the issue of a register to the steamer Estella, which was read a first and second time by its title. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. WARD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to. CONSULAR REPRESENTATION. Mr. ELIOT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to increase the consular representation of the United States during the present insurrection; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. The call of committees for reports having now been concluded, the Speaker proceeded to call the States and Territories for resolutions giving rise to no debate, and for bills and resolutions for refcrence only. EMPLOYÉS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. HUTCHINS introduced a bill defining the duties and fixing the compensation of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Postmaster, Doorkeeper, and Librarian, and settling the number and pay of the other employés of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee of Accounts. DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. Mr. WADSWORTH. Is it in order at this time to present a petition from certain citizens of Greenup county, Kentucky, praying that Congress will never consent to a dissolution of the Union? The SPEAKER. It can only be done by unanimous consent. Mr. BURNETT. I believe that can be done under the rules. Mr. WADSWORTH. There is no objection, I presume. The SPEAKER. The rules of the House require that petitions shall be filed at the Clerk's desk; and the Chair understands the gentleman's colleague to insist on that course. EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES IN THE ARMY. Mr. BURNETT. Is this a call upon which I can offer a resolution to be put upon its passage? The SPEAKER. It is. Mr. BURNETT. Then I offer the resolution submitted by me this morning; and I desire to give the reasons why I offer it. The SPEAKER. That can be done only by unanimous consent. Mr. CURTIS. I believe I shall object to the gentleman's giving his reasons. Mr. BURNETT. Well, I do not know that it is necessary for me to give any reason for it. I offer the resolution, and call the previous question upon it. The resolution was read, as follows: Resolved, That the Secretary of War inform this House whether there are any negroes in the Army of the United States, which have been armed; whether there are negroes, the property of citizens of any of the revolted States, which have been used by the Army in any character of military duty, the throwing up of breastworks, making intrenchments, &c.; if so, at what places, and the number of slaves so employed. Mr. McCLERNAND. Will the gentleman allow me to amend the resolution so as to inquire whether the so-called "confederate States" have armed negroes on their side? Mr. BURNETT. The very reason why I offer this resolution is, that my colleague [Mr. WICKLIFFE] had a resolution passed yesterday, making just that inquiry. The SPEAKER. The Chair would remind the gentleman that objection was made to his giving any reasons. The previous question was seconded. Mr. SHEFFIELD. I move to lay the resolution upon the table. Mr. BURNETT. I demand the yeas and nays on that motion. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was taken; and the resolution was laid upon the table. Mr. BURNETT. If in time, I ask for tellers upon ordering the yeas and nays. [Cries of "Too late!" What objection can there be to letting us know whether there are negroes in the Federal Army or not? It is a fact that there are. I know it to be so. Mr. WICKLIFFE. May I be allowed to correct my colleague, who has charged upon me the offering of a resolution to inquire whether negroes are employed in the confederate army? Mr. BURNETT. I must object to my colleague making a statement unless I am permitted to reply to it. Mr. WICKLIFFE. My colleague is mistaken. Mr. BURNETT. I think not, if the Globe is any authority on the subject. I may be mistaken. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that There is no question be debate is not in order. fore the House. Mr. WICKLIFFE. I wish to state, sir, that I did not offer a resolution to inquire whether slaves had been employed in the southern army. I did not believe, or hear, or understand, that such a military arm had been employed by these secessionists. I was unwilling to believe that such was the fact; but it was suggested by some gentleman over the way that it was the fact, and he wanted me to accept an amendment making that inquiry. I did not accept it. He moved it as an amendment, and the House adopted it. I had no objection to the inquiry. I denounce the employment of slaves or Indians by either of the belligerent parties. I, who have lived long enough to know something of Indian warfare, cannot tolerate the idea that in a civilized and Christian age any portion of the United States-the confederates or the United States themselves-should employ, without the condemnation of the Christian world, savages or negroes as instruments of war between white men. ARMORY AT CHICAGO. Mr. ARNOLD, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the select committee on the location of an armory be instructed to inquire into the expediency of locating such armory at Chicago. ACT OF CONFISCATION. Mr. BINGHAM. I ask leave to have taken from the Speaker's table an act (S. No. 25) to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes. There being no objection, the act was taken up, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. WASHINGTON POLICE. Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, reported back, with a recommendation that it do not pass, an act (S. No. 37) to regulate the police force of the city of Washington; which was laid on the table. NEGROES IN THE ARMY. Mr. BURNETT. I desire to correct a statement which I made a moment ago in regard to the resolution of my colleague, [Mr. WICKLIFFE,] including negroes, as I have since ascertained from an examination of the record that I was mistaken. I heard the resolution read at the table, and at that time it included negroes. I therefore came to the conclusion that my colleague had so offered it; but now I find that negroes were added on the motion of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNN.] One word further: I offered a resolution a moment ago, to which gentlemen objected. I am, like my colleague, opposed to the employment of either negroes or Indians in this war. If we are to have a war, I want it to be conducted on principles of civilization. Let it be, at least, civilized warfare. I have seen negroes in the Federal Army with the uniform on, and armed with all the im plements that soldiers are armed with. I am opposed to it. I believe it to be wrong; and hence I offered my resolution. Mr. LOVEJOY. I wish to ask the gentleman if he is aware that these rebels bayonet the dying and the wounded who are taken by them? Mr. BURNETT. I am not; nor do I believe it. Let the statement come from what quarter it may, I do not believe it. That is a species of cruelty and barbarism which I do not believe the people of any section of the country, however depraved, could resort to. Hence I am unwilling to believe it. Mr. DIVEN. Will the gentleman permit me to make an explanation? Mr. BURNETT. That is a matter for the House. I am doing that thing now. Sir, I am opposed to the employment of negroes in the Army on either side; and I hope and trust in God they have not been armed by those States that are now in revolution. I am as much opposed to theiremployment in the northern Army. I have seen them with the uniform on, with their rifles, their bayonets, their revolvers, their daggers at their sides, marching with the troops through the city; and if we are to have information with regard to one side of the question, why not let the Secretary of War tell us how many negroes there are in the Federal Army? I am opposed to it ou either side, and enter my protest against it. Mr. CURTIS. I ask the gentleman from Kentucky whether he saw any negroes enrolled in squad form, or company form, or in any other capacity than as servants? Mr. BURNETT. The best fighting man I ever saw was a man who went into the valley of Mexico and fought on his own hook; and he was armed by the Federal Government exactly as these negroes are. Mr. McCLERNAND. Has the gentlemen scen any negroes in squads or companies? Mr. BURNETT. I have not. Mr. CURTIS. I ask the gentleman if he believes they are enrolled in any other capacity than that of servants? Mr. BURNETT. I know not how they are enrolled. The question is, whether they are not armed like soldiers? They have no business with arms. Mr. CURTIS. I ask the gentleman another question: whether negroes did not go with our officers to the Mexican war, and carry arms there as they do now? Mr. BURNETT. I do not know whether they did or not. Mr. CURTIS. I know they did. Mr. LOVEJOY. I wish to ask the gentleman if he is not aware, as a historical fact, that negroes aided General Jackson in achieving the victory of New Orleans? Mr. BURNETT. I am aware of that; and I understand that the gentleman does not object to the use of negroes in war. Mr. LOVEJOY. Not at all; I would fight with any muscle that can fight. Mr. BURNETT. Therefore the gentleman might have saved himself the trouble of asking me any question, because I do not agree with him in his peculiar idea. That is enough. Mr. STRATTON. I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the House (at ten minutes past two o'clock, p. m.) adjourned. IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, July 24, 1861. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. MORRILL presented the memorial of William S. Grant, representing that supplies furnished by him for the army in Arizona, under contract with the War Department, were seized by the Texan forces, and praying relief; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. PROPOSED NATIONAL ARMORY. Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to present, for the purpose of reference to the committee having charge of the matter, a communication from the Common Council of the city of Alton, in the State of Illinois, setting forth the advantages of that point as a location for an armory. The communication shows that a commission appointed for the purpose of selecting a place in the West for an armory some years ago, consisting of General Armistead, Colonel Long, and Dr. Lawson, reported in favor of the city of Alton as a proper site for an armory; and among the reasons set forth are the location of that place upon the Mississippi river at a point at all times open to navigation, the abundance of coal in its vicinity, the health of the locality, the cheapness of property, and the fact that there are there at this time large founderies and machine shops which could be converted at once into manufactories of arms at a very trifling expense. I ask that the communication be referred to the committee having charge of that matter, which I believe is the Committee on Naval Affairs. I think other memorials on this subject have been referred to that committee. The memorial was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. GRIMES submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of requiring an oath of allegiance and support of the Constitution of the United States to be administered to each military, naval, and civil officer and employé of the Government, whether such employment be permanent or temporary; and that the committee be instructed to report by bill or otherwise. REPORTS FROM A COMMITTEE. Mr. CHANDLER, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 17) concerning the pay of the officers of the revenue cutter service, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 53) relative to the revenue marine, to fix the compensation of the officers thereof, and for other purposes, reported it without amendment. WORLD'S FAIR. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further reports, the first business on the Calendar is the joint resolution (S. No. 9) relative to the exhibition of the industry of all nations, to be holden in London, in the year 1862. The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to consider the joint resolution. It proposes to authorize the President to take such measures as shall to him seem best, to facilitate a proper representation of the industrial interests of the United States at the exhibition of the industry of all nations in London, in the year 1862; and to appropriate $2,000 for the incidental expenses. The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. PUNISHMENT OF CONSPIRACIES. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 45) to define and punish certain conspiracies, have instructed me to report it back to the Senate, with a recommendation that it do pass. LOCATION OF THE NAVAL ACADEMY. Mr. FOSTER. I present the report of a committee appointed by the Common Council of the city of New London, Connecticut, to act upon the subject of the establishment of a naval depot or a naval school within the limits of the harbor of New London. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. TEN EYCK] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ANTHONY] have already brought the question of the location of our Naval Academy to the attention of the Senate. Each of those Senators, in urging the claims of his particular State, indulged in a line of remark quite common with us all here when we speak of our own State. I am not aware that either of them said anything in this connection which was not eminently fit and proper. New Jersey and Rhode Island have each a historic fame, of which their representatives here, and everywhere, are justly entitled to be proud. But, sir, the State of Connecticut is entitled to be heard on this subject. She claims as fair a fame as belongs to each of these her sis-mittee to present a report where there is no report ters. She demands, and history awards to her, as bright a page as any on which are written the annals of our country. In the report which I present, the advantages of the harbor of New London and its vicinity, as a location for our Naval School, are set forth briefly, but most convincingly; so that I content myself at present by asking that it be printed, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. HALE. Let the question of printing take the usual course. I do not want an exception made to our general rule. Mr. FOSTER. The memorials presented by the other Senators were printed. Mr. HALE. They were resolutions of LegisJatures. Mr. FOSTER. The Senator from Rhode Island presented a memorial from his Legislature, but the Senator from New Jersey did not. They were both printed. Mr. HALE. I have no objection to the printing. Mr. FOSTER. Then I beg the Senator not to make any, if he has none. The PRESIDENT pro_tempore. Memorials not coming from a State Legislature, under the rules of the Senate, on a motion to print, go to the Committee on Printing, unless by unanimous consent. Mr. FOSTER. I ask that. It is less than a letter sheet. Mr. BAYARD. I ask permission from the Senate to submit the views of the minority of the committee against the passage of that bill. They are very short. Mr. TRUMBULL. Of course, I have no objection to the Senator from Delaware presenting any views which he pleases; but I think it is unusual and unprecedented for a minority of a com of a majority. The bill is simply reported back to the Senate, with a recommendation that it pass; and I am aware of no instance where a minority, under such circumstances, have been allowed to make a minority report, to go among the reports of the Senate as from a committee, where there is no majority report. Of course the Senator from Delaware will present whatever views he thinks proper; but if he designs this as a minority report, I object to it as unprecedented. If it is the Senator's speech, of course I have nothing to say about it. He may present what views he pleases; but I object to its coming from the committee as a report in any shape, either minority or majority, he having no authority to make such a report according to parliamentary usage, as I understand the rules of parliamentary law and the uniform practice of the Senate since I have been a member of the body. Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, I am perfectly aware that, according to the usage and practice of the Senate, a minority cannot make a report at all; but it has been their usage to permit the views of the minority, always so called, to be presented to the Senate. In the House of Representatives the usage is invariable to call them all reports, and they are treated as reports. Our usage has been to permit a minority to present their views; but not being a collective action of the majority of the committee, it is not called a report. The paper in question, though, is presented, in order merely to state the general objections to the passage of this bill. It will not be denied for a moment that where a majority make a report, in which they give their reasons and views in support of a bill, our invariable usage has been to permit the minority to state their views in opposition. But the honorable Senator says, that where a committee make no report, it is unprecedented to allow a minority to state the grounds of their objection, for that is all that is done. Now, it seems to me, in principle, that the right ought to obtain. If a majority report back the bill, that is a report; and if they do not see fit to state their reasons in support of it, why should the minority be precluded from stating the objections to it? In every case the views of the minority are presented by them as members of the committee, standing in contradistinction to their position as members of the Senate. I cannot see, in principle, any distinetion between the two cases. My recollection is, that it has been permitted in the Senate; certainly it often has been in the House of Representatives. I am not aware that precedents will be found similar exactly to this, for the very plain reason that it is seldom, if ever, where a committee divides upon principles in relation to a bill, especially a constitutional principle, that the majority do not make a report in support of the bill; but it seems to me clear that the reason which would give the right of a minority to present their views where there is a written report by the majority, (a practice which has grown up in the Senate within the last twenty years,) should also extend to a case of this kind. Further, sir, let me state one great reason why I offered the views set forth in this paper-views which I think address themselves fairly, certainly to the courtesy of the Senate, if not to its sense of propriety. I have said to you, that though I am opposed to your policy, and think it erroneous, and that it will lead to no benefit to the country, I am not a man, against a decided majority, to interpose factious objections, with a view to annoy Senators in reference to the passage of bills, where I know the majority so will it. I believe you will do me the credit to say that such has been my course in reference to all your practical legislation at this session; but I excepted any bill which I supposed violated the Constitution of the United States. I have, therefore, together with my colleague on the committee, made a short statement of the views of objection to this bill in principle, which merely throws before the Senate for its consideration, without any pretense at argument, the grounds on which I suppose this bill ought not to pass, nor anything like this bill. I am at liberty to say, that though these views are not signed by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN,] he coincides in the objection to the bill on principle. I think, under these circumstances, with a view to avoid debate, which I do not desire to enter into, in reference to this bill, when it is called up, with the bare statement of the general objections to it, that I might ask from the Senate fairly that they should suffer the paper to be read and printed as the views of the minority. Undoubtedly I have a right, as a member of the Senate, to read the paper as part of a speech; but I think that it is but fair to a minority of the committee, on a controverted question of principle, that they should have the privilege of submitting their views where they differ from the majority, though the majority may see fit only to report the bill, and not give their views in support of it. If the Senate refuse to grant this, of course I shall read the paper myself; but I cannot see that there can be any objection to the other course. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair begs to state that this report having been made this morning cannot be considered except by unanimous consent; therefore there is no question before the Senate, except it be on the motion to print the paper presented by the Senator from Delaware, as expressing the views of a minority of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BAYARD. Does it require unanimous consent? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It requires unanimous consent to consider the bill. If the Senator makes a motion to print the paper submitted by him, that presents a question before the Senate, |