timent which exists in the State of Maryland, that measures which tend to oppression, which tend to the destruction of individual rights, may no longer be persisted in; and that insults and injury will not be inflicted on the loyal people of Maryland any further. I hope that, at least, these resolutions will be received, laid on the table, and printed.

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, if these resolutions of the Legislature of Maryland be refused a reception here, I think it will be the first time in the history of the Government that such a step was ever taken. I think there have been occasions when the resolutions of the Legislatures of some of the States have been exceedingly offensive to a large party on this floor-a party which has usually controlled its proceedings.

Now, I desire to say single word on the point which has been taken by my friend from Maine, that these resolutions do not emanate from the Legislature of Maryland, and therefore are not entitled to be printed as such. The honorable Senator may have noticed that all the States do not require their doings to be sanctioned by the Governor. In some of the States the Governor has no veto; and the Representatives of the State of New York upon this floor have usually been accredited and sworn in upon documents sent precisely in the form in which these resolutions come, certified by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly, without any intervention of the Governor.

Sir, if there be a question in this country which more than any other has agitated the public mind and rocked the foundation of the political party which controlled the destinies of this country so long, it is this very question of the right of petition; and if there be one thing which identifies the name and fame of John Quincy Adams with the history of his country, it was not in his brilliant diplomatic career, nor in the eminently just and patriotic history of his administration, but when, in the declining years of his life, he went into the Hall of Representatives-and his bald head shone there conspicuous amongst the contentions of parties-striving earnestly and successfully for this very right of petition. It was the infringement of that right that first called attention to the doings of that Democratic party which has lately been deposed. It was the denial of this very right that rocked the foundations of that party in all the free States, until at last they crumbled and fell.

Sir, I beg of those friends who stand here acting with me to-day to be careful, exceedingly careful, how they meddle with this great right. Are we going to reject it on the ground that it is not respectful? Sir, when did ever power receive a petition from a suppliant, that was disagreeable to it, that it did not pronounce it disrespectful? I trust we shall not take this step. It will be a dangerous step. It will be occupying the most defenseless position the old Democratic party ever occupied, and from which they have been driven as by a torrent of popular indignation.

Mr. President, I have been many years on the floor of this body. I was here when this question was brought up again and again. I rememmember a set of resolutions were introduced from your own State-the State of Vermont-which embodied, in pretty strong language, the moral sentiment of your people; and I remember when they were presented here years ago, that the very same ground that my eloquent friend from Minnesota takes now was taken against those resolutions of the State of Vermont. The question was debated here again and again and again; and I believe the result of it was they never came to a vote upon it; and offensive as those resolutions were to a majority of the body, I think I am not mistaken in saying that the late John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, said it was due to the respect and the dignity of a sister State of this Confederacy that that solemn act of her people, authenticated by her Legislature, should be received.

of the Chamber. A question about their reception was raised by some Senators; but, sir, when Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, and many gentlemen sympathizing with him, were here, the resolutions of that State were received, because they were the resolutions of the State, although they were vastly more offensive to a large party on this floor than anything that can be said in these resolutions.

|

ator from New Hampshire talks about. The real truth is, the confederate army has one great advantage over the Federal Army, in consequence of just such drawbacks and just such speeches as the one the Senator from New Hampshire has made. If he and all the other talking men of our party will come up and put their hands on treason; if, instead of arguing and bandying words with traitors on this floor, they will crush it whenever it shows itself in this body, as they ought to do, I think that we will place the Federal Army high above that of the rebels. The Senator from New Hampshire had better be working for and looking after the success of our Army, rather than talking about this right of petition. I tell him the people are right enough, if he and others will stop clogging this Government; if he will stop throwing his fetters around the limbs of those who ought to be carrying on this war with more power and more energy and with more unity.

Mr. HALE. Will the Senator tell me what he means by my clogging the Government?

Sir, I do not stand here to justify or apologize for the State of Maryland or her Legislature. They do not want it; they can speak for themselves. They have an abler and more eloquent representative on this floor than I am. But, sir, I stand here for this great privilege which we have stood by when we were a little band, when we were but one or two. Why, sir, if you had taken away from us-myself and two or three friends who first had seats on this floor-the capital acquired on the question of the right of petition, we should have had to go into bankruptcy at once; and I am unwilling, now that we are in power, now that we constitute a majority, to apply to the State of Maryland a rule we contended against so long, so strenuously, so earnestly, so zealously, and so successfully ourselves. Let the Legislation, when a paper like this is sent here by traitors, ture of Maryland speak just exactly what they think. If they think our acts are wrong, unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unjust, let them say so. They would be slaves if they did not say it. It may not be grateful to our ears; but, sir, it is grateful to my ears to have the Legislature of Maryland, or of any State in the Union, speak out fearlessly, plainly, and boldly, what are their convictions of public acts, and what they conceive to be public wrongs. If this Administration, or this Government, or any of its Departments, have entered upon a course of conduct that is to be shaken by the freest and and fullest discussion, it is time that that conduct and that course were abandoned.

Mr. President, I regret exceedingly that some of my earnest, impulsive, eloquent, patriotic friends have had their sympathies turned in this current, so as to induce them to take a stand against this right of petition. Sir, this paper is infinitely more respectful to us than it would have been if, with smothered phrases and honeyed phraseology, they had attempted to gloss over anything that should have concealed the real convictions of their understanding on this subject. Let us show, then, that we are not amenable to their censure; that we are not afraid of their protest. Let us receive and enter upon the Journal the resolutions they have sent; and let the pen of history, in the impartial record which it will make up for the judgment of the present day and of posterity, tell who is right and who is wrong in this controversy.

Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. President, I think it was the Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] who very truthfully said the other day, that the Senate of the United States seemed to be very slow in appreciating the real condition of the country, and the circumstances that surround us. Now, sir, when I came here at the commencement of this session, I did not come here to talk. My judgment is, that the time for stump speaking and eloquent talking has gone by. We want fighting men, not talking men. I would suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire that John Quincy Adams never rose up in the Senate of the United States or elsewhere to justify the right of petition under such a state of things as now surround us. I think that John Quincy Adams never justified a falsehood being sent here-a resolution charging this Government with that which is utterly untrue-never! He was too truthful for that.

Now, sir, what fell from the lips of the Senator from Maryland does not militate against my charge that these resolutions are false and untrue. That an innocent individual, or two, or three, may have been arrested, is not strange at all. They are often arrested under civil process. But it does not follow from that fact that this wholesale

safe in Maryland. It does not follow that no house is safe from search, or that the right of property is not respected.

Mr. WILKINSON. Yes, sir, I mean just such speeches as the Senator has made here to-day. Instead of bandying words about the right of petithe Senator from New Hampshire ought to use his great power to crush all such things in the bud, nip them in their very commencement.

Now, sir, it is true that Ross Winans was arrested; and the great mistake was, we had too many just such sensitive men as the Senator from New Hampshire, and we let him go. He ought to have been hung for the part he took in manufacturing arms and munitions of war for the rebel army. The facts that have been stated to the country are greatly at fault; or else the Senator from Maryland is very much mistaken in his statements as to Mr. Winans. I think it has been pretty clearly demonstrated, at least to my mind, that this man was a rebel and traitor against the Government of the United States; that he was engaged in rendering aid and comfort to the enemy; that he was engaged in manufacturing arms and munitions of war for the southern army; and that his whole sympathies, and the whole power which he possessed by reason of his immense fortune, were turned in that direction. At least, great injustice has been done him by almost everybody, if this is untrue.

Sir, I think I am just as democratic as the Senator from New Hampshire; I believe I sympathize with the people just as much as he does; but I believe the people of this country are for carrying on this war, and they are for putting down everything like treason, not only in overt acts, but treason which may be uttered in words. This paper goes to justify, and uphold, and prop up these traitors who have been attempting to tear down your Government, and it censures the Government because it is trying to stop it by the arrest of such men. For one, I am not willing to receive such a paper, and I am not afraid that the people of my country, democratic as they are, will be troubled at all about our violating this right of petition. More than that, it is not a petition; it is a resolution of censure, and nothing else.

Mr. CLARK. I do not desire to enter into this debate at large; but on an examination of this paper, I find it not to be under the seal of the State, neither signed by the Speaker of the House, nor the President of the Senate, nor by the Governor. It is entirely unauthenticated."

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President, when these resolutions were presented by the Senator from Maryland, he moved their reception, and that they be printed; thereupon the Senator from Minnesota objected to the reception of the resolutions. I rose to object to their printing. My objection was founded on two points: first, that they did not emanate from the Legislature, and were not authorized; and, in the second place, that they were not respectful, and for that reason I would not have them printed. I think so now. On further examination I am satisfied the resolutions ought not to be printed because they are not truthful. The resolutions, in their whole scope and intent, are an assault upon the acts of the Executive which passed under the consideration of the Senate yesterday, and received their sanction. We sanctioned, by a vote of the Senate, the very acts which are denounced in the resolutions as tyranny and usurpation; and therefore, I submit, it is not respectful to print now and send

But there is another and still more substantial reason: they are not in harmony with the facts known to the country. They say that the Federal Executive has usurped authority; that he has put that State under military power; that the rights of the citizens there are all gone; that the citizens have no civil rights. That is the sense and meaning of the resolutions. Now, I object to the printing by the Senate, and sending to the country under their authority, such resolutions. Nothing was further from my purpose, in the outset, in any remarks I made, than to intimate that I was in favor of imiting the right of petition; but I believe these resolutions do not come here under such sanctions as authorizes the Senate to receive them.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will merely state that these resolutions were fully authenticated. They were sent to Mr. PEARCE and myself in a printed report. Finding that it would not be proper to present a printed report with them, we wrote back for the original draft of the resolutions themselves, and these have been sent to us.

Mr. CLARK. Do I understand the Senator from Maryland to say it is unnecessary for the resolutions to be signed by the Speaker and President and to be under the seal of the State? Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir.

remonstrate worth, if the party remonstrating and petitioning cannot state views counter to the power to which he presents his petition and his remonstrance; and, as my friend [Mr. WADE] says, they have a right to be spiteful, if they choose to be, so that it is not intended to be disrespectful to the body or to insult. the body. I do not understand, from the reading of this paper, that that was the intention of the Legislature of Maryland. I do not suppose they design that; but they have presented what are their own views; what they believe. Now, sir, it matters not to me whether they agree with me or not. I do not agree with them in some of the views which they have set forth in that paper; but, nevertheless, I am quite willing to receive it and treat it respectfully."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is," Will the Senate receive these resolutions?" Mr. BAYARD. The question is on printing the resolutions, I believe. They were presented by one of the Senators from Maryland.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on receiving the resolutions, objection being made to their reception.

Mr. BAYARD. I suppose it has always been heretofore our practice to print resolutions or remonstrances coming from the Legislature of a State of the Union. I cannot see anything in these resolutions, though I have read them but

Mr. KENNEDY. There is a letter from the Secretary of the Senate inclosing them to us in accordance with our request.

Mr. CLARK. It should be upon the paper itself. The paper is not authenticated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, it may not be; they may have omitted that; but I can vouch for the authenticity and entire accuracy of them, as well as my colleague, who has just come in.

Mr. CLARK. They are not signed by either of the presiding officers of the Legislature. They are certified to by a clerk as having passed by yeas and nays; that is all.

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, the fact that these resolutions are presented by one of the Senators from Maryland, is sufficient evidence to me of their authenticity. I do not care to go behind that. That the resolutions are incorrect in their statements, I have no doubt; that they are disrespectful, I think; but for neither of these reasons shall I refuse to receive or to print the resolutions of a sovereign State. I hope they will be received and printed.

Mr. HALE. Let me read their authentication. These resolutions are certified as follows:

By the House of Delegates, June 20, 1861. Adopted by yeas and nays. By order: MILTON S. KIDD, Chief Clerk. By the Senate, June 22, 1861. Adopted by yeas and nays. By order: WILLIAM KİLGOUR, Secretary of the Senate.

That is the authenticity which they have. Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that any question is raised in regard to the reception of this paper, and I agree entirely with what the Senaator from New Hampshire has said. This right of petition is intended to be guarantied to every person. The meanest subject there is, the most degraded human being that lives, may petition the great Ruler of the Universe. I am willing to receive these petitions unless they are insulting and intended to be insulting to the body. Of course, we are not about to receive papers of that kind. But when the papers are not presented with that intention, but to present what the petitioners believe to be facts-they may be ever so much mistaken in opinion; their judgment may be ever so erroneous; I care not-I am willing, and I think the Constitution of the country intended, that every person who believed himself aggrieved and wronged should have the right to present his petition and his memorial here. I remember how the State of Kansas was treated when she sent her remonstrance here on one occasion, and I have seen on other occasions this attempt to shut out the petitions and the cries of the people.

The Legislature of Maryland think, in their judgment, that what they set forth is true. Suppose it is not true in our judgments: shall we refuse to hear it? They give their opinions, which disagree with mine; but what of it? What is the

does not sign it. He has no veto power; and the only purpose of his signing a law at any time is to authenticate it; and yet, though that may be the more perfect authentication, the law is not the less valid if he does not sign it.

I understand that another objection is, that the resolutions are insulting to this body. I thought I heard some such language falling from a Senator as I came in. That is an entire mistake. There is not a word in the resolutions in relation to the Senate or the House of Representatives of the United States. The complaint is of executive action, and I should like to know who can talk about the insolence of a State Legislature when it makes complaints in firm and manly language of executive action, which they think violative of their rights? Has it come to this, sir, that not merely an individual, but a State, cannot express its conviction of the injustice of the executive action towards that State, without being stigmatized as insulting? Sir, the insult is the other way. It is an insult to the State for one so to represent such action of theirs; and it is an insult which this Government cannot repeat forever without weakening the bonds of union. I trust, sir, we shall not set such an example of ill-temper, for it is nothing else. We have repeatedly, in this body, heard the reading and ordered the printing of legislative resolutions not at all agreeable to a portion of us, without seeking to deny to a State that courtesy which has almost ripened into a right.

We may differ as to the matter and the style of the resolutions; I find no fault with gentlemen who may condemn these resolutions as unjust to the Executive, as founded in mistake, or they may even think they are ill-tempered, and that they are affected by partisan feeling. I do not object to that; but surely, when we are told they shall not be printed because they are insulting to the Congress of the United States, whom they do not name, except to appeal to them for redress against what they conceive the unjust action of the Ex

as the denial of a courtesy never before refused, it is entirely indifferent to me whether they are printed or not. They are, nevertheless, the sentiment of the Legislature of Maryland addressed to Congress, and I think they ought to be treated with the same respect with which we receive the representations of any other State Legislature.

differ from the opinions of many members of this body. Gentlemen here may consider the facts as set forth there, as not the facts as they represent them. The views taken of the acts complained of as to their unconstitutionality or oppressiveness, may differ from their own; but does that take away the right of the Legislature of a State to present their remonstrance either against the acts of the Executive or the acts of Congress, and to ask that it should be received and printed, as we do all remonstrances and all communications coming to us from the authorities of a State? I submit that because the resolutions may be dis-ecutive, surely the insult is the other way. Except tasteful, it is no objection to receiving and printing them. If there was any question for the Senate to decide as to whether they would adopt them, it would be another matter. No one could have a right to ask them to adopt that which was contrary to their own judgment, either in the statement of the facts or in the view of the law which resulted from those facts. But surely we are very far gone in the change of our form of Government, if one of the States of this Union, through its Legislature, cannot present a remonstrance either against the acts of the President of the United States or the acts of the Congress of the United States, if it is not in such language as is insulting in itself. I see nothing in the resolutions that could possibly be subject to that construction, unless you say that to differ, to dissent, and to express that dissent in a bold and manly way, from acts which they believe to be unconstitutional, is not respectful. I shall vote in favor of the printing.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on ordering these resolutions to be printed.

Mr. HOWE. As I find, upon consultation, that I have got to vote against the printing of these resolutions, when some Senators upon this side of the Chamber, I apprehend, will vote for the printing, I want to state, in two or three words, why I do it. It is not upon the ground that the Legislature of Maryland had not the right to pass the resolutions, not upon the ground that they insult the dignity of this body, but upon the ground that they make statements, they contain allegations, which I would not dare to make myself in reference to the conduct of an individ

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. President, these resolu-ual, for fear they were not true. Let me quote: tions I received a few days ago

Mr. WILKINSON; If the Senator will allow me one moment, I will withdraw the objection to the reception of these resolutions; but I object to the printing.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection to the reception of these resolutions, the question will recur on ordering them to be printed.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. President, when I received these resolutions two days ago, inclosed to me in a letter from the Speaker of the House of Delegates of Maryland, addressed to my colleague and myself, I placed them in my colleague's hands, being doubtful, in consequence of the condition of my health, whether I should be here the next day to present them. I was not present when my colleague presented them, and do not know what course the discussion in the Senate has taken, except as I am informed by others; but I understand that some objection is taken to the reception of the resolutions, perhaps it may apply to the printing too, because they are not authenticated properly; that is, as I understand, because they have not the Governor's signature to them. In Maryland we do not consider the Governor's signature of the slightest importance. The Governor is no part of the legislative power of our State. A law is none the less a law though the Governor

"Whereas the unconstitutional and arbitrary proceedings of the Federal Executive have not been confined to the violation of the personal rights and liberties of the citizens of Maryland, but have been extended into every department of oppressive illegality, so that the property of no man is safe, the sanctity of no dwelling is respected, and the sacredness of private correspondence no longer exists."

These allegations are contained here. Now I should not have dared to assert that of a consta ble in Baltimore; of any justice of the peace there; of any man having any authority whatever, for fear I should lay myself open to a prosecution for libel, or for slander, if it were merely verbal. If it is not true, is it any the less a libel when it is published of the First Magistrate of the country? If the Legislature of Maryland dares to assert it, the responsibility is upon the Legislature; but if we dare to print it and publish it, the responsibility of that measure is upon us. I am afraid that is not true; nay, more, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it to be utterly untrue; and I do not wish to be a party to the publication of statements so false as I believe that to be, and therefore I shall vote against printing these resolutions. To the reception, I have no sort of objection.

Mr. BAYARD. I am somewhat surprised at the remarks of the honorable Senator who last addressed the Senate. The result of his doctrine

is, that if any petition that comes to you contains a statement which, in your judgment, is not correct, from your general information and knowledge, you are therefore to reject it, though it is respectful to the body; you are to inquire, or on your own opinion of the facts, you are to determine that these things are not true, and therefore refuse to receive the petition. Now, suppose the facts stated there are not correct; suppose the acts complained of have not been done: by their sending them here to us, we do not receive them as truth. We receive all memorials or remonstrances from a State, and print them

Mr. HOWE. I wish simply to inform the Senator that he misapprehended my position. I do not object to the reception of this paper. I simply object to publishing what the paper asserts.

Mr. BAYARD. I understand him. The honorable Senator has not been quite as long in the Senate as I have been; but the usage has been invariable in this body to print a communication from the Legislature of a State, as of course. We are therefore taking no special order on the subject. It is a matter of course always to print it. It is the respect due, not to the particular communication, but to the character which the States hold in relation to the General Government, and that has been the invariable usage of this body since I have been a member of it, now some ten years; and I believe it was the usage long before. Therefore the objection to printing, in my judgment, will not hold.

The specifications of the honorable Senator were, that these resolutions contain statements which were not true in his judgment. Men may differ about that. I confess that I do think there has been great usurpation of power in the State of Maryland on the part of the Executive. He may have been misled by improper information, for aught I know, from her own citizens. I cannot say what has deluded him; but I consider that he has greatly exceeded his powers; and I can well understand that the Legislature of the State should remonstrate against acts of that kind. Beyond all question, there is no doubt that the right of search has been asserted there. It is no matter how often it has been done, for if it is done in one case, every man's house equally is open to him. The right to search for papers has been asserted there; nay, more, the right to arrest and to put at defiance, by military power, the writ of habeas corpus, has been asserted there by the Executive. No gentleman can doubt this. Have they not the right to remonstrate against that act, as a violation of the rights of the State? Further, there can be no doubt that the police commissioners of the city of Baltimore, duly appointed by the Legislature of Maryland, were removed from their municipal functions. I speak not of the marshal nor his arrest; but the commissioners of police were removed without even the scintilla of a ground for the act stated in the proclamation of the officer who did it. At the time that he chose to arrest the marshal, he also removed the police commissioners. The marshal, he said, had been accused of treasonable practices; but there was not a word whispered against the others, though he removed them from the exercise of their functions. not the State of Maryland a right to remonstrate against the removal of the municipal officers that exist under the laws of their own State for municipal purposes? They may have overstated the case, if you please, in some respects in their memorial; and it would not be unnatural if, feeling that sacred rights had been invaded, the statement should be a strong one; but no one pretends to say that it is disrespectful to this body. It is an assertion of what they believe to be the rights of the State, as against executive usurpation.

Has

I do not know what disposition the Senate will make of this memorial; but I do think that it would have been far wiser, on the part of those who differ from the Legislature of Maryland as to the acts which have been spoken of in the memorial or remonstrance, to suffer it to be presented and take the ordinary course of all communications from a State-of being laid on the table and printed. That is the universal course of the Senate as to all communications coming from States. I think now that a refusal to print the paper cannot make the truth of these allegations, nor the inferences of law from the allegations, one particle less than they are. If they are false in fact, or erroneous in the conclusions of law, it will recoil

with the public sentiment of the country on the Legislature that presented them; but if they be true in their main facts, and be true in their conclusions of law, where stands the Senate of the United States, when it refuses to print the memorial of a State protesting against executive usurpation of its rights?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am very sorry to differ with some of my friends on the point before the Senate. I do not regard the game as worth the candle. I think it would have been better, as suggested by the Senator from Delaware, to print this paper without a word. There is no dispute about the fact that these are resolutions passed by the Legislature of the State of Maryland, such as that Legislature is. The right to scold, sir, is a right that pertains to everybody, especially to Legislatures. They have a prescriptive right to scold and grumble as much as they please. The matter strikes me as one that we ought to pass over in the usual form. I remember that, during the struggles we have had here since I have been in the Senate, resolutions have been passed by many of the northern Legislatures on certain subjects, very strong in their language, and offensive in their language to the majority on this floor, which was a large majority, (though I thought they took offense without cause,) and I do not remember an instance in which the printing of the memorial was refused. It was done as a matter of course. Within my recollection, it never was objected to at all; or, if it was, the objection was overruled or waived. I think it is infinitely better to take this course. What the Legislature of Maryland say does not commit us. The language is respectful to us; there is no attack on the Senate. We cannot object to it on that ground. It speaks, to be sure, of the Government. They have a right to speak of the Government in their own language; and if that language is improper, the consequences are upon them. It is addressed to us respectfully so far as we are concerned; and I see no sort of objection. I think the wise thing and sensible thing is just to let it be printed in the usual way; and I shall vote for that motion.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon ordering these resolutions to be printed. The motion to print was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. ETHERIDGE, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; which thereupon received the signature of the President pro tempore:

A bill (S. No. 41) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to authorize a national loan, and for other purposes;

A bill (S. No. 53) to prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors and intoxicating drinks in the District of Columbia, in certain cases;

A bill (S. No. 58) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to increase the present military establishment of the United States, "approved July 29, 1861;

A bill (S. No. 64) to reduce consular fees for vessels running to, or between foreign ports; and A joint resolution (S. No. 5) to pay to the widow of the late Stephen A. Douglas the amount due him as Senator at the time of his death.

PAYMENT OF TROOPS.

Mr. WILSON. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 88) providing for the monthly payment of troops, to report it back with a recommendation that it do not

pass.

Mr. KING. This recommendation is a recommendation of a majority of the committee. My own opinion is, that some measure to facilitate the payment of the troops should be adopted by the pay department, if not by special act of Congress requiring it of them. I believe that by the law, as it exists, they may pay at shorter intervals than by their regulations they do pay. While I was in favor of the passage of the bill, the majority of the committee being against me, I suggested, and the committee authorized me to report, the following resolution:

Resolved, That it be recommended to the pay department to pay the volunteers accepted into the service of the United States monthly, whenever practicable; and that this resolution be communicated to the Secretary of War.

I suppose, however, the first question is on agreeing to the report of the committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The committee report back the bill adversely. Under the rule of the Senate, except by unanimous consent, that report must lie over one day before it can be taken up for consideration. The resolution of the Senator is therefore in order.

Mr. KING. Then I offer the resolution; which, I believe, received the unanimous consent of the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA.

Mr. GRIMES. The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 66) declaring the act to retrocede the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State of Virginia, to be unconstitutional, and for repealing the same, have had the bill under consideration, and a majority of the committee instruct me to report it back to the Senate, with a recommendation that it do pass. Knowing, however, that Congress is soon to adjourn, I only ask that it may be printed, and laid upon the table, to be taken up at the next session.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be printed, as a matter of course, under the rules, being reported by a committee, and will go upon the Calendar.

COD-FISHERY BOUNTIES.

Mr. WILSON. I ask the Senate to take up for consideration the bill, reported yesterday, (S. No. 65,) to authorize an increase in the corps of engineers, and topographical engineers.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. POWELL. I rise to a privileged question, which will take but a moment, and I wish the special attention of the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. A few days ago I introduced a bill for the purpose of repealing the bounties on the tonnage of vessels engaged in the bank and other cod fisheries; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The printed bill, which has been laid on my table this morning, has this entry on it:" August 1, on motion of Mr. POWELL, committee discharged." I was really not aware that the committee had made any report on the subject; and I certainly made no motion to discharge the committee from the further consideration of this bill.

Mr. CHANDLER. The committee instructed me to report the bill back, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration. It is a clerical error. It was on my motion, by direction of the committee, that they were discharged from its consideration. The motion was not made by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. POWELL. I ask then to have the Journal corrected.

Mr. CHANDLER. It was on the motion of the Senator from Kentucky that the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. POWELL. That is true.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed by the Secretary of the Senate that the error is in the printing. There is no such error in the Journal as indicated by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. POWELL. I ask now, if it is too late for me to move to take up the bill for consideration at some proper time? I do not wish to interfere with the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts. I make that inquiry, if I can do it under the rules?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is a bill under consideration, but the Senator can move to postpone that and take up another bill.

Mr. POWELL. It is not my purpose to move to lay aside the bill taken up on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts, but merely to inquire of the Chair, if at some subsequent time it will be in order for me to move to take up this bill?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will answer that question when the time shall come, and the Senator shall move to take it up. The bill now before the Senate is Senate bill No. 65. FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. COLLAMER. I wish to call up the House resolution for the adjournment of Congress. I desire to have it passed upon directly, and that

we may do it now. I

suppose Massachusetts has no objection.

the Senator from

Mr. WILSON. I have none. Mr. COLLAMER. I call for the consideration of the House resolution in relation to the adjournment of Congress.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont moves to postpone the bill before the Senate, with a view to take up the resolution of the House of Representatives fixing the day of adjournment.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution of adjournment from the House of Representatives is now before the Senate, and will be read:

The Secretary read it, as follows:

Resolved, (the Senate concurring,) That the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close the present session, by adjourning their respective Houses on Friday, the 2d day of August next, at twelve o'clock, m.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. SIMMONS. With the consent of the Senate, I will withdraw my amendment. I understand it is probable that we can get through by Tuesday, and there is no probability of our adjourning to-day; and we might as well dispose of the question now.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is competent for the Senator from Rhode Island to withdraw, and he does withdraw his amendment to the resolution.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I would suggest to the Senator from Vermont that it might be as well to let this lie until a later hour of the day. I merely make the suggestion.

Mr. COLLAMER. From what I am informed in relation to the condition of the House of Repsentatives, if we fix a reasonable time, we may probably keep a quorum together until that time; but unless we fix some time, we shall not keep a quorum of that House.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I make no objection. Mr. COLLAMER. I move that the period of time fixed in the resolution be Tuesday next, at twelve o'clock.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator from Vermont is to strike out "Friday, the 2d day of August," and insert Tuesday, the 6th day of August.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no idea that what I am going to say will change the vote at all. There is a disposition in the Senate, and we are told in the House of Representatives, to adjourn at once. I entirely disagree to that disposition which is manifested. I believe it is the duty of this Congress to remain in session, and mature all the bills which it is deemed important to pass in this crisis of the country's history. I think there is no excuse for Senators and Representatives, who receive an annual compensation, and who can remain here without expense to the Government, to leave their places, and say there is not time to mature bills, and that they must go over until December. However, I know that friends around me do not coincide in that opinion. I do not wish to take up time, or to delay action on upon this resolution. I suppose that what I say will be wholly impotent to arrest this impatient spirit to get away, and we are even told by the Senator from Vermont, that the House of Representatives will not stay, that they will break up and leave Congress without a quorum, unless we fix a day at once. Sir, I think this impatience is inexcusable. In my judgment there are measures pending before Congress, which it is its duty to mature and pass before it adjourns. But as I said,

considered as in Committee of the Whole, as it was passed over for the purpose of considering the resolution which has been disposed of. It will be read at length.

The bill was read. It proposes to add to each of the corps of engineers and topographical engineers, by regular promotion of their present officers, two lieutenant colonels and four majors. It also proposes to add to the corps of topograghical engineers one company of soldiers, to be commanded by appropriate officers of the corps, to have the same pay and rations, clothing, and other allowances, and to be entitled to the same benefits in every respect as the company created by the act "for the organization of a company of sappers and miners, and pontoniers," approved May 16, 1846.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time; and it was read the third time, and passed.

PUNISHMENT OF PIRACY.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 55) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy."

The motion was agreed to; and the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that any vessel or boat which shall be built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held for the purpose of being employed in the commission of any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, or in the commission of any other act of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, shall be liable to be captured and brought into any port of the United States, if found upon the high seas, or to be seized if found in any port or place within the United States, whether it shall have actually sailed upon any piratical expedition or not, and whether any act of piracy shall have been committed or attempted by it or not; and any such vessel or boat may be adjudged and condemned, if captured by an authorized vessel, to the use of the United States and to that of the captors, and if seized by a collector, surveyor, or marshal, to the use of the United States, after due process and trial, in like manner as is provided in section four of the act to which this act is supple

mentary.

The second section provides that the President is to instruct the commanders of the public armed

vessels of the United States, and to authorize the commanders of any other armed vessels sailing under the authority of any letters of marque and reprisal granted by the Congress of the United States, or the commanders of any other suitable vessels, to subdue, seize, take, and, if on the high seás, to send into any port of the United States any vessel or boat, built, purchased, fitted out, or held, as in the first section of the act is mentioned.

The third section provides that the collectors of the several ports of entry, the surveyors of the several ports of delivery, and the marshals of the several judicial districts within the United States, shall seize any and all vessels or boats so built purchased, fitted out, or held, which may be found with their respective ports or districts, and to cause them to be proceeded against and disposed of as before provided.

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

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT NEW YORK. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 59) in relation to the office of attorney of the United States for the southern district of New

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment moved by the Senator from Vermont.

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

ENGINEER CORPS.

Mr. WILSON. I now move that we proceed to the consideration of the bill which was passed

over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill (S. No. 65) to authorize an increase in the corps of engineers and topographical engineers will be

in lieu of the bill which was submitted to the committee; and I ask for its consideration at this time. There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The amendment of the committee was to strike

said attorney from and after the 4th day of April last shall be adjusted and settled in the same manner as the same would have been adjusted and settled had this act been in operation on and after that day.

The amendment was agreed to.

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

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. ETHERIDGE, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (No. 101) to promote the efficiency of the engineer and topographical engineer corps; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

The message further announced that the House had passed a resolution directing the message of the Senate, informing the House of Representatives that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House to the bill of the Senate, (No. 43) to prevent and punish fraud on the part of officers intrusted with the making of contracts for the Government, to be returned to the Senate, agreeably to its request.

COURTS IN KENTUCKY AND MISSOURI. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the House bill No. 70, for the more effectual organization of the courts of the United States, in the districts of Kentucky and Missouri, have instructed me to report the bill back to the Senate, and recommended its postponement until the first Monday of December next. There was some diversity of opinion in the committee; but the majority of the

committee instructed me to make that report.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I hope that bill will not be postponed until the first Monday in December next. I have conversed with a number of Representatives from Kentucky in the other branch of Congress, and they are exceedingly anxious that the bill should be taken up and acted upon now. It is a bill repealing the act creating Kentucky as a district court of the United States. At present, as I understand, the law requires the district court in Kentucky to be held at four points in that State: at Covington, Louisville, Paducah, and Frankfort. The bill which has passed the House of Representatives, and which it is now moved to postpone, repeals the law making Kentucky a district, and authorizes two districts in the State of Kentucky, and the holding of courts at two points in each district; and at the same time authorizes the holding of the district courts in Missouri at two other points.

The bill, when it passed the House of Representatives, received a very large vote, and was sent here several days since. It is now reported from our committee, and its consideration is asked to be postponed until December. I am unwilling that it shall be postponed; in the first place, because I think the convenience of the people of Kentucky will be better promoted by passing the the bill at present; and, in the next place, I will not disguise the fact that there may be another object contemplated by passing the bill, which is to repeal the law creating the district court, under which Judge Monroe has been appointed in the State of Kentucky, for the purpose of getting one more devoted and more loyal to the Union of the States. I know nothing whatever in reference to the present position and political status of Judge Monroe; but I have heard from gentlemen of the highest respectability that his loyalty was questionable, and that there is doubt whether any rebels or traitors in the State of Kentucky could be punished for treason while he holds court. I do not state this to be true; I know nothing about it myself; but I have been so assured by gentlemen of the highest standing in Kentucky who are now in this city. I disavow any charge against Judge Monroe. I have not met him for thirty years. I only knew him in Kentucky when I was a boy, as a gentleman of high character and of

That there shall be paid to the attorney of the United States for the southern district of New York, quarterly, a salary at the rate of $6,000 per annum, and such additional sum as shall be necessary, together with the costs and fees now allowed by law, to pay such amount as shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior for the proper expenses of the office, including salaries of assistants and clerks. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the accounts of

present position I know not; but it is at least questionable among Kentucky gentlemen of the very highest respectability.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion made by the Senator from Illinois, from the Committee on the Judiciary, that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until the first Monday of December next.