Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. What was the amount originally taken from the bank and deposited in the subtreasury? Mr. GILLETT. Three hundred and seventy-one thousand twenty-five dollars.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Then, if the Government clipped coupons from bonds which composed a part of that amount, and the coupons so clipped were not included in the judgment, the Government had the benefit of the coupons clipped.

Mr. GILLETT. Certainly.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. And I think it ought to pay. Mr. GILLETT. The Government had the use of the money all the time.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, evidently the Government used the money, if it was money, because they were not able to pay the judgment when it was rendered. The report says:

Thereafter, on October 29, 1881, the sum of $260,000 was paid, on account of the judgment, by the Treasurer of the United States, that being the only amount available under the appropriation then existing. The balance of $111,025 was paid August 30, 1882.

It seems as if the Government used the money, if it was in the shape of money. But some one spoke about securities, and I thought perhaps if the Government collected interest on those securities, that would have been included in the judgment. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from New Mexico merely one question. As I understand it, this cashier was in collusion with the Government's agent. Mr. BRATTON. Admittedly so.

Mr. GEORGE. Then, may I suggest to the Senator from New Mexico that it is not a question of the bank's cashier dealing with an innocent third party, in which event the bank might be liable for its act, but the Government could certainly not take advantage of any wrong which its own agent had participated in in getting these securities. I think that is the principle of law which applies.

Mr. BRATTON. That is the principle of law. On the other hand, the bank can not claim the fruits of a transaction sounding in criminality to which it was a party through its executive

officer.

Mr. GEORGE. It was not a party. Its cashier was wholly beyond the scope and acting wholly outside of his powers. Had he been dealing with an innocent third party, your case might be different, but here, where the Government's agent was particeps criminis, then the act of the cashier was his individual act, and in no sense binding on the corporation.

Mr. BRATTON. If the cashier had been dealing with a third party who was innocent in the transaction, I would concede that the case would be different, but in this transaction there were two parties, and one was just as guilty as the other, and one just as culpable as the other. How one party to a transaction that is clothed in fraud and corruption and violation of the criminal laws of the country can come to the Congress and ask for a quarter of a million dollars as interest upon an original sum of $371,000 is almost inconceivable.

I want to ask the Senator from Massachusetts a question, if I may have his attention. I fail to find in the record any statement showing that the Government clipped coupons from these securities and used the money derived in that manner for which it has not accounted. Will the Senator point out where that appears in the record?

Mr. GILLETT. I can not say that it appears in the record, but they had these securities and used them. Of course, they clipped the coupons.

Mr. BRATTON. How does the Senator know that the interest was not included in the $371,000 judgment rendered by the Court of Claims?

Mr. GILLETT. Because that was the exact amount that had been paid; and the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction to give any interest.

Mr. BRATTON. At any rate, the Senator is unable to say that $249,000, or any substantial part of it, being the amount involved in this bill, is money derived from coupons clipped and sold by the Government?

Mr. GILLETT. The Government had those securities with the coupons on them, and, of course, it had the use of all this money for 14 years.

Mr. BRATTON. How much of the money was derived from the sale of coupons clipped and sold?

Mr. GILLETT. That I do not recollect. It seems to me that that does not make much difference. They had the use of the money all the time these 14 years, and whether they cut and sold the coupons or whether they paid the Government debts is immaterial.

Mr. SACKETT. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if there is anything in the record to

show what interest the securities bore during the time the Government held them?

Mr. BAYARD. I think in the report the securities are set out in some detail. But I will state this to the Senator: That the judgment given by the court was for the then face value of all the property taken at that time, and was not for the coupons clipped and put in the Government's pocket during the time the Government had the money. It was for the flat value of the property taken in 1867 and used, but the use of it was never accounted for.

Mr. SACKETT. Is there anything in detail showing the interest the securities bore at the time they were stolen?

Mr. BAYARD. I will say to the Senator that bonds of the Government at that time generally bore 5 to 5%1⁄2 per cent. That was the average rate of interest paid by the Government upon moneys which it borrowed during that period.

Mr. GILLETT. There are references in the reports to the "7-20" bonds; that is, bonds running 20 years and bearing 7 per cent interest.

Mr. SACKETT. That may be all true, but it seems to me that we have hardly enough information, if we are going to allow a claim for interest, to establish that the securities may have borne that high a rate of interest.

Mr. GILLETT. But they certainly bore at least 41⁄2 per cent.

Mr. SACKETT. How does the Senator know? There is no evidence before the committee that they were interest-bearing securities. They may have been stocks, or something of that kind.

Mr. BAYARD. I think if the Senator reads the report he will find that there were certain Government interest-bearing securities. But if that were not so, let me make this suggestion: Suppose every cent of it was cash. The point is that the Government used it during that period, but during that period the Government itself paid an average of 42 per cent interest for money it borrowed from other people.

Mr. SACKETT. That is true. It seems to me if it were cash it would be a simple proposition, but when it comes to securities, I think we ought to know more about what those securities were and what they would have paid the bank if the bank had retained them.

Mr. BAYARD. Does the Senator think we ought to increase the claim?

Mr. GILLETT. It must have been at least 42 per cent.
Mr. SACKETT. It may have been.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. On page 3 of the report, under paragraph XIII, it appears that, without the knowledge of the officials of the Newton National Bank, Dyer placed in the hands of Carter securities of the said bank to the amount of $45,000, pointing out at the time that he had no authority to commit this act. In paragraph XVIII, on the same page, it appears that— In the early part of February Dyer had given to Carter, as special agent in Boston of the Newton National Bank, a power of attorney to receive the interest from the Federal Government on March 1, 1867, upon Government bonds belonging to the Newton National Bank. This interest amounted to $6,325, and Carter instead of drawing it out and putting it to the credit of the Newton National Bank simply signed a receipt therefor on Hartwell's books, and Hartwell transferred the amount to his own credit on the Government books. It does not appear that Dyer was party to or had any knowledge of this transaction.

There are other paragraphs in the report that explain the items which go to make up the $371,000 plus.

Mr. SACKETT. But the very statement which the Senator reads shows there was over $6,000 of interest already put into the principal sum, does it not?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. No; the $6,325 of interest was converted interest on Government bonds.

Mr. SACKETT. But probably that is added to the amount for which judgment was rendered.

Mr. BRATTON. Obviously the $45,000 of bonds referred to in Paragraph XIII, on page 3, was included in the judgment rendered by the Court of Claims.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly.

Mr. BRATTON. Then that item is entirely eliminated. The only item left is the one the Senator from Arkansas referred to, the item of $6,000 plus, being interest on the $45,000 of Government bonds.

Mr. SACKETT. May I ask the Senator another question? Is there anything to show that these were all Governmen ₺ securities, and not securities of corporations of some kind? Mr. BRATTON. I think not.

Mr. SACKETT. The Senator knows and I know that at that period of the country's history there were many railroad bonds that became defaulted, and it is perfectly possible that Some of that sort of securities were included. If that is the case,

there is no right to pay interest by the Government on defaulted securities. I do not know that there were any such securities, but it is possible there may have been. It seems to me the committee should go further into the question of the securities before the Government authorizes the payment of the claim.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President. I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from New Mexico, or some other Senator, if there is any other Senator who knows anything about it, how much of the money originally taken that belonged to the bank was in cash, and how much in securities?

Mr. BRATTON. Perhaps the Senator from Delaware can answer that. I am unable to do it at the moment.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. On page 4 of the report there appears this receipt:

Deposited by Mellen, Ward & Co., of Boston, $336,000 in Governments and bills on account of deposit, to be returned on demand in Governments or bills or its equivalent.

Date, February 28, 1867. J. F. Hartwell, Cashier.

That seems to be the only information available in the report, in answer to the Senator's question.

Mr. BARKLEY. That seems to indicate that a part of the property was in Government bonds and a part of it in bills, presumably cash; but there is no information contained in the report which indicates how much was cash and how much was money, or how much was derived from the clipping of coupons on any bonds they took away, and whether the amount now asked is made up by compound interest on interest collected on the Government-owned bonds. It strikes me it is rather voting in the dark about a quarter of a million dollars. I should like to get the real facts about it before I voted for a bill appropriating so much money to pay interest on a claim.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, in the first place. I am sorry I can not give the detailed information the Senator wants as to the character of the securities and cash, the quantity of the securities and cash, or either or both. However, it makes no difference for the reason that the court found in an amount of the value of the securities in cash as the total taken at the time the theft was committed. The judgment of the court does not take into account anything received by the Government from the use of those securities during the 14 years that it held them. The judgment does not reflect the clipping of coupons or the cashing of any coupons. It is merely a judgment for the flat amount taken by the cashier and turned over to a Government official.

Mr. BARKLEY. How is the total amount arrived at?

Mr. BAYARD. The 42 per cent interest was the average rate that the Government paid between the years 1867 and 1888, the date the final payment of the judgment given on the principal was asked.

Mr. BARKLEY. I can understand how that is fair to ask if the Government owes any interest on the actual money used.

Mr. BAYARD. That is all it is for.

Mr. BARKLEY. But is there anything in the report to show or does the Senator himself know how much interest these coupons bore which it is claimed the Government clipped?

Mr. BAYARD. The judgment does not include anything collected by the Government on coupons.

Mr. BARKLEY. Therefore it is possible we are paying a higher rate of interest than the securities drew.

Mr. BAYARD. There is no calculation in the interest claim based upon anything but the utilization of the whole amount of money. The utilization of the property by the Government is all that was taken into consideration. It is interest on the value of the property taken when it was taken from the bank by the cashier of the bank and turned over to the cashier of the subtreasury. That is the amount for which the judgment was rendered. I think that answers the Senator's question; I hope it does.

Mr. BRATTON. I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. GLASS (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. MCLEAN]. Not knowing how he would vote, in his absence I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I would vote "yea."

Mr. KENDRICK (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM]. On account of his absence, I withhold my vote.

Mr. WARREN (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. OVERMAN]. In his absence, I withhold my vote.

Mr. WATSON (when his name was called). I have a pair with the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH]. I do not know how he would vote on this question. Nevertheless, I transfer my pair to the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. GOFF] and vote The roll call was concluded.

66

nay.”

Mr. BRATTON. I have a pair with the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON]. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN] and vote "nay."

Mr. CURTIS. I desire to announce the following general pairs:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. DALE] with the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH];

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. DU PONT] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. TRAMMELL];

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. FRAZIER] with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BLEASE];

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. GooDING] with the Senator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER];

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. KEYES] with the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. EDWARDS];

The Senator from Maine [Mr. GOULD] with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. RANSDELL]; and

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. GREENE] with the Senator from Arkansas Mr. CARAWAY].

The result was announced-yeas 22, nays 28, as follows:

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION PASSED OVER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will state the next bill on the calendar.

The bill (S. 2787) providing for the appointment of governors of the non-Christian Provinces in the Philippine Islands by the Governor General without the consent of the Philippine Senate was announced as next in order.

Mr. BLAINE. Let that bill go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over. The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting war was

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is still as in Committee of the Whole and open to amendment. If there are no further amendments to be offered, the bill will be reported to the Senate.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass?

adversely.

Mr. BRATTON. Let the joint resolution go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be passed over.

The bill (S. 1414) for the prevention and removal of obstructions and burdens upon interstate commerce in cottonseed oil by regulating transactions on future exchanges, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, we have an understanding as to Senate bill 1414, and I therefore ask that it may go over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

Mr. MOSES. Mr. President, am I to understand that it is impossible to enter into any kind of a unanimous-consent agreement which will accommodate the two absent Senators?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from New Hampshire that it appears so at this time. SEVERAL SENATORS. Regular order!

Mr. HAWES. Any agreement that I can possibly make which will accommodate Senators and at the same time assure a vote on this bill I will be glad to make.

Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. STEPHENS. Do I understand that the Chair has submitted the question whether this bill shall be taken up by unanimous consent?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator that the bill was taken up on motion.

Mr. STEPHENS. The question on the motion has not been put as yet, has it?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question has been put, and the motion decided, and the bill is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole and open to amendment.

Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. President, I am going to say, if the Senator from Missouri will permit me, that I had a conversation with him regarding the pending measure a day or two ago. I have received some letters from my State which indicate that this measure will affect my State very materially and the processes by which it takes care of situations which are involved in this bill. I had understood that, perhaps, some agreement might be reached by which an amendment might be adopted to take care of that situation, or that I could be given assurance that my State would not be injuriously affected. Such an agreement has not as yet been perfected.

I wish to say to the Senator that I am not prepared to state at this time that I shall oppose the bill, but, unless certain amendments shall be agreed to, it is my purpose not to allow the bill to pass to-night if I can prevent its passage.

I hope under the circumstances that the Senator will adopt the suggestion made by certain other Senators that this bill may be taken up at a later date. I think by so doing, perhaps, his bill may have very much less opposition than it will have to-night. I understand the session will only run until 10.30 p. m., which time will be reached in just about an hour from

now.

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator to ask a question.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes; and my question is this: Is the Senator willing to let this matter be deferred until a future date within the next two or three days so that certain conferences may be had, and perhaps certain agreements may be reached that will lessen the opposition to his bill? We are going to have other night sessions. We are going to have other opportunities to consider this matter.

Mr. HAWES. I will say to the Senator that there is practically no opposition to this bill. I do not believe there are 12 votes in the Senate that oppose this bill; but it is meeting the same reception that it has met since 1908.

Mr. MOSES. Mr. President, may make another effort to get a unanimous-consent agreement?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from New Hampshire? Mr. HAWES. I do.

Mr. MOSES. I ask unanimous consent that this bill may be taken up on Saturday at 12.30, and that a final vote be had upon it not later than 2 o'clock.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MCNARY. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is made. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Rhode Island will agree that I have attempted to show them every possible courtesy. Mr. MOSES. And I will agree, also, that we have exhausted every expedient.

Mr. McNARY. I call for the regular order.

LXIX- -565

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, replying to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEPHENS], not only should the Senate have the facts connected with the situation which relates to this bill, but the public should have them. Three times the lower House of Congress has passed bills similar to this. Three times a committee of the United States Senate has approved bills similar to this.

This identical bill has passed the lower House twice, and it passed the lower House last week by a vote of 304 to 40.

I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am listening.

Mr. HAWES. Although during these times this bill has been before the Senate, and approved by committees of the Senate, the Senate never has had an opportunity to vote upon it. It has always died at the end of a session as the result of a filibuster, as the result of congestion, as the result of an opposition which was afraid to stand up and have a vote in the Senate.

This bill was heard by a committee of the Senate in a long, exhaustive session; and then, 10 days later, the prison wardens had a hearing on the same subject. The bill was reported to the Senate on the 23d of February without opposition. The same thing happened in the House; and this is the prison contractors' last stand. We will have a vote, and there is no man who has discussed this bill and understands the philosophy of the bill who will ask for an amendment to the bill. Mr. BLAINE.

question?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a

Mr. HAWES. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLAINE. The comment which the Senator has just made leads me to make this inquiry:

Should

This bill excepts the paroled convicts or prisoners. not that be amended so as to provide for paroled convicts or persons on probation, adding the words "or persons on probatin"? Many of the States have what is known as the probationary system, where sentence is imposed and the sentence suspended and the person put on probation. They are convicts; they are technically and in law prisoners; they occupy a status similar to paroled prisoners, but in fact and in law they are not paroled prisoners; they are persons on probation.

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator is sympathetic to this bill and that his inquiry, of course, is made to benefit the bill. I will say that every line of this bill has been given very careful consideration by an organization interested in prison reform, and the phraseology used has been gone over very carefully. It has been passed upon by the House. In the first place, I should not like to have an amendment made to the bill, because it might endanger its final passage; and I do not think the amendment is necessary, because there are no States in the Union where convict sales are regulated that cover that kind of prison employment.

This bill does not write any law. It does not make any regulation. All that this bill does is to provide that when convictmade goods, or goods made by confined prisoners, reach the border of a State, they take on the character of the law of that particular State.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I fear that the Senator has missed the particular point to which I was trying to call attention,

A paroled prisoner is one who is relieved from imprisonment by a parole board, perhaps by a governor; and the products of their toil may be sold in interstate commerce. Mr. HAWES. Yes.

Mr. BLAINE. That is, the products of the toil of men who have been sent to prison and later released on parole may be transported in interstate commerce; but the man who is convicted and is put on probation by the court before imprisonment, is nevertheless a convict, yet he may not serve a single day in prison; still, under this bill, the products of his toil could not be transported in interstate commerce. I submit that even under the statement the Senator has made, a wrong should not be committed with respect to such a person, and a discrimination made in favor of the person who has served a term and is released on parole.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS. May I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he has read line 5 on page 1, where it says "except paroled convicts or prisoners"?

Mr. BLAINE. I have the Senate bill before me, and have read that; but I am distinguishing between a paroled convict and a convict on probation. They are not in the same class.

Mr. CURTIS. I did not understand the Senator to say "on probation."