Слике страница

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 liclux the only amount available under the appropriation then existing. The balance of 1111,023 was paid August 30, 188:>.

It seems as if the Government used the money, If it was in the shape of money. But some one spoke alxrat 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 win 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 corjwration.

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 conniption and violation of the criminal laws of the country can come to 1he Congress and ask for a quarter of a million dollars as interest upon an original sum e»f $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 coii]>ons 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 debta is immaterial.

Mr. SACKKTT. 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 thejn?

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 a to 5% 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 4Vi 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. BATARD. 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 4}£ 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 conies 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 4% 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 tlie 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, ae special agent in Boston of the Newton National Bank, a power of attorney to receive the interest from the Federal Government on March 1. 18G7, 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 pnt 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.UOO of Government bonds.

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

Mr. BRATTON. I think not

Mr. SACKETT. The Senator knows and I know that nt tbnt period of the country's history there were many railroad bomh that became defaulted, and it is perfectly possible that some of that sort of securities were included. If that is the cas". 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 4% 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. DILL. Mr. President, I think $249,000 is too much money to pay on the claim. I move to amend by striking out, in line 10, “$249,039.95,” and inserting in lieu thereof “$100,000.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. On a division the amendment was rejected. 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 offiered, 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?

[ocr errors]

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 1. 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. BINGHAMI. 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. Ove:RMAN]. 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 “may.” The roll call was concluded. Mr. BRATTON. I have a pair with the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Robinsox 1. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN] and vote “may.” Mr. CURTIS. I desire to announce the following general pairs: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. DALE] with the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSHI ; 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. RANspell.] ; and The Senator from Vermont [Mr. GREENE] with the Senator from Arkansas I Mr. CARAway]. The result was announced—yeas 22, nays 28, as follows:

YEAS–22 Bayard Gerry Metcalf Stephens Broussard Gillett Moses Swanson Bruce Hale () doiie Wagner Copeland Harrison Reed, Pa. Walsh, Mass. Fess Hawes Robinson, Ark. George McNary Schall

NAYS-28 Ashurst pill Mayfield Sheppard Barkley Edge Neely Shipstead Blaine Fletcher Norris Steck Bratton Harris Nye Thomas Brookhart Howell Phipps Vandenberg Capper §§ Reed, Mo. Waterman Curtis La Follette Sackett Watson


Bingham Frazier Keyes Shortridge
Black Glass Locher Simmons
Blease (soff McIveillar Smith
Borah Gooding McLean Smoot
Caraway Gould McMaster Steiwer
Couzens Greene Norbeck Trammell
Cutting Hayden Overman Tydings
Dale Heflin Pine $o
Deneen Johnson Pittman alsh, Mont.
du Pont Jones Ransdell Warren
Edwards Kendrick Robinson, Ind. Wheeler

So the bill failed to pass. bills And Joint fresolution 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 announced as next in order, and that it had been reported 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. CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICE POSTMASTERS

The bill (S. 1728) placing service postmasters in the classified service was announced as next iu order.

Several Senators. Over.

Mr. BIllTCE. I move that the bill be taken up for consideration, notwithstanding the objection.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator from Maryland

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion of the Senator from Maryland is not debatable.

Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent that I may make a suggestion to the Senator from Maryland.

The 1'HESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Utah will proceed.

Mr. KING. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Blease] is very much interested in this bill, but was compelled to be out of the city for a day or two, and I trust the Senator from Maryland will let the bill go over until the Senator from South Carolina shall have returned.

Mr. BRUCE. I withdraw my motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion having been withdrawn, the bill will go over.


The bill (S. 1940) to divest goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of their interstate character in certain cases was announced as next in order.


Mr. IIAWES. Notwithstanding the objection, I move that the bill be taken up and put upon its passage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Missouri.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. KING. Let the bill be read, Mr. President.

Mr. METCALF. Would the Senator be willing not to insist on having the bill considered to-night? I promised the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Bixoham] and the Senator from South Carolina fMr. Blease] that I would ask to have the bill go over until their return, as they wish to speak on it. I hope the Senator will agree to let the bill go over until (he next time the calendar shall be called. It is nearly at the head of the calendar and probably can easily be gotten up. It is also on the preferred list of the steering committee; so that it will come up directly after the Boulder Dam bill shall have been disposed of. So, in the absence of the Senators to whom 1 have referred, 1 trust the Senator will kindly let the bill go over to-night.

Mr. HAWKS. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Rhode Island that I should be very glad to accede to his request if a unanimous-consent agreement could be arrived at to let this bill be disposed of on Saturday next.

Mr. METCALF. I think that would be quite satisfactory. I think both the Senators I have named will be back by that time.

Mr. EDGE. How can we agree to that In the absence of the Senators referred to?

Mr. IIAWES. Mr. President, may I say that there is a peculiar situation surrounding the consideration of this bill. In 1!KJ8 the House passed a hill similar to this one, and the bill was considered by a committee of the Senate. However, in order to save time I ask that the bill be considered by unanimous consent at the conclusion of morning business on Saturdaynext, and be voted on not later than 2 o'clock on that day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from Missouri that if the proposed unanimous-consent agreement fixi>s a definite hour for a final vote it will be necessary to have a quorum call.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President

Mr. MOSES. I think I can

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the tloor. Does he yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. MOSES. Mny I suggest to the Senator that he propose the unanimous-consent agreement in this form: That the bill be taken up at the conclusion of routine morning business on Saturday, and in any event not later than 12.UO o'clock oil that day

Mr. HATVES. And that It shall be made the unfinished business.

Mr. MOSES. I do not desire that it shall be made the unlinbhcd business, because that would Interfere with the arrangement made with the Senator from California [Mr. Johnson] in connection with the Boulder Dam bill. While I am opposed to the bill, I am satisfied that opposition to it will be futile, for there are ample votes to pass the bill, and 1

think I can nssnre the Senator that the opponents of the bill have no desire to prolong the discussion upon it. I believe that the Senators who are absent aud in whose behalf 'lie Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Metcaj.f] has made the request for postponement, have no desire unduly to delay a final vote upon the bill, because I think they realize, as I do, that the Senate wishes to vote upon the bill, aud is determined to pass it.

Mr. HAWES. Would that arrangement be satisfactory to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. CURTIS. Unless the revenue bill shall be disposed of to-morrow, I can not consent to that, unless the Senator from Utah, having charge of the revenue bill, shall agree to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, Objection is made. The Sen ator from Missouri has the floor. The bill is before the Seuate as in Committee of the Whole und is open to amendment.

Mr. MOSES. May I suggest to the Senator that If the unanimous-consent agreement could be made to apply to Monday, when the revenue bill will surely be out of the way, and we will have a morning hour

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, it will be impossible for me to consent to that kind of a unanimous-consent agrenioat.

Mr. MOSES. Does the Senator mean he would object to taking Ihe bill up at the conclusion of the routine morning business when we have a morning hour?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know when we 'are going to have a morning hour.

Mr. MOSES. I think without question we shall have one on Monday.

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps we will and perhaps we will not.

Mr. NEELT. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the floor. Does he yield to the Senator from West Virginia?

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. Is'EELY. Even if we should have a morning hour on Monday, we would probably have only one hour in which to discuss the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. This is the proper time to discuss the bill.

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to substitute the House bill on the same subject for the Seuate bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator whether the House bill is the same as the Senate bill?

Mr. HAWES. It is the same bill with an extension of time of one year.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the Chair lays before the Senate the House bill, the title of which will be stated.

The Chief Clerk. A bill (H. R. 7729) to divest goods, wares, aud merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of their interstate character in certain cases.

The Seuate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. MOSES. Mr. President

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

Mr. HAWES. I do.

Mr. MOSES. I will make another suggestion to the Senator from Missouri. I am informed by the majority leader that there will be an evening session on Monday.

Mr. CURTIS. We would like to have one. I do not fcnow whether it will be agreed to or not.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator from Missouri yield to me for a moment?

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senator's bill is on the calendar to-night. So far as I am concerned, I should likp *' accommodate any Senator at any time who may be interested in any bill; but here is a bill now before the Senate. Why on we not proceed with it?

Mr. MOSES. The reason has been stated. I will say to the Senator, by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. who made the request that the bill go over on behalf of Senators who can not be here to-nicht.

Mr. JOHNSON. This time was fixed for the hearing of bills, and while, of course, we would all like to accomiii'"*1 every Senator, all of us are here under some stress and Ht p'irae inconvenience, and it is unfortunate that some Senators °'' not be present. But here is a bill of importance in whdrf"' Senator from Missouri is interested. It has been reached""

calendar; it is here to be heard. Why not proceed to lies'"

[ocr errors]

Mr. MOSES. Because two Senators who want to be heard In opposition t<> the bill sire not hero.

Mr. JOHNSON. Very well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. Senate bill 1940 will be indefinitely postponed. House bill 7729 is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole and open to amendment, and the Senator from Missouri has the floor.

Mr. HAWKS. Mr. President

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 Cbiiir 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. STEPHKXS. Mr. President

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

Mr. HAWKS. 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, i>erhaps, 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 us yet been perfecte'd.

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. Tes; 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 bo 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 Senutor 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 snine reception that it has im>t since 1908.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does thp 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 32.30, and that a final vote be had upon it not later than 2 oVlock.

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.

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. 1 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 2,'Jd of February without opposition. The same thing happened in the House; and Oils 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. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HAWES. Yes, sir.

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

This bill excepts the paroled convicts or prisoners. Should 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 docs 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."

air. BLAINE. That definition of a paroled convict will exclude a convict placed on probation by the court, or, for instance, by a commission such as has been suggested by the Governor of New York.

Mr. HA WES. Mr. President, let me plead with the Senator. My time expires at 10.30. This may be the last opportunity of passing a bill that union lalwir is asking for, the representatives of free capital, and the Federation of Women's Clubs. This same defeat has gone on four different times in the Senate, not by a vote but by a delay, by a filibuster, by confusion nt the eleventh hour. I know the Senator is not indulging in that.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HA WES. Yes.

Mr. BLAINE. I want to say to the Senator that I am In sympathy with the purposes of the bill.

Mr. HAWES. I understand that.

Mr. BLAINE. My suggestion has not been made for the purpose of producing confusion, but rather to perfect the bill. I think it would be extremely unfortunate to have a bill passed that would exclude the products of the labor of the man who has not served a single day in prison, yet he is a convict, but is on probation by the court, and permit goods made by convicts under parole to be transported; and that would not be in the interest of those who are supporting this bill. I suggest that a wrong ought not to be done simply because some one may fear that the bill will not pass. Under the circumstances such as the Senator from Missouri describes—the vote of the House and the feeling of the House—if he will permit the amendment to be inserted, there is no question in my mind but that the House will agree to it.

Mr. LOCHER. Mr. President- •

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

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. LOOKER. I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin what he understands is the difference between probation and parole.

Mr. BLAINE. There Is a very clear distinction.

Mr. LOCHER. What is the distinction?

Mr. BLAINE. A probationary status is that of a person who has not served in prison under a sentence. A paroled status is the status of a person who has served in prison, but is released upon some authority constituted by the State wherein the parole is effected.

Mr. LOCHER. What, then, is a bench parole?

Mr. BLAINE. A bench parole at what time?

Mr. LOCHER. In numerous States the law provides that the court may give a bench parole—that Is, a parole without incarcerating the defendant.

Mr. BLAINE. After sentence?

Mr. LOCHER. After sentence. It is exactly the same thing as being on probation.

Mr. BLAINE. By another name; but there are States that provide for a probationary status.

Mr. LOCHER. But it is by law. The law provides that he shall be given a bench parole without ever being incarcerated.

Mr. BLAINE. I call the attention of the Senator to the fact that in my own State the probationary status and the paroled status are entirely different; and this bill would prevent the transportation in Interstate commerce of goods the product of persons on probation, and permit the transportation of goods the production of a paroled convict.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, how many of them are there? Does the Senator know?

Mr. BLAINE. I suggest that in Wisconsin the number on probation is about 2,000.

Mr. WATSON. When they leave prison they go out In the ordinary vocations, do they not?

Mr. BLAINE. On probation, they never go to prison.

Mr. WATSON. They do not go into prison, but they do go into all the industries?

Mr. BLAINE. One of the conditions of the probation may l>e that they shall work in a particular trade: and perhaps that industry may be engaged in transporting goods in interstate commerce, and under this proposed law it could not be done.

Mr. HAWES. May I say to the Senator that this bill does not affect any transportation except where there is a State regulation: and the United States Government can not write laws for the States that will not interfere in any way unless some State puts that definition upon a paroled prisoner?

Mny I say to the Senator that this matter has been discussed at great length on the House side and on the Senate side in committees, every word has been weighed very carefully, and

the humane end of it has been emphasized? I hopo the Senator will not insist upon that amendment now.

Mr. BLAIXE. May I ask the Senator whether his. position is that his only objection is that the amendment may deluy action on the bill?

Mr. HAWES. Yes.

Mr. BLAIXE. The Senator does not maintain that the amendment is not a proper amendment under the circumstances?

Mr. HAWES. I will say to the Senator that I think it U unnecessary, but I do not think that it would vitally affect the bill. I do think that any amendment to this bill threatens its life.

I call the Senator's attention to the fact that this is the fourth time bills on this subject have passed the House and have been killed in the Senate in the closing hours of the session, and I hope that will not be repeated on this occasion.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator a question.

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

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. WATSON. I would like to ask whether or not the laws of Wisconsin prevent the sale of prison-made goods within the borders of that State?

Mr. BLAINE. They do not.

Mr. WATSON. Then this bill would not apply to that State. This bill provides only that prison-made goods shall not be transported by interstate commerce into those States which by statutory enactment prevent the sale of prison-made goods within their borders.

Mr. BLAINE. Let me suggest to the Senator that the thing works the other way. The goods manufactured by prisoners on probation in any Slate can not be shipped in interstate commerce under this proposed law without subjecting the goods to the laws of the States.

Mr. WATSON. What does the Senator want?

Mr. BLAINE. The same privilege for the man who is on probation as is granted to the man who is on parole, and certainly he ought to have the same privilege. He is not of the same degree of criminality as the man who has been sent to prison and then placed on parole. He is a prisoner whom the court regards as one who may rehabilitate himself without being sent" to prison, under the supervision of the court and a probationary officer.

Mr. HAWES. The Senator must admit there is a great deal of merit in this bill, and I trust he will not continue this discussion if he wants the bill to pass. We are taking up all the time on a small point of dispute in which we are in disagreement with the Senator. Unless the Senator is opposed to this bill

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, let me suggest to the Senator that the number on probation, wherever the probationary system is provided for in the respective States, is no doubt two to three times the number on parole, and yet the Senator proposes to give the specific benefit to men who have actually been incarcerated and take it away from those who have been put on probation, and who never served a single day in prison.

Mr. HAWES. Will not the Senator offer his amendment so that we can dispose of it one way or the other?

Mr. BLAINE. I want to submit the amendment to the Senate. Let this body determine whether the bill should be amended.

Mr. HAWES. Will not the Senator please submit the amendment?

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the junior Senator from Missouri yield to his colleague?

Mr. BLAINE. I do not care to prolong the discussion.

Mr. HAWES. I yield.

Mr. REED of Missouri. I know that the Senator from Wisconsin is in favor of the principle of this bill, and I would like to have him give me his attention just a moment. This bill does not prohibit anything unless there Is a State law of prohibition. This bill is governed by what is in the State law.

The bill provides that "all goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined, wholly or in part, by convicts or prisoners, except paroled convicts or prisoners," and so forth—shall be prohibited? Not at all. But when they are transported into any State or Territory of the Uniteil States and remain there for use or consumption they become. np"n their arrival, subject to the laws of that State.

Does the Senator know of any State that prohibits the sale of goods manufactured by paroled prisoners of the i-Jiaracter he has described, probationary prisoners? I undertake to sty there is no State iu the Union which provides for leasJug con

« ПретходнаНастави »