putting the free list upon this bill. I think Now, I wish to say to the Senate that I am in favor of repealing the entire duty on tea Now, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will not pass this bill simply repealing the duty upon tea and coffee, and I think it is a waste of time to consider it. I trust when it goes back to the House of Representatives they will put it in their general bill and let us consider this whole subject together and not take up this separate bill that has lain here for more than a year and in reference to which this new born zeal is exhibited within a few days, for I cannot conceive why the merchants have not got all they want when they are informed that no such bill is to go into operation before the 1st day of July. Mr. MORTON. The objection that I have had to taking up the tea and coffee bill has been the fear that if this bill was passed it might be used as a lever to prevent the reduction of the tariff in any other respect; but I am assured by its friends that there is no such purpose, and that the object of pressing its consideration now is to relieve the trade. I can understand how the trade is embarrassed at this time and why it is a matter of justice to the large number of men and the large amount of capital engaged in it that this question should be settled one way or the other. I have had many communications from tea and coffee dealers; I have not had one asking that this question should be disposed of in any particular way, but all that it shall be disposed of promptly. This being the reason why I want to take up the bill at this time, it is a good reason why I should not vote to put amendments on it. So far as the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont is concerned, the free list, it is of no practical importance now. I believe the amount of duty dispensed with by the whole free list moved by him is $1,800,000. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. More; between three and four millions. Mr. MORTON. Still it is comparatively unimportant. If it is proposed to go forward and amend this bill and settle the whole tariff question, that is another thing; but as it is not proposed to do that, as the main body of the tariff question is still to be left behind, I see no particular object to be gained by ure. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that taxation ought to be reduced at least $50,000,000. I am in favor of a further reduction of the tariff and the internal revenue to $60,000,000 without at all endangering the enue. The country expects a large reduction; the country knows that it can be made; the country has been promised this reduction ; and the dominant party here is responsible to the country for this reduction and will be held responsible if it is not made. In agreeing now to take the duties off tea and coffee, I am not consenting indirectly that the reduc tion shall stop there. I shall expect at least $35,000,000 beyond that. I vote now to take this question up simply for the purpose of relieving what I believe to be a great embarrassment in the trade. cannot touch one item without affecting all; and therefore when you attempt to deal by legislation with one article you must consider its relation to other articles if you wish to deal wisely with it at all. I say, therefore, that the interests of the country so far as concerns a large and important class of our citizens, the importing merchants of these two articles, have a right to complain, and the rest of the country have a right to complain, that you are dealing piecemeal with that which should be acted upon only by a legislative system. That is not the only evil. Next to that, if not greater than that, is the evil that this question of revenue action and this piecemeal action in respect to it has been made or sought to be made a matter of party politics. It has passed into the hands of the demagogery of politics. It is not a question in regard to which the business of the country has made application to the Congress for relief. But this measure which is not new, was sent here one year ago, and the Senate did not act upon it but deliberately deferred it. It was not thought of importance then; but it has simply served to fill a certain cry for what they term "a free breakfast table,' "free tea and coffee," something for the poor man; and that hollow, unsound, untrue talk is indulged in with regard to that which is entitled, if treated with at all, to be treated with strictly as a business measure. Mr. President, it was an evil day and it ever will be an evil day for the merchants and manufacturers of this contry when questions of revenue by tariffs become questions of party politics. If they knew their interest they would keep it out of that vortex. If they knew their interest they would demand that such questions be segregated from party politics. I do believe that this bill was originated in the hasty unauthorized manner that has been spoken of in the House, in nothing else than a mere spirit of party trickery. I consider that the merchants of this country, or those who are termed generically the business men of this country, have a right to ask of the legislators of the United States two things. They have a right to ask that stability shall be an element of our laws. It is not the rate of duty; it is not the imposition or the absence of a tax, so much as it is that stability which shall permit business to be formed and to be carried out, which shall permit a plan of intelligent prevision, or an intelligent survey of the field of business with the certainty that the principles of trade and the principles of intelligent prevision of a man's whole plans in life shall be allowed to be acknowledged without being thwarted by sudden and unlooked-for action on the part of the Legislature. See, sir, how Congress have wavered, have staggered to and fro upon the subject of the duty on these two very articles. For the first six months of 1870 and up to, I think, the month of September, 1870, there was a duty of twenty-five cents per pound upon tea, and on coffee of five cents. On the 14th of July, 1870, those duties were reduced pros. Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, the merchants of this country have a right to complain, in my opinion, of the position in which they have been placed by the action of Congress. The table of each Senator, I presume, contains, as mine does, communications from men setting forth the great distress to which they have been brought by the element of uncertainty in regard to their business mat ters. The trade to which I refer in tea and coffee is one of the largest known to our commerce; it is that which enters into the consumption of almost every human being within our territorial limits. These two commodities have been subjected to revenue imposi tions almost always in the history of our Government. The importers of these articles, the merchants whose warehouses now are filled with these imports, never complained as to the rate of duty. There was no petition before Congress from them to have it altered. Their business was conducted just as safely and prof-pectively from twenty-five to fifteen cents on itably under the duties of two years ago as they are under the present duties, or as they will be should this measure sent us by the House to abolish all duties whatever, become the law. But, unfortunately, the question of tariff legislation is suffering at this time, and by this measure from two evils. In the first place, Congress is undertaking to treat by piecemeal that which should be a system, and be legislated upon as a system. To select from your whole list of imports one or two articles and deal with them by special legisla tion without regard to their relations to all the rest of the country's commerce is of itself impossible, because commerce is a mere network, a series of interchanges, in which you tea, and upon coffee from five to three cents per pound. They stood so until the meeting of the pres ent session. Then, in a proper spirit of tariff legislation, the whole question was taken up by the House; but suddenly this partial measure was sprung upon them and came to the Senate, and then the Senate Committee on Finance laboriously and carefully proceeded to revise the entire system with reference, each article to another, not taking it piecemeal and legislating for each separately. The result was the bill that finally passed the Senate, not entirely freeing tea and coffee from duty, but reducing the duties I believe thirty-three per cent. ; reducing the tariff generally about ten per cent. by what you may term a horizontal reduction ; largely increasing the free list greatly to the advantage of manufacturers, cheapening the cost of collection, and in every way assisting, as the Committee on Finance and as the Senate believed, the general business interests of the country. That measure went to the House of Representatives. How they have treated it is a matter of history. The Senate know perfectly well. It has simply been, I would scarcely say laid on the table, but unceremoniously kicked under it. In regard to the question of collision of authority and privilege between the two Houses, I do not propose to say much except this: that if the proposition of the House of Representatives be true, the language of the Constitution was singularly unfortunate. The power is distinctly given by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to originate all bills for raising revenue; but the Senate has to it equally delegated in as positive and unrestained language the power "to propose or concur with amendments," with the significant words following, as on other bills." If the proposition of the House now, as I understand it, be carried out to its natural result, the Senate would hold under the Constitution a simple power of veto. 66 The language of the Constitution was well weighed and carefully considered by men who knew the meaning and the value of words. If they had intended that the House of Representatives should have the exclusive power of originating bills for revenue and that the Senate should merely have a veto power, they would have said so. That is the result to which the reasoning of the House on this position, it seems to me, brings us, that we have the right to say, "We forbid this bill;" or, "We assent to it; and that would be all. But no such language is found; no such result could have been intended; and if the doctrine contended for by the House should be true, then the functions of the Senate, as an advisory body, or as a complementary and independent body of the House, would entirely be done away with. I hold, therefore, that while the Senate cannot originate a bill to raise revenue, yet that when a revenue bill comes to the Senate it may be amended by the Senate without limit, just as other bills may be amended. On that subject I feel perfectly clear, but I did not intend ever to say much upon it. Therefore, Mr. President, I consider that as a matter of justice to the business of the whole country we should not proceed to deal by piecemeal with the revenues of the country. The revenue system, it is admitted, needs reform. There are few men who do not admit either that it should be reformed, or that it will be reformed by the voice of the country. My own hope is that the tariff will be reduced to a revenue standard. I believe that for that purpose, and that purpose only, is it justified. I am sure that you cannot deal with it except as a system; that the whole field must be considered, and that your scheme of reform must be based upon a view of the entire field on which you are to act; that you cannot with justice, you cannot with a wise economy proceed to deal piecemeal with a question of this character. For that reason, I shall oppose the measure as it came from the House and as now sought to be passed by the Senate. The labors of the Senate must be held to be the voice and the view of the Senate. I do not mean to say they are not to be changed, that they may not be retired from, may not properly be amended; but I do insist that when this question of revenue reform upon the tariff is to be considered, it shall be considered as a whole, and not in the patch-work manner which is now proposed. I have said that stability in our laws is a thing demanded by the business interests of this country. It is the one thing essential for their interests. Does any man here believe that tariff duties on tea and coffee will permanently remain off our list? Is it not almost a certainty that if tea and coffee were made free by the votes of Congress at the present session, within six months from this time, during the next session of Congress, propositions would be made to reëstablish rates of duty upon both those articles? They are proper subjects for duty; they are proper subjects of taxation. I do not propose to go now into that question, but merely to so assert it. I know well that if tea and coffee should in July, 1872, be made free of duty, before July, 1873, should have rolled around the same articles would be found subject to taxation under our laws. We could not afford, upon the basis of a revenue tariff, which this country is approaching, which I believe it will at no late day certainly reach, to exempt two articles of such universal consumption as tea and coffee, articles which bring such perfectly net revenue, which involve none of that indirect taxation that cramps and weighs so heavily upon the business interests of this country, and is so deceitful also, I may add. It is not possible that those articles should remain free from tax. The experience of all other nations who have led the world in the van of commerce shows us that they are proper and profitable subjects of taxation. So I believe the wisdom and experience of this country have found in the past, and so I believe the wisdom of the country will declare in the future. I could justify my vote now for the simple reason that I desire in business stability that men may know what they are to meet, that I deprecate this weather-cock legislation which has brought this great distress at this moment upon the trade now in question; that is to say, all persons engaged in the importation of or dealing in tea and coffee. I say I de sire that this weather-cock legislation should cease; that permanence and stability should have some regard from Congress; that men may embark in business, knowing what are to be their duties in the year after their operations shall have been conceived, and not, as now, stumbling on in the dark, making fortunes, perhaps, suddenly one year by the sudden rise in duty, or losing them the next by having their stocks held high up in the fear that the duties will be taken away. In this view, that the moderate and reasonable rates of duty fixed by the Senate bill may become the law of this country, and that in considering this interest of tea and coffee we should consider it as we ought, as a part of a system of the country's business, and consider it in relation of the many other articles the interests of each of which hinge upon its neighbor, the interests of which cannot be singled out for special legislation, as is sought by this bill, I shall direct my votes in such a way as shall bring up the whole of this subject for consideration at the same time and not proceed upon it by piecemeal. Already, as we have a right to know, and as has been said here, there is general legislation in the House ou the subject of the tariff now under consideration. In a few days we shall have it here. When it comes let us see the plan proposed by the House, let us see what relative duties these two commodities should bear, what proportion of the revenue of the country is rightfully and easily drawn from these sources, and not undertake by this hasty, ill-considered, unexpected piecemeal legislation to deal with the business interests of the country which have been in a great measure confided to our hands. Mr. SCOTT. I hope we may be able to reach the vote during the usual hour of sitting; but as many persons in the Chamber desire to dispose of this question to-night, and have suggested the propriety of a recess, I move that at five o'clock the Senate take a recess until half past seven o'clock. Mr. CONKLING. Before the vote on that is put, may I ask the Senator whether he has taken any pains to learn that it would not be preferred by the Senate to sit this out now? My impression is that we can vote soon. Mr. SCOTT. I have not taken any pains. I prefer to sit it out now; but some Senators spoke to me and suggested a recess. If the Senate will remain now, I will withdraw the motion. Mr. CONKLING. I trust we can vote soon. Mr. SHERMAN. I think I know that others intend to speak to some extent; I do not. If no Senator desires to speak we can vote now; but if there is to be a further debate, I think we had better have a recess. Mr. ANTHONY. When we get back from the recess we never get more than two and a half hours out of the Senate; and it is much better for us to take those two and a half hours now before the evening. We can get a pretty good dinner here if we want to. Mr. COLE. Where? Mr. ANTHONY. At the restaurant below. Mr. RAMSEY. I inquire of the Senator from Pennsylvania how long it will probably take if we continue in session to dispose of the bill? Mr. SCOTT. On that the Senator from Minnesota can judge as well as I. If the vote were taken on this amendment it would probably give some indication of how soon we may be able to dispose of the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania withdraw his motion for a recess? Mr. SCOTT. Having given notice of the intention to make the motion, if it meets the view of the Senate I withdraw it for the present with the hope that we may now get a vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL.] Mr. KELLY. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. CAR PENTER.] If he were present he would vote against the amendment, and I should vote for it. Mr. ANTHONY. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. FERRY.] The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 17, nays 32; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Casserly, Cole, Goldthwaite, Harlan, Johnston, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Sherman, Spencer, Sprague, Stevenson, Trumbull, and Wright-17. NAYS-Messrs. Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamilton of Maryland, Hill, Howe, Lewis, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, Vickers, West, Wilson, and Windom-32. ABSENT-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Blair, Brownlow, Carpenter, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Kellogg, Kelly, Morton, Nye. Pool, Ransom, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Thurman, and Tipton-25. So the amendment was not agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the reserved amendment of the Senator from Illinois, if he insists upon it. Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend. ment will be read. The CHIEF CLERK. The amendment is to insert after the word "coffee, " in line three, the words "salt and coal," and to strike out the word "and" before "coffee." Mr. TRUMBULL. That is in accord with the expressed view of the House of Representatives two or three times over. I think they have sent us two bills repealing the duties on these articles, and if there is a disposition to harmonize with the House in repealing the duty on tea and coffee, I think it ought to be extended also to sait and coal, and I cannot see why the same reason does not apply to those articles as to tea and coffee. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I ask the Senator whether it is not better to take up those bills separately? Mr. TRUMBULL. Why take up the bills separately? They have all been sent here. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The House sent them to us separately, and I think it is always bad to complicate legislation in this way. Mr. TRUMBULL. I think in regard to the tariff it is very bad to tinker with the tariff in this way by passing a bill as to a single article. No one, I apprehend, will misapprehend the purport of this bill to repeal the duty on tea and coffee. We all know that they are articles not produced in this country, that the increased price added to those articles by the duty goes into the Treasury of the United States. It is purely a revenue tariff that is laid on tea and coffee, and by repealing the duty on these articles it neces sitates a higher duty upon the articles which the Senator from New Jersey wishes to protect; and no one I suppose in the Senate or out of the Senate is misled by this species of legislation or fails to understand that the object is by diminishing the revenue to create a necessity for a high protective tariff. Some salt is produced in this country, some coal is produced in this country, and some is brought from other countries. The salt that comes from abroad is more than doubled in price by the duty which you impose upon it. And while that is the case, and all the duty paid upon the foreign salt goes into the Treas. ury of the United States, we all know that the increased price upon the domestic salt, that which is produced here, goes to the persons who produce it, to the few persons engaged in the manufacture of salt, and none of it goes into the Treasury. While the people of the country are taxed many million dollars in consequence of the duty upon salt, less than a million perhaps or a little more than a million only reaches the Treasury of the United States, while all the duty that we pay upon tea and coffee goes into the Treasury, and the enhanced price of those articles is a tax, the benefits of which the Government receives to the full extent. Now I hope. Mr. President, that the Senate will consent to agree with the House and let salt and coal go upon the free list. On that question I should like to have the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Vermont. I understand that the Senator is in favor of free coal and I am against free salt. [Laughter.] The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Vermont? Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Yes, sir; myself. [Laughter.] Mr. ANTHONY. I am paired a good deal like the Senator from Vermont, but I am paired with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. FERRY,] and at all events I will not vote for that reason. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 14, nays 33; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Casserly, Cole, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnston, Logan, Norwood, Saulsbury, Spencer, Stevenson, Trumbull, and Windom-14. NAYS-Messrs. Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan. Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hill, Hitchcock, Howe, Lewis, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Scott. Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Stockton. Vickers. West, and Wilson-33. ABSENT-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Blair, Brownlow. Carpenter, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Hamilton of Texas, Kellogg, Kelly, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson, Pool, Ransom, Robertson, Sawyer, Schurz, Sumner, Thurman, Tipton, and Wright-27. So the amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. The VICE PRESIDENT. An amendment has been made in Committee of the Whole fixing the time when this act shall take effect. Mr. CASSERLY. I wish to have a distinct vote on that amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. CASSERLY. The only argument I think that is really worthy of much attention in the Senate in favor of the passage of a fragmentary tariff bill confined to two articles like tea and coffee, is that the tea and coffee interests of the country are suffering by delay. I say that because I have heard no other reason given during the debate of to-d y. If we should consider the proposition to make tea and coffee free in the light of any theory of revenue that has ever been seriously presented or seriously adhered to by the ac complished men in other parts of the world who have studied taxation as a science, no argument in favor of making tea and coffee free can be urged that is worthy, as it seems to me, of more than a moment's consideration. Therefore a measure to select these two articles out of the whole list of your tariff for the purpose of making them free must depend for its favor in this Senate upon considerations of the alleged suffering condition of the tea and coffee interest throughout the country. Now, if there is anything in that argument, if there is any such suffering, if there is any such embarrassment, why prolong that suffering and that embarrassment until the 1st of July? Why not let this bill take effect at once, as it came from the House? I ask the Clerk to read the bill as it came from the House. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill, as it came from the House of Representatives, will be read. The Chief Clerk read the bill. Mr. CASSERLY. Now, sir, if we are to give a boon to a suffering interest of great importance in the country, if the sympathies which have been so freely expressed here are to have a practical direction, let us relieve those interests at once, let us end the suffering, let us end the embarrassment. The trouble, whatever it is-and I do not mean to underrate it at all-proceeds from the inability of the holders of large stocks of tea and coffee to dispose of those articles with their usual facility. There is a difficulty that arises from the delays of Congress in dealing with the subject. ances, In the next place, how do we know if we send this bill back to the House with an amend ment postponing the time for its operation that the House will act upon it promptly or act upon it at all? While the debate was proceeding I looked through the bill which has come here very recently from the House, a most elaborate and careful bill to all appear and one that does undertake to deal with the tariff as a whole, and not by a scrap here and a scrap there, a system calculated to "make confusion worse confounded." Therefore, to avoid any possibility of further delay in the House, in order to furnish the relief which is called for at once, and in the only manner that it seems to me is adequate in the emergency, I propose to move that the amendment postponing the operation of this bill be stricken out. Mr. CONKLING. That is reached by the motion to concur. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring. Non-concurrence with the amendment rejects it. The question is on concurring in the amendment made in Committee of the Whole. Mr. CASSERLY. I make that motion with the greater confidence because I never have believed, from the slight study I have given to the subject, in the policy of postponing to a distant day the operation of a revenue bill, either tariff or internal revenue. While any bill which you pass making a serious change in imported articles under the tariff or the internal revenue must operate hardly in certain quarters, it seems to me that the more wholesome way, having regard to the general welfare, is to let your bill operate as promptly as possible. I ask for the yeas and nays. The VICE PRESIDENT. On the question of concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole the Senator from California demands the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 41, nays 7; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Harlan, Hill, Hitchcock, Howe, Johnston, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Osborn, Patterson, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Sawyer, Scott, Sherman, Spencer, Sprague, Stevenson, Stewart, Trumbull, West, Wilson, and Windom-41. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Casserly, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Saulsbury, Stockton, and Vickers-7. ABSENT-Messrs. Ames, Blair, Brownlow, Carpenter, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Davis of West Virginia, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Kellogg, Kelly, Lewis, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Pool. Ransom, Robertson, Schurz, Sumner, Thurman, Tipton, and Wright-26. So the amendment was concurred in. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read the third time. The bill was read the third time. Mr. SPRAGUE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SAULSBURY. I am requested by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. JOHNSTON] to state that he was paired with the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS.] The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 39, nays 10, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert,Goldthwaite, Harlan, Hill, Hitchcock, Howe, Lewis, Logan, Norwood, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pratt, Rainsey, Rice, Saulsbury, Scott, Spencer, Stewart, Stockton, Vickers, West, and Wilson.-39. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Casserly, Hamilton of Maryland. Hamlin, Morrill of Vermont, Sherman, Sprague, Stevenson, Trumbull, and Windom-10. ABSENT-Messrs. Ames, Blair, Brownlow, Carpenter, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Hamilton of Texas, Johnston, Kellogg, Kelly, Morrill of Maine. Morton, Nye, Pool, Ransom, Robertson, Sawyer, Schurz, Sumner, Thurman, Tipton, and Wright-25. So the bill was passed. NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. COLE. I move that the Senate resume the consideration of House bill No. 1191, making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873. The motion was agreed to. Mr. CONKLING. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and (at five o'clock and twenty-five minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at eleven o'clock, a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of yesterday. Mr. DAWES. I move that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. Mr. DAWES. I call for the regular order of business. PLANTING OF TREES. The SPEAKER. The regular order of business being demanded, the morning hour commences at twenty-two minutes past eleven o'clock, and the House resumes the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2197) to encourage the planting of trees and for the preservation of woods on the public domain now held by the United States. Mr. HALDEMAN. I propose to have this matter disposed of to-day. Although I am convinced of the great importance of the subject, I know that many of the standing committees are ready to report, aud I would not hold the morning hour to the exclusion of others. I am instructed by the Committee on Agriculture to accept the amendment of the gentleman from California, [Mr. SARGENT,] which I believe takes away the principal objections submitted to this bill. I am also instructed by the committee to move to amend the thirteenth line of the bill by striking out "two acres of land" and inserting "one acre of land." This is for the purpose of diminishing the only thing resembling a penalty contained in any section of the bill, and making it still milder. All the other sections of the bill are bounties. I would say in brief that any objection to the bill will be, not that it grants too much, but too little. This is an initiative and tentative measure. There is also an amendment in line six, section two, to strike out "the proceedings" and insert "such proceedings.' I do not desire myself, unless it should be absolutely necessary, to say anything more upon this bill, and I desire to call the previous question now, and to leave the matter open to debate during my closing hour. I do not think, from the number of gentlemen who have spoken to me on the subject, that it will take more than half an hour to close the debate, and then I hope it will go to the Senate and be considered there this session, or the next; but I want an authoritative decision of the House of Representatives, as the matter has been brought to the attention of the public. If it will not be considered indelicate, before I sit down I wish to have read a letter from the Commissioner of Agriculture, in which he, as many of the newspapers have done, shows his appreciation of the importance of this action at this time. The Clerk read the letter, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 27, 1872. DEAR SIR: The time is coming, if it has not already arrived, when the country will gratefully thank you for the facts and figures by which you have so ably pointed to their interests in the necessity of preserving and propagating the forests of America. The alarm which you have shown, other and older countries now experience from their early neglect of their forest lands. The causes of that alarm, in their threatened loss of fountains and streams, as well as health, supplemented by the startling figures which sum up our daily consumption of wood, are facts which you have so tersely and distinctly stated and verified by authority as that they must command the attention of every man who has a mind capable of expansion beyond the length of his own arm, to enable him to feel the importance of preserving the forests while it is yet in our power to do so. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, FREDK. WATTS, Commissioner of Agriculture. Hon. RICHARD J. HALDEMAN. Mr. HALDEMAN. I now ask the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered. The question was first upon the amendment of Mr. SARGENT, to add to the first section the following proviso: Provided, That this act shall not apply to mineral lands or to lands conveyed under town-site laws, or to lands granted for rights of way to railroad or other road companies, or to lands that may be devoted to commercial purposes, or on which cities, towns, or manufacturing establishments may be erected, and no forfeiture shall accrue from the lands so dedicated. The amendment was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. Lowe, to strike out the first and second sections of the bill. The sections proposed to be stricken out, as amended, were read, and are as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every grant of the public lands of the United States, now or hereafter surveyed, shall be upon the express condition that the grantee or grantees, his, her, or their heirs, executors, and assigns, shall keep and preserve at least ten per cent. of the number of acres thus granted in timber trees, if so much thereof then be in timber at the date of such grant, which shall not thereafter be cut down or destroyed to an extent which shall reduce the quantity of timber land upon such grant below the percentage above named, unless, at the time of such cutting, or previous thereto, there shall have been planted one acre of land with timber trees for each acre so cut; and such conditions shall be expressed in the body of the patent or other instrument by which the title of the United States is conveyed to such grantee: Provided, That this act shall not apply to mineral lands, or to lands conveyed under town-site laws, or to lands granted for rights of way to railroad or other road companies, or to lands that may be devoted to commercial purposes, or on which cities, towns, or manufacturing establishments may be erected, and no forfeiture shall accrue for the lands so dedicated. SEC. 2. That if the grantee, or any party claiming thereunder, shall willfully violate the conditions named in the preceding section, such violation shall work a forfeiture to the United States of the land so granted, and it shall be the dut of such an officer may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior to cause such proceedings to be brought when it may be necessary to enforce such forfeiture. Mr. BANKS. I desire to ask the gentleman who reported this bill if the striking out of these two sections will not take away the merit of the bill entirely? Mr. HALDEMAN. It will take away what I consider very important indeed. I had no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from California, [Mr. SARGENT,] but I do hope that these sections will not be stricken out. Mr. BANKS. The proposition is to strike out the sections as amended by the gentleman from California. The SPEAKER. If the House should now strike out the first and second sections, of course the amendment of the gentleman from California would go with them. Mr. LOWE. Allow me to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] that the first two sections of this bill provide for a forfeiture of the entire estate if a certain amount of it is not kept perpetually in timber. The remainder of the bill offers a premium or inducement to purchasers of the public land to keep a portion of it in timber. Mr. BANKS. That is exactly the point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. Mr. LOWE. And the striking out of the first two sections does not impair the remainder of the bill, which offers an inducement for the preservation of or planting of trees. Mr. SARGENT. I have proposed a proviso that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to mineral land, to land selected under the town site laws, or to land upon which may be established towns and cities, manufacturing establishments, or any work inconsistent with the continuance of trees upon it; as, for instance, the mere right of way to a railroad or a canal, &c. Mr. BANKS. I desire to call the attention of the House to this fact, that this bill contains two propositions. One is a provision to prevent settlers upon the public lands or grantees to whom we give lands from cutting off the forest trees upon them. The second is a provision to give encouragement to people to plant trees and to reestablish forests. The proposition to strike out the first provision is made by the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. LOWE.] Now, what is the use of passing a bill to encourage the planting of trees upon lands that are now naked of trees, if at the same time we authorize, at least indirectly, settlers to whom we give lands to strip them entirely of trees and forests? How can the House consent to pass a bill to encourage the planting or replanting of timber, when by the same bill, impliedly at least, we authorize the grantees of land given by the United States to take the timber off? This is one of the most important measures that can be presented for the consideration of the House. In New England, in the middle States, the climate is affected, the supply of water in the cities and towns is affected in consequence of the people having almost entirely stripped the earth of its forests. The people in their most common necessities are inconvenienced and injured by that fact, and this bill simply proposes that in the settlement of new regions of country where we give the lands to settlers without price, or grant them to railway corporations, a stipulation shall be made which is for the benefit of those settlers as much as for the people of the rest of the country; that they shall leave the trees on one tenth of the land given them. Mr. LOWE. And that is to be perpetual. Mr. BANKS. I understood the gentleman in charge of this bill [Mr. HALDEMAN] to say that the reservation was limited to a period of some five years. It is just as much for the benefit of cities and towns established in these new Territories as it is for any other portion of the country. Mr. SARGENT. There is no limit in the bill as to the time, and it is to apply to every acre of land now granted or hereafter to be granted. Mr. BANKS. That limitation ought to be made. Mr. SARGENT. That may be. Mr. BANKS. I understood from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HALDEMAN] that there was such a limitation. Mr. HALDEMAN. It was suggested to have the provision read "violating the conditions of the preceding section within five years," but that was accidentally omitted. Mr. BANKS. The idea I want to present to the House is that these lands are stripped of their timber by every sort of encourage. ment on the part of Congress and the Government. The people seem to entertain the belief that trees are an evil, and that the sooner they are removed the better. That is an error that pervades all countries. Italy, Germany, France, and Spain have been stripped of their trees in this way, and it has cost millions and millions to replace those trees. They have found that the springs of the country have dried up, the climate has become arid, the soil has become unfertile in consequence of the stripping of the land of its timber. And I have heard it argued here within the past three or four years that the lands belonging to the Government were of no consequence because they were covered with trees. Gentlemen have spoken as if it was the greatest calamity that could befall the United States to acquire land with the best timber in the world upon it. Such ideas have gone out from Congress and pervade the common mind, until it has almost become so that whenever a man sees a tree that does not pay him interest or a subsidy in some way he wants to cut it down. I remember an instance in my own town, where a majestic oak stood before the schoolhouse, and many of the people desired to have it preserved. They said to one of the fathers of the town, "What shall we do about this great oak which stands in frout of the school-house?" "Why," said he, "there is no trouble about that; you can girdle it, and then it will die.'' The only idea that possessed him was that the thing to be done was to get rid of that tree: his object was to circumvent, by girdling and killing the tree, the public wish that wanted to preserve it. That is the idea which to a great extent pervades our people. Now, the effect of this bill will be to call the attention of the country to the necessity of preserving the trees and the forests, and to the beneficial effects which their preservation exercises upon the climate, and the fertility of the soil, and the general advancement of the public convenience and welfare. I hope the House will not strike out the first section, for it would be a monstrous absurdity to pass a bill with the design of encouraging the planting of trees, and in the same measur to provide that settlers or railroad companies to whom we may give lands shall be permitted without any penalty to cut off the trees upon the lands which we give them. Mr. MAYNARD. The views of the gen tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] on this subject are interesting, and entitled to great weight, as, indeed, is everything that he says. But I would suggest to him that there are portions of the country where the trees are, to adopt his language, obstructions in the way of the profitable use of land suitable for high cultivation. In such parts of the country it is very important we should get rid of the trees. In many cases they are useless as lumber, and almost useless as fuel; and until they are out of the way the land is perfectly worthless. This remark is applicable to many portions of our country, though not to all. The error we are likely to fall into is in mak. ing too wide a generalization from a limited number of facts. The policy that would be applicable to one section of our country would be quite inapplicable to another. For instance, there is a wide difference in this respect between the section of country in which my friend from Massachusetts lives and the mountain region where I reside, and which is covered with the largest and the heaviest timber. The rule that would be applicable to the one case would be wholly inapplicable to the other. His illustration of the "great oak" would not apply in the case of any number of "great oaks" which stand in our fields as obstructions to the cultivation of the land. We should be very glad to get rid of them by the process he describes or any other. Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I had no opportunity to examine this bill previous to i's being brought up for consideration in the House; but it seems to me it undertakes altogether too much. If I understand the bill from the basty reading and examination I have been able to give it, it provides that of timber lands which may be disposed of by the Government one tenth shall be preserved as timber lands, and if the party to whom they are granted shall fail to preserve one tenth as umber lands then he forfeits the whole title. Mr. HALDEMAN. Unless he plants an acre elsewhere. Mr. HAWLEY. If he shall remove the timber from the land he forfeits the title unless he plants an acre elsewhere. If the land granted be destitute of timber, if it be prairie or other open land, then the party to whom it is granted is required to plant one tenth of it. Mr. HALDEMAN. A bounty is to be given if he will do so. There is no penalty. Mr. HAWLEY. I understand there is to be a penalty. Mr. HALDEMAN. There is no penalty except in the first and second sections. Mr. HAWLEY. Now, I ask, what will be the effect of this bill with reference to the homestead law? Suppose a man, taking up land under the homestead law, fails to plant trees as required by this bill, what effect will it have upon his title? Mr. HALDEMAN. None whatever. Mr. HAWLEY. What, then, will it accomplish? Under the homestead law he is entitled to a patent to the land by settling on it for so many years. Mr. HALLEMAN. It diminishes the time by two years. Mr. HAWLEY. I have looked over the bill, and I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, there is anything here in reference to homestead settlers which lessens the time. Mr. HALDEMAN. If the gentleman will refer to section eight, I think he will find he is staken. Mr. HAWLEY. I do not understand it lessens the time the homestead settler has to Serme. Mr. HALDEMAN. Yes, sir; it lessens it by. wo years. Mr. RUSK. I call for the regular order of business. The SPEAKER. The pending question is Mr. BINGHAM. If those two sections are stricken out it destroys the whole object of the bill. Mr. BANKS. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania will give me two or three minutes, so I may refer to a fact which escaped my mind when I was up before. Mr. HALDEMAN. Certainly. Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, the great deserts between the Mississippi river and the Rocky mountains will be reclaimed and fertilized by the processes which flow from this bill if it becomes a law. I am told by gentlemen from different sections that the bridges in all parts of the country are swept away by the floods which occur from year to year in consequence of the stripping of the land of the forests of trees which once covered it. The natural effect of forests is to retain water in the soil. By cutting down the forest trees everywhere the land is drained, and the water is thrown into currents, which soon become torrents, and the bridges are swept away in all parts of the country. This arises merely from this process of denuding the land of the forest trees with which it is covered in a state of nature. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] has said that it is necessary some parts should be reclaimed. That is all very true. If we reclaim nine tenths and reserve one tenth in forest trees we shall increase the wealth of the country and the value of the property reclaimed, while we retain the land which remains in forest tress. There can be no act of Congress which will secure greater benefit to the country than that proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HALDEMAN] in the provisions of this bill. It directs the attention of the people to preserving in some degree trees of the forest which seem to be recklessly cut down in every direction. I hope the House will never consent to strike out the provisions contained in the first section, accompanied as they are by the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT] saving the interests to which he has referred. We should give to the country these general and wise provisions in order that forest trees may be preserved throughout the country, and thereby not only increase the wealth of the country, but the health and happiness of the whole people. Mr. McCORMICK, of Arizona. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to yield to me for a few moments. Mr. HALDEMAN. I yield to the gentleman for five minutes. Mr. McCORMICK, of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I most heartily indorse all that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] has said on this question. Gentlemen who have traveled through the Territories of the United States are well aware there may be found in each Territory a vast extent of land commonly called desert land, but which really is not desert land in any true sense of the term. It is simply dry land, having rich soil and capable of producing almost anything, but for the fact that it is entirely destitute of water. Gentlemen representing Territories have for years been trying to get Congress to offer some inducement to parties to sink upon those dry lands artesian wells for the purpose of irrigation, and to bring them under cultivation. I believe if Congress were to offer a premium by making grants of land for the sinking of artesian wells, hundreds and thousands of acres now arid would be brought under successful cultivation in those Territories. Hundreds and thousands of acres now lying unprofitable and unavailable, if such a course had been proposed by Congress years ago, might have been made profitable and valuable for all practical purposes. I received a letter this morning from the Governor of Arizona calling my attention to this fact. He believes if such a law be passed by Congress giving a grant of lands for the purpose of sinking artesian wells, thousands and millions of acres now entirely useless and unprofitable will be brought into market. Now, in reference to the preservation of forest trees upon the public lands where they now exist, at present there seems to be an unconquerable tendency upon the part of those settled upon the frontier to destroy the forest trees, almost every man thinks it necessary as his first duty to cut down his quota of forest trees. In the mineral Territories the forests are not extensive. It has been the custom of late years for almost every man who passes over the Union Pacific and Kansas Pacific railroads to shoot a buffalo, and this is done without any intention to use the meat or the hide. And so it must be said of these people along the frontier, that they burn ten cords of wood where there is a necessity only for burning one; they cut and destroy timber in every direction, and where timber is scarce and very valuable. I think Congress should do something to preserve this timber. I believe at the same time there should be some provision, such as the gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT] has proposed, in reference to placer mines, and to the operations in quartz mining. This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, and every man who knows anything of the scarcity of timber on the frontier, and of the benefits to be derived from the cultivation of timber, must be, I think, in favor of this bill. Gentlemen say that the bill is not really practical; if so, let us make it as practical as we can; and if it is not perfect to-day we can make it perfect hereafter. But let us take this step to-day. It is a step in the right direction, and a step which Congress, I think, should have taken a quarter of a century ago. In this way we can preserve some of the timber which exists, and may offer an inducement to its cultivation where it is so greatly needed. I hope this bill will pass in some shape or other. I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. HALDEMAN,] who bas reported it, is not particular as to the exact wording of the bill or its exact features. It is simply a beginning, but it is certainly a beginning in the right direction, and I hope Congress will not allow the subject to pass away without a most serious and favorable consideration. Mr. HALDEMAN. I yield three minutes to my colleague, [Mr. STORM.] Mr. STORM. I desire to add but a word to what has been so well said by the gentleman who has this bill in charge and the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS.] I look upon the bill as one of very great importance, and I will add just two thoughts to what has been already so well presented. It is well known that although the fall of rain is not on the increase, the rise in the streams in all the hilly portions of our coun try is constantly on the increase; that year by year they are getting higher. The bridges that were before supposed to be above high water have been swept away year after year; and on an average in many portions of our country, and especially, as I know in Pennsylvania, all the bridges over the larger streams are swept away once in every seven years, and sometimes more frequently. The streams are getting higher and higher each year, although |