American vessels, long ago treaties entered into at a time when wooden sailing-vessels enabled us to control the ocean, have prevented us from making any arrangement or giving any preference to American vessels over vessels of foreign nations.

"Consequently we are in this difficulty in respect to the tonnage-tax. If we abolish the tax as to American vessels, by that very act we abolish it as to foreign vessels. We can not take a single step in the direction of endeavoring to protect our own vessels by direct legislation, without giving the same advantage to the foreign vessels that come into competition with them. While giving every other interest in the country the benefit of the protection of either a high or a low tariff, we compel our vessels engaged in the foreign trade to go out upon the highway of the ocean and meet the open competition of other nations.

"Of course it is too late for us to go back now on the policy of maritime reciprocity, which was adopted in the days when we could control the ocean. We have to devise remedies in spite of these difficulties.

"There are two things that must be done if we are to revive the American foreign carrying-trade. What are they? First, we must by our legislation or otherwise make it possible for a vessel floating the American flag to carry our exports and imports as cheaply as the vessel of any other nation can do. The nation which will do the carrying-trade of the world the most efficiently and cheaply will secure it, and in securing it will control the ocean. "Then, after we have done that, we must also make it possible for an American shipowner or would-be ship-owner to obtain vessels for his trade at no higher cost to him than to our foreign competitors. I need not argue those two propositions; they are self-evident. The problem for us to solve, therefore, is how to do these two things.

"First, as to the running of vessels after they are built; for obviously there can be no useful end attained by any policy to secure cheap vessels to American ship-owners or would-be shipowners unless after they obtain those vessels they can run them as cheaply as our English rivals.

Now, some one has said-not in the course of this debate, but it has been said that there was no difficulty in that direction. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest difficulties lie right here. And yet the difficulties are such that they can be not entirely but largely overcome by legislation.

"I wish to cite as proof that there is difficulty here this simple fact: for ten years we have been enabled to build first-class wooden vessels as cheaply as any other nation in the world, quality for quality. In my own State of Maine, and even in the district which I represent, during the last year over 40,000 tons of wooden vessels, the finest ever constructed, were successfully built. To be sure, a large

portion of those vessels were for the coastwise trade; but some of them were for the foreign trade.

"The fact has developed itself unmistakably that the only reason we do not extend that trade further, that we do not build more wooden vessels for the foreign trade, is that after we have built them we can not run them as cheaply as our foreign competitors.

"Why not? It has been said that the question of wages of seamen is one that meets us here and can not be overcome. I wish to show you, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, that in the foreign carrying-trade the question of wages, especially as to sailing-vessels, is not one that seriously interferes with us. And why? The American vessel engaged in the foreign carrying-trade a large proportion of the time is in foreign ports, and so has the privilege of engaging her seamen at any port she may visit. It may be that in shipping men at San Francisco and New York there is a slight discrimination

not much, by-the-way-because from the nature of the case, competing upon the ocean on the same platform, wages of seamen have been brought down to a common standard. The difference in price between the wages of seamen in New York and Liverpool is trifling. Practically, with the liberty which a vessel has when it enters a foreign port to ship a new crew, it may be said that so far as sailing-vessels are concerned this is not an element that enters seriously into the question.

"So far as steamships are concerned, which from the very nature of the trade require a permanent crew, there is some difficulty, but not enough to seriously interfere with the extension of our foreign carrying-trade.

"Then, what are the difficulties in the way? I may say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they are largely difficulties which legislation has erected or may remove. I wish to call attention to some of those difficulties, difficulties which this bill, unanimously reported by both the Joint Select Committee on Shipping and the Committee on Commerce, has sought to remove.

"When the committee came to consider the problem of how to build iron vessels under such a condition of facts, there was one principle which they unanimously accepted, and that was that no policy having reference to the supply of iron steamships to revive the American foreign trade would be wise or successful unless it looked to the building, ultimately at least, of iron steamships in our own country. There was no difference of opinion on that point. All said we must look to that result, and that any policy which could not accomplish this would be a fatal one-fatal, first, because all history proves that no commercial state ever maintained its supremacy on the ocean unless it built its own vessels as well as sailed them; and, secondly, because in time of peace no nation could maintain its commercial independence unless it had the facilities within its own grasp and its own control for

shipping its own merchandise. Suppose a war to-day should break out in Europe, and England should engage in conflict with a country able to put cruisers upon the sea-privateers, it may be when 85 per cent. of the produce of the West is being shipped in foreign, mainly in English vessels-in such an event all the produce of the West shipped in English vessels would be liable to seizure and confiscation by the power engaged in war with Great Britain. Therefore, I say in such a case as that, the American people, and particularly the people of the West, would suffer more than the belligerents themselves.

"Again, thirdly, no policy is wise or safe which contemplates resorting to foreign countries for the purpose of obtaining our ships for our American marine, because no nation can maintain its independence and defend itself in time of war unless it is able to improvise and build its own vessels. Consider for a moment in what situation we should have been placed in 1862 if we had been obliged to send to England to have the little Monitor built for us. What would have become of our ports, of which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hewitt) spoke so eloquently the other day, if at the breaking out of the war we had been obliged to resort to the nation which tried to crush us? For it must be borne in mind that the mercantile marine is the militia of the sea, occupying the same position on the ocean that the State militia do on the land. No nation ever maintained its power upon the ocean unless it had a commercial marine of its own. Therefore I say to you that it is more than a question of business, more than a question of whether we shall have a part of this carryingtrade. It is a question of whether the nation shall be able to defend itself; it is a question of national security and national independence. "No policy, therefore, that looks to making this nation dependent upon a foreign nation, upon a nation like England, for the supply of vessels for its merchant marine can be wise or safe.

"This to my mind is the serious objection to the proposition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cox) to authorize the purchase and American registration of foreign-built ships. Such a policy can not develop iron-ship building here, for the simple reason that it is impossible for any ship-builder to pay 60 per cent. more for labor here and build ships in close competition with the Clyde. There can be only one way in which our builders could hope to compete on the free-ship basis, and that is by cutting down the wages of our laborers 60 per cent. This is simply impossible.

"Therefore I say that the free-ship plan can not develop iron-ship building in this country. It could do it in Germany, where wages are as low as in England, or lower, but it could not do it in the United States, with our wages for labor. It may as well be said first as last that the free-ship plan would be practically a de

cision to give up the attempt to build our own vessels.

"That provision of our navigation laws which restricts the right of American registry to vessels built in this country was not the narrow, unstatesmanlike, and unwise legislation which the gentleman from New York represents it to be. It was enacted at the very foundation of the Government, in response to the following suggestion of Washington to Congress:

"We should not overlook the tendency of a war, and even preparations for a war, among the nations most concerned in active commerce with this country to abridge the means and thereby at last enhance the price of transporting its valuable productions to their proper market. I recommend it to your serious reHections how far and in what mode it may be expedient to guard against embarrassments from these contingencies by such encouragement to our own navigation as will render our commerce and agriculture less dependent on foreign nations.- Washington's Second Annual Address, December 8, 1790.

แ

"Those laws have stood from that day to this. They have come down to us with the official approval of Washington himself. They come to us with the indorsement of Jefferson, of Adams, of Madison, of Monroe, of all the fathers of the republic. They come to us in this shape because the fathers of the republic said we could not successfully defend ourselves unless we built up a merchant marine constructed in our own country.

"Two lines of policy were considered by the committee, both of which looked to making it feasible to build our ships at home. One policy proposed, and that which I think all the members of the committee would be willing to accept as a complement to the section which has been reported, is to provide that materials advanced to the point of bars, angles, rods, etc., may be imported in bond duty free when they are to be used in the construction of vessels for the foreign trade.

"But the committee were conscious that with a free-material clause standing alone, with 3,000 miles of ocean between us and England, it would not be wise to make us entirely dependent upon England for the materials for the construction of our ships. We believe there should be coupled with a plan of that kind some provision which would enable our builders to use materials produced in this country by American workmen at higher-cost labor.

"The committee recommend the adoption of a section providing for the importation of materials from foreign countries duty free, and another section providing for a drawback, so called, whenever the materials used are of American production, a drawback to the extent of the duty on the foreign material of the same kind. This drawback would practically cover the difference between the cost of building an iron steamship in this country and in England, which is about 30 per cent. This drawback would practically come from the tonnage-tax, which, as I have already said, we

should be willing to abolish if five sixths of it did not fall on foreign vessels.

"The committee believed that we might use this tax in the way of building up our own commercial marine, so as to enable our shipbuilders to use American materials, by giving them a drawback to the amount of the duty, at the same time giving builders the privilege of importing materials in bond duty free. We were thus for placing home materials and foreign materials on substantially the same platform, and giving the ship-builder or rather the ship-owner, for the drawback goes to the original owner of a vessel, the choice of American or foreign materials, without discriminating against home materials.

"The committee believed that this provision, without taking any money from the Treasury, which comes from ordinary sources of revenue, and giving the ship-owner the advantage of importing in bond materials duty free from foreign countries, or of using home materials, would be likely to build up iron-ship building in this country, and revive the American foreign carrying-trade. Such was the opinion of the San Francisco Board of Trade, which proposed the plan, and such is the opinion of the New York maritime associa tions and ship-owners of experience.

"A million and a half of dollars annually comes from the tonnage-tax, and in the next five years the tax will amount in the aggregate to ten millions of dollars. It is a tax five sixths of which is paid by foreign vessels, and which we may properly use to encourage the development of the American merchant marine.

"It is true that the Government of Great Britain, as a government, does not impose what is called a tonnage-tax, but it imposes a light-dues tax, which, as I have said, is really a tonnage-tax. More than this; in the case of a large proportion of the cities of Great Britain having harbors or rivers capable of improvement, the corporation of the city is authorized to impose a tax upon all tonnage that may enter the port, for the purpose of paying the expenses of such river or harbor improvements.

"Take, for instance, the river Clyde, which was originally but a brook, so to speak. The corporation of Glasgow was authorized to deepen and widen the channel of that river and to build docks, with the view of fitting that river to be the center of the iron-ship yard system of the world. The corporation of Glasgow is authorized to impose upon every vessel entering the port a tonnage-tax for the purpose of defraying the expense of improv ing the river. American vessels entering the Clyde to-day pay to the corporation of Glasgow a tax which is used to defray the expenses of deepening and widening the river and preparing it not only for navigation but also for the iron-ship yard center of the world.

"Gentlemen may say that Great Britain herself has not done this; but the Government

of Great Britain has authorized the corporation of Glasgow to do this work-to widen and deepen the channel of the river and to build dock-yards; the Government of Great Britain has authorized the imposition of a tonnage-tax upon American as well as other vessels entering that port, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of improving that river. Yet gentlemen sometimes tell us that Great Britain has not aided in all these enterprises; that she has let her shipping severely alone, allowing her own local communities even to deepen and widen her rivers. But, in point of fact, Great Britain has authorized her municipal corporations to do what she has not done herself-to collect from the merchant marine of the world a tonnage-tax to pay the expenses of river and harbor improvements. What she has done through her city corporations she has to all intents and purposes done for herself.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me wise that Congress, imposing as it does a tonnagetax which, if circumstances permitted, we should be glad to abolish, should take the amount of this tax and devote it, not to the widening or deepening of any river with the view of building up commerce and furnishing facilities for ship-yards, but indirectly expend it for the purpose of enabling the people of our country to build their own vessels, while at the same time we establish our merchant marine so that we shall not be dependent upon the other nations of the world. It seems to me that this may be done without taking a single dollar of the revenue that may be derived from any of the ordinary sources of taxation. And it may be limited, if you please, to the amount which may be collected from the tonnage-tax, because if the mode of collecting the tax be changed to the English system of a tax on each entry, instead of one million and a half we would have two million dollars and over. Thus we shall imitate the policy of Great Britain in principle, however different may be the application.

"I wish simply to say in conclusion that this is more than a local question. It is not a question of building up a ship-yard here and there. It is not alone a question of building up even a most beneficent industry in our country. It is more than that, it is a national question which reaches every part of this country. The great West is interested in this question if possible more than any other part of the Union, because so large a portion of our exports is produced there. It is indispensable to her that there should be an American merchant marine, not simply to compete with a foreign merchant marine, but an American merchant marine upon which we may rely in time of war. It is more even than that. It is a question of national safety. While Great Britain to-day is doing all she can to develop her iron-ship yards, while she is building 81 per cent. of all her war-vessels and war-engines in private iron and steel-ship yards, why should

we not do something for the encouragement of our merchant marine? It is a matter which concerns the safety of the nation; it concerns our independence; it concerns our national prestige.

"When I was abroad in Europe, going from port to port, I saw so rarely the American flag that it was the source of humiliation to me, for I felt the nation was better known by the flag which floated from the mast-heads of its ships and exerted a greater influence in consequence of that than anything else. We are known abroad by the flag which floats in foreign harbors. Our influence is felt abroad in proportion to the extension of our merchant marine. Our commerce is more or less dependent on it, as well as our independence in peace and our safety in war. I beg of you, gentlemen, therefore, however many differences of opinion there may be as to methods, to be willing to try something, to take a step forward in this matter, for if we go on ten years more in the way we have been going on for twenty-five years past, the American merchant marine and the American flag will have faded from the ocean.'

Mr. Springer, of Illinois, argued that there was nothing in the Constitution to authorize the prohibition of State or municipal taxation on vessels engaged in the foreign trade.

In Committee of the Whole, section 11 of the bill as reported was amended by adding a proviso "that this section shall not apply to vessels engaged in the whaling business." An amendment proposed by Mr. Murch, of Maine, by way of substitute, and designed to maintain the practice of paying advance wages to seamen, was rejected. The following further amendment to section 11 was then adopted:

And that all laws or parts of laws requiring the payment of any remuneration to the shipping commissioner for the shipment of seamen, if shipped by said master or owners, be and the same are hereby repealed: Provided, That the duties of the shipping commissioner at home ports shall be performed by the collectors of the several ports of the United States, and that no fees shall be charged for such

services.

Section 15 was stricken out. Section 16 was amended to read:

That instead of the assessment of forty cents per month upon seamen engaged in the foreign carryingtrade, authorized by sections 4585 and 4587 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, there shall hereafter be assessed and collected twenty cents.

Section 17 was amended to read as follows: SEC. 17. That the individual liability of a shipowner shall be limited to the proportion of any or all debts and liabilities that his individual share of the vessel bears to the whole. And the aggregate liabili

ties of the owners of the vessels on account of the same shall not exceed the value of such vessel: Provided, That this provision shall not affect the liability of any owner incurred previous to the passage of this act, nor prevent any claimant from joining all the owners in one action. Nor shall the same apply to wages due to persons employed by said ship-builder.

For section 14 the following substitute was adopted:

That section 2514 of the Revised Statutes be amended so as to read as follows:

That all materials of foreign production, to be manufactured in this country into articles needed for and used in the construction, equipment, repairs, or supplies of American vessels employed or to be employed exclusively in the foreign trade, including the the United States, may be withdrawn from bonded trade between the Atlantic ports and Pacific ports of warehouse free of duty, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and if the duty shall have been already paid on such materials so used, the same shall be refunded and repaid to the owner or owners of such vessel so using them or their legal representatives.

Section 15 was amended by adding the following provision:

Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal section 2793 of the Revised Statutes: And provided also, That the aggregate duty imposed under this section in any one year upon any vessel engaged in no other foreign trade than the trade between the United States and the Dominion of places south of Mexico down to and including AspinCanada or the Republic of Mexico, or any ports or wall and Panama, or any ports or places in the West India Islands, shall not exceed 30 cents per ton.

The following new sections were added to the bill:

Whenever any fine, penalty, forfeiture, exaction, or charge arising under the laws relating to vessels or seamen has been paid under protest to any collector of customs or consular officer, and application has been made within one year from such payment for the refunding or remission of the same, the Secretary of the Treasury, if on investigation he finds such fine, penalty, forfeiture, exaction, or charge was illegally, improperly, or excessively imposed, shall have the power, either before or after the same has been covered into the Treasury, to refund so charge as he may think proper from any moneys in much of said fine, penalty, forfeiture, exaction, or the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

That section 2966 of the Revised Statutes be amended by striking out the words "propelled in whole or shall read as follows: in part by steam"; so that the section as amended

SECTION 2966. When merchandise shall be imported into any port of the United States from any forbills of lading that the merchandise so imported is to eign country in vessels, and it shall appear by the be delivered immediately after the entry of the vessel, the collector of such port may take possession of such merchandise and deposit the same in bonded warehouse; and when it does not appear by the bills of lading that the merchandise so imported is to be immediately delivered, the collector of the customs may take possession of the same and deposit it in ter, or consignee of the vessel, on three days' notice bonded warehouse, at the request of the owner, masto such collector after the entry of the vessel.

That section 2872 of the Revised Statutes be amended by adding thereto the following:

When the license to unload between the setting and rising of the sun is granted to a sailing-vessel under this section, a fixed, uniform, and reasonable compensation may be allowed to the inspector or inspectors for service between the setting and rising of the sun, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, to be received by the vessel, and to be paid by him to the inspector or incollector from the master, owner, or consignee of the

spectors.

On the adoption of section 18 a vigorous debate occurred, various gentlemen opposing it as creating a subsidy to ship-builders, and others pressing strongly for a substitute in favor of

free ships. Finally, the following substitute was adopted: yeas, 135; nays, 85; not voting, 69:

SECTION 18. When any American vessel shall be constructed, equipped, repaired, refitted, or supplied with ship's stores for the foreign trade, including the trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States, in whole or in part, of materials of the production of the United States, the owner or owners of such vessel shall be entitled to receive and collect from the United States a drawback or sum equal in amount to the duty which would have been collected on imported materials of like description and of equal quality with the American materials used in the construction, equipment, engines, boilers, attachments, and other appurtenances of such vessel, including repairs, outfits, and supplies: Provided, That in ascertaining such drawback the duty shall be computed on iron and steel advanced in manufacture not beyond the point of plates, angles, bars, and rods: Provided also, That such drawback on any article shall not exceed the difference between the market price of such article in the collection district in which the vessel shall be built, repaired, refitted, or supplied, and the market price of a similar article in the city of Glasgow, or the river Clyde, and shall not exceed $10 per ton admeasurement in the case of the original construction of any sailing-vessel, and $25 per ton in the case of the original construction of any vessel propelled in whole or in part by steam; and, in the aggregate, the drawback or sum paid under this section shall not in any one year exceed the amount of tonnage-tax collected in such year: And provided further, If the fund herein provided in any one year is insufficient to pay in full the amount of claims preferred against it, then it shall be prorated among the claimants and accepted by them in full payment of all claims against the United States arising out of this law: And provided further, That this section shall apply only to vessels commenced, repaired, refitted, or supplied after the passage of this act.

That from and after the 1st day of April, 1883, any citizen or citizens of the United States may purchase the whole of any steam or sail vessel constructed mainly of steel or iron, no matter where said vessel may have been built, whether within the United States or in a foreign country, or whether said vessel may have been owned in whole or in part by an alien or aliens; and said vessels shall be registered free of duty as to the hull, spars, appliances, outfit, and equipment (including boilers, engines, and machinery, if a steam-vessel) as a vessel of the United States by the collector in any port of entry of the United States to whom application for such registry may be made by said citizen or citizens, in the same manner as though said vessel had been built in the United States: Provided, however, That this section shall apply only to vessels of more than 1,500 tons registry, to be employed in the foreign carrying-trade exclusively, and not in the coastwise trade, excepting between ports on the Atlantic and ports on the Pacific ocean: Provided, That all or any part of the materials, whether wood, steel, or iron, copper, yellow metal, bolts, spikes, sheathing, treenails, canvas for sails, whether flax or cotton, rigging and cordage, whether hemp, manila hemp, or iron wire; anchors and cables, iron plates, castings, and forgings, angle-irons, beams, masts, yards, rivets, bolts, nuts, screws, engines, boiler plates and tubes, and machinery, and all other materials and appliances which may be necessary for the construction and equipment, in whole or in part, of vessels to be built and furnished in the United States after the 1st day of April, 1883, for the foreign trade, including the trade between Atlantic and Pacific ports, may be imported in bond under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and upon proof that such materials have been used for such purpose, no duties shall be collected or paid thereon.

Section 22 was stricken out altogether, in deference to the opinion of those who opposed its constitutionality.

ing out the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twen Finally, the measure was amended by strik. tieth sections relating to subsidies and free ships, and the machinery for carrying out the subsidy and free-ship provisions. The vote on this radical change was as follows:

YEAS-Anderson, Armfield, Atherton, Atkins, Barr, Bayne, Berry, Bingham, Bisbee, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Bowman, Briggs, Brumm, Buchanan, Buck, Julius C. Burrows, Butterworth, Cabell, Caldwell, Campbell, Carlisle, Chace, Clardy, Clark, Clements, Cobb, Converse, Cook, Covington, William R. Cox, Crapo, Cravens, Crowley, Culberson, Cullen, Curtin, George R. Davis, Dawes, Dezendorf, Dingley, Ellis, Ermentrout, Errett, Ford, Forney, Frost, Geddes, Godshalk, Grout, Hall, N. J. Hammond, Harmer, Benj. W. Harris, Haseltine, Haskell, Hatch, Heilman, Herbert, Hill, Hitt, Holman, House, Hubbs, Humphrey, Jacobs, Jadwin, Geo. W. Jones, Phineas Jones, Joyce, Kelley, Ketcham, Klotz, Knott, Lacey, Ladd, Latham, Le Fevre, Lewis, Lindsey, Lord, Lynch, Mackey, Matson, McClure, McKinley, Jas. H. McLean, McMillin, Miles, Miller, Mills, Money, Moore, Morey, Morrison, Mosgrove, Moulton, Murch, Mutchler, Neal, Norcross, Oates, O'Neill, Peelle, Peirce, Pettibone, Phister, Prescott, Randall, Ranney, Ray, Reed, Reese, John B. Rice, Theron M. Rice, Wm. W. Rice, Rich, Ritchie, Geo. D. Robinson, Jas. S. Robinson, Russell, Ryan, Scranton, Shallenberger, Jas. W. Singleton, Otho R. Singleton, Skinner, Smalls, A. Herr Smith, Sparks, Spooner, Springer, Steele, Stockslager, Taylor, Thomas, P. B. Thompson, Wm. G. Thompson, Amos Townsend, R. W. Townshend, Henry G. Turner, Oscar Turner, Tyler, Vance, Van Aernam, Van Horn, Van Voorhis, Wait, Walker, Ward, Warner, Watson, Webber, Wellborn, Whitthorné, Chas. G. Williams, Willis, Willits-159.

NAYS-Aiken, Aldrich, Barbour, Beach, Belmont, Bliss, Bragg, Buckner, Candler, Cannon, Carpenter, Cassidy, Samuel S. Cox, Cutts, Lowndes H. Davis, Deering, De Motte, Dowd, Dwight, Evins, Sewell S. Farwell, Flower, Garrison, Guenther, Hardenbergh, Hardy, Hepburn, G. W. Hewitt, Hoge, Jorgensen, Kasson, King, Leedom, McCoid, McCook, Robt. M. McLane, Morse, Nolan, Page, Parker, Payson, Phelps, Scoville, Sherwin, Simonton, Dietrich C. Smith, Speer, Stone, Strait, Tucker, Updegraff, Upson, Wadsworth, Walter A. Wood.-54.

NOT VOTING-Belford, Beltzhoover, Black, Blanchard, Brewer, Browne, Jos. H. Burrows, Calkins, Camp, Caswell, Chapman, Colerick, Cornell, Darrall, Davidson, Deuster, Dibrell, Dugro, Dunn, Dunnell, Chas. B. Farwell, Fisher, Fulkerson, George, Gibson, Gunter, John Hammond, Henry S. Harris, Hazelton, Henderson, Herndon, Abram S. Hewitt, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Hooker, Horr, Houk, Hubbell, Hutchins, James K. Jones, Kenna, Manning, Marsh, Martin, Mason, McKenzie, Muldrow, Pacheco, Paul, Pound, Reagan, D. P. Richardson, J. S. Richardson, Robertson, Robeson, Wm. E. Robinson, Rosecrans, Ross, Scales, Shackelford, Shelley, Shultz, J. Hyatt Smith, Spaulding, Talbott, Urner, Valentine, Washburn, West, White, Williams, Thomas, Wilson, George D. Wise, Morgan R. Wise, Benjamin Wood, Young-76.

The bill as amended then passed the House, Jan. 12, 1883. It came up for consideration in the Senate March 3, 1883, and was amended by striking out sections 13, 14, 15, and 22. It then passed that body.

The Fitz-John Porter Case.-The bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter came up in the Senate