CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. such letter or package to entitle it to pass free shall bear over the words official business' an indorsement showing also the name of the department, and, if from a bureau or office, the names of the department and bureau or office, as the case may be, whence transmitted. "What I have read embraces the features in reference to free postage. The difficulty in the proposition of the Senator from Illinois, it occurs to me, is that it is too loose, it is too liable to misconstruction; in other words, it is not sufficiently guarded in its language to make it safe. We have heard from several Senators who have been in the Senate longer than I have of abuses under these sections that I have just read as to letters, etc., on Government business. In order to make it, in common phrase, the more binding, the protection is to require an indorsement of the words 'official business' upon the matter, and there it ends with the signature of the person or persons sending it or a stamp showing that. If all the abuses existed in reference to this feature that were indicated by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Thurman], and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds], what may we not expect under the utmost scrutiny in the way of abuses under this phraseology indicated by the Senator from Illinois ?" Mr. Blair, of New Hampshire: "Does the Senator from Arkansas mean to be understood that we receive under franks speeches not made in Congress? "Yes, speeches and docuMr. Garland: ments, and pamphlets of various kinds." Mr. Blair: "Under the frank of members of Congress?" ،، Mr. Garland: "No, but under this section 249 from governmental officers. There is no one to determine whether the matter is official business' or not, or what kind of official business it is. In the section which I have just read allowing the indorsement of the superscription official business' upon official envelopes signed by the head of a department, or a clerk in the office sending them, no one is provided to determine whether they are on official business.' This joint resolution in regard to Representatives or Senators uses the same words 'official business.' It is possible that neither the Senator from Illinois nor any other Senator could go into enacting a law so as to define specifically what is meant by 'official business,' and what particular letters would come under that characterization. To protect against that in the matter of the 'Record' it is provided that that shall be sent under regulations prescribed by the Postmaster-General; but here this is left without any protection. It is not worth while for a Senator to say that we all know what official business' is, because we know in the practice of the law that words very simple in every-day use and common acceptation, when they are to be interpreted in law sometimes mean very different things, and are sometimes construed to be very different from their plain meaning. ، "I recollect in the course of my reading to have seen that it was once a very grave question before one of the courts of England whether a turkey came within the designation of a bird, and after a long argument and long examination it was solemnly decided that a turbird.' It is possible some one might doubt as key came within the classification of the word to whether, if I was writing to my constituents about a peck of oats, that could be deemed' official business.' I might feel inclined, for the purpose of self-protection, to say it was ofor the Senator from Tennessee might not think ficial business, but the Senator from Missouri 80," ، Mr. Conkling: “Will the Senator allow me Mr. Conkling: "But speeches?" Mr. Conkling: "Speeches not made in Con- Mr. Garland: "Speeches not made in Congress; a speech made, for instance, before the Bankers' Association in New York." Mr. Conkling: "Mr. President, if I undersays that he himself has received through the stand the Senator from Arkansas aright, he mail communications covered by the official frank of the executive officers of the Government, which communications contained no public or official business, but speeches made by somebody-I did not hear by whom-and not made in either House of Congress. Do I Mr. Garland: "The Senator from New understand and report the Senator aright?" York quotes me with literal correctness, with this exception: that so far as I could see they pertained to no official business and no matter of legislation pending in either House of Congress." Mr. Conkling: "Mr. President, if a stinging commentary, if a sharp and thorough criticism were needed or possible, the Senator from upon the absurdity of the law as it now stands Arkansas has pronounced that commentary. Here are provisions under which any and every clerk in the Post-Office Department and in every other department; every postmaster, every deputy-postmaster, every postmistress, every deputy-postmistress, every man, woman, and child, as far as I know, engaged in conducting the public business, may determine each by himself or herself at the time that it is 'official business,' place upon mail-matter a frank which exempts it from postage and cargoes on land or sea, or inland on water or on ries it free through the mail wherever the mail horse, wagon, or stage-coach. How is this done? Not by the sign-manual of the person, not as the honorable Senator from Illinois is compelled to frank, what he is not privileged to frank, but compelled to frank in the course of his duty, by putting his name broadly upon it and the title of his office, so that everybody may know exactly the individual from whom that frank comes, but by placing upon it a printed stamp as good in the hands of one man as in the hauds of another, a stamp which like money has no color, and leaves no track and no trace. "I believe the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] said that the men who make the laws are picked out as the only public servants unsafe to be trusted with franking official matter; and they whose business is, not even to interpret the laws but only to execute them, and that not only in the highest but in the most paltry function, they en masse, not some of them, but all of them without exception, are denoted by the law as safe and proper trustees and custodians of this franking power. And then, as if to cap the climax of absurdity, they are to do it, not by making a mark, not by putting an initial, not by signing a name, not by leaving a track or trace by which they can be known, but by an anonymous printed stamp, which one man's hands as well as another's can affix to a document. Thus you have it said that a Senator or Representative is not fit, although he signs his name, to exert this power, and that any and every other officer of the Government is fit without any sort of responsibility connected with the act, or any mode of identifying him; and thus, as might not unnaturally be supposed, although I should like to know, if I could, without prying into it unduly, from which department such a speech as the Senator refers to came, and who was the author of that speech, it turns out that speeches oratorical, political, didactic discourses made by we know not whom, whether as electioneering documents for a party or electioneering documents for an individual, are sent out, not I infer in an ex ceptional case to the Senator from Arkansas, but sent out generally. It is possible that the Senator from Arkansas, ardent and well known as he is as a supporter of the present Administration, may have been selected from pure favoritism and a little compliment and decoration sent to him, a speech with an official frank, perhaps intended to make the Senator from Arkansas feel good, to let him understand that he was on a footing with the most favored nations,' that compliments and attentions were paid to him such as are withheld not only from the rest of his fellow-citizens but even from his brother Senators. But making all allowance for the distinction of the Senator, making deduction for his intimate relations with those who wield this franking priv. ilege, I take it that the result of his statement is that generally and at large this particular mail-matter to which he has referred was transmitted through the mail. "Mr. President, I submit that if a condition of things could exist which would show plainly and clearly the peremptory and urgent duty of changing this condition of the statute, here it is. If any Senator will affirm by a bill that the franking privilege should be cut off altogether, that there shall be a special account of postage in every department, that each shall pay its postage and have it charged to that fund, so be it. I will not say I will vote for it, but I say it will be respectable comparatively; but to leave the law to stand as it does now, to leave the Senator from Illinois to be mulcted because he happens to come from a large and populous State, and because he happens to have been a distinguished military officer, which leads pensioners naturally to resort to him over the country-to leave him to be mulcted at the rate of ten dollars a week to pay out of his own pocket, not his own but official postage, while every head of a department is furnished with official stamps under which editions of speeches may be sent out and all manner of other matter, is, I humbly submit, an absurdity so gross and an injustice so indecent that it rightfully appeals to the self-respect of every Senator and of every Representative, and it also appeals to the regard that they have for the interest of the cripples, the mourners, the orphans, the pensioners of this country, who I think have quite as much right to receive, being exempted from the three or twelve cents it would cost to pay the postage on them, their pension papers as any Cabinet minister has, when he is moved to utter his voice to his countrymen, to command the means out of the public purse to send out an edition to fall like a snow-storm from the mail over the whole country." The joint resolution was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. In the Senate, on January 14th, a joint resolution appropriating $2,500 to meet the expenses of the International Sanitary Conference at Washington was considered: letter here from the Secretary of State, which Mr. Davis, of West Virginia: "There is a in justice to the committee ought to be read." The Presiding Officer: "The letter will be read." } The Chief Clerk read as follows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, December 27, 1880. SIR: In reply to your letter of the 21st instant, touching the joint resolution approved by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate, appronational Sanitary Conference, I have the honor to priating $2,500 to meet the expenses of the Interinform you that the amount estimated for by this Department was $10,000, or so much thereof as might be found necessary. The expenses which the Department May 14, 1880, will consist (besides ocean telegraphy will be required to meet under the joint resolution of incident to obtaining the responses of foreign governments) mainly of the employment of skilled stenog CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. raphers and clerks capable of reporting speeches and Hon. HENRY G. DAVIS, term commerce, and what is embraced in it. elements dangerous to human health as well as "Upon a former occasion, where a similar question arose in respect to the creation of the powers, the same question arose. Of course I Board of Health and clothing it with certain do not pretend that Congress ever had the authority to appropriate money to any such purpose unless the things to be done, the powers to be exercised, are proper and legitimate Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin: "Mr. Presi- regulations of commerce and falling within that Congress has the power in the regulation dent, I find myself once more compelled to sit that clause of the Constitution, but I think at the feet of the Democratic doctors on a constitutional question. I want to know from of commerce to so regulate it as to strip it of them what authority is conferred by the Constitution of the United States upon Congress to vote any money out of the Treasury for any such purpose. I want to know, in the second place, whether Congress can appropriate any public money for a cause over which and as to which it has no jurisdiction. I want to know, in the third place, who will vote for an appropriation of money touching a subject not committed to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States. I would be very glad indeed if any Senator on any side of this Chamber would furnish me the information in reply to those three questions, or either one of them." Mr. Harris, of Tennessee: "It was my purpose to say that I had no hope of being able to give to the Senator from Wisconsin such information as will be satisfactory to him, having heard the views of the Senator upon previous occasions as well as upon this in respect to this question. "If there be a constitutional warrant, as I have believed and still believe there is, for this appropriation and kindred appropriations that have been made, it will be found to rest upon the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." Mr. Carpenter: "That would be touching Mr. Harris: "It is touching commerce; and "But the power to regulate commerce the Mr. Carpenter: "Mr. President, nothing is more ungracious and nothing more unpleasant than to be constantly compelled to interpose are desirable to have done. Take the subject of objections to things which everybody will agree So with educaagriculture. Everybody says it would be a good thing to improve it, and to improve the conveniences for carrying it on. tion; so with public health; so with a thousand things, which in the frame-work of our Constiferred upon the General Government. If the tution has been left to the States and not conproposition were to be submitted to amend the Constitution so as to commit the regulation of education to the General Government, I would vote for it. If the proposition were to be submitted to permit the United States to might vote for that; but when I came into provide for the public health of the Union, I this Chamber I was compelled under the rules of this body to go to the desk and swear to support the Constitution of the United States, by which I understood then, and understand thing done by me as a Senator I would obnow, that I took an oath that in any act or exercise my best judgment and reason, and in serve and obey the Constitution; I would all things act in conformity with the Constitution. "Upon this question I can see no more power in Congress to enter upon the regulation of the health of the Union, or to invite conventions with foreign nations to consult with and advise us, any more than I can see the power to do anything in the world that you can demonstrate is desirable to have done by somebody. "I believe sincerely that the prosperity of this country depends upon an honest and faithtion of sovereign powers between the great ful observance of the constitutional distribuRepublic and the States; and although $2,500 vote of Congress appropriating any money for for this purpose is a mere bagatelle, yet the such a purpose does strike a blow at the Constitution." Mr. Davis, of West Virginia: "How about the 'general welfare' clause? Does not the Senator think this is just in that direction?" Mr. Carpenter: "I refer the Senator to the commentaries of Judge Story, and to all writers upon that clause. If the general welfare clause gives Congress power to do what it thinks the general welfare requires, what was the object of enumerating what Congress may do? Upon that construction ours is an unlimited government. Judge Story, Federalist as he was, says that that construction would carry the Government beyond all restraint, because if Congress has but to say that the public welfare requires a certain thing to be done, then it has the power to do it-" Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts: "The Senator does not say that Judge Story was a Federalist, that is, in any technical political sense?" Mr. Carpenter: "I do not mean that; but I mean that he was a Federalist in his construction of the Constitution-that is to say, he was for construing the Constitution so as to give it some power. So am I. He was for construing it so as to give full play to all the powers which the convention framing it and the people adopting it intended and attempted to confer upon the General Government, and there he stopped. Discussing this question, and the very clause to which the Senator from West Virginia refers, he says that if that construction be given to that clause, then the Government is an unlimited one; that it was utterly unnecessary to proceed and enumerate the powers which might be exercised by the General Government." Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware: "I desire to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if the phrase 'general welfare' was not incorporated from the Articles of Confederation, where it evidently meant general interest in contradistinction to the local interests of the several colonies, and whether it has not the same import in the Constitution that it had in the Articles of Confederation?" the common welfare, and so of all the other ends intended to be secured and reached by this preamble in the Constitution. It was a mere statement of the reasons which induced our fathers to create this Government, of the reasons which induced them to give these certain enumerated powers to the General Government; but was not intended to so provide the means by which these ends were to be secured. That was done by the Constitution. So Congress is authorized to raise money to secure the common welfare in the way the Constitution has adopted to secure the general welfare. And in no other way. "Whoever construes this clause so as to say that whatever will conduce to the general welfare, Congress shall have the power to do that, must do it as to all other subjects, as to everything that will contribute to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I ask what can be conceived of within the scope of governmental powers that will not contribute, if wisely conducted, to one or the other of these ends? In other words, if you hold the preamble of the Constitution as conferring power, this Government is as absolute as the Government of Great Britain. We have not a republic limited by the Constitution, its powers specified, and their exercise regulated, but we have a Government that can do everything which it deems necessary to promote justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc.; and what greater power has Great Britain? "That is the argument not of myself, but of Judge Story, upon this subject, and of all the men I have ever read who are regarded as authority upon the Constitution in discussing the effect of that clause. "This whole subject of the regulation of health may be important, but to say that it is a part of the regulation of commerce, seems to me to be fanciful; it seems to be furnishing a pretext for doing what we have made up our Mr. Carpenter: "Turn to the preamble of mind to do and really have no power to do. the Constitution: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "The thing under consideration is providing for the public health, but he says this may be done because it is a mere incident to commerce. If you were regulating commerce in the proper sense of the word, by regulating the construction of ships, and the conveniences they should have, and all that, you would undoubtedly be authorized to take into consideration the effect of the construction upon the health of your sailors and passengers. That would be a part, a detail, an incident to the regulation of commerce in the proper sense; but we are not regulating commerce; we are not providing for the building of ships; we are not contemplating any such thing. We are contemplating the single subject of human life and of health, important, I concede. As I have said, perhaps I might vote for an amendment to the Consti tution which would confer the power, but I deny most respectfully that it is conferred. I deny that any man who is supporting the Constitution can vote for an appropriation in aid of any subject, no matter how important and generally useful, that is not committed to the jurisdiction of the General Government." Mr. Garland: "Mr. President, the objections urged by the Senator from Wisconsin have been urged before, and a great many more. Some two years ago, when a similar question was up, everything that is said by him to-day and much more was said. He was not here at the time, I believe, to participate in that argument. The question was argued by a number of Senators on both sides for and against the general proposition, and every case was referred to and commented upon, from Gibbons vs. Ogden, in 9 Wheaton, down to the celebrated cattle case in 5 Wallace, on the subject of commerce between the States. The general power to take care of the health of the country was put upon three different clauses of the Constitution, one of which the Senator from Wisconsin has not referred to: first, the commercial clause, which was referred to by the Senator from Tennessee; second, the general-welfare clause; but clause No. 2 of section 10 of Article I was also referred to and commented upon to some extent by myself, and I was supported in that by Judge Story, the authority that has been referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin. That clanse is as follows: "No State shall, without the consent of the Congreas, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. "Judge Story said in the second volume of his Commentaries' on the Constitution that there was ample authority for the exercise of this power. It is now late in the day to urge an objection of that character. We have had sanitary regulations or a quarantine law, so to speak, ever since 1790 upon the statute-book of the country. In 1879 that statute was considerably enlarged by the Congress of the United States by an act entitled 'An act to prevent the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States.' That act was passed April 29, 1879. The following year that statute was considerably enlarged by a general health bill, which was reported from the special committee by the Senator from Tennessee, and which received the sanction of the two Houses of Congress with some amendments. On the 14th of May last Congress passed the following joint resolution: "That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to call an international sanitary conference to meet at Washington, District of Columbia, to which the several powers having jurisdiction of ports likely to be infected with yellow fever or cholera shall be invited to send delegates, properly authorized, for the VOL. XXI.-10 A purpose of securing an international system of notification as to the actual sanitary condition of ports and places under the jurisdiction of such powers and of vessels sailing therefrom. "As I understand, in pursuance of that joint resolution this conference was invited, and in pursuance of that invitation the conference has met. "It is now in session in the city of Washington. Now the question comes up, Shall we simply discharge an obligation upon us to meet the exigencies of this conference, which we have solemnly invited by three laws, and the constitutionality of every one of which was discussed, if I may be permitted to use such an expression, ad nauseam? The question now is, Shall we defray the expenses of that sanitary conference that we have invited to meet here? I do not see that at this day there is any argument left in respect to that matter." Mr. Carpenter: "That is not the question I put. The question I put was whether the Constitution authorizes us to do it?" Mr. Garland: "I think it does." Mr. Carpenter: "Then I do not see that the other is the question. I agree with the Senator that if we ask a man to work for us, if we can pay him we ought to do it; but the question with me was, Where do we get the authority to do this? We are not giving our own money to pay these men. That would be very proper, and I should be very willing to contribute half of all I have got (and I should not be out more than the price of a cigar at that), but the question is whether I have got any right to vote the money of the people of New York for such a purpose." The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, and read the third time. The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced as follows: YEAS-Allison, Anthony, Beck, Booth, Burnside, Call, Coke, Davis of West Virginia, Dawes, Ferry, Jonas, McMillan, Morgan, Morrill, Platt, Pugh, RanGarland, Groome, Hampton, Harris, Hoar, Johnston, dolph, Rollins, Slater, Voorhees, Wallace, Whyte, Williams, Windom-30. NAYS-Brown, Carpenter, Cockrell, Farley, Ingalls, McPherson, Pendleton, Plumb, Saulsbury, Saunders, Teller-11. Bruce, Butler, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron of ABSENT-Bailey, Baldwin, Bayard, Blaine, Blair, Wisconsin, Conkling, Davis of Illinois, Eaton, Edmunds, Grover, Hamlin, Hereford, Hill of Colorado, Hill of Georgia, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, ald, Maxey, Paddock, Ransom, Sharon, Thurman, Kellogg, Kernan, Kirkwood, Lamar, Logan, McDonVance, Vest, Walker, Withers-35. So the joint resolution was passed. In the House of Representatives, on January 28th, the following bill was considered: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs. Elizabeth P. Page, widow of the late |