did not have an opportunity, by cross-examination or otherwise, to examine the witnesses. Mr. POLAND. That is undoubtedly the meaning of the bill. It provides, as do the State statutes, that it may be used not only against the parties who had notice, but if the litigation finally turns out to be between the parties causing the testimony to be taken, and somebody who claims under the party who had notice, by a title subsequent to the time of taking the testimony, he shall not, by changing his title over into other hands, deprive a party of the benefit of the testimony taken. Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then there should be made some record of this testimony, especially if it should relate to real estate, or else parties buying in good faith would be bound by testimony of which they had no knowledge, and might be defrauded because there was no record or means of discovering this testimony. Mr. POLAND. If my friend had listened to the reading of the entire bill, he would have seen that there is the ordinary provision that this testimony, within thirty days after it is taken, shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court in the district where taken, or the district where the controversy is. I think the bill fully meets the suggestion of the gentle. man. Mr. ELDRIDGE. Let me make one further suggestion. There is no provision in this bill, as I understand it and I speak with many doubts, because it is a long bill, and although I listened to it attentively I am not certain that I understood it thoroughly-there is no provision requiring that this testimony shall be filed in the court or the office of the register of the district where the property is situated. It is to be filed in the district court from which the process issued, but it is not required to be filed in the land district, or the office of the register of the district, where the title to the real estate to which it relates may be affected by it. Mr. POLAND. I ask the Clerk to read the fifth section of the bill. The Clerk read as follows: That the officer taking such deposition shall insert therein every answer or declaration of the witness examined which either party shall require to be included therein. The deposition, when completed, shall be carefully read to and subscribed by the witness; shall be certified by the officer taking the same: and within thirty days thereafter shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district in which such suit is pending; or if no suit be pending, then of such district as the officer granting the order for such examination shall appoint, and which district shall be specified in such order. There shall be filed with the said deposition the original order for the examination of the witness, and the affidavits on which the same was founded, and those proving the service of such order. Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] will perceive that the real estate to be affected by this testimony may be in one district and the testimony and order filed in another, so that if a party purchasing real estate were to examine the records of the office in the district where the property is situ. ated he might be unable to find the testimony affecting his rights, because it was in another district than that in which the land is situated. Suits are not in all cases confined to the locus of the land, but they may be in some other district court. Therefore the rights of parties may be affected without any means whatever of finding out the proceedings that have been had against the property that they are pur. chasing. It seems to me, too, that parties ought not to be affected in that way; that we ought not to add another provision by which parties must have a further abstract, must not only search the titles that have accrued, that are in existence, but they must search the proceedings of courts and examine the testimony of witnesses to ascertain whether the property they are purchasing is affected by it or not. I think that that provision of the bill ought not to be adopted. In the view which I take, it seems to me that innocent parties may be injuriously affected by such proceedings. Mr. POLAND. There would be very little use in having a statute to perpetuate testimony if one of the parties to the controversy could immediately transfer his interest into the hands of other parties who would not be affected by it. I have no objection to an amendment (if my friend from Wisconsin desires to move such an amendment) providing that if the controversy be in relation to the title to land a copy of the evidence shall be deposited in the clerk's office of the district where the land is situated. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I think such an amendment would improve the bill. I suggest that it read in this form: provided that the testimony, where it affects real estate, shall be filed in the clerk's office of the county where the real estate is situated. Mr. POLAND. I think we ought not to require this evidence to be deposited in the office of the county clerk. This bill is designed to authorize the taking of testimony to be used in the courts of the United States. I propose that such testimony where it affects land be filed in the clerk's office of the district where the same is situated. The amendment in the form suggested by the gentleman from Wisconsin would be incongruous. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I propose to provide that where the testimony affects real estate a copy of it shall be filed in the clerk's office of the county where the real estate is situated. Mr. POTTER. It ought to be filed in the office of the United States district court for the district in which the property is situated. In investigating titles we do not, so far as I am aware, search for liens under the laws of the United States in any county clerk's office; but we search in the office of the district court of the United States for the district in which the land is situate. As this is a proceeding under Federal law to affect land within the district, it seems to me sufficient to provide that a copy of the testimony shall be deposited in the office of the clerk of the district. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment as it has been taken down. The Clerk read as follows: Provided, That there shall be a copy of the evidence deposited in the clerk's office of the district in which the land is situated. Mr. ELDRIDGE. "In the clerk's office of the county" is what I suggest; and I would add further, that a minute thereof be made in the index relating to land titles. The SPEAKER. The amendment had better be reduced to writing by the gentleman who desires to offer it. Amendments of this character should always be in writing. Mr. POLAND. I do not think that any amendment ought to be adopted requiring this evidence to be filed in any State court office or in any county clerk's office. I think it right enough that a copy should be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court for the district where the land is situated. Mr. LAMISON. I suggest that the testimony should be filed in the office of the recorder of deeds. Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from Vermont that, in consideration of the territorial extent of some of the districts of the United States, the provision he suggests would be almost worthless. Some of the districts are five hundred miles in extent; and if this evidence is to be filed only in the office of the district court, a man might be required to travel five hundred miles to find out matters affecting his title. I think that the suggestion made by the gentleman from Wisconsin is very proper. Mr. POLAND. I would like to hear the amendment as reduced to writing. The Clerk read as follows: Provided, That if the controversy be in relation to the title to land, there shall be a copy of the evidence deposited in the recorder of deeds' office of the county in which the land is situated, and a minute thereof be made in the index of titles to real estate. Mr. POTTER. I hope that amendment in form will not prevail, and for this reason: in the investigation of titles you search the office of the register of deeds, or whatever else his name may be, who is the officer of the State having charge of this registering for the county, in respect of incumbrances and State liens affecting the property in question, but you also search the office of the clerk of the United States court for the district in which the prop erty is situated for judgment and other liens which the Federal law may create against the same property, and by every analogy this tes timony, in order to give proper notice to the purchasers of the property affected by it, should be filed where the Federal liens are kept; that is, in the office of the clerk of the United States district court of the district where this testimony is taken. It would be wholly anomalous to take notice of Federal proceeding and put it in the hands of State authority. It would lead to confusion instead of convenience. Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman misapprehends very much, I think, the effect of the amendment I propose. The only objection that can be made to it is that it would put to too much trouble persons seeking to perpetuate testimony. Here it is to be placed side by side with the real estate to be affected, and the parties seeking to perpetuate a lawsuit against real estate ought to be put to the trouble to put it where it can be seen by every person who is to be affected. It is to be placed side by side in the index so it may be seen at a glance. It can do no harm. Even if we do search the records of the district court, as suggested, we may not search them in all cases, and it is more convenient to find it placed side by side in the recorder's office where the deeds are recorded, so that any party searching the records may see it at a glance and be referred to the testimony affecting the title. Mr. POLAND. I have no objection to this amendment being voted on, but I do not consider it is an amendment that ought to be made; and if this amendment does not prevail, I will myself offer an amendment requir ing that copies shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district in which the land is situated. Mr. POTTER. United States district court? Mr. POLAND. Yes, sir; that is, if this be voted down. Before calling the previous question I will move an amendment as a substitute to the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, as follows: And if the controversy be in relation to the title to real estate, a copy of said testimony shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district where such lands are situated. I now demand the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered. The question first recurred on Mr. POLAND'S amendment to the amendment. The House divided; and there were-ayes 61, noes 23. So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was then adopted. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. POLAND moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING. Mr. POLAND also, from the same committee, reported back House bill No. 187, to amend an act entitled "An act to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes," approved July 18, 1866, with an amendment. The bill, which was read, provides that the seventh section of the act entitled "An act to further prevent smuggling, and for other purposes," approved July 18, 1866, is amended 50 as to read that it shall be the duty of the several collectors of customs and of internal revenue to report within ten days to the district attorney of the district in which any fine, penalty, or forfeiture may be incurred for the violation of any law of the United States relating to the revenue, a statement of all the facts and circumstances of the case within their knowledge, together with the names of the witnesses, and which may come to their knowledge from time to time, stating the provisions of the law believed to be violated, and on which a reliance may be had for condemnation or conviction, and such district attorney shall cause the proper proceedings to be com menced and prosecuted without delay for the fines, penalties, and forfeitures by law in such case provided, unless upon inquiry and examination he shall decide that such proceedings cannot probably be sustained, or that the ends of public justice do not require that proceedings should be instituted, in which case he shall report the facts in customs cases to the Secretary of the Treasury, and in internal revenue cases to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for their direction; and for the expenses incurred and services rendered in all such cases the district attorney shall receive and be paid from the Treasury such sum as the judge before whom such cases are tried or disposed of shall certify is just and reasonable; provided, however, that the annual compensation of such district attorney shall not exceed the maximum amount now prescribed by law; and if any collector shall in any case fail to report to the proper district attorney as prescribed in this section, such collector's share of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed or incurred in such case shall be forfeited to the United States, and the same shall be awarded to such persons as may make complaint and prosecute the same to judgment or conviction. The following was the amendment reported from the committee: In line twenty-seven, after the word "as," insert the following: the Secretary of the Treasury shall deem just and reasonable upon the certificate of;" and in line twenty-eight, after the words "disposed of," strike out the words "shall certify is just and reasonable;" so that it will read, and for the expenses incurred and services rendered in all such cases the district attorney shall receive and be paid from the Treasury such sum as the Secretary of the Treasury shall deem just and reasonable upon the certificate of the judge before whom such cases are tried or disposed of." Mr. POLAND. I find I am using rather more than my share of the morning hour, and I will take no time to explain this bill unless some gentleman desires it. The amendment reported by the committee was agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. POLAND moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed House bill of the following title, with amendments, in which the concurrence of the House was requested: A bill (H. R. No. 243) for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth census. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the United States, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, with an amend. ment, the bill (H. R. No. 891) to further regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to prevent delays therein. The bill was read. The amendment reported by the committee literally from the provision of law in like cases was as follows: in the State of Ohio. In section five, line two, after the word "prize," insert the following: "except as to the findings of the fact; so that it will read, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to cases of prize, except as to the findings of the fact." Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I presume there will be no objection to the amend. ment. As regards the whole bill, Mr. Speaker, the House will see that its scope is to relieve the Supreme Court of the United States from that accumulation of business which renders justice now unattainable in that court. The first section provides that where, by the act of 1789, appeal was limited to $2,000, it shall now be limited to $5,000. That section also provides that cases shall be brought up here from the highest territorial courts, upon questions of constitutional law, as they are from the highest State courts. The second section provides that in cases where the facts are not found by a jury, the findings of facts in the court below, where there admiralty causes from circuit courts and dismay be appeal as in equity, maritime, and trict courts, shall be conclusive, putting on admiralty cases and the like, the same rule as such courts in equity cases, maritime cases, and we now put upon the Court of Claims; that they shall find the facts and the Supreme Court shall deal with the law. Now the Supreme Court deals with questions of fact. They spend whole especially in admiralty cases. weeks examining simple questions of fact, In every case of collision, they have to find out which pilot is to blame; whether a certain vessel carried a light or not. Such questions occupy nearly their whole time. I can state one fact to the House which will illustrate the imperative pecessity of this bill in this regard. Twenty years ago, the average number of causes in the Supreme Court was something near twenty. Now we have got five hundred and seventy; and unless this measure of relief is voted, it is impossible for that court to get on or any other court. Sitting every day in the year and every hour in the day will not accomplish the busi ness. The third section makes a further limitation, that in admiralty causes, where there has been one hearing before the district court, and then an appeal to the circuit court, and another hearing there, there shall not be a second appeal to the Supreme Court unless the amount of $10,000 is involved. The parties have already had two hearings, to wit, one before a district judge and one before a circuit judge, it may be one of the judges of the Supreme Court sitting on that circuit. The fourth section provides that in a criminal cause where a question of law arises so doubtful that the judge of the circuit court thinks it ought to be examined by the Supreme Court, he may certify it up, and in his judgment make such stay of execution as is necessary to have that case examined. This provision applies only to cases where infamous punishments or life are at stake. I need not tell any lawyer in the House that there is no means now by which a question in a criminal cause can be reëxamined by the Supreme Court unless there happen to be two judges sitting in the circuit court, and they disagree upon the question. Now, in a majority of cases only one judge sits in the circuit court, and then there can be no reexam. ination of any question of criminal law. It is provided by this bill that where a question is deemed by the judge of sufficient importance to be reexamined, it shall be reexamined upon his certificate, and in other cases where the judge doubts whether it is of sufficient importance and the defendant thinks it is important, he can have the question spread upon the record, and then ask a certificate of any judge of the Supreme Court, and if he can find any importance to be examined before that court judge of that court who thinks it is of sufficient it may be certified up by that judge. This provision is taken, as I understand, almost The fifth section simply provides that the provisions of this act shall not apply to cases of prize, except as to questions of fact, nor shall it apply to any appeals now pending or which may be taken within six months after the passage of this act. The reason why prize cases are excepted and allowed to come up directly to the Supreme Court is this: prize cases almost always involve the rights of some foreign subjects, and involve our relations with foreign Governments, and it has always been considered that a prize case, however small, should have the judgment of the highest courts of the land. This bill, which was, I am informed, prepared at the instance of the judges of the Supreme Court, was introduced into the Senate and House, and by the House referred to the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, by us examined and perfected as well as we could, and then recommitted and ordered to be printed. We then submitted a copy to each of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General, and asked for any suggestions as to the amendments that we had offered to the bill, and as to the action of the bill, and they have found no objection. I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDRIDGE.] Mr. FARNSWORTH. I believe the morning hour has now expired, and I move to go to business on the Speaker's table. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will allow us to dispose of this bill. It will not take much time. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I have no objection. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I only want to make a suggestion to the gentleman from Massachusetts. It seems to me that it is a matter of very doubtful propriety to limit cases of appeal to the sum of $5,000. I know very weli that the Supreme Court is clogged so that it can hardly be expected to dispose of the cases upon its calendar, but I want to suggest to probably added, by the provision in regard to the gentleman from Massachusetts that he has criminal cases, as many cases to the calendar as he will take off by limiting the jurisdiction in cases of appeal in civil canses to $5,000. I have no doubt myself that there ought to be some provision made if possible to relieve the Supreme Court from the amount of business upon its calendar, but this bill, if I understand it aright-and I think I do comprehend it in that regard-will add as many criminal causes to the calendar of the Supreme Court as it will take off civil causes by making the limitation $5,000, and the propriety of that, it seems to me, is very doubtful, to say the least of it. It is to say that a man shall not have a chance to appeal his case, although it may amount to $4,000 or even to $4,999, arbitrary in every respect to limit it by mere as well as when it amounts to $5,000. It is dollars and cents. I believe the limitation is now $2,000; and here by one amendment parpose of relieving the Supreme Court of the $3,000 is added to the limitation, for the United States, it is said. When we come to consider the whole bill, I think it will appear to every one that we have added as many by allowing appeals in criminal cases, as we cases to the calendar of the Supreme Court, have taken off by this amendment. explain to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Let me ELDRIDGE,] and to the House, the reason why the limitation of $5,000 was taken. In the first place $2,000 is now the limit, as the gen1789. At this time $5,000 is no more as a tleman is aware, and that limit was fixed in ianship who would appeal a case in issue to the limitation than $2,000 was in 1789. Now, I hold that any man ought to be put under guardSupreme Court for less than $5,000, especially if he employs counsel fit to argue it, for if legislation. Let them at least have the guard- Mr. BUTLER of Massachusetts. The gen- they do not charge him quite as much as he Mr. NIBLACK. I have a little curiosity to know how it is that the Committee on the Revision of the Laws has got possession of this class of legislation, when by the immemorial usage of the House it belongs to the Committee on the Judiciary. The distinguished chair. man of the Committee on the Judiciary [Mr. BINGHAM] now sits on our side of the House, and as I feel a great interest in his behalf, Í desire to protest against this interference with the business of his committee. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The way we got it was that the House gave it to us, by referring this bill to our committee. Mr. NIBLACK. It was certainly a great oversight on the part of the House. power, or setting up an antagonism of juris I know something of the matter whereof I Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The gen-going to the Supreme Court of the United tleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] does not belong to the Committee on the Judiciary, and therefore he has no right to complain. I do belong to that committee, and I have a right to complain if any wrong has been done. Mr. NIBLACK. I am impartial, and therefore can more properly interfere. Mr. MERRICK. I desire to offer an amendment to this bill with reference to appeals from the courts of the District of Columbia. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. hear it. I will Mr. MERRICK. The courts of the District of Columbia are not constituted at all with reference to making them ultimate tribunals or courts of appeal; they are nothing but nisi prius courts. They have a large jurisdiction, and the people have immemorially had the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I desire to move an amendment that they shall have the right of appeal and writs of error to the Supreme Court, as heretofore, in all cases where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $2,000. It has been said that this bill has the approbation of the judges of the Supreme Court. It has been said, I believe, that it has had the special approbation and preparation of Justice Miller. Now, I am advised that Justice Miller himself is in favor of the restoration and preservation of the right of appeal from the supreme court of the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Let the amendment be read. Mr. MERRICK. The amendment is sim. ply to preserve the right of appeal from the supreme court of the District of Columbia in all cases where it now prevails, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $2,000. It is but right and proper, Mr. Speaker, that this people here should have some protection from the great mantle of jurisprudence which is spread by the guardianship of this nation in the other wing of this Capitol. They should not be left in all matters as pariahs, to be thrown about at the mercy of all sorts of experiments. They have suffered enough by injudicious gentleman from Massachusetts may be, perhaps, quite as obnoxious to them as myself if I pleased to make any such reflections. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I must resume the floor. Mr. MERRICK. I addressed myself to the reason and judgment of the House. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I am appealed to to renew my motion. As it is probable this will consume considerable time, I suggest that it go over till to-morrow. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire simply to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that in this case the District of Columbia has what the people of the States have not; they have a judicial tribunal in banc of five judges paid for by the United States, with all their expenses paid, and they have fully the right to appeal to the Supreme Court that every body in every State has beside. Then they have the additional right, to wit, that every man in a State can only have the right to appeal where some law of the United States is called in question under five thousand dollars. Now, as most of the cases in the District of Columbia arise under laws of the United States, if they are harmed by the adjudication of the courts of the United States, they can appeal and have that question reexamined. So the " poor people" of the District of Columbia, who will not have many cases of $2,000, have all the rights, and more, too, that the rest of the people of the United States have, so far as regards judicial proceedings. And there is more time consumed by the Supreme Court of the United States in hearing cases from the District of Columbia than there is in hearing those from any State in the Union, as there was more time consumed in this House legislating for the District of Columbia in the olden time than for any one State in the Union. We hear of nothing but what the District of Colum wards if unfortunate wards of the nation. Therefore I trust there will be no exception, Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will allow the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland to be offered. States, poor indeed will be their condition with Provided, That appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States shall remain as now provided by law in all cases where the matter in dispute shall exceed the sum of $2,000. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The District of Columbia has a court consisting of five judges learned and able. I assure the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MERRICK] that the character of that court is very much improved since he used to know it. [Laughter.] Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to be heard on this bill before the previous question is called. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table." The motion was agreed to. APPORTIONMENT. The first bill on the Speaker's table was the bill (H. R. No. 248) for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the ninth census, returned from the Senate with amendments. The Clerk read the amendments, as follows: Page 3, line seventeen, strike out the words "and in such manner." Add at the end of the bill the following: SEC. 6. That should any State, after the passage of this act, deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants of such States, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the Constitution, article fourteen, section one, except for participation in the rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned in this act to such States shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move the House concur in the amendments of the Senate. They can do no harm. The amendments of the Senate were sev INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. MERRICK. I do not propose to call Mr. SARGENT. I wish to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of taking up and considering the Indian appropriation bill, and before doing so I wish to move that all general debate in the Committee of the Whole shall be limited to five minutes. MEXICAN AFFAIRS. Mr. CONNER. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a moment to offer a resolution calling for information. Mr. SARGENT. I will yield for that purpose. Mr. CONNER. I offer the following resolution. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be requested to inquire into certain outrages that have been perpetrated by citizens of the republic of Mexico and Indians domiciled in the Mexican territory against citizens of the United States residing on the Rio Grande frontier, and that Colonel Williams, of San Antonio, Texas, now in Washington, be examined by the committee. Mr. CONNER. Mr. Speaker, one word of explanation. I wish to refer that inquiry to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The gentleman indicated is now in the city of Washington, and is familiar with all the depredations which have been committed down there. Mr. BANKS. I move that that resolution be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The motion was agreed to. IRON STEAM ICE-BOATS. Mr. NEGLEY. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table, with a view to its consideration at the present time, the bill (S. No. 487) to exempt the iron steam ice boats constructed by the city of Philadelphia from the inspection required by the act of February 28, 1871, entitled "An act to provide for the better security of life on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, and for other purposes." Mr. BIRD. I object to the present consideration of that bill. Mr. SHELLABARGER. I hope the gentleman will not object. This bill ought to pass now or not at all. There are two boats that are used simply for breaking ice and keeping clear the navigation of the river at Philadelphia and below, and now or never is the time the bill ought to pass. I hope the objection will be withdrawn. Mr. BIRD. I withdraw my objection. Mr. NEGLEY. I propose to amend the bill as follows: At the end of the bill add the following: Provided, This act shall expiro at the end of six months from and after its passage. The amendment was agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a third time, and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. L. MYERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. SARGENT. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL] to move to take a bill from the Speaker's table, if it does not lead to debate. BENJAMIN H. CAMPBELL. Mr. FARWELL. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table, with a view to its present consideration, a bill (S. No. 352) for the relief of Benjamin H. Campbell, marshal of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. The SPEAKER. The bill will be read for information. The bill was read. It authorizes the Attorney General, in the settlement of the accounts of Benjamin H. Campbell, marshal of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, to allow him credit for such amount of United States Treasury and national bank notes as were in his hands as marshal belonging to the United States, not to exceed $7,679 13, as he may be satisfied was burned up in said marshal's office and in the customhouse building at Chicago, Illinois, on the 9th October, 1871. Mr. BLAIR, of Michigan. I object. ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. COBURN. I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT] to yield to me to move to take a bill from the Speaker's table for reference. Mr. DAWES. I would suggest to the gentleman from California that he yield for the reference of all bills on the Speaker's table to which there is no objection. Mr. SARGENT. I yield for that purpose. ARTIFICIAL LIMBS. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 471) to amend an act entitled "An act supplementary to an act to provide for furnishing artificial limbs to disabled soldiers," approved June 30, 1870, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. SOLDIERS' DISCHARGES. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 309) to prohibit the retention of soldiers' discharges by claim agents and attorneys was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. GRADES IN MILITARY SERVICE. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 393) to authorize the discontinuance of certain grades in the military service was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. SALE OF LAND AT SAG HARBOR. By unanimous consent. the bill (S. No. 68) providing for the sale of land belonging to the United States, situated at Sag Harbor, Suffolk county in the State of New York, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. ANN M'CARTHY. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 265) to authorize the payment of bounty to Ann McCarthy was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. ISSUE OF CLOTHING. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 449) authorizing the issue of clothing to certain enlisted men of company B, fourteenth regiment of infantry, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. LIGHTS IN CRAIGHILL CHANNEL. By unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 413) to appropriate a sum of money for the placing of range-lights along the ship channel in the Chesapeake bay and Patapsco river, in the State of Maryland, commonly called the Craig hill channel, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. BENJAMIN H. CAMPBELL. The SPEAKER. There remain upon the Speaker's table only two bills: the bill which the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SAWYER] desires shall remain there, and the bill of the Senate, No. 352, for the relief of Benjamin H. Campbell, marshal of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, which the gentle man from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL] desired to call up, but objection was made by the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. BLAIR.] Is there objection to the reference of that bill to the Committee of Claims? Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think, on a statement of the facts of the case, no gentleman would object to the passage of the bill. Mr. HOLMAN, I shall object unless it goes to the committee. The bill was then taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims. INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. SARGENT. I move that all general debate on the Indian appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union be closed in five minutes after the committee shall proceed to the consideration of the same. The motion was agreed to. Mr. SARGENT. I now move that the rules be suspended, and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering the Indian appropriation bill. The motion was agreed to; and the House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Cox in the chair.) and proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1192) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department, and for fulfilling so-called treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes. Mr. SARGENT. I ask unanimous consent that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with. No objection was made, and the Clerk proceeded to read the bill by clauses for amendment. The following clause was read: For vaccine matter and vaccination of Indians, $5,000. Mr. WOOD. I see, sir, that this bill is going through the committee without any information being furnished in regard to it. I desire to ask the gentleman who reports the bill from the Committee on Appropriations in what respect it differs from the bill of the last Congress? Mr. SARGENT. The portion of the bill now under consideration, and most of it, does not differ at all from the bill of last year. Further along there are some appropriations for the Apaches in Arizona and in New Mexico, who have been on the war-path for several years, and who are now being gathered into reservations. They have committed many murders and depredations, and we are endeav oring to extend to them the policy which we extended to the Sioux of Minnesota; in other words, to feed and not fight them. There are two bands of Sioux, who have never before been brought upon any reservation, now being collected at the Assiniboin and Yankton agency. These Indians are disposed to cease their savage life, and are willing, if the Government treats them as it treats the other tribes, to remain at peace. These are the principal differences in the bill. There may call the attention of the committee as we probe some of minor importance to which I will ceed. Mr. WOOD. I move to strike out the last honorable gentleman from California has not word of the clause just read. I regret that the given us some other information which I think we require at this time. We know that within the last two years a material change has been effected in the policy of the Government in reference to the Indians; that instead of attempting to annihilate them by ball and cannon, recently a persuasive policy has been put into operation to a very great extent by the Government, and so far we have no official data upon which to judge of the result of that policy. The gentleman from California is exceedingly familiar with this question, and has participated very largely in the discussious in this House, which we have had annually for the last three or four years, with reference to the proper treatment of the Indians. I had expected from him, therefore, as he is the champion and mover of this measure, some explanation whether the policy which has recently been adopted is successful, and whether, if successful, there is any necessity of keeping up a large standing army at an enormous expense to the Government, thus holding as it were at the cannon's mouth this persuasive policy initiated and inaugurated by this Administration. We desire to know whether we are to make war, or whether we are to feed instead of fighting the Indians. We want to know whether it is the intention to endeavor to domesticate, civilize, and Christianize these barbarians and savages, or whether the old policy is to be continued, of their annihilation and obliteration. In my judgment, the time has arrived when it is necessary for the policy of the Government to be permanently established as to what is the true course to pursue in reference to the Indian tribes, and I want the gentleman from California to tell us if the new policy has been successful, and what is now necessary to be done in order to carry out that policy. Mr. SARGENT. The policy to which the gentleman alludes is not strictly a new one; it was not adopted for the first time last year, but it was inaugurated in the first year of this Administration. Last year I took some pains to elaborate the details of this system, and to explain as carefully as I then could the manner in which it operated, so far as it had been tried. The Committee on Appropriations last year, and also the House, upon the suggestions that we made, extended the policy to other tribes. There is a fact that perhaps need not be stated upon this floor, or officially to arrest the attention of the gentleman, and that is that where four or five years ago, and from that time back, for a dozen years, nearly every mail that came from the West brought us news of Indian massacres, as, for instance, that in Minnesota; of depredations upon the property of citizens; of wrongs inflicted upon the Indians themselves; and frequently along the whole Indian border. During the last two or three years these accounts have been extremely rare; I may say that during the last year, with the exception of Arizona, no such occurrences have taken place at all, or if there have been any instances, they could be traced to the personal hostility of some Indian toward some white man, or some act of aggression on the part of some white man toward some Indian. As a general rule, these aggressions on the part of the Indians and on the part of white men have ceased. It has been found that the policy of feeding the Indians was cheaper than the policy of fighting them; that furthermore it was more humane; that if we desired to prevent the extinction of these Indian tribes by oppressions at the hands of the American people, or by carelessness on the part of the Government, it was necessary to give them homes upon the more undesirable lands to which they had been driven by the progress of civilization and by our tides of population rolling westward, where they might be enabled to subsist, that they might not be by extremity forced to commit theft, and consequently to engage in deeds which ultimately would lead to murder and bloodshed. I took some pains to explain this matter last year, for it was necessary even then to explain it, though this policy was working well. There is another feature upon which I might enlarge if I was willing to take up the time of this committee; and that is, that the various religious denominations are taking hold of this matter with good faith and hearty zeal, and are seconding this plan of the Administration to civilize the Indian tribes. They not merely select and recommend persons upon whom they can rely for special agents, but they establish, at their own cost and at very considerable expense, schools and churches, and pay their own agents to be about the schools and to superintend the business of educating and civ. ilizing these Indians, to see that the agents of the Government and others are not cheating them. The Episcopal church is engaged in this good work. The Society of Friends, both the Orthodox and the Hicksites, if I may be allowed to refer to those distinctions, are also carrying on the work of this reform. The Methodists are engaged in it, as they have been for years; the Baptists are largely engaged in it; and I might mention other denominations that are working heartily to carry out this plan to a successful result. There seems to be a public sentiment growing up in the West in favor of this policy toward the Indians, because it is found to promote the peace of the settlers. However, it is not necessary to enlarge upon that matter. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WOOD. I withdraw the amendment. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I renew it for the purpose of making an inquiry. I would like to know of the gentleman from California [Mr. SARGENT] what amount is appropriated in this bill. I see no amount is stated in the bill. Mr. SARGENT. By an oversight of the clerk the amount is not put in the bill; it is, in round numbers, $5,500,000. Mr. ELDRIDGE. How does that correspond with the amount of the annual appropriation bill of last year for this purpose? Mr. SARGENT. The appropriation for Indian purposes last year was considerably in excess of that; but for the specific purpose of this bill the appropriation last year was a little over four million nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars. The increase is due to one or two items to which I have already referred; for instance, the attempt to bring the Apaches, who heretofore have been implacable, under this system, to feed them and induce them to stay upon reservations, instead of preying upon the whites. The Territory of Arizona for years past has been a perfect hell to the white man. We are endeavoring to induce the Apaches to remain at peace; and the prospect is excellent that they may, provided we use the means that have quelled red devils" elsewhere. Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman speaks of a "perfect hell." It is the first time I have heard of perfection in that place; but I suppose the gentleman's information on that subject is perfectly reliable. [Laughter.] Mr. SARGENT. The gentleman will find he will have to get considerable information from me on many points; and he is welcome to it. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I wish to inquire whether the statement of the aggregate amount of the appropriations contained in the bill was omitted intentionally? Mr. SARGENT. It was accidentally omitted by the clerk, and was not discovered by me until too late to have the omission rectified in the printed bill. The omission was not intended to cover up anything. Mr. ELDRIDGE. It appears from the admission of the gentleman that the amount here appropriated is largely in excess of the annual appropriation bill for this purpose, as passed heretofore. Now, I wish to inquire of the gentleman whether his peace policy is intended and expected to be more expensive than the war policy; in other words, is it going to cost more to feed these Indians than it has heretofore cost to fight them? Is there not about as much fighting going on now with the Indians as there has been? Have we not about as large an army to keep them in subjection as we had before we commenced the policy of feeding them? I would like to know, further, whether the present policy seeks only to keep the Indians in order, or whether it also seeks to prevent the white men from robbing or otherwise maltreating the Indians? Mr. SARGENT. I will endeavor to answer the gentleman's questions. For the purpose of fighting the Indians very much larger appropriations would be required than those which we now propose. Under the war policy volunteers have frequently been required to be called out from the States and Territories, involving an enormous expense. The Army is smaller than it has been at any time during the last ten years, as I suppose the gentleman must be well aware. There has not been as much fighting going on during the last year and under the present system as there has been heretofore. In fact, there has been no fighting, unless the operations of Stoneman and Crook in Arizona may be considered of that character, some Indians there having been chased up. The peace system is far less expensive than the war policy. This bill proposes to appropriate about five and a half million dollars. Under a war policy the expense would be somewhere between forty and sixty millions; and it is very doubtful whether it could be brought within that limit. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I withdraw my amend ment. Mr. CONNER. I renew the amendment. I simply wish to call the attention of the House to a fact which I referred to in the discussion last year during the pendency of a similar bill. This so-called "peace policy" which has been inaugurated by the Administration and forced upon the country is not a peace policy in fact. It is a policy which enables and invites the Indian tribes quartered upon the reservations adjacent to my district, the district of one of my colleagues, and many other districts, all along the frontier, from the lakes to the Rio Grande, to raid upon our settlements, pillage our plantations, drive off our horses, murder our men, and carry away our women and children into captivity. Within seventy-five miles of the town where I reside we have almost every month a visitation of these hostile Indians from Fort Sill, where there is a regiment of United States troops quartered, for what purpose I cannot tell, unless it is to see that the Indians on that reservation draw their supplies with promptness and regularity. We send our citizens over there, and they identify the stolen property according to all the rules of evidence. Our horses are found there in charge of the Indians, who have stolen them. We identify them; but in steps one of your broad-brimmed commissioners and requires us to ransom or buy our own property. Since this policy was inaugurated a number of little children and women have been cap. tured by the Indians and carried to that reservation. Their friends and relations followed them of course, and when the Indians brought them into military or Indian headquarters what do you suppose occurred? There on the flagstaff floated the banner of the Republic; there were your regular troops, properly officered, prepared, ready, and anxious to vindicate the power and honor of their Government; there, too, were the captive mother and chil dren, and there also were the friends ready to carry them back, not to their former home, because that had been burned, destroyed, and pillaged by the Indians who had captured them, but to the white settlements, where they would not be subjected to those horrible and revolting atrocities which I will not mention. Now, sir, there is an actual picture now drawn from imagination. But it does not stop there. There is yet another scene in this bloody peace drama. It is this: the friends and relations are compelled to ransom the captives-one hundred or two hundred dollars for a child. The Indian goes unpunished, receives a reward for his services, in the shape of new and fresh supplies, straddles a stolen horse, and returns to Texas to reenact his bloody but peaceful war-dance. I say the Indian is rewarded for these atrocities by this policy, and speaks in great praise of the "big chief at Washington," whom he regards as his friend for protecting him in his schemes of theft and murder. As a consequence the Indians have of late directed their energies and turned their efforts in the direction of stealing children instead of horses, because a child will command $100 when a horse will only command twenty-five dollars. By this morning's mail I received a letter from one of my old frontier constituents, and |