Larsens Human Embryology 4th Edition

Schoenwolf Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/larsens-human-embryology-4th-edition-schoenwolf-test-bank/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
W. Ransom, $4,817.60; B. F. Rice, $3,200; T. J. Robertson,
$4,374.80; F. A. Sawyer, $4,294.40; George E. Spencer, $4,106; W.
Sprague, $4,508; W. M. Stewart, $1,486.40; J. P. Stockton, $4,790;
T. W. Tipton, $3,358; Lyman Trumbull, $3,980; G. Vickers, $4,880;
J. R. West, $2,468 80.
III.—Names of Senators who covered into the Treasury amounts
due them under retroactive provisions of law, with date of such
action.
There is no record in my office showing that any Senator covered
into the Treasury any money to which he was entitled by the
retroactive provisions of either of the acts of September 22, 1789,
March 19, 1816, January 22, 1818, August 16, 1856, or July 28, 1866.
The following Senators covered into the Treasury the amounts due
them under the retroactive provision of the act of March 3, 1873,
namely:
1873.—May 26, H. B. Anthony, $4,497.20; June 23, W. A.
Buckingham, $4,553.60; May 21, R. E. Fenton, $4,184; June 2, F. T.
Frelinghuysen, $4,644.80; May 19, H. Hamlin, $4,136; August 14, O.
P. Morton, $3,922.40; April 9, D. D. Pratt, $4,121.60; August 25, A.
Ramsey, $3,041.40; March 28, C. Schurz, $3,761.60; May 9, John
Scott, $4,733.06; July 11, John Sherman, $4,336.40; May 2, C.
Sumner, $4,445.60; May 22, A. G. Thurman, $4,359.20; March 28,
Henry Wilson, $4,448; September 6, George G. Wright, $3,140 80.
Note.—Several of these Senators, as well as others who have not
either drawn or covered into the Treasury the amounts due them
under the retroactive provision of the act of 1873, expressed to me
their intention to allow the money to lapse into the Treasury by the
ordinary operation of law, which they supposed would occur July 3,
1873. After learning that it could not be covered in, except by their
order, before July 3, 1875, some gave me written instructions to
anticipate the latter date. I am unable to furnish from any
information in my office the names of Senators who themselves paid
into the Treasury salary drawn under the act of 1873 or previous acts.
I have not furnished the names of Senators who have left increased
salary undrawn, as this information was not called for in the
resolution.
 IV.—A Comparative Statement.

Total compensation and allowance of Senators, under act of July

28, 1866, from March 4, 1871, to March 3, 1872: Compensation,
$370,000; mileage, $37,041.20; stationery and newspapers, $9,250;
total, $416,291.20; average per Senator, $5,625.55–²³⁄₃₇.
Under same act, from March 4, 1872, to March 3, 1873, during
which year members of the Senate received mileage for attending the
special session of the Senate, held in May, 1872, the following
amounts were paid: Compensation, $370,000; mileage, $59,002.80;
newspapers and stationery, $9,250; total, $438,252.80; average per
Senator, $5,922 23–¹⁹⁄₃₇.
Total compensation and allowance of Senators under act of March
3, 1873: Compensation, $555,000; traveling expenses, based upon
the certificates of forty-six Senators, (twenty-eight having presented
none,) amounting to $4,607 95, giving an average of $100
17×74=$7,412.58; total, $562,412.58; average per Senator, $7,600
17.
In connection with this were statements, prepared by the Secretary
of the Senate, and laid before that body by Senator Cameron,
January 9, 1874, of the amounts of mileage paid in dollars (cents
omitted) at particular dates under the acts of 1856 and 1866, are
given. The act of 1856 fixed mileage at forty cents per mile each way,
and the act of 1866 fixed it at twenty cents per mile each way.
 Returning Boards.

At the second session of the 42d Congress that body, and the
President as well, were compelled to consider a new question in
connection with politics—an actual conflict of State Governments.
There had always been, in well regulated State governments,
returning boards, but with a view the better to guard the newly
enfranchised citizens of the South from intimidation, the Louisiana
Republicans, under very bold and radical leaders, had greatly
strengthened the powers of her returning boards. It could canvass
the votes, reject the returns in part or as a whole of parishes where
force or fraud had been used, and could declare results after such
revision. The Governor of Louisiana had made several removals and
appointments of State officers for the purpose mainly of making a
friendly majority in the returning board, and this led to the
appointment of two bodies, both claiming to be the legitimate
returning board. There soon followed two State governments and
legislatures, the Democratic headed by Governor John McEnery, the
Republican by Governor Wm. Pitt Kellogg, later in the U. S. Senate.
Kellogg brought suit against the Democratic officers before Judge
Durell, of the Federal District Court, and obtained an order that the
U. S. Marshal (S. B. Packard, afterwards Governor), should seize the
State House and prevent the meetings of the McEnery legislature.
Then both governments were hastily inaugurated, and claimed the
recognition of Congress. The Senate Committee reported that Judge
Durell’s decision was not warranted, but the report refused a decisive
recognition of either government. A bill was introduced declaring the
election of Nov. 4, 1872, on which this condition of affairs was based,
null and void, and providing for a new election, but this bill was
defeated by a close vote. Later on, Louisiana claimed a large share in
National politics. Somewhat similar troubles occurred in Alabama,
Arkansas, and Texas, but they were settled with far greater ease than
those of Louisiana. The correspondence in all of these cases was too
voluminous to reproduce here, and we shall dismiss the subject until
the period of actual hostilities were reached in Louisiana.
 The Grangers.

So early as 1867 a secret society had been formed first in

Washington, known as the Patrons of Husbandry, and it soon
succeeded in forming subordinate lodges or granges in Illinois,
Wisconsin, and other States. It was declared not to be political; that
its object was co-operation among farmers in purchasing supplies
from first hands, so as to do away with middle-men, but, like many
other secret organizations, it was soon perverted to political
purposes, and for a time greatly disturbed the political parties of the
Western States. This was especially true of the years 1873–74, when
the Grangers announced a contemplated war on railroad
corporations, and succeeded in carrying the legislatures of Illinois
and Wisconsin, and inducing them subsequently to pass acts, the
validity of which the Supreme Courts of the State, under a temporary
popular pressure which was apparently irresistible, could not
sustain. The effect of these laws was to almost bankrupt the Illinois
Central, theretofore wealthy, to cripple all railroads, to interfere
largely with foreign exports, and to react against the interests of the
people of the States passing them, that the demand for repeal was
soon very much greater than the original demand for passage. As
these laws, though repealed, are still often referred to in the
discussion of political and corporate questions, we give the text of
one of them:
 Illinois Railroad Act of 1873.

An Act to prevent extortion and unjust discrimination in the rates

charged for the transportation of passengers and freights on
railroads in this State, and to punish the same, and prescribe a
mode of procedure and rules of evidence in relation thereto, and
to repeal an act entitled “An act to prevent unjust discrimination
and extortions in the rates to be charged by the different
railroads in this State for the transportation of freights on said
roads,” approved April 7, A. D. 1871.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly, If any railroad corporation,
organized or doing business in this State under any act of
incorporation, or general law of this State now in force, or which may
hereafter be enacted, or any railroad corporation organized or which
may hereafter be organized under the laws of any other State, and
doing business in this State, shall charge, collect, demand, or receive
more than a fair and reasonable rate of toll or compensation for the
transportation of passengers or freight of any description, or for the
use and transportation of any railroad car upon its track, or any of
the branches thereof, or upon any railroad within this State which it
has the right, license, or permission to use, operate, or control, the
same shall be deemed guilty of extortion, and upon conviction
thereof shall be dealt with as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 2. If any such railroad corporation aforesaid shall make any
unjust discrimination in its rates or charges of toll, or compensation,
for the transportation of passengers or freight of any description, or
for the use and transportation of any railroad car upon its said road,
or upon any of the branches thereof, or upon railroads connected
therewith, which it has the right, license, or permission to operate,
control, or use, within this State, the same shall be deemed guilty of
having violated the provisions of this act, and upon conviction
thereof shall be dealt with as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 3. If any such railroad corporation shall charge, collect, or
receive for the transportation of any passenger, or freight of any
description, upon its railroad, for any distance within this State, the
same or a greater amount of toll or compensation than is at the same
time charged, collected, or received for the transportation, in the
same direction, of any passenger, or like quantity of freight of the
same class, over a greater distance of the same railroad; or if it shall
charge, collect, or receive at any point upon this railroad a higher
rate of toll or compensation for receiving, handling, or delivering
freight of the same class and quantity than it shall at the same time
charge, collect, or receive at any other point upon the same railroad;
or if it shall charge, collect or receive for the transportation of any
passenger, or freight of any description, over its railroad a greater
amount as toll or compensation than shall at the same time be
charged, collected, or received by it for the transportation of any
passenger or like quantity of freight of the same class, being
transported in the same direction over any portion of the same
railroad of equal distance; or if it shall charge, collect, or receive from
any person or persons a higher or greater amount of toll or
compensation than it shall at the same time charge, collect, or
receive from any other person or persons for receiving, handling, or
delivering freight of the same class and like quantity at the same
point upon its railroad; or if it shall charge, collect, or receive from
any person or persons for the transportation of any freight upon its
railroad a higher or greater rate of toll or compensation than it shall
at the same time charge, collect, or receive from any other person or
persons for the transportation of the like quantity of freight of the
same class being transported from the same direction over equal
distances of the same railroad; or if it shall charge, collect, or receive
from any person or persons for the use and transportation of any
railroad car or cars upon its railroad for any distance the same or a
greater amount of toll or compensation than is at the same time
charged, collected, or received from any person or persons for the
use and transportation of any railroad car of the same class or
number, for a like purpose, being transported in the same direction
over a greater distance of the same railroad; or if it shall charge,
collect, or receive from any person or persons for the use and
transportation of any railroad car or cars upon its railroad a higher
or greater rate of toll or compensation than it shall at the same time
charge, collect, or receive from any other person or persons for the
use and transportation of any railroad car or cars of the same class or
number, for a like purpose, being transported from the same point in
the same direction over an equal distance of the same railroad; all
such discriminating rates, charges, collections, or receipts, whether
made directly or by means of any rebate, drawback, or other shift or
evasion, shall be deemed and taken against such railroad corporation
as prima facie evidence of the unjust discriminations prohibited by
the provisions of this act, and it shall not be deemed a sufficient
excuse or justification of such discriminations on the part of such
railroad corporation, that the railway station or point at which it
shall charge, collect, or receive the same or less rates of toll or
compensation for the transportation of such passenger or freight, or
for the use and transportation of such railroad car the greater
distance than for the shorter distance, is a railway station or point at
which there exists competition with any other railroad or means of
transportation. This section shall not be construed so as to exclude
other evidence tending to show any unjust discrimination in freight
and passenger rates. The provisions of this section shall extend and
apply to any railroad, the branches thereof, and any road or roads
which any railroad corporation has the right, license, or permission
to use, operate, or control, wholly or in part, within the State:
Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall be so
construed as to prevent railroad corporations from issuing
commutation, excursion, or thousand mile tickets, as the same are
now issued by such corporations.
Sec. 4. Any such railroad corporation guilty of extortion, or of
making any unjust discrimination as to passenger or freight rates, or
the rates for the use and transportation of railroad cars, or in
receiving, handling, or delivering freights shall, upon conviction
thereof, be fined in any sum not less than one thousand dollars
($1,000) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the first
offense; and for the second offense not less than five thousand
dollars ($5,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000;) and
for the third offense not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) nor
more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000;) and for every
subsequent offense and conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000:) Provided, That in all cases
under this act either party shall have the right of trial by jury.
Sec. 5. The fines hereinbefore provided for may be recovered in an
action of debt in the name of the people of the State of Illinois, and
there may be several counts joined in the same declaration as to
extortion and unjust discrimination, and as to passenger and freight
rates, and rates for the use and transportation of railroad cars, and
for receiving, handling, or delivering freights. If, upon the trial of any
case instituted under this act, the jury shall find for the people, they
shall assess and return with their verdict the amount of the fine to be
imposed upon the defendant, at any sum not less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000,) and
the court shall render judgment accordingly; and if the jury shall find
for the people, and that the defendant has been once before
convicted of a violation of the provisions of this act, they shall return
such finding with their verdict, and shall assess and return with their
verdict the amount of the fine to be imposed upon the defendant, at
any sum not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) nor more than
ten thousand dollars ($10,000,) and the court shall render judgment
accordingly; and if the jury shall find for the people, and that the
defendant has been twice before convicted of a violation of the
provisions of this act, with respect to extortion or unjust
discrimination, they shall return such finding with their verdict, and
shall assess and return with their verdict the amount of the fine to be
imposed upon the defendant, at any sum not less than ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) nor more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000;)
and in like manner for every subsequent offense and conviction such
defendant shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.) Provided, That in all cases under the provisions of this
act a preponderance of evidence in favor of the people shall be
sufficient to authorize a verdict and judgment for the people.
Sec. 6. If any such railroad corporation shall, in violation of any of
the provisions of this act, ask, demand, charge, or receive of any
person or corporation, any extortionate charge or charges for the
transportation of any passengers, goods, merchandise, or property,
or for receiving, handling, or delivering freights, or shall make any
unjust discrimination against any person or corporation in its
charges therefor, the person or corporation so offended against may
for each offense recover of such railroad corporation, in any form of
action, three times the amount of the damages sustained by the party
aggrieved, together with cost of suit and a reasonable attorney’s fee,
to be fixed by the court where the same is heard, on appeal or
otherwise, and taxed as a part of the costs of the case.
Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the railroad and warehouse
commissioners to personally investigate and ascertain whether the
provisions of this act are violated by any railroad corporation in this
State, and to visit the various stations upon the line of each railroad
for that purpose, as often as practicable; and whenever the facts in
any manner ascertained by said commissioners shall in their
judgment warrant such prosecution, it shall be the duty of said
commissioners to immediately cause suits to be commenced and
prosecuted against any railroad corporation which may violate the
provisions of this act. Such suits and prosecutions may be instituted
in any county in the State, through or into which the line of the
railroad corporation sued for violating this act may extend. And such
railroad and warehouse commissioners are hereby authorized, when
the facts of the case presented to them shall, in their judgment,
warrant the commencement of such action, to employ counsel to
assist the Attorney-General in conducting such suit on behalf of the
State. No such suits commenced by said commissioners shall be
dismissed, except said railroad and warehouse commissioners and
the Attorney-General shall consent thereto.
Sec. 8. The railroad and warehouse commissioners are hereby
directed to make for each of the railroad corporations doing business
in this State, as soon as practicable, a schedule of reasonable
maximum rates of charges for the transportation of passengers and
freight and cars on each of said railroads; and said schedule shall, in
all suits brought against any such railroad corporations, wherein is in
any way involved the charges of any such railroad corporation for the
transportation of any passenger or freight or cars, or unjust
discrimination in relation thereto, be deemed and taken, in all courts
of this State, as prima facie evidence that the rates therein fixed are
reasonable maximum rates of charges for the transportation of
passengers and freights and cars upon the railroads for which said
schedules may have been respectively prepared. Said commissioners
shall, from time to time, and as often as circumstances may require,
change and revise said schedules. When such schedules shall have
been made or revised as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of said
commissioners to cause publication thereof to be made for three
successive weeks, in some public newspaper published in the city of
Springfield in this state: “Provided, That the schedules thus prepared
shall not be taken as prima facie evidence as herein provided until
schedules shall have been prepared and published as aforesaid for all
the railroad companies now organized under the laws of this State,
and until the fifteenth day of January, A. D. 1874, or until ten days
after the meeting of the next session of this General Assembly,
provided a session of the General Assembly shall be held previous to
the fifteenth day of January aforesaid.” All such schedules,
purporting to be printed and published as aforesaid, shall be received
and held, in all such suits, as prima facie the schedules of said
commissioners, without further proof than the production of the
paper in which they were published, together with the certificate of
the publisher of said paper that the schedule therein contained is a
true copy of the schedule furnished for publication by said
commissioners, and that it has been published the above specified
time; and any such paper purporting to have been published at said
city, and to be a public newspaper, shall be presumed to have been so
published at the date thereof, and to be a public newspaper.
Sec. 10. In all cases under the provisions of this act, the rules of
evidence shall be the same as in other civil actions, except as
hereinbefore otherwise provided. All fines recovered under the
provisions of this act shall be paid into the county treasury of the
county in which the suit is tried, by the person collecting the same, in
the manner now provided by law, to be used for county purposes.
The remedies hereby given shall be regarded as cumulative to the
remedies now given by law against railroad corporations, and this act
shall not be construed as repealing any statute giving such remedies.
Suits commenced under the provisions of this act shall have
precedence over all other business, except criminal business.
Sec. 11. The term “railroad corporation,” contained in this act,
shall be deemed and taken to mean all corporations, companies, or
individuals now owning or operating, or which may hereafter own or
operate any railroad, in whole or in part, in this State; and the
provisions of this act shall apply to all persons, firms, and
companies, and to all associations of persons, whether incorporated
or otherwise, that shall do business as common carriers upon any of
the lines of railways in this State (street railways excepted) the same
as to railroad corporations thereinbefore mentioned.
Sec. 12. An act entitled “An act to prevent unjust discriminations
and extortions in the rates to be charged by the different railroads in
this State for the transportation of freight on said roads,” approved
April 7, A. D. 1871, is hereby repealed, but such repeal shall not affect
nor repeal any penalty incurred or right accrued under said act prior
to the time this act takes effect, nor any proceedings or prosecutions
to enforce such rights or penalties.
Approved May 2, 1873.

S. M. Cullom,
Speaker House of Representatives.

John Early,
President of the Senate.

John L. Beveridge,
Governor.

The same spirit, if not the same organization, led to many petitions
to Congress for the regulation of inter-state commerce and freight
rates, and to some able reports on the subject. Those which have
commanded most attention were by Senator Windom of Minnesota
and Representative Reagan of Texas, the latter being the author of a
bill which commanded much consideration from Congress in the
sessions of 1878–’80, but which has not yet secured favorable action.
In lieu of such bill Senator Cameron, of Pennsylvania, introduced a
joint resolution for the appointment of a Commission to investigate
and report upon the entire question. Final action has not yet been
taken, and at this writing interest in the subject seems to have
flagged.
The disastrous political action attempted by the Grangers in
Illinois and Wisconsin, led to such general condemnation that
subsequent attempts were abandoned save in isolated cases, and as a
rule the society has passed away. The principle upon which it was
based was wholly unsound, and if strictly carried out, would destroy
all home improvements and enterprise. Parties and societies based
upon a class, and directed or perverted toward political objects, are
very happily short-lived in this Republic of ours. If they could thrive,
the Republic could not long endure.
 Supplementary Civil Rights Bill.

Senator Sumner’s Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was passed by

the second session of the 43d Congress, though its great author had
died the year before—March 11th, 1874. The text of the Act is given in
Book V. of this volume, on Existing Political Laws. Its validity was
sustained by the U. S. District Courts in their instructions to grand
juries. The first conviction under the Act was in Philadelphia, in
February, 1876. Rev. Fields Cook, pastor of the Third Baptist colored
church of Alexandria, Virginia, was refused sleeping and eating
accommodations at the Bingham House, by Upton S. Newcomer, one
of its clerks; and upon the trial of the case, in the U. S. District Court,
John Cadwalader, Judge, instructed the jury as follows:
The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United
States makes all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, citizens of the United States,
and provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws. This amendment expressly gives to
Congress the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. An act of
Congress of March 1, 1875, enacts that all persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and
privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres and
other places of public amusement, subject only to the conditions and
limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of
every race and color, and makes it a criminal offense to violate these
enactments by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law
applicable to citizens of every race and color, * * * the full enjoyment
of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges
enumerated. As the law of Pennsylvania had stood until the 22d of
March, 1867, it was not wrongful for innkeepers or carriers by land
or water to discriminate against travelers of the colored race to such
an extent as to exclude them from any part of the inns or public
conveyances which was set apart for the exclusive accommodation of
white travelers. The Legislature of Pennsylvania, by an act of 22d of
March, 1867, altered the law in this respect as to passengers on
railroads. But the law of the State was not changed as to inns by any
act of the State Legislature. Therefore, independently of the
amendment of the Constitution of the United States and of the act of
Congress now in question, the conduct of the defendant on the
occasion in question might, perhaps, have been lawful. It is not
necessary to express an opinion upon this point, because the decision
of the case depends upon the effect of this act of Congress. I am
under opinion that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution the enactment of this law was within the legislative
power of Congress, and that we are bound to give effect to the act of
Congress according to its fair meaning. According to this meaning of
the act I am of opinion that if this defendant, being in charge of the
business of receiving travelers in this inn, and of providing necessary
and proper accommodations for them in it, refused such
accommodations to the witness Cook, then a traveler, by reason of
his color, the defendant is guilty in manner and form as he stands
indicted. If the case depended upon the unsupported testimony of
this witness alone, there might be some reason to doubt whether this
defendant was the person in charge of this part of the business. But
under this head the additional testimony of Mr. Annan seems to be
sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. If the jury are convinced of
the defendant’s identity, they will consider whether any reasonable
doubt of his conduct or motives in refusing the accommodations to
Fields Cook can exist. The case appears to the court to be proved; but
this question is for the jury, not for the court. If the jury have any
reasonable doubt, they should find the defendant not guilty;
otherwise they will find him guilty.
The jury brought in a verdict of guilty, March 1, 1876, and the
Court imposed a fine of $500.
 The Morton Amendment.

In the session of ’73, Senator Morton, of Indiana, introduced an

amendment to the Constitution providing for the general choice of
Presidential Electors by Congressional districts, and delivered
several speeches on the subject which attracted much attention at the
time. Since then many amendments have been introduced on the
subject, and it is a matter for annual discussion. We quote the
Morton Amendment as the one most likely to command favorable
action:
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each
House concurring therein:) That the following article is hereby
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
and, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution, to wit:

“Article —.

“I. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by the direct

vote of the people in the manner following: Each State shall be
divided into districts, equal in number to the number of
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress,
to be composed of contiguous territory, and to be as nearly equal in
population as may be; and the person having the highest number of
votes in each district for President shall receive the vote of that
district, which shall count one presidential vote.
“II. The person having the highest number of votes for President in
a State shall receive two presidential votes from the State at large.
 “III. The person having the highest number of presidential votes in
the United States shall be President.
“IV. If two persons have the same number of votes in any State, it
being the highest number, they shall receive each one presidential
vote from the State at large; and if more than two persons shall have
each the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest
number, no presidential vote shall be counted from the State at large.
If more persons than one shall have the same number of votes, it
being the highest number in any district, no presidential vote shall be
counted from that district.
“V. The foregoing provisions shall apply to the election of Vice-
President.
“VI. The Congress shall have power to provide for holding and
conducting the elections of President and Vice-President, and to
establish tribunals for the decision of such elections as may be
contested.”
VII. The States shall be divided into districts by the legislatures
thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter the
same.
The present mode of election is given in Book V. of this volume.
 The Whisky Ring.

During 1875 an extensive Whisky Ring, organized to control

revenue legislation and avoidance of revenue taxes, was discovered
in the West. It was an association of distillers in collusion with
Federal officers, and for a time it succeeded in defrauding the
government of the tax on distilled spirits. This form of corruption,
after the declaration by President Grant—“let no guilty man
escape”—was traced by detectives to the portals of the White House,
but even partisan rancor could not connect the President therewith.
O. E. Babcock, however, was his private Secretary, and upon him was
charged complicity with the fraud. He was tried and acquitted, but
had to resign. Several Federal officers were convicted at St. Louis.
 Impeachment of Belknap.

Another form of corruption was discovered in 1876, when the

House impeached Wm. W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, on the
charge of selling an Indian trading establishment. The first and main
specification was, that—
On or about the second day of November, eighteen hundred and
seventy, said William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as
aforesaid, did receive from Caleb P. Marsh fifteen hundred dollars, in
consideration of his having appointed said John S. Evans to maintain
a trading establishment at Fort Sill aforesaid, and for continuing him
therein.
The following summary of the record shows the result, and that
Belknap escaped punishment by a refusal of two-thirds to vote
“guilty:”
The examination of witnesses was begun, and continued on
various days, till July 26, when the case was closed.
August 1.—The Senate voted. On the first article, thirty-five voted
guilty, and twenty-five not guilty. On the second, third and fourth,
Mr. Maxey made the thirty-sixth who voted guilty. On the fifth, Mr.
Morton made the thirty-seventh who voted guilty. The vote on first
was:
Voting Guilty—Messrs. Bayard, Booth, Cameron of
Pennsylvania, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Dawes, Dennis, Edmunds,
Gordon, Hamilton, Harvey, Hitchcock, Kelly, Kernan, Key,
McCreery, McDonald, Merrimon, Mitchell, Morrill of Vermont,
Norwood, Oglesby, Randolph, Ransom, Robertson, Sargent,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Stevenson, Thurman, Wadleigh, Wallace,
Whyte, Withers—35.
Voting Not Guilty—Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Boutwell, Bruce,
Cameron of Wisconsin, Christiancy, Conkling, Conover, Cragin,
Dorsey, Eaton, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Howe,
Ingalls, Jones of Nevada, Logan, McMillan, Paddock, Patterson,
Spencer, West, Windom, Wright—25.
Mr. Jones of Florida declined to vote. Those “voting not guilty”
generally denied jurisdiction, and so voted accordingly. Belknap had
resigned and the claim was set up that he was a private citizen.
 The White League.

By 1874 the Democrats of the South, who then generally classed

themselves as Conservatives, had gained control of all the State
governments except those of Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina.
In nearly all, the Republican governments had called upon President
Grant for military aid in maintaining their positions, but this was
declined except in the presence of such outbreak as the proper State
authorities could not suppress. In Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi,
and Texas, Grant declined to interfere save to cause the Attorney-
General to give legal advice. The condition of all these governments
demanded constant attention from the Executive, and his task was
most difficult and dangerous. The cry came from the Democratic
partisans in the South for home-rule; another came from the negroes
that they were constantly disfranchised, intimidated and assaulted
by the White League, a body of men organized in the Gulf States for
the purpose of breaking up the “carpet-bag governments.” So
conflicting were the stories, and so great the fear of a final and
destructive war of races, that the Congressional elections in the
North were for the first time since the war greatly influenced. The
Forty-fourth Congress, which met in December, 1875, had been
changed by what was called “the tidal wave,” from Republican to
Democratic, and M. C. Kerr, of Indiana, was elected Speaker. The
Senate remained Republican with a reduced margin.
The troubles in the South, and especially in Louisiana, had been in
the year previous and were still of the gravest character. Gen’l
Sheridan had been sent to New Orleans and on the 10th of January,
1875, made a report which startled the country as to the doings of the
White League. As it still remains a subject for frequent quotation we
give its text:

SHERIDAN’S REPORT.
 New Orleans, January 10, 1875.

Hon. W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War.

Since the year 1866, nearly thirty-five hundred persons, a great

majority of whom were colored men, have been killed and wounded
in this State. In 1868 the official record shows that eighteen hundred
and eighty-four were killed and wounded. From 1868 to the present
time, no official investigation has been made, and the civil
authorities in all but a few cases have been unable to arrest, convict
and punish perpetrators. Consequently, there are no correct records
to be consulted for information. There is ample evidence, however, to
show that more than twelve hundred persons have been killed and
wounded during this time, on account of their political sentiments.
Frightful massacres have occurred in the parishes of Bossier, Caddo,
Catahoula, Saint Bernard, Saint Landry, Grant and Orleans. The
general character of the massacres in the above named parishes is so
well known that it is unnecessary to describe them. The isolated
cases can best be illustrated by the following instances which I have
taken from a mass of evidence now lying before me of men killed on
account of their political principles. In Natchitoches Parish, the
number of isolated cases reported is thirty-three. In the parish of
Bienville, the number of men killed is thirty. In Red River Parish the
number of isolated cases of men killed is thirty-four. In Winn Parish
the number of isolated cases where men were killed is fifteen. In
Jackson Parish the number killed is twenty; and in Catahoula Parish
the number of isolated cases reported where men were killed is fifty;
and most of the country parishes throughout the State will show a
corresponding state of affairs. The following statement will illustrate
the character and kind of these outrages. On the 29th of August,
1874, in Red River Parish, six State and parish officers, named
Twitchell, Divers, Holland, Howell, Edgerton and Willis, were taken,
together with four negroes, under guard, to be carried out of the
State, and were deliberately murdered on the 30th of August, 1874.
The White League tried, sentenced, and hung two negroes on the
28th of August, 1874. Three negroes were shot and killed at
Brownsville, just before the arrival of the United States troops in the
parish. Two White Leaguers rode up to a negro cabin and called for a
drink of water. When the old colored man turned to draw it, they
shot him in the back and killed him. The courts were all broken up in
this district, and the district judge driven out. In the parish of Caddo,
prior to the arrival of the United States troops, all of the officers at
Shreveport were compelled to abdicate by the White League, which
took possession of the place. Among those obliged to abdicate were
Walsh, the mayor, Rapers, the sheriff, Wheaton, clerk of the court,
Durant, the recorder, and Ferguson and Renfro, administrators. Two
colored men, who had given evidence in regard to frauds committed
in the parish, were compelled to flee for their lives and reached this
city last night, having been smuggled through in a cargo of cotton. In
the parish of Bossier the White League have attempted to force the
abdication of Judge Baker, the United States Commissioner and
parish judge, together with O’Neal, the sheriff, and Walker, the clerk
of the court; and they have compelled the parish and district courts
to suspend operations. Judge Baker states that the White Leaguers
notified him several times that if he became a candidate on the
republican ticket, or if he attempted to organize the republican party,
he should not live until election.
They also tried to intimidate him through his family by making the
same threats to his wife, and when told by him that he was a United
States commissioner, they notified him not to attempt to exercise the
functions of his office. In but few of the country parishes can it be
truly said that the law is properly enforced, and in some of the
parishes the judges have not been able to hold court for the past two
years. Human life in this State is held so cheaply, that when men are
killed on account of political opinions, the murderers are regarded
rather as heroes than as criminals, in the localities where they reside,
and by the White League and their supporters. An illustration of the
ostracism that prevails in the State may be found in a resolution of a
White League club in the parish of De Soto, which states, “That they
pledge themselves under (no?) circumstances after the coming
election to employ, rent land to, or in any other manner give aid,
comfort, or credit, to any man, white or black, who votes against the
nominees of the white man’s party.” Safety for individuals who
express their opinion in the isolated portion of this State has existed
only when that opinion was in favor of the principles and party
supported by the Ku-Klux and White League organizations. Only
yesterday Judge Myers, the parish judge of the parish of
Natchitoches, called on me upon his arrival in this city, and stated
that in order to reach here alive, he was obliged to leave his home by
stealth, and after nightfall, and make his way to Little Rock,
Arkansas, and come to this city by way of Memphis. He further states
that while his father was lying at the point of death in the same
village, he was unable to visit him for fear of assassination; and yet
he is a native of the parish, and proscribed for his political
sentiments only. It is more than probable that if bad government has
existed in this State it is the result of the armed organizations, which
have now crystallized into what is called the White League; instead of
bad government developing them, they have by their terrorism
prevented to a considerable extent the collection of taxes, the holding
of courts, the punishment of criminals, and vitiated public sentiment
by familiarizing it with the scenes above described. I am now
engaged in compiling evidence for a detailed report upon the above
subject, but it will be some time before I can obtain all the requisite
data to cover the cases that have occurred throughout the State. I will
also report in due time upon the same subject in the States of
Arkansas and Mississippi.

P. H. Sheridan,
Lieutenant-General.

President Grant said in a special message to Congress, January 13,

1875:—
“It has been bitterly and persistently alleged that Kellogg was not
elected. Whether he was or not is not altogether certain, nor is it any
more certain that his competitor, McEnery, was chosen. The election
was a gigantic fraud, and there are no reliable returns of its result.
Kellogg obtained possession of the office, and in my opinion has
more right to it than his competitor.
“On the 20th of February, 1873, the Committee on Privileges and
Elections of the Senate made a report, in which they say they were
satisfied by testimony that the manipulation of the election
machinery by Warmoth and others was equivalent to twenty
thousand votes; and they add, to recognize the McEnery government
‘would be recognizing a government based upon fraud, in defiance of
the wishes and intention of the voters of the State.’ Assuming the
correctness of the statements in this report, (and they seem to have
been generally accepted by the country,) the great crime in
Louisiana, about which so much has been said, is, that one is holding
the office of governor who was cheated out of twenty thousand votes,
against another whose title to the office is undoubtedly based on
fraud, and in defiance of the wishes and intentions of the voters of
the State.
“Misinformed and misjudging as to the nature and extent of this
report, the supporters of McEnery proceeded to displace by force in
some counties of the State the appointees of Governor Kellogg; and
on the 13th of April, in an effort of that kind, a butchery of citizens
was committed at Colfax, which in blood-thirstiness and barbarity is
hardly surpassed by any acts of savage warfare.
“To put this matter beyond controversy, I quote from the charge of
Judge Woods, of the United States circuit court, to the jury in the
case of the United States vs. Cruikshank and others, in New Orleans,
in March, 1874. He said:
“‘In the case on trial there are many facts not in controversy. I
proceed to state some of them in the presence and hearing of counsel
on both sides; and if I state as a conceded fact any matter that is
disputed, they can correct me.’
“After stating the origin of the difficulty, which grew out of an
attempt of white persons to drive the parish judge and sheriff,
appointees of Kellogg, from office, and their attempted protection by
colored persons, which led to some fighting in which quite a number
of negroes were killed, the judge states:
“‘Most of those who were not killed were taken prisoners. Fifteen
or sixteen of the blacks had lifted the boards and taken refuge under
the floor of the courthouse. They were all captured. About thirty-
seven men were taken prisoners; the number is not definitely fixed.
They were kept under guard until dark. They were led out, two by
two, and shot. Most of the men were shot to death. A few were
wounded, not mortally, and by pretending to be dead were
afterward, during the night, able to make their escape. Among them
was the Levi Nelson named in the indictment.
“‘The dead bodies of the negroes killed in this affair were left
unburied until Tuesday, April 15, when they were buried by a deputy
marshal and an officer of the militia from New Orleans. These
persons found fifty-nine dead bodies. They showed pistol-shot
wounds, the great majority in the head, and most of them in the back
of the head. In addition to the fifty-nine dead bodies found, some
charred remains of dead bodies were discovered near the courthouse.
Six dead bodies were found under a warehouse, all shot in the head
but one or two, which were shot in the breast.
“‘The only white men injured from the beginning of these troubles
to their close were Hadnot and Harris. The courthouse and its
contents were entirely consumed.
“‘There is no evidence that any one in the crowd of whites bore any
lawful warrant for the arrest of any of the blacks. There is no
evidence that either Nash or Cazabat, after the affair, ever demanded
their offices, to which they had set up claim, but Register continued
to act as parish judge, and Shaw as Sheriff.
“‘These are facts in this case, as I understand them to be admitted.’
“To hold the people of Louisiana generally responsible for these
atrocities would not be just; but it is a lamentable fact that
insuperable obstructions were thrown in the way of punishing these
murderers, and the so-called conservative papers of the State not
only justified the massacre, but denounced as Federal tyranny and
despotism the attempt of the United States officers to bring them to
justice. Fierce denunciations ring through the country about office-
holding and election matters in Louisiana, while every one of the
Colfax miscreants goes unwhipped of justice, and no way can be
found in this boasted land of civilization and Christianity to punish
the perpetrators of this bloody and monstrous crime.
“Not unlike this was the massacre in August last. Several northern
young men of capital and enterprise had started the little and
flourishing town of Coushatta. Some of them were republicans and
office-holders under Kellogg. They were therefore doomed to death.
Six of them were seized and carried away from their homes and
murdered in cold blood. No one has been punished; and the
conservative press of the State denounced all efforts to that end, and
boldly justified the crime.”
The House on the 1st of March, 1875, by a strict party vote, 155
Republicans to 86 Democrats, recognized the Kellogg government.
The Senate did the same on March 5th, by 33 to 23, also a party vote.
 Under the influence of the resolution unanimously adopted by the
House of Representatives of the United States, recommending that
the House of Representatives of that State seat the persons rightfully
entitled thereto from certain districts, the whole subject was, by
consent of parties, referred to the Special Committee of the House
who examined into Louisiana affairs, viz.: Messrs. George F. Hoar,
William A. Wheeler, William P. Frye, Charles Foster, William Walter
Phelps, Clarkson N. Potter and Samuel S. Marshall, who, after
careful examination, made an award, which was adopted by the
Legislature in April, 1875. It is popularly known as the “Wheeler
Compromise.”
 Text of the Wheeler Compromise.

New Orleans, March, 1875.

Whereas, It is desirable to adjust the difficulties growing out of the

general election in this State, in 1872, the action of the Returning
Board in declaring and promulgating the results of the general
election, in the month of November last, and the organization of the
House of Representatives, on the 4th day of January last, such
adjustment being deemed necessary to the re-establishment of peace
and order in this State.
Now, therefore, the undersigned members of the Conservative
party, claiming to have been elected members of the House of
Representatives, and that their certificates of election have been
illegally withheld by the Returning Board, hereby severally agree to
submit their claims to seats in the House of Representatives to the
award and arbitrament of George F. Hoar, William A. Wheeler,
William P. Frye, Charles Foster, William Walter Phelps, Clarkson N.
Potter, and Samuel S. Marshall, who are hereby authorized to
examine and determine the same upon the equities of the several
cases; and when such awards shall be made, we hereby severally
agree to abide by the same:
And such of us as may become members of the House of
Representatives, under this arrangement, hereby severally agree to
sustain by our influence and votes the joint resolution herein set
forth.
[Here follow the signatures of the Democrats who claimed that
their certificates of election as members of the House of
Representatives had been illegally withheld by the Returning Board.]
And the undersigned claiming to have been elected Senators from
the Eighth and Twenty-Second Senatorial Districts, hereby agree to
submit their claims to the foregoing award and arbitrament, and in
all respects to abide the results of the same.
[Here follow the signatures of the Democrats, who made a like
claim as to seats in the Senate.]
And the undersigned, holding certificates of election from the
Returning Board, hereby severally agree that upon the coming in of
the award of the foregoing arbitrators they will, when the same shall
have been ratified by the report of the Committee on Elections and
Qualifications of the body in session at the State House claiming to
be the House of Representatives, attend the sitting of the said House
for the purpose of adopting said report, and if said report shall be
adopted, and the members embraced in the foregoing report shall be
seated, then the undersigned severally agree that immediately upon
the adoption of said report they will vote for the following joint
resolution:
[Here follow the signatures of the Democratic members of the
House of Representatives in relation to whose seats there was no
controversy.]

JOINT RESOLUTION.

Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That

said Assembly, without approving the same, will not disturb the
present State Government claiming to have been elected in 1872,
known as the Kellogg Government, or seek to impeach the Governor
for any past official acts, and that henceforth it will accord to said
Governor all necessary and legitimate support in maintaining the
laws and advancing the peace and prosperity of the people of this
State: and that the House of Representatives, as to its members, as
constituted under the award of George F. Hoar, W. A. Wheeler, W. P.
Frye, Charles Foster, Samuel S. Marshall, Clarkson N. Potter, and
William Walter Phelps, shall remain without change except by
resignation or death of members until a new general election, and
that the Senate, as now organized, shall also remain unchanged
except so far as that body shall make changes on contests.
 TEXT OF THE AWARD.

New York, March 13, 1875.

The undersigned having been requested to examine the claims of

the persons hereinafter named to seats in the Senate and House of
Representatives of the State of Louisiana, and having examined the
returns and the evidence relating to such claims, are of opinion, and
do hereby find, award and determine, that F. S. Goode is entitled to a
seat in the Senate from the Twenty-second Senatorial District; and
that J. B. Elam is not entitled to a seat in the Senate from the Eighth
Senatorial District; and that the following named persons are
entitled to seats in the House of Representatives from the following
named parishes respectively: From the Parish of Assumption, R. R.
Beaseley, E. F. X. Dugas; from the Parish of Bienville, James Brice;
from the Parish of De Soto, J. S. Scales, Charles Schuler; from the
Parish of Jackson, E. Kidd; from the Parish of Rapides, James
Jeffries, R. C. Luckett, G. W. Stafford; from the Parish of Terrebone,
Edward McCollum, W. H. Keyes; from the Parish of Winn, George A.
Kelley. And that the following named persons are not entitled to
seats which they claim from the following named parishes
respectively, but that the persons now holding seats from said
parishes are entitled to retain the seats now held by them; from the
Parish of Avoyelles, J. O. Quinn; from the Parish of Iberie, W. F.
Schwing; from the Parish of Caddo, A. D. Land, T. R. Vaughan, J. J.
Horan. We are of opinion that no person is entitled to a seat from the
Parish of Grant.
In regard to most of the cases, the undersigned are unanimous; as
to the others the decision is that of a majority.

George F. Hoar,
W. A. Wheeler,
W. P. Frye,
Charles Foster,
Clarkson N. Potter,
William Walter Phelps,
Samuel S. Marshall.