|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
395
|
HON. LORENZO CROUNSE.
March 4th, 1873--March 4th, 1877.
When Lorenzo Crounse came to Rulo, Richardson
County, Nebraska, in 1864, he seems to have been the "right man in
the right place." The immediate community and the Territory stood
in need of self-reliant citizens, and one who had made
professional life possible, by teaching in winter, in order to
acquire a legal education, had certainly demonstrated this potent
quality. Born in Schoharie County, New York, January,
1834--admitted to the bar in 1856--married in 1860--Captain of
Battery K, 1st Regiment New York Light Artillery in 1861--wounded
at Cedar Mountain in 1862 and in same year resigned and resumed
practice till 1864--he was therefore 30 years of age when he
settled upon the shore of the turbid Missouri.
A republican in politics, he at once affiliated
with the soldier element, and being of sound morals, his legal
acquirements indicated him as worthy of legislative and
constitutional convention honors.
His advocacy of the adoption of the first state
constitution satisfied the people of his fitness for Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, to which he was elected in 1866, and
in which he presided till 1872, when elected a member of
Congress.
CONGRESSMAN.
On the 1st day of December, 1873, at the
beginning of the 43rd Congress, Judge Lorenzo Crounse responded to
the roll call of Nebraska. At the previous session of the 42nd
Congress a salary bill had been passed to equalize the pay of
members; but the party in power had been charged with great
extravagance in appropriating money, which their opponents pressed
so vigorously, that a portion of themselves joined in the popular
demand for the repeal of the act. Accordingly, in the first hours
of the session, many who voted for and received their pay under
the denounced law joined the army of repealers; and out of the
|
396
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
first nineteen bills placed upon the House calendar, sixteen
were for repeal, or a radical change of the enactment, some going
so far as to advocate a reduction of salaries till all amounts
returned should leave their salaries as under the former law. But
this theory received its quietus when Butler, of Massachusetts,
demanded that all "back pay," in former years, under similar laws,
should also be refunded. Amidst the clamor of the day Mr. Crounse
delivered his maiden speech. In this brief effort he denounced
political death bed confessions, pell-mell retreats, and cringing
supplications; but also recognized the fact of "vox populi, vox
Dei," when not issued from Hades.
MR.
CROUNSE: I am not advised very
particularly in regard to the amendment offered by the
gentlemen from Tennessee (Mr. Maynard). While I might at the
proper time and under proper circumstances vote for it, I
apprehend that at this time it will embarrass what I think is
the principle which is controlling this House.
I have sat here for some time listening
attentively to this debate on the salary question, for the
purpose of discovering, if possible, what principle is guiding
this House in this action. It is conceded that the act of March
last found its warrant in the Constitution, and that it had
precedent after precedent to support it. It is conceded on all
hands that, so far as the action of this House is concerned, it
is fully warranted by law. Now, if I have been able to discover
the motives which prompt the action of this House at this time
it is a reflex of the principles and the sentiment which it is
said emanate from the people, and which brands the act of the
last Congress in regard to salaries as a fraud in toto.
That is why I would have liked to support the amendment of the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Poland), for the purpose of testing
the honesty of the House.
It is a very cheap business for gentlemen to
make their proclamations of obedience to the will of the
people, and all that; but, sir, it costs something when
gentlemen have to put their hands right down into their own
pockets and pay $5,000 for such a proclamation. I say I am
totally opposed to attempts to make this sort of cheap
reputation for honesty and frugality; and I am glad to have an
opportunity to proclaim my conviction on this question. I
desire that my acts upon this floor shall be characterized by
honesty of motive. I want not to be seared by any false clamor;
nor will I co-operate with those who create such
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
397
|
clamor and then run from it, hastening in a sort of
scramble to see who can run fastest, and dive deepest, and stay
down longest. [Laughter.] Such a course is belittling;
it is degrading to the dignity of the House. If we do a right
act, let us stand by it, clamor or no clamor. It is not, I say,
the province of a statesman to cower before the clamor of his
constituents. It is his duty to mold public sentiment. If we
find, upon full examination, that it is necessary to increase
our salaries to $10,000, let us do it; if we find it necessary
to bring them down to $5,000, let us do it. But let us consider
the question like gentlemen and like statesmen. Let us not
stand here trembling in our shoes lest we may not return to
these seats again. I let no consideration of that kind weigh
with me. There is an old French saying, "What must a people be
whose god is a monkey?" I say, what must a people be who are to
be satisfied by idle clamor and protestations of bowing to the
popular will? I have but little confidence in a large part of
these protestations. I make no reflection upon any member; but
I appeal to all whether there has not been a sort of
heartlessness and emptiness in much that has been said
here.
If it should be the disposition of this House
to repeal the act of last March, so as to put all these
salaries back in status quo, I shall stand with other
gentlemen in support of such a measure; and when the proper
time comes, I will consider fairly, squarely, and honestly this
question of salaries; but at present let us repeal the act in
toto, if that is a proper reflex of the sentiment of the
people.
Busied with committee duties and keeping up a
very voluminous correspondence with interested constituents, he
next addressed the House in opposition to army reduction. This
occurred February 4th, 1874, when he ran counter to the orthodox
doctrine of Indian Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, so far as this bill
contemplates a reduction of the army it will have my
opposition. There are considerations of a general nature,
perhaps, which might lead us to oppose this bill, lying in the
fact that this Government should keep an army sufficient to
protect itself and to maintain its dignity.
I wish, however, to speak more particularly
from my standpoint. With the present number of the army I find
there are allotted to my State but 1,032 soldiers. That, I
know, is wholly inadequate to meet the demands of the citizens
of that State. And I might speak in behalf of the
|
398
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
Territories beyond the State I represent, which have
no vote on this floor.
But I speak understandingly, I speak
intelligently, I think, when I say that this number is wholly
inadequate to the demands of the people of Nebraska. And when I
speak for the people of Nebraska I do not speak for that
long-haired set of bullies whom some gentlemen may consider as
the representatives of the frontiersmen. I speak for a class of
men who have been induced to emigrate to that western country
in search of free homes, and honest yeomanry, men who called
for the construction of the Pacific Railroad, and who are
seeking to develop the resouces of that far off county.
Sir, it was an ill-advised remark of the
gentleman having charge of this bill when he suggested that
necessity might demand that we retract the borders of
civilization. Sir, it would be a sad and humiliating confession
for this Government to declare its inability to protect any of
the citizens within its borders. I demand for the people of my
section that protection to which their honest energy entitles
them. I am not speaking in the interest of contractors. I
repudiate the intimation which fell from the lips of some
gentleman, that the West is clamorous for the increase of the
army as contributing, perhaps, to the benefit of the
contractors. I speak not for that class of men. I say that man
who has not read of the troubles exising upon the borders of my
own State has given but little attention to the history of this
country. I could produce here letters from the Governor of my
State, received within the last day or two, in which he asks
for military protection to the settlers. I might refer to the
columns of the daily newspapers, by which it could be shown
that almost every morning we are startled with news of raids by
the Sioux and other Indians upon the peaceful settlers of that
state. Such things retard the settlement, not only of our
state, but of the entire West. It is important that the
Government should adopt such a policy as shall give to settlers
that feeling of secuity which will encourage emigration.
When Mr. Shanks, of Indiana, demanded
evidence of Indian hostilities, Mr. Crounse replied:
I can give the gentleman the authority of the Governor
of my State, a gentleman who needs no eulogy at my hands.
MR. SHANKS: We
want evidence, not eulogies.
MR. CROUNSE: If
the gentleman wants a scalp I have not provided myself with one
to show him [Laughter.]
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
399
|
MR.
SHANKS: This general talk amounts to
nothing; I want facts.
MR. CROUNSE: The
gentleman would not probably be convinced if an angel from
Heaven came here to bear testimony. But if the gentleman could
put himself in the position of my people, he would occupy a
different attitude on this question.
In a discussion on removing the restriction
from the timber culture law, which allowed only one quarter in
each section to be secured under its provisions, he contended
that, if repealed, "Men of enterprise and capital would go into
this matter upon a broad scheme. If the object is, as I suppose it
to be, to secure the growth of timber, it seems to me that this
restriiction should be taken from the bill."
RAILROAD BONDS
When Thurston County, Washington Territory,
asked permission to issue bonds to a short line railroad, being
deprived by an organic act. Mr. Crounse became a warm advocate of
their course; and in addition to other arguments said:
I come from a state where this sort
of legislation has prevailed to some extent; and I know that
upon the whole it has been beneficial to the State of Nebraska.
I represent to-day upon this floor not less perhaps than three
hundred thousand souls; I represent a state that has not less
than twelve hundred miles of railroad. Every foot of that
railroad has been built by just the kind of aid which is sought
here. And I know further that not one foot of that railroad
would probably have been built to-day had it not been for such
aid, and Nebraska would to-day have been almost a wild without
it.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Burchard) is
one of a number of representatives whose constituencies are
worth millions, and who, without their great railroad interest,
would, as it were, be worth nothing. The railroads, and they
alone, have built up the states which they represent. This
territory is away off by itself; it is represented here by a
delegate who has the simple privilege of opening his mouth, but
who has no vote upon a question of vital interest to his
people. For some reason or other in the organic law of that
territory was a clause prohibiting giving aid of this kind.
That delegate has brought forward here a case which I think in
all particulars must commend
|
400
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
itself to the good judgment of every member here. His
people cannot at once raise the means for building this road.
They are willing, however, to put an incumbrance upon their
property of every kind, not to exceed 9 per cent., and let the
burden be distributed equally over them all, when by a
two-thirds vote it shall be deemed advisable by the people.
With all these guards around the bill it does seem proper that
the gentleman making this request, perhaps the only one which
he will ask in behalf of his Territory, should not be refused
by this congress.
EXPOSED CONDITION OF NEBRASKA.
The question being on an appropriation of
$50,000 for the erection of a fort in Nebraska, Mr. Crounse
said:
I send to the Clerk's desk and ask
to have read the recommendation of General Ord, who is in
command of that district in favor of this appropriation.
The Clerk read as follows:
"I have again to call attention to the
exposed condition of Nebraska, north of the Union Pacific
railroad, and extending from the Missouri River for three
hundred miles westward, in which there is not a single military
station. This country is as rich as any other portion of
Nebraska, but the fear of Indians has retarded its settlement.
It has been subject to frequent raids from the Sioux, from
Spotted Tail's and now from Red Cloud's reservation. When on a
recent visit east of the first named chief he did me the honor
to call, with his lieutenants and concubines, at my office, I
called his attention to a raid which some of what were
considered to be his people had just committed on the peaceable
Baptist and Danish settlers on the Loup, he replied in quite a
haughty manner that he had not come here to be talked to in
that way. As I had no power to control his movements, or make
him or the people whom he claimed to rule respect the property
of the white settlers, the touching upon facts put an end to
further conversation. I think a post should be established
somewhere about midway on a line drawn from Fort Randall, on
the Missouri River, to Fort McPherson on the Platte. It need
not cost to exceed $50,000, and under the sense of security
which it would give to settlers the rapid increase of a
tax-paying population would soon repay the outlay."
MR.
CROUNSE: I would say in addition to that
that this appropriation is warmly recommended by the Secretary
of War. I have not his letter here, because this matter has
been sprung upon the House at a time when I did not anticipate
it. In addition to that, I would say that General Sherman told
me personally--and I think I report him correctly--that if he
had only $50,000 at his command for protection of this kind he
would appropriate it for the
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
401
|
construction of that post asked for in Nebraska to the
exclusion of any other place. This appropriation has been
recommended for several years in succession by the general in
command of the army; and I may say, what is perhaps familiar to
members of the House, that the Indian depredations committed
last fall, not yet a year ago, in Nebraska, when the Sioux
entered the very heart of the western part of the State and had
a contest with the Pawnees, resulting in the slaughter of
seventy or eighty persons, occurred in organized counties of
the State of Nebraska because of the want of this military
post. If we had had such a post there we could have intercepted
their approach. They came immediately from the north into the
part of Nebraska named, and this post would have been directly
on the line which they must necessarily have passed over, and
its establishment now would promote the safety and security of
the settlements of Nebraska. This appropriation is not only
asked in the interest of Nebraska, but of all emigrating to and
interested in the settlement of the West. Nebraska has asked
nothing at the hands of Congress during this term but this, and
this is a measure in behalf of the security of life and the
advancement of civilization. It is as little as Congress can do
for the State; and in view of the fact that all the officers of
the army, the Secretary of War, the general of the army, and
the general in command of the department, indorse the
appropriation in the strongest language, I hope it will be
made.
When anything breaks the monotony of the
Great Sahara of American Eloquence (the Congressional Reports),
the benefactor deserves a medal, an ovation or a monument. With
what delight do we turn from the frigidity of accumulated
statistics, naked statement or windy declamation, the concentrated
ingredients of a parliamentary automaton, to find revealed a
living statue, in the attitudes of attack and defense, of lofty
indignation and tender regard, shielding the weak against the
oppressor and paying a tribute of independent thought to the
dignity of unpurchased manhood. During the dark and bloody days of
the rebellion of 1861-64 about as much power was wielded in
Congress by party leaders, in their sphere, as was awarded to
generals in the field; and the "rank and file" of ordinary
representatives were as docile under command as the soldier who
carried the musket.
27
|
402
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
With equal promptness Hardee's Tactics and
the constitution were superseded, and with equal celerity the army
deserter and political recusant executed.
Even conceding the imperious demands of
emergencies, there was danger of establishing pernicious
precedents.
BRASS BUTTONS AT A DISCOUNT.
If fifteen minutes were a liberal respite
after the finding of a drum head court-martial, so fifteen
minutes' discussion before demanding the previous question might
amply suffice on the way to the political gibbet.
On the 2nd day of June, 1874, still in the first
session of the 43d Congress, Judge Poland, of Vermont, Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, reported back a bill relative to courts
and judicial officers in Utah Territory.
Having allowed two members to propose
amendments, Mr. Crounse asked to be allowed a single remark, to
which Mr. Poland replied, "Not a word." It should be remembered
that on such occasions the distinguished chairman wore a blue,
swallow-tailed coat, with brass buttons, which seemed to punctuate
the denial. Having spoken fifteen minutes he demanded the previous
question and offered the delegate from Utah forty-five minutes,
with such clemency as he used to accord convicts before
pronouncing sentence of death.
MR.
CROUNSE: I hope the previous question
will not be sustained. This bill is too important to be forced
through under the previous question.
MR.
CANNON, of Utah: I yield ten minutes to
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Crounse).
MR.
CROUNSE: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the
Committee on the Territories I have had some opportunity to
consider the questions involved in this bill, and I did hope
that the opportunity would present itself, when I might present
to the House some of the considerations which are here involved
and which relate to the details of this bill. In the
consideration of a question so important as this the House
cannot afford to be swayed or governed by passion or prejudice.
Standing up here in defense of what I believe to be a proper
system of law for the government of this Territory, I wish to
disclaim in advance any disposition to defend the system of
polygamy. I am not here
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
403
|
for that purpose, but I am here to join hands with all
who wish to put down this system by proper and legitimate
means.
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
Sir, we should not confound this
question of polygamy with the question of framing a proper
system of laws to govern the Territory of Utah. Our action upon
this bill will become a precedent, for the future. If to-day we
can, under the guise of all assault on Mormondom, frame a
system of laws which in the future may be evoked as a precedent
in order to oppress people of other Territories, it would be,
indeed a dangerous step for us to take. I regret, sir, the
sentiment that I see displayed around me. Within the hearing of
my voice, when I was contending here that this bill should be
submitted to proper consideration by the House, and that the
previous question should not, be insisted on without fall
discussion of its several provisions, I heard gentlemen say
that they did not care what was in the bill; that they were
going for it anyhow. Sir, if we act in such a spirit as that,
what hope is there for any people who are to be run down by the
United States Government.
A JOB FIXED UP.
Upon this question in relation to
the government of the territory of Utah the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Poland) seems to have identified himself with the
subject from the very outset. The annals of Congress show that
each session a "Poland bill" has been introduced. It is
generally introduced on the first day of the session, and is
referred to the Committee on the Territories and to the
Committee on the Judiciary. It seems that this gentleman has
taken, in familiar language, "the job" of fixing up the affairs
of Utah. And when I respectfully asked the liberty to propound
a question while the gentleman was making a statement here, he
found it convenient to deny me the right of propounding
interrogatories or correcting what I regard misstatements, when
he would tolerate other gentlemen whom he knew to be in
sympathy with the bill. The gentleman form Mississippi (Mr.
McKee) could get up and interrogate him at pleasure, and it was
entirely convenient and pleasant for this to be done; but the
gentleman knew from my connection with the bill that it would
perhaps not be profitable to tolerate any questions on my part.
APOLOGY ACCEPTED.
MR.
POLAND: I certainly intended no
discourtesy to the gentleman. 1 had only fifteen minutes in
which to explain
|
404
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
the bill, and I had no time to yield for
interrogatories. If the language I used to the gentleman
appeared to be discourteous, I beg his pardon.
MR.
CROUNSE: I accept the apology, but the
facts are there and the inference can be drawn. When I wanted
to make an inquiry and to correct a misstatement, at that time
the gentleman could not tolerate a question; no, sir; not a bit
of it. But when others propounded inquiries, then there was an
opportunity, and a disposition to allow them to do so.
FALSE PRETENSES.
Now, in order to make this bill
palatable to the House, if I may use the term, it must be
prefaced with some imaginary grievances, or the statement of
the condition of affairs which really does not exist. It
becomes necessary to refer away back to the early history of
this people, when they were isolated, away off, and when they
had imposed and inflicted upon them United States officials who
by their arrogance became intolerable. At such a time they may
have rebelled, and such circumstances must be made a pretext
for calling forth action on the part of Congress to-day. But I
say, look over the Territory of Utah to-day and see where is
the rebellion which is talked of here, where is the definance
(sic) of law. Canvass and scan the organic act organizing the
Territory and by which the people are allowed to make laws for
themselves. Look over those laws and compare them with the laws
of any other territory of the United States, and then see where
they fall short. Not one word is brought forward here, beyond
general assertion that things are all wrong there, for the
foundation of this action on the part of Congress.
FALLACY EXPLODED.
The gentleman says that while the
United States appoints its marshals, the Territory, in defiance
of law, appoints its marshals. Why is this? The office of
United States marshal is as distinct from the office of
territorial marshal as day is from night. Their offices run in
different directions. One is charged with the execution of the
writs, processes, etc., emanating from the United States courts
and in United States cases. I have the record of a case here
where the judges who were sent out to Utah attempted to set
aside the territorial marshal. That Territory saw fit under its
laws to appoint a marshal; for what? For the disposition of
matters arising under their laws, and in no way in conflict
with the laws of the United States.
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
405
|
Now, that they have a right to do.
If that is denied them, then one of the first principles of a
republican system of government is gone and wiped out. When a
people in a territory cannot be accorded the right to enact
their own laws--those that relate to themselves, as long as
they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United
States, and if they cannot select their own officers to execute
those laws, then I say you are striking down the very first
principles of American liberty. You are taxing men without
representation; you are demanding obedience to laws which they
have no voice in making, and you foist upon them officers to
execute the laws under no responsibility to the people
governed. It is a proposition unheard of in the history of
American law-making or jurisprudence.
I say then that the charge brought here was
that they elected a territorial marshal in defiance of the laws
of the United States, which provided a United States marshal.
Judge McKeon, of the supreme court of that Territory, took that
position; a position never taken before in any other territory
of the United States, That case was brought to the supreme
court of the United States, and how was it terminated there? I
have the record before me, but cannot take time to read it.
Here is the information filed by the United States officer and
the answer of the territorial marshal, where he distinctly says
that he disclaims any right to interfere in the control of
United States affairs; that he is elected under the organic act
relating to the affairs of Utah, is elected by the legislature
of Utah, and in pursuance of that election he acted in the
discharge of his duties as such in serving writs and processes
which emanated from the court as far as they related to
territorial matters; for instance, the crime of larceny,
murder, or any offense which is made such by the laws of the
Territory of Utah. In those cases where the processes went
forth through the territorial marshal, he executed the writs
and processes, as he had a right to do, and as he should do,
they involving no infraction of any law of the United States.
But that, I say, is made an offense.
GAG RULE.
When I asked from the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Poland) the privilege of interrupting him that I
might inquire whether or not the United States had not
sustained that position, I was denied that courtesy. This bill
must be pushed down our throats as though this House were a lot
of willing subjects only too ready and anxious to go to any
length that gentleman may dictate. This measure is
|
406
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
to be put through under the whip and spur of the
previous question. But an hour--one poor hour--is given to the
discussion of matters involving the rights of one hundred and
thirty-five thousand people, whose only fault is that they
entertain religious convictions differing from those
entertained by gentlemen here. I tell you, sir, it will not do
for this congress to assume a mock regard for particular laws
while unmindful of others. Let every man turn his sight inward;
let him stand before the forum of his own conscience; let him
ask himself whether he has any religious convictions at all.
Men who have none at all are perhaps too apt to be intolerant
toward those who have. I say that while I deplore the system
prevailing in Utah, while I am riot in sympathy with that form
of religion, while I desire and hope that in the progress of
civilization it will be wiped out, I hope the American Congress
will not act hastily in this regard.
As I wish to be sparing of the time of the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), I can only say that I did
hope to assail this bill in its detail. There are several views
I would like to submit in which I am satisfied this House would
concur with me.
HOME RULE DEMANDED.
I am satisfied that this House would
not upon deliberation enact the seeming anomaly of having one
set of people make laws while officers appointed by another and
distinct authority are to execute those laws. Why, sir, by this
mode of proceeding you strike down the very lawmaking power
itself. If these people cannot have their own marshals and
their own prosecuting attorneys, to proceed against offenses
arising under their own laws, they will make no laws. They will
wipe out their laws entirely if they cannot have a voice in
executing them. Examine all the laws that have been passed
since the organization of this Government, and where will you
find that any like this has been enacted?
MR.
ELDREDGE: The gentleman will allow me to
suggest to him that the marshals selected by the local
authorities of Utah sustain precisely the same relation to that
Territory that our sheriffs bear to the respective states.
There is no difference or distinction in that regard.
MR.
CROUNSE: Precisely. That is what I wish
to have understood by the House; that we are asked to enact a
law which is in defiance of all precedents in our legislation,
and for no sufficient reason; because the system of polygamy,
if it is to be assailed at all, is to be assailed
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
407
|
under the, laws of the United States. Congress should
not, and I say cannot in consistency with the principles
underlying our institutions, enact laws which will thrust upon
that people a set of Government officials responsible to no one
except the Government here at Washington.
EQUAL RIGHTS.
I say that this people does not
deserve such treatment. Aside from the question of their
religion they are entitled to the. same rights, immunities and
privileges which would be claimed in behalf of any other
people. They have shown themselves law-abiding and industrious.
You may look over all the States and Territories of this Union,
and nowhere will you find the rate of taxation lighter than in
that Territory. In this respect the people of that Territory
have made a record which ought to be the envy of the general
government and of every state government. I say that people who
have behaved in this manner should not bring down upon their
heads the enactment of laws which must simply operate to enrich
United States officials and turn the people over, bound hand
and foot, to the tender mercies of officers whom they have no
voice in choosing.
While I would not antagonize the bill in
gross, I hope that as presented here and sought to be forced
through it will be voted down, and that the opportunity may be
given to correct and modify it in those essential particulars
which I know this House upon calm consideration would not
approve. As a Congress we cannot afford to act upon the
principle which I intimated at the outset appeared to be
influencing many members here. I fear that principle operates
too largely. I have never known a case in which the law for
the, government of a great people who are asking to become a
state of this Union has been passed in such haste, and with so
little apparent necessity.
The foregoing was the most elaborate of the
speeches in his first session, and for boldness, directness, and
the exhibition of a courage to stand by the discarded and
unpopular, was worthy of high commendation. The index of the
Congressional Record for the session shows eighteen bills
introduced, incidental remarks made on eighteen different
occasions, in addition to the speeches that have passed in review.
During the second session of his first term, the usual incident
occurred of the unpopular demanding an advocate, and finding one
in the new member from the West.
|
408
|
NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
|
|
THE BEST DEFENDED.
MR.
CROUNSE: Mr. Chairman--Representing a
state which includes within her borders several Indian
agencies, I perhaps would be held inexcusable were I to sit
here and listen to the denunciation of Indian agents generally
and not put in a defense in behalf of those whom I know not to
be open to such charges. Whatever may be the character of
others of those who may have been intrusted with agencies in
the past, I am glad to say that from a personal acquaintance
with some, and from what I know of others in Nebraska, the
agents there I believe are above suspicion. Some have been
residents of the State, all well known there, and the gentleman
from Kentucky could not with safety or impunity make the broad
and sweeping charges of fraud and stealing there as those in
which he has indulged here. I have taken occasion to visit some
of the agencies, and have a personal acquaintance in some
instances with the employes and subalterns, and I have no doubt
but the assistants are well chosen and that the affairs of the
agency are conducted with honesty and fidelity. Speaking
understandingly, sir, I repudiate the charges so unjustly made
against gentlemen who are not here in a situation to defend
themselves. I would be as quick as any gentleman on the floor
to denounce and hunt down corruption in the Indian Department
if any exists, but I should be more surprised than any one to
find it in the quarter of which I have spoken.
WAR DEPARTMENT AND INDIANS.
During the first session of the 44th
Congress, Mr. Crounse called attention to his contemplated vote on
a bill for the transfer of the Indian Bureau to the War
Department, believing that his constituency required such a vote;
and yet his better judgment condemned it.
It is my purpose to vote for the
bill. In my judgment, if this bill should be passed, a very
great mistake will be committed. If the purpose were to
exterminate this race of people, to subjugate them, to crush
out all spirit or disposition for improvement, to surround them
with influences, at once demoralizing to them and to the army
itself, why then the passage of this bill would attain the
object most effectually. But in this enlightened age, with the
advance already made in the civilization, education and
Christianization of the Indians, I say that the passage of this
bill, throwing not only the wild Indians, but those in
|
|
MEMBERS OF U. S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
|
409
|
all stages of civilization, advancement and culture,
into the hands of the military, wholly unfitted by education
and vocation to continue the work of educating them, is a move
in the wrong direction.
CORPORATE ASSUMPTIONS AND EXACTIONS.
He also took occasion to illustrate corporate
assumptions and encroachments in discussing a railroad bill, and
referred to the Union Pacific bridge tax upon freight and
travel.
To the people I immediately
represent it proves very onerous. Raising corn, wheat and like
coarse products, dependent largely for their value upon the
rate of transportation, they must submit to this extraordinary
exaction to pass these articles barely beyond the threshold of
the State. This matter of vital concern to a people whose fuel,
whose lumber, salt and the like must pay such high tariff, does
not particularly concern members who may never see Nebraska,
and whose constituents are indifferent to the rates of tolls
charged. The contest here is therefore not an easy one with a
corporation with millions to make or lose and which can and
does employ the ablest counsel of the land, and expert agents
to protect its interests. Before some of the committees of the
House I have met the ablest counsel of the land, gentlemen of
national repute, while in the corridors and lobby some no doubt
listen to what I say. I am pointed to "agents," or lobbyists
employed at good prices, by one and another of these companies
to "reason" with members and protect the company's interests.
In the last session of his congressional
career, while engaged in a railroad discussion, he introduced the
Union Pacific road in the light of a political dictator.
The experience of the people of
Nebraska is not an encouraging one. The Union Pacific Company
has even undertaken to run the politics of the State.
At our last convention, when the interests of
the road were thought to be interested, the unseemly spectacle
was presented of Jay Gould and Sidney Dillon being at Omaha in
communication with the superintendent of the road, Mr. Clark,
at the convention, the wires communicating between them.
© 2001 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam
Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller
