DEBATE CONTINUED OCTOBER 4, 1888.

Mr. BURNES. As a matter of privilege, I ask for the further consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the general deficiency bill.

Mr. WHITTHORNE. Will the gentleman yield to me for one moment? The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. KILGORE] has demanded the regular order.

Mr. BURNES.

I ask the Clerk to read amendments 112 and 113.

The Clerk read as follows:

To further aid the Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah Territory, under its articles of incorporation, in the establishment and maintenance of an industrial and educational institution in Salt Lake City for the benefit of the dependent women and children of Utah and Idaho Territories who desire to sever their allegiance to the Mormon Church, $75,000, and for contingent expenses of the association, $5,000; in all, $80,000.

* * *

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman from Missouri yield to me a moment for a suggestion? Reverting to the aqueduct investigation here, in view of the fact that this conference report will go back to the committee of conference, it has occurred to me since that matter was up here yesterday that if there were any doubt at all about the resolution as it now stands being broad enough in its scope to authorize the committee to have engineers from civil life employed to make further investigation into the character of the work, it ought to be made sufficiently broad to accomplish that purpose, because in a matter of so much importance, involving a couple of million of dollars-it will probably involve that amount before we get through with it—and where the derelictions seem to lie at the door of the Engineer Department of the Government it may not be safe for the committee to rely exclusively upon investigations made by that department.

Mr. BURNES. I think the resolution is broad enough to cover the suggestion of the gentleman from Arkansas. That part of the resolution which provides that the committee shall have power to employ experts would, I think, cover the point. Mr. ROGERS. If so, of course my suggestion is not necessary.

Mr. BURNES. But the committee will consider the matter carefully and thoroughly. The object of the committee-and if we do not accomplish it we shall fail only in ability—is to have a full and thorough investigation, so that all the information upon the subject that can possibly be of any value may be obtained and communicated to the House; but if the resolution shall be found insufficient it will be enlarged in conference.

SPEECH ON UTAH INDUSTRIAL CHRISTIAN HOME.

OCTOBER 4, 1888.

[CONTINUATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT DEBATE.]

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendments which have just been read are to my mind exceedingly.

Mr. ROGERS. Novel.

It is difficult to select a proper

Mr. BURNES. I was about to say ridiculous. word to describe them. They are, thanks to my friend from Arkansas, most novel, unique, unparalleled, and unprecedented. They do not express a high order of business judgment or discretion, nor that practical common sense which we usually expect from a Congressman, even if he serves elsewhere than in this House.

I wish to call particular attention to the language of these amendments. The first proposition is that $80,000, including $5,000 for contingent expenses, shall now be appropriated and placed in the hands of the treasurer of the Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah Territory to further aid that institution, under its articles of incorporation, in the establishment and maintenance of an industrial and educational institution in Salt Lake City for the benefit of the dependent women and children of Utah and Idaho Territories who desire to "sever their allegiance to the Mormon Church."

The second amendment provides, substantially, that this money shall be used by this private corporation, without limitation or restriction, upon a mere sentimentality which underlies the whole proposition.

In order to have before the House all the law bearing upon the subject, I will commence with the commencement.

The first provision with regard to the matter will be found in the sundry civil appropriation bill for the year ending June 30, 1887. It was an amendment put upon that bill by the Senate (and in the conference the House was compelled to yield, or did yield, to it at the time), and was intended merely to aid in the support of indigent women and children whom the rigors of Federal laws against polygamy had made homeless and husbandless and fatherless. It is as follows:

INDUSTRIAL HOME IN UTAH TERRITORY.

That is not the name of the private corporation now figuring in our deliberations. To aid in the establishment of an industrial home in the Territory of Utah to provide employment and means of self-support for the dependent women who renounce polygamy, and the children of such women, of tender age, in said Territory, with a view to aid in the suppression of polygamy therein, $40,000; said sum to be expended upon requisition of and under the management of a board of control, to consist of the Governor, the justices of the supreme court, and the district attorney of said Territory; and the said board shall duly and properly expend said sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose herein indicated, and shall from time to time report to the President their acts and doings and expenditures hereunder for transmission to Congress.

I ought, perhaps, to say in this connection that the Senate amendment was for $50,000, but in conference the Senate submitted to a reduction of $10,000, making the amount $40,000.

Under the provision of law just read the board of management proceeded to rent a private residence in the city of Salt Lake, for which they agreed to pay $45 per month; and at an expense of some $2,000 they furnished this house and placed it in charge of some ladies representing this private corporation. For ten months the institution thus established was carried on by them, when for some reason or other the representatives of the corporation alluded to came to Congress, and, as we learned from a speech made the other day in another body, and through a distinguished gentleman from the State of Vermont, prepared an amendment to the general deficiency bill, and had it incorporated therein. That Senate amendment on the general deficiency bill, at the last session of the Forty-ninth Congress, was acquiesced in by the conferees on the part of the House. It is a very peculiar amendment. Another peculiar feature of the proceedings which have been had in reference to this matter

Mr. STRUBLE. Will the gentleman permit an interruption?

Mr. BURNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. STRUBLE. In order that I may clearly understand this matter I wish to ask whether the gentleman is now referring to the first appropriation made by the Forty-ninth Congress.

Mr. BURNES. I have just referred to the first appropriation, and am now referring to the second.

Mr. STRUBLE. Was not the first appropriation made by the Forty-ninth Congress?

Mr. BURNES. The first was made at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, and the second was attempted to be made at the second session of the Fortyninth Congress.

M. STRUBLE. And that is the one you are now referring to?

Mr. BURNES. It is. It will be remembered that at the second session of the Forty-ninth Congress the general deficiency bill failed for want of time, as alleged, on the part of the Senate. In consequence of that failure the provision, of course, did not take effect; but in the agreement between the representatives of the two Houses upon these questions the general deficiency bill, which failed at the closing session of the Forty-ninth Congress, was made a special deficiency bill at this session of Congress-that is to say, all that had been agreed upon in conference was made the subject of a special deficiency bill, except where circumstances had demonstrated that an appropriation was unnecessary.

This was done in order to remedy promptly the evils which the failure of the bill had caused. The bill thus framed contained this second amendment of the Senate, which I will now proceed to consider; and I want to call the attention of gentlemen particularly to the growing desire therein manifest to take the expenditure of this money out of proper hands and place it in unofficial hands, and hands perhaps but poorly qualified for the business-like disposition of large sums of money:

Industrial Christian Home: To aid the Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah

There, for the first time, we strike the corporate name of this private corporation organized under the laws of the Territory of Utah—

in carrying on under its articles of incorporation the work of providing employment and means of self-support for the dependent women who shall have renounced polygamy, and their children of tender age, $40,000.

That is $40,000 in addition to the first appropriation.

But the unexpended balance of the appropriation for aiding in the establishment of an industrial home in the Territory of Utah contained in the act of Congress approved August 4, 1886, entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, and for other purposes," shall be deemed a part of this appropriation; and the board of control mentioned in said former appropriation shall audit the expenditures under this appropriation and report yearly to the Secretary of the Interior."

I want gentlemen to observe particularly that in this attempt to change the responsibility, and, I may say official management, in the expenditure of this money insufficient language was used, for it says "the board of control mentioned in said former appropriation shall audit the expenditures." It was an added duty on the board. It did not repeal the law making them a board of control in the expenditure of the money. It was an attempt to reduce the board of control to the position of mere auditing officers with reference to the expenditures to be made, as was hoped by this private corporation; but fortunately the Secretary of the Treasury, and perhaps others, took the view that this language did not effect the object desired—that the board of management was not displaced by reason of this provision-and consequently that the board of management remained the same under the second law as under the first, and lawfully controlled the expenditure of all the money appropriated. It has been claimed, however, by the corporation authorities, and by gentlemen who control this project in the other end of the Capitol, that the second law vested the right of expending these appropriations in the private corporation called the "Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah;" but, notwithstanding the law, that corporation, it is said, has consented that Governor West shall hold the money, but allow the corporation to expend it as it pleases.

Contrast the pending propositions with the preceding legislation and you will find that what was not even intimated in the first proposition, but which was attempted in the second provision of legislation, is now boldly attempted by this third effort on the part of gentlemen to take this appropriation from the control of legitimate officials and place it in the hands of private persons or a private corporation. I do not know how far I can make allusion to speeches made in the other end of the Capitol, or language used in conference, but I feel authorized to go as far as gentlemen have gone in discussing this proposition in the Senate. Therefore I say, in the conference we were told distinctly that the language used severing "allegiance from the Mormon Church" was absolutely and indispensably necessary, and would not be yielded under any circumstances.

It was regarded by your conferees as a proposition in the nature of offering a home and provisions-in short, a bribe under pretense of charity-to poor deluded women, as we think, to induce them to "sever their allegiance to church."

In such an affair as that we cannot consent to be a party. We seek to avoid all interference in matters ecclesiastic, and have nothing to do, in making appropriations, with severing church allegiance.

No member of this House will be accused of any relationship to this church, I trust, because he is of opinion that it is not the province of our Government to enter the field of churchmen as a proselyte, although it has been said in another place than this that the Mormon Church is actively opposed to the legislation under consideration. I presume gentlemen who make such a statement have some information in support of it, and have not recklessly made the hazard of an assertion that they ought to be prepared to maintain as a fact.

The House Committee on Appropriations have seen nothing tending to justify the remarks to which I have alluded. No member of that committee has been advised by the Mormon Church or any of its representatives, if any such are here. If they have given their confidences to members of another body it was their right, and we do not complain.

We take notice of the laws of the country, and learn from them that polygamy is forbidden; that it is under the ban of Congressional legislation, and ought to be eradicated, even if a constitutional amendment were required to accomplish the work; but our work ends with polygamy and does not reach over into the realm of church allegiance or into the moral consciences of men or women. The fact of polygamy is to be assailed. We attack its practices as a crime, and punish those who commit it; but we punish the body and not the soul of a criminal. We punish for acts, not thoughts for words, sometimes, but never for sentiments entertained. A distinguished gentleman said elsewhere on Tuesday:

Whatever lapses there have been on the part of Congress and the Executive in dealing with the monstrous evil of polygamy in Utah and the adjacent Territories of the United States; however delinquent the Government may have been in dealing with that evil, and however much the Mormon hierarchy may have profited by these lapses and delinquencies, no part of the fault for all this can be laid at the door of the women of America.

What "lapses" on the part of the Executive have occurred? Have gentlemen so soon forgotten the noble words of the President in behalf of the sanctity of the home and of the institution of marriage? Have they no remembrance of the grand results of his administration, which have almost destroyed polygamy from the face of our land? It seems that one gentleman at least has the courage of insinuation, if he lacks the courage to make a direct statement. He intimates that there have been lapses in dealing with polygamy on the part of the President.

I do not wish to say one word which would be unpleasant to my friends on my right-not a word; but it is due to the President of the United States I should say that thirty years ago the Republican party denominated the institution of polygamy as the twin relic of barbarism and promised the country to destroy it; but, like many other promises made in the past concerning great national questions, it has not been redeemed. Nor was any practical progress made by administrative or executive action until the present administration of Grover Cleveland came into power.