5934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

Ur. BBOWNE, of Indiana, addressed the Chair. [Cries of "Regular 

order !"] 

:Mr. BRO\VNE of Indiana. I simply rise to a question of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has that right. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I will put it in the form of a parliamentary inquiry, and I make that inquiry with the very best of motives 

in the world. I want to know if the House should adjourn what will 

become of the bill we have been considering in regard to Mexican war 

pensions? 

The SPEAKER. It remains on the Speaker's table. 

:Ur. RANDALL. A majority can reach it. It was reached by a majority vote this afternoon, and the same majority can reach it again. 

Mr. CANNON. If you take a recess you will reach it to-morrow 

with the same rights it has now; but if you adjourn it will take all 

day to get to the Speaker's table against the filibustering tactics on the 

other side. 

The question was taken on the motion to adjourn; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 129, nays 97, not voting 9 ; as follows: 

Adams,J. J. Aiken, 

Alexander, 

Arnot, 

Bagley, 

Barbour, 

Barksdale, 

Belmont, 

Blanchard, 

Blount, 

Breck:inridge, 

Buchanan, 

Burne, 

Caldwell, 

Campbell, J. E. Candler, 

Carleton, 

Cassidy, 

Clay, 

Clements, 

Co grove, Cox, W.R. Crisp, 

Culberson, D. B. Dargan, 

Davis,L.H. 

Denter, 

Dibble, 

Dibrell, 

Dorsheimer, 

Dowd, 

Dunn, 

Eaton, 

Adams, G. E. Anderson, 

Bayne, 

Boutelle, 

Brewer, J. H. Browne, T. M. 

Brown,W.W. 

Brumm, 

Budd, Calkins, 

Cannon, 

Chalmers, 

Culbert on,W.W. 

Cullen, 

Cutcheon, 

Davis,G.R. 

Davis,R.T. 

Dingley, 

Dunham, 

Everhart, 

Ferrell, 

Funston, 

George, 

Goff, 

Guenther, 

, YEA8-129. 

Eldredge, 

Elliott, 

Ellis, 

English, 

Ermentrout, 

Follett, 

Forney, 

Garrison, 

Gib on, Glascock, 

Graves, 

Greenleaf, 

Halsell, 

Hammond, 

Hancock, 

Hardeman, 

Hardy, Hatch, W.H. Hemphill, 

Henley, 

Herbert, 

Hewitt, A. S. Hewitt, G. W. Hill 

Hopkins, 

Houseman, 

Hunt, 

Jone ,J.H. Jordan, 

Kleiner, 

Lanham, 

LeFevre, 

Lewis, 

Lore, 

Lowry, 

Lyman, 

1\Ic.A.doo, 

McCormick, 

1\Icl\lillin, 

Mat on, 1\Iaybury, 

l\Iiller, J. F. 

1\lills, 

1\Iitehell, 

Morse, 

Muldrow, 

1\Iurphy, 

1\Iurra.y, 

Mutchler, 

Oates, 

O'Ferrall, 

Paige, 

Peel, 

Pierce, 

Potter, 

Price, 

Pryor, Randall, 

Rankin, 

Ree e, Riggs, 

R.ogers, J. H. Scales, 

Seney, 

Seymour, 

Shelley, 

NAY8-97. 

Hatch, H. H. Milliken, 

Henderson, D. B. Morgan, 

Henderson, T.J. Neece, 

Hepburn, Nelson, 

Hiscock, O'Neill, Charles Bitt, O'Neill, J. J. Holman, Parker, 

Holmes, Payne, 

Holton, Perkins, 

Horr, Peter , Howey, Phelps, 

James, Pot, 

Jeffords, Ray, G. W. John on, Ray, Ossian Jones, B. W. Reea, 

Kasson, Rice, Kean, Robinson, J. S. 

Keifer, Rockwell, 

Ketcham, Rosecrans, 

Lacey, Ryan, 

Lawrence, Skinner,C. R. Long, Smalls, 

McCoid, Spooner, 

McComas, Steele, 

Miller, S. H. Stephenson, 

NOT VOTING-98. 

Atkinson, Connolly, Houk, 

Ballentine, Converse, Hurd, 

BB~rc', Cook, Hutehins, ~· n Covington, Jones,J.K. 

Belford, Cox,t:;.S. Jones,J. T. Bennett, Curtin, Kelley, 

Bingham, Davidson, Kellogg, 

Bibee, Dockery, King, 

Blackburn, Duncan. Laird, 

Bland, Ellwood, Lamb, 

Bowen, Evans, I. N. Libbey, 

Boyle, Evins, J. H. Lo'\·ering, Brainerd, Fiedler, 1\Iillard, 

Breitung, Findlay, Money, 

Brewer, F. B. Finerty, l\Iorrill, Broadhead, Foran, l\Iorrison, 

Buckner, FYan, 1\Ioulton, 

Burleigh, Geddes, 1\Ialler, Cabell, Green, Nicholls, 

Campbell, Felix Hanback, Nutting, Campbell, J. M. Harmer, Ochiltree, 

Chace, Hart, O'Hara Clardy, Haynes, Patton,' 

Cobo, Hoblit.zell, Pay on, Collins, Hooper, Pet.tibone, 

o the motion of Mr. HARDEMA.~ was agreed to. 

Singleton, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Charles Stock lager, 

Storm, 

Sumner~ C. A. Taylor,J.M. 

Thomp on, Throckmorton, 

Tillman, 

Tucker, 

Turner, H. G. Turner, 0 car Van Alstyne, Van Eaton, 

'' allace, Ward, 

'Varntr,A.J. Warne r,Richard 

'Vellborn, 

Weller, Wemple, 

Wilkins, 

Williams, 

Willis 

Wilso~, W. L. 

Winans, E. B. Wi e,G.D. 

Yaple, 

Young. 

St.one, 

Strait, 

Struble, 

Taylor, J.D. Thomas, 

Townshend, 

Tully, 

Valentine, 

Vance, 

Wansworth, 

Wait, 

Washburn, 

Weaver, 

White, J.D. White, Milo Whiting, 

Wilson, James Winans, John 'Volford, 

Wood, 

Woodward, 

York. 

Poland, 

Pusey, 

Ranney, 

Reagan, 

Robert on, Robinson,W. E. Rogers, W. F. RowelJ, 

Rus ell, 

Shaw, 

Skinner, T. G. Slocum, 

Smith, 

Snyder, 

Spriggs, 

SteYens, 

Stewart, J. W. Sumner, D. H. Talbott, 

Taylor, E. B. Wakefield, 

Wi e,J.S. 

Worthington. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

During the call of the roll, 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Secretary, informed 

the House that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of 

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two .Hou es on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House of the following title: 

A pill (H. R. 46 0) to grant a right of way through the Indian Territory to the Southern Kansas Railway Company, and for other purpo es. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above stated; and accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 40 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITION , ETC. 

• The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rules, and referred as follow : 

By Ur. CONNOLLY: Petition 'of J. C. Coon and S. P. Coleman 

against the passage of the news-copyright bill-to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

Ry ~Ir. DOCKERY: Petitions·of soldiers and sailors of Daviess 

County, Missouri, in support of certain House bills prepared by their 

comrades of Union City, Ind.-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. GOFF: Petition of Hon. Jo eph S. Miller and others, citizens of Wheeling, W. Va., remonstrating against the Government engaging in the telegraph business, &c.-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. HANCOCK: Papers relating to the claim of :Martin Radichto the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

By Ur. HILL: Petition of D. K. Bowker, and 500 other soldiers oi 

Ohio, praying for the passage of a law pensioning all honorably discharged soldiers of the late war-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. NELSON: Petition of Charles E. Now len-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Ur. McCOID: Petition of J. C. McKell and others, of Burlington, 

Iowa, against passage of bill to carry into operation the reciprocity 

treaty with l\fexico-to the Committee on Ways and .Means. 

By Mr. :MORRILL: Petition of Noah C. Brandon and 200 others, of 

Blackford County, Indiana, soldiers of the war of the rebellion, asking for pension legislation-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Ur. OSSIAN RAY: Petition of James Butler for a. pension-to ·· 

the same committee. 

By :Mr. J. D. TAYLOR: Petition of citizens of Steubenville, Ohio, 

against passage of bill to carry into operation the reciprocity treaty 

with 1\Iexico-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. J.D. WHITE: Petition for an Indian commission, by John 

Bee om, of Talent, Oreg.-to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

By l\Ir. WILKINS: Resolutions of ex-soldiers of Gratiot, Licking 

County, Ohio, relative to pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

Also, the memorial of Axline Post, No. 290, Grand Army of theRepublic, Zanesville, Ohio, relative to pensions-to the same committee. 

SENATE. 

THURSDAY, July 3, 1884. 

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. D. HUNTLEY, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

FITZ..JOHN PORTER VETO MESSAGE. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore. The Chair "lays before the Senate a. message from the House of Representatives accompanying a. House bill. 

The title of the bill and the action of the House of Representatives will 

be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R.1015) for the relief of Fitz-John Porter. 

IN THE Hou E OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, 

. July 2, 1884. 

The President of the United States having returned to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Fitz-John Porter," with his objection thereto, the House of Representatives proceeded, in pursuance of the Con titution, to recon ider the same; and Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives 

agreeing to pass the same. 

The PRESIDENT pro tmnpore. The message from the President of 

the United States a~mpanying the bill will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

To the House of Representatives : 

After careful con ideration of the blll entitled "An ad for the relief of Fitz- John Porter," I herewith return it withmyobjectionstothatHouseofCongress in which it originated. Its enacting clau e is in terms following : "That the Pre ident be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate and, by and with the ad- vice and consent of the Senate, to appoint Fitz.John Porter, late a major-gen- eral of the United States volunteers, and a brevet brigadier-general and colonel of the Army, to the po ition of colonel in the Army of the United States, of the- same grade and rank helcl by him at the time of his dismissal from the Army by sentence of court-martial, promulgated January Zl, 1863," &c. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECOI~D-SENATE. 5935 

It is apparent that should this bill become a law it will create a new office, which can be filled by the appointment of the particular individual whom it specifies, and can not be fill~d <?therwise; or it m~y be aid witJ:t perhaps greater precision of stater:t;1ent that It w1ll create a new offi.ce upon conditlOn t~at the par· ticular person designated shall be chosen to fill It. Such an act, as It seems to me, is either unnecessary and ineffective, or it involves .an encroachme0;t by the le..,.islative branch of the Government upon the authority of the executive. A th~ Congress has no power under the Constitution to nominate or appoint an of- ficer, and can not lawfully impo e upo~ t~e Presi?ent the duty ?f no~a~in~ ~r 

appointing to office any partict?l~r mdividua! of Its own selection, ~hiS ~ill, if It can fairly be construed as reqrurrng the President to make the noiDinat10n and, 

by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the appointment which it authorizes, is in manifest violation of the Constitution. If such be not its ju t interpretation, it must be regarded as a mere enactment of advice and counsel, which lacks in the very nature of things the force of positivelaw,andcanserve no useful purpose upon the statute-books. The1·e are other canses that deter me from giving this bill the sanction of my approval. The j .udgment of the court-n;mrtial by w~ch more than twenty years since General Fitz-John Porter was tried and convicted was pronounced by a tribtmal compel ed of nine general officers of distingui hedcharacter and ability. Its investigation of the charges of which it found the accused guilty was thorough and conscienLious, and its findings and sentence were in due course of law ap- proved by Abraham Lincoln then President of the United States. Its legal 

competency, its jurisdiction of the accllSed and of the subject of the accusation, and the substantial regularity of all of it proceedings are matters which have never been brought in question. Its judgment, therefore, is final and conclu- ive in its character. The Supreme Court of the nited States has recently declared that a court- martial such as this wa is the organism provided by law and clothed with the duty of administering jnstice in this clas of cases. Its· judgments, when approved, rest on tJ:te same basisa.nd are surrounded bythesa!lle consi_derati<;>n which give conclusivene to the JUdgments of other legal tnbunals, mcluding as well the lowest as the highest. It follows, accordingly, that when a lawfully constituted courlrmartial has duly declared its findings and its sentence, and the ame have been duly approved, neither the President nor the Congress has any power to set them a ide. The existence of such power is not openly asserted, nor perhaps is it necessarily implied, in the provisions of the bill which is before me but when its enacting clauses are read in the light of the recitations of its pr~mble it will be seen that it seeks in effect tho practical annulment of the findinc:r and the entence of a competent court-martial. A co~clnsion at variance with these findings has been reached after inve ti- gation by a board consisting of three officers of the Army. Thi board was not created in pru-suance of any statutory authority, and was powerless to compel the attendance of witnesses or to pronounce ajudgmentwhichconld have been lawfully enforced. The ofticers who constituted it in their report to the Secre- tary of War, datedl\Lirch 19, 1879, state that in their opini~n "justice ~equires * * * such action as may be necessary to annul and etas1de the findrngs and sentence of the court-martial in thecae of Maj. Gen. Fitz-Jobn Porter, and to restore him to the positions of which that sentence deprived him, such restora- tion to take effect from the date of his dismissal from the service." The provisions of the bill now under consideration are avowedly based on the assumption that the findings of .the court-martial have been discovered to be erroneous. But it will be borne in mind that the invc Ligation which is claimed to have re ulted in this discoverywasmademanyyearsaftertheevents to which that evidence related and under circumstances that made it impossi- ble to reproduce the evidence on which they were based. H seems to me that the propo ed legislation would e tablish a dangerous prec- edent calculated to imperil in no small measure the binding force and effect of the ju'dgments of the yariollS tribunals established under our Constitution aud laws. 

I have already in the exercise of the pardoning power with which the Pre i- dent is vested by the Constitution remitU>d the continuing penalty which had made it impossible for Fitz-John Porter to hold any office of trustor profit under the Government of the United States. But I am unwilling to give my, sanction to any legislation which shan practically annul and set at naught the solemn and deliberate conclusions of the tribunal by which he was convicted and of the President by whom its findings were examined and approved. 

CHESTER A. ARTHUR. EXECUTIVE MANSION, J uly 2, 1884. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This bill is now 1mder reconsideration. The question is: Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? Is the 

Senate ready for the question? As two-thirds are required to pass the 

bill against the objections of the President, the yeas .and nays will be 

called on the passage of the bill. Senators, as many as will agree that 

this bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, will as your names are called answer "yea;" the contrary, 

"nay." 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. PALMER (when l\1r. CULLo:u's name was called). I was instructed to state for the Senator from Illinois [Ur. CULLO:U] who is 

sick, and who is paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 

KE~"NA], that if he were here, while acknowledging his pair, he desires 

to go on record as voting "nay." 

l\Ir. LOGAN. I suggest to the Senator from l\lichigan that a pair 

with one person is not the character of pair that hould be recognized 

in this case. l\Iy colleague ought to be paired with two. I suppose some other Senator will agree to pair with him. 

Ur. PALMER. I see the reason for the statement of the Senator 

from Illinois, but I did not know the rule of the Senate in regard to 

double pairs, or two for one. 

l\1r. LOGAN. I suppose another Senator will be willing to pair with 

my colleague. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The roll-call will proceed. 

l\Ir. FRYE (when his name was called). I am paired on this question with thejuniorSenatorfromDelaware [l\1r. SAULSBORY] and with 

the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. RIDDLEBERGER]. If I were at 

liberty to vote I should vote "nay." 

l\Ir. MILLER, of California, (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from New Jersey [l\Ir. McPHERSON] and with 

the Senator from Georgia [Mr. COLQTIITT]. If they were present, I 

should Tote ''nay." 

l\Ir. RIDDLEBERGER (when his na-me was called). To make one 

pair equal to two on this question I made a pair with the Senator from 

l\Iaine [l\Ir. FRYE]. But for that pair I should Yote "yea." 

Mr. BECK (when Ur. WILLIAMS'S name was called). My colleague 

[l\Ir. WILLIAMS] is absent, but he is paired upon this question with 

the Senator from New Ramp hire [l\Ir. BLAIR]. My colleague would 

\Ote '' yea '' if he were here. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

l\lr. BLAIR. Upon political questions I am paired with the junior 

Senator from Kentucky [!l'Ir. WILLIA::us], who is absent, but it has 

been arranged that my pair shall be transferred to the junior Senator 

from Nebraska [.Mr. MANDER o~]. I therefore vote. 

Mr. ALDRICH. My colleague [!llr. ANTHONY] is absent from the 

city on account of illness and is paired with the Senator from Tennessee [l\1r. JACKSON]. l\1y colleague, ifpresent, would vote " nay." 

The result was announced-yeas 27, nays 27; as follows: 

YEAB-27. 

Bayard, Coke, Harris, Pugh, Beck, Fair, Hoar, Ransom, 

Brown, Farley, Jonas, Sewell, 

Butler, Garland, Jones of Florida, Vance, 

Call, George, Iaxey, Vest, Cameron of Pa., Groome, Morgan, Voorhees. Cockrell, Hampton, Pike, 

NAYB-27. 

Aldrich, Dolph, Lapham, Platt, 

Allison, Edmunds, Logan, Plumb, 

Blair, Hale, Mcl\fillan, Sawyer, 

Bowen, Harrison, Miller of N.Y., Sherman, Cameron of Wis., Hawley, Mitchell, VanWyck, 

Conger, Hill, Morrill, Wilson. Dawes, Ingalls, Palmer, 

ABSENT-22. 

Anthony, Gorman, Mahone, Saulsbury, Camden, Jackson, Manderson, Slater, 

Colquitt, Jones of Nevada., 1\liller of Cal., Walker, 

Cullom, Kenna, Pendleton, Williams. Frye, Lamar, Riddleberger, 

Gibson, McPherson, Sabin, 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. Two-thirds of the Senators present 

not having voted in the a:ffirmati ve, the bill fails to become a law. 

Mr. JONES, of Nevada, sub equently said: :Mr. President, I should 

like to be indulged for a moment wh.ile I say a word person.1.l to myself. I was detained for half an hour this morning in business at the 

Departments, and upon my arrival at the Senate Chamber half an hour 

after the Senate convened I found that the Tote had been taken on the 

veto of the President of the Fitz-J ohn Porter bill. Not wishing to seem 

to have avoided a vote on a bill which has attracted so much attention 

in the country, and having had no reasons presented to me why I 

should change the opinion I entertained in Yoting upon the proposition 

formerly, I wish to say that had I been here I should have voted to 

have the bill ·become a law, notwithstanding the objections of the 

President. 

GEXER.AL COURTS-MARTIAL. 

1\Ir. LOGAN. I ask leave to move at this time that the House be 

requested to return the bill (H. R. 5709) to amend article 72 of the 

RulesandArticlesofWar, whichpa ed theSenatewithanamendment. 

My object is to get a committee of conference, inasmuch as the bill 

can not be reached in the Hou e as it now stands. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection that order 

will be entered. 

PETITIOXS .A.ND ME::\IORI.ALS. 

Mr. ALLISON presented resolutions adopted by Memorial Post, No. 

216, Grand Army of the Republic, of Cresco, Iowa, in favor of_ the 

recommendations made by the pension committee of the Grand Army 

of the Republic in regard to pensions; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a memorial of citizen of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, remonstrating against the passage of any measure which will establish a 

governmental monopoly of the telegraph business; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

l\Ir. LOGAN presented memorials of citizens of Danville and La 

Salle, ill., remonstrating against Government control of the telegraph; 

which was ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented memorials of ex-Union soldiers, residents of Taylorville. ill., San Francisco, Cal., Pontoosuc, lll., Noble, ill., Terre 

Haute, Ind., Arcola, TIL, and Scott County, Indiana, favoring general 

legislation in behalf of ex-Union soldiers; which were referred to the 

Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a memorial of citizens of Salt Lake City, Utah, 

praying a donation of land for cemetery purposes from the Fort Douglas military reservation; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

l\IISSISSIPPI RIVER DA.:\1 AT SAINT CLOUD. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I am instructed by the · Committee on Commerce to make a favorable report upon the bill (H. R. 6657) granting 

the consent of Congress to the Saint Cloud Water-Power and Mill Com-
5936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

,pany to construct a dam across the Mississippi River at Saint Cloud, 

Minn., and I ask for its present consideration. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the bill? 

Mr. INGALLS. Let it be read for information. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill; and by unanimous consent the Senate, 

as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. McMILLAN, from the ~ommittee on Commerce, to whom was 

referred the bill (1529) authorizing the Saint Cloud Water-Power and 

Mill Company to' construct a dam across the Mississippi River at Saint 

Cloud, Uinn., reported adversely thereon; and the bill was postponed 

indefinitely. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTS OF WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 

.Mr. BUTLER. I ask unanimoUs consent to proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6409) to validate and cure defects in certain 

acts of the Legislative Assembly of Washington Territory, reported from 

the Committee on Territories yesterday morning. 

By unanimous consent the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bilL 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

FEES ON DOMESTIC COMMERCE. 

Mr. CONGER. By instructions from the Committee on Commerce 

I report back the bill (H. R. 6925) to amend sections 4381 and 4382 of 

the Revised Statutes of the United States, relative to fees levied and 

collected from the owners and masters of vessels in domestic commerce, 

and I ask unanimous consent that it may be considered at this time. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? 

Mr. IN GALLS. Let it be read for information. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill; and by unanimous consent the Senate,. as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration. It 

propo e to amend paragraphs numbered 6 and 7, respectively, of section numbered 4381, so as to read as follows: 

Sixth. For certifying manifest.!! and granting a permit for a licensed vessel to proceed from district to district, 10 cents. Seventh. For receiving a certified manifest and granting a permit on the ar- rival of such licensed vessel, 10 cents. 

Paragraphs numbered 6 and 8, respectively, of section numbered 4382, 

are severally amended so as to read: 

Sixth. For certifying manifest, including master's oath, and granting permit 

for ves el to go from district to district, 10 cents. Eighth. For receiving manifest, including master's oath, on arrival of aves- sel from one collection district to another, whether touching at foreign intermediate ports or not,lO cents. 

Paragraphs numbered 7 and 9, respectively, of section 4382 of the 

ReviSed Statutes are repealed. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

REPORTS OF Co::\illiTTEES. 

Mr. DAWES, from the Committee on .Appropriations, to whom was 

referred the bill (H. R. 7440) making appropriations for fortifications 

and other works of defense, and for the armament thereof, for the fiscal 

year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes, reported it with 

amendments. 

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I am instructed by the Committee on Commerce to report favorably, with amendments, the bill (S. 1036) to provide for the construction of the Michigan and Mississippi River Canal 

and to cheapen transportation, and to accompany the report with a 

resolution of the committee, which I ask may be read. 

The PRE 'IDENT pro tempore. The :resolution will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

.Resoked, That the Senator from Nevada be instructed to report to the Senate 

Senate billl036, with amendments, favorably, for the consideration of the Sen- ate at its next session, to be accompanied by a written report, to be filed at the next session. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore; What disposition does the Senator 

from Nevada desire to have mane of the resolution? 

.Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Let it be printed and lie on the table. 

.Mr. HOAR. Let the resolution be read again. 

The Chief Clerk again read the resolution. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This, the Chair understands, is a 

resolution of the committee. 

Ur. McMILLAN. Yes, sir; accompanying the report merely. 

Mr. ALLISON. I suppose there should be an order authorizing the 

Senator from Nevada to make a written report at the next session as the bill is reported now. Mr. INGALLS. No bill has been referred by the Senate to the Senator from Nevada. Bills are referred to committees, and as such they are dealt with. The resolution, I understand, was agreed to by the 

committee. It has no place on the :files oftbe Senate. 

Mr. ALLISON. I was not speaking of the resolution. 

Mr. INGALLS. ·I was Rpeaking of it. 

Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will pardon me, I p..nderstood the resolution first as be does, but on the second reading I understood it to be 

an authority to report the bill now, to be considered by the Senate 

hereafter. 

Mr. ALLISON. And also authority to make a. written report at 

the next session, which I suppose could not be doue unless the Senate 

gave the authority. 

Mr. HOAR. It is done by the unanimous consent of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill reported by the Senator 

from Nevada will be placed on the Calendar. The resolution appears 

to be merely an order of the committee directing him to report the bill, . 

but it also embraces leave ·to be obtained to file a written report at the 

next ession. That ,order will be entered, if there be no objection. 

l\1r. BLAIR, from the Committee on Education and Labor, towhom 

was referred the bill (S. 1457) to legalize the incorporation of national 

trades unions, reported it -without amendment, and submitted a report thereon . 

1\:Ir. PIKE, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to 

whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2344) for the relief of Melissa G. 

Polar, reported it with amendments, and submitted a report thereon. 

1\Ir. FAIR, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. 254) for the relief of Arthur L. Fish, reported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. MITCHELL,. from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was 

referred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, and submitted reports thereon: 

A bill (H. R. 254) granting a pension to John Robbins; 

.A bill (H. R. 1894) granting a pension to Clark Roberts; and 

A bill (H. R. 282) to reinstate Cornelius Fitzgerald on the pensionroll. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. 1634) granting a pension to Clark Roberts, reported adversely 

thereon; and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. VANWYCK, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were 

referred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, a.nd submitted reports thereon: 

A bill (H. R. 456 ) granting a. pension to Andrew J. Konkle; 

A billlH. R. 836) granting a pension to John C. Fenscke; 

A bill H. R. 6786) granting a pension to Rivers Banks; 

A bill H. R. 555) granting a pension to John Galloup; 

A bill !H. R. 4457) granting a pension to J. G. Crawford; 

A bill H . R. 2105) granting a pension to John A. Sbackers; 

A bill H. R. 20.1}1) granting a pension to 1\lrs. Rebecca Hall; 

A bill (H. R. 20 9) granting a pension to Margaret Wiggins; and 

A bill (H. R. 1077) granting a pension to Sarah 1\liner. 

MISSION INDIANS, IN CALIFORNIA. 

1\fr. DAWES. I ask unanimous consent to take np the bill (S. 1250) 

for the relief of the Mission Indians, in the State of California, for action 

at present. If it causes any debate, I shall withdraw it. 

Mr. HARRIS. I do not want to object, but I hope the Senator from 

.Massachusetts and other Senators will allow the call for morning business to go through. 

Mr. DAWES. Of coure I yield to morning business if the Senator 

bas any morning business to present. 

The PRE IDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts 

asks unanimous consent that the Senate consider at this time the bill 

indicated by him. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I give notice now, having the floor and not having to crowd off any one, that I shall object to the passage of any more 

bills until the morning business is disposed of. 

BILL INTRODUCED . 

Mr. McMILLAN introduced a bill (S. 2361) granting a pension to 

Mrs. E. S. Simpson, widow of Col. James H. Simpson, brevet brigadier-general, United States Army; which was read twice by its title, 

and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

M:r. LOGAN introduced a bill (S. 2362) for the relief of Thomas C . 

Killie; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying 

papers, referred to the Committee on Finance. 

FOURTH OF JULY. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). If there 

be no further bills to be intl:oduced, the Chair lays before the Senate a 

resolution coming over from yesterday. 

The.Chjef Clerk read the following resolution, submitted yesterday 

by 1\Ir. SHERMAN: 

Resolved, That the Senate w"ill meet at the usual hour on Friday, the 4th day 

of July instant, and after the reading of the Journal, and before other busines>o 

is done, the Secretary of the Senate shall read the Declaration of American In- dependence and Washington's Farewell Address. 

Mr. SHERMAN. At the suggestion of several Senators who thi'lk 

tbereadingofWashington'sFarewellAddresswouldbemoreappropriate 

on his birthday, the 22d of February, and as it bas been read on that 

day in two or three instances in the history of our country, and it would 
1884. OONGRESSIONAis RECORD-SENATE. 5937 

occupy time now, I will modify the resolution so as to call only for the 

reading of the Declaration. 

Never till during onr civil war, so far as the records show or as is 

known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July. Dnring 

the civil war we did meet habitually on the 4th of J tily, but it was only 

on the ground that those who had control then believed that the business then reqnirillg attention was proper to be done on the 4th CJf July. 

We have only met once since on the 4th of July, and that was in 1870, 

at a time of great political excitement. An effort was made to adjourn 

when the Senate met that day, but the session was continued-a long, 

exciting, and unpleasant session-on the 4th of Jnly, 1870. 

I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the commiLtees of conference are carrying on their business and I have no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize by common consent 

the importance of tha day and the fact that it is a national anniversary 

celebrated all over the United States, by reading that immortal paper 

which is the foundation of American independence. That is all I desire. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the 

Senator from Ohio will be read. 

M1·. SHERMAN. I have a right to modify the resolution I believe. 

I modify it by striking out the words "Washington's Farewell Address.'' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has a right to modify 

his resolution, and it is so modified. The question is on the resolution 

ns modified, which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the Senate will meet at the -usual hour on Friday, the 4th day 

of July instant, and, after the reading of the Journal and before other business 

is done, the Secretary of the Senate sha.ll read the Declaration of American In- dependence. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair l&ys before the Senate a 

resolution submitted yesterday, but laid over nnder the rule; which 

will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the following resolution, submitted yesterday 

by Mr. HAWLEY: 

Resolved, That a select committee of ftve Senators be appointed by the Chair to inquire as to the capacity of steel-producing works in the United States to make steel of suitable quality and sufficient in quantity to furnish metal for guns of high power, and metal plates and other material for the construction of 

vessels of war and for the armor or sheathing for such vessels. 2. That said committee shall also inquire as to the character and sufficiency 

of machinery and machine-tools in the navy-yards, and also in private foundaries and machin~shops in the United States, for the construction of engines 

suitable for vessels of war, and for manufacturing guns for the proper arma- ment of such veasels and of the seacoast defenses, and for the purpose of con- structing iron and steel ships of war. 3. 'Said committee shall also inquire into the best locations in the United 

.States for manufacturing guns, engines, and armor for vessels, and for building 

iron and steel ships of war and the best method of manufacturing and building the same, whether by the Government or by contract with private persons. 4. Said committee shall have power to sit in the vacation of the Senate at any place in the United States, to send for persona and papers, and to appoint a clerk 

and me§Benger, and may report by bill or otherwise. 5. The expenses of said committee, and of witnesses summoned before it1 shall 

be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to be certified by the charrman 

of the committee, and audited and a.Uowed by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

resolution. 

:Mr. COCKRELL. Does that come from any committee? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution was presented by the 

Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I suggest to insert: 

Clerk, stenographer, and messenger. 

It may not be necessary to employ a stenographer or it may, to report 

some testimony. I move to insert after the word" clerk," in the third 

line of the fourth paragraph, the word "stenographer." 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut modiiies his resolution by inserting therein ''stenographer,'' in the fourth 

subdivision, after the word" clerk," in the third line; so as to read: 

Appoint a clerk, stenographer, and messenger. 

The question is on the resolution as modified. 

The resolution as modified was agreed to. 

PUBLIC PRINTING. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a. Tesolution offered yesterday by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 

HAWLEY), which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurri11 g), 1. That the Joint 

Committee on Public Printing is hereby instructed "to examine into the numbers 

_printed of the various documents, reports, bills, and other papers published by 

order of Congress, or of either House thereof, and of the CoKGR.ESSION AL RECORD, 

and to report a bill in December next making such reductions in the numbers 

.and cost of printing, and such changes and reductions in the distribution of 

.sa.idpublications, as they may deem expedient, with a report giving their reasons therefor; and that the said committee is also instructed to investigate the printing and binding for the Executive Departments, executed at the Government 

Printing Office and at the branch printing offices and binderies in the various 

.Departments, and report a bill, in December next, making such reductions in expense and imposing such checks as they may deem expedient, with a report 

XV-372 

giving their reasons therefor; and said committee is further instructed to make any other investigations calculated in their opinion to reduce the cost of the 

public printing, and report the result thereof; and the said committee is hereby 

authorized to summon and to examine experts and witnesses and to call upon the heads of Executive Departments and the Public Printer for such information regarding the preceding matters as they may desire; and any expenses nece sarily incurred in making the investigations aforesaid shall be defrayed 

equally from the contingent funds of the two Houses of Congress. 2. Said joint oommittee is hereby authorized to it during the recess for the purposes of the first section hereof and in the discha rge of its usual duties. 

Mr. HAWLEY. This resolution, though notformallyreportedfrom 

the Committee on Printing, is virtually from the committee, as the 

Senator from Maryland [Mr. Gmnf.L~] and myself: now con tituting 

all the committee here, have agreed on it. 

The Senator from Iowa [1\Ir. ALLis"ON] will remember, as the Senate 

perhaps will, that this is the concluding section of the snndry civil bill 

as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, which was stricken 

out on a point @f order. This !mwides for the same work th;at was 

ordered in that section. 

The second section of this resolution is substantially the nsnal resolution passed at the close of every session, giving the Printing Committee authority to sit dnring the recess, which is always necessary as to 

certain matters of business. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

COMMITTEE ON LIBRARY ACCOMMODATIONS. 

Mr. VOORHEES, from the Select Committee on Additional Accommodations for the Library of Congress, submitted the following resolution; . which was considered by unanimous·eonsent and agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Select Committee on Additional Accommodations for the 

Library of Congress is hereby continued, and authorized to sit, if found neces- sary, during the coming recess of Congress, and that the expenses, if any, shall 

be paid from the appropriation for special and select committees. 

COMMITI'EE ON RULES. 

:Mr. HARRIS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to: 

Resolved, Tha.t the Committee on Ru!es be, and it is hereby, authorized to sit 

during the recess of Congress, and that the necessary expense thereof be paid out of the miscellaneous items of the contingent funds of the Senate. 

Mr. 1\IILLER, of California. I move to take up Honse bill1798. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That motion will not be in order 

until the call for resolutions is concluded. Are there further concur- rent or other resolutions? 

Mr. HOAR. I desire to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair 

in regard to the resolution just passed. Does that resolution authorize 

the Committee on Rules to sit anywhere but in Washington? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not think that is a parliamentary question. 

:Mr. HOAR. · I notice ~helast authority of that kind authorized -t)le 

committee in terms to sit elsewhere. I suppose, of course, the Committee on Rules will regard themselves as compelled to sit in Washington. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there further concurrent or other 

resolutions? If there be none, tltat order is closed. 

CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. I move that the bill (H. R. 1798) to 

amend an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations 

relating to ChiueseJ" approved May 6, 1882, be taken from the table 

and now considerea.. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California moves 

that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Honse bill 1798. 

1\Ir. BLAIR. 1\Ir. Presiden~ 

The PRESIDENT pro tmnpore. The motion is not open to debate. 

Mr. BLAIR. I desire to remind the Senate that last night notice 

was given that this morning on the conclusion of the morning business 

the Pension Committee desired the consideration of pension cases. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. BLAIR. I desired to state that, while I should be very glad to 

help the Senator to get up his bill, and will as soon as the pension bills are out of the way, I think we ought to proceed with them. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o te'1'1lpore. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from California. 

The question being put, there were on a division-ayes 40, noes 7. 

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R 1798) to amend an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,'' approved May 6, 1882. 

Mr. PLATT. I propose to strike out from the fifteenth section the 

words which precede the word '' and,'' in line 244. 

Mr. HOAR. Including the word "and?" 

Mr. PLATT. Yes, i:q_cluding the word 'and," striking out these 

words: 

That the provisions of this act shall apply to all subjects of China, and Chi- nese, whether subjects of China or any other foreign power; and . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT]. The Chairwonldsuggest that the word '' That,'' at the beginning of the section, should 

stand. 
5938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE.' JULY 3, 

Mr. PLATT. Yes, I modify the amendment by leaving in that 

word. 

Mr . .MILLER, of California. The amendment proposed is not in 

harmony with the decision of the circuit court of the United States for 

California, which was that a Chinese laborer from a jurisdiction other 

than that of China is a Chinese bborer within the meaning of the act. 

The circuit court in Califorria decided that such a case came within 

the act. Other courts have made contrary decisions. If the law 

does not contain a provision of this sort, and is not so settled, Chinese 

laborers will come into the United States without restriction by merely 

taking up their residence· in another country than China and then proceeding to the United State . I hope the amendment will not be 

adopted, and that the bill will be passed precisely as it came from the 

House. 

Mr. PLATT. The words "subject of a foreign power" I apprehend 

do not mean merely residence in a country other than China, but do mean 

a naturalized subject of a foreign power. 

Mr. FARLEY. Will the Senator from Connecticut. yield to me for 

a moment? 

Mr. PLATT. I will hear a suggestion. 

Mr. FARLEY. One of the judges of the Supreme Court, Judge 

Field, bas decided that Chinese from any other country than the Empire 

of China w ben coming to this country may be subject to the provisions of 

an act like this. I know there has been a conflict of opinion in the 

courts in reference to that matter. One oftbejudges of the Supreme 

Court passed upon that question in California, I understand that opinion 

has been concurred in by the entire court, but there has been no action 

taken on it. That is one of the difficulties we have had in California in 

reference to this very question. Chinese shipped from other ports than 

ports within the Empire of China come to California, and therefore it 

is important that this clause should be inserted. 

Mr. PLATT. I am not familiar, as perhaps I ought to be, with the 

decision to which the Senator from California refers. I doubt very 

much, however, whether Judge Field or any other judge has decided 

that the act as it now stands prevents a naturaliud subject of Great 

Britain or other foreign power from landing in this country simply because he happened to have been born in China. I do not know but 

that there is a decision to that effect, but I doubt it. 

·1\Ir. JO.l\TES, of Nevada. Will the Senator permit me to say a word? 

Mr. PLATT. Certainly. 

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. The decision of Judge Field is that the act 

applied to the Chinese as a race, without regard to the oountry in which 

they might be domiciled or the country of which they might be subjects; that the act applied to this people as a race; and it strikes me 

that that answers the ·proposition of the Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. PLATT. If the decision has gone that far it is certainly unnecessary to incorporate it in this bill; but Judge Field, I apprehend, 

whatever he may have decided, did not decide that it was right to ingraft in any law a provision of this character. 

Mr. HOAR. I should like to say that the circuit court in Massachusetts, on full argument, Judges Lowell and Nelson concurring, have 

decided that the act, which is based in terms upon the treaty with 

China, being entitled an act to carry out the treaty with China and 

nothing else, does not include anybody but Chinese subjects. 

Mr. PLATT. But here we propose to go still further. Having enacted a law upon the theory that we had a treaty with China which 

permitted us to enact such a law, we propose to go still further now, 

and to add to that law a provision which will prevent the landing here 

of naturalized subjects of Great Britain and of any other country with 

whom we have no such treaty which would prevent there being landed 

in the United States. I think we have gone quite far enough in. this 

mat tel'; and we bad better not go so far as to say that the snbj ects of 

Great Britain protected by her can not land in the United States because they happen to have been born in China. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut LMr. PLATT]. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. HOAR. I do not propose in the last day or two of the ession 

to enter anew into a debate of this general policy. This is a bill to 

execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese and citizens of 

other countries. It rests in my judgment upon sheer barbariSm; and 

the order which has just passed to read the Declaration of Independence to-morrow I infer was passed because in the opinion of its mover the majority of the Senate had not read it. 

I wish only to reaffirm my disapprobation ofthis legislation and the 

principle on which it depends, and to state that in my judgment the 

American people will repent in sackcloth and ashes one day the policy 

they are inaugurating. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, and read the third time. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been read three 

times, the question is, Shall it pass? 

:Mr. PLATT. On that I ask for the yeaS and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

t he roll. 

Mr. FRYE (when his name was called). I am paired wit~ the j unior 

SenatorfromDelaware[Ur. SAULSBURY]. Ifhewerepresent, I should 

vote ''nay." 

1\Ir. SEWELL {when his name was called). I am paired with my 

colleague [.Ur. 1\IcPHER o:N]. On this que tion I am not advised how 

he would vote, and I withhold my vote. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. CULLOl\1. I understan.d I have been paired with the Senator 

from West Virginia [!Ir. KENNA], but I am informed that he would 

vote ''yea'' if present, and so I cast my vote. 

The result was announced-yeas 43, nays 12; as follows: 

YEAS--43. 

Allison, Cullom, Jones of Florida, Plumb, Bayard, Dolph, Jones of Nevada, Pugh, Beck, Fair, Logan, Ransom., Blair, Farley, Manderson, Sawyer, Butler, Garland, Maxey, Sherman, Call, Groome, J.iller of Cal., Slater, Cameron of Pa., Hale, Miller of N. Y., Vance, Cameron of Wis., Hampt-on, ::\forgan, VanWyck, Cockrell, Harris, Palmer, Vest, Coke, Hill, Pendleton, Voorhees. Conger, Ingalls, Pike, 

NAYB-12. 

Aldrich, Edmunds, Lapham, Morrill, Brown, Hawley, McMillan, Platt, Dawes, Hoar, Mitchell, Wilson. 

ABSENT-21. 

Anthony, Gib on, Lamar, Sewell, Bowen, Gorman, 1\lcPherson, Walker, Camden, Harrison, Mahone, Williams. 

Colquitt, Jackson, Riddle berger, Frye, Jonas, Sabin, George, Kenna, Saulsbury, 

So the bill was passed. 

CATHARINE H. GLICK. 

The PRESIDENT :pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the bill {S. 1971} grantirig a pension to Catharine H. Glick, widow of 

Elias B. Glick, deceased, returned from the House of Representatives 

at the request of the Senate. On the motion of the Senator from In- diana [Mr. VooRHEES] it will be laid on the table for the time being, 

if there be no objection. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The PRESIDENT :pro tempore. The Calendar, under the eighth 

rule, is in order. 

Mr. FRYE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

House bill 3056, being Order of Business 523. 

Ir. BLAIR. I desire to move that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of pension cases. 

!Ir. FRYE. This bill will not take a minute. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine moves that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 3056) to constitute a bureau of navigation in the Treasury Department. 

M:r. VOORHEES. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is not debatable. 

The question being put, there were on a division- yeas 12, noes 24; 

no quorum voting. 

Mr. FRYE. I withdraw my motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No quorum has voted. If there be 

no objection the Chair will count the Senate. 

!Ir. FRYE. I ask unanimous consent .to withdraw my motion. 

The PRESIDENT :pro tempore. The Chair can not. allow unanimous 

consent to be given unless there is a quorum. 

lli. SHERMAN. There is a quorum present. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Chair will ascertain that by 

unanimous consent without a call of the Senate. [Counting.] A quorum is present. 

!Ir. BLAIR. I move that the Senate proceed to consider unobjected. 

pension cases, and also the following cases, which all stand upon sub .. stantjally the same ground, Order of Business 604, 605, 764, 769, 770, 

771, 772, 773, 774, 826, and 891, which are all pension cases. 

Mr. PLUMB. Are those adverse reports? 

Mr. BLAIR. Those cases all stand upon substantially the same 

ground, whether or not the needy widows of officers of high rank like 

admirals of the Navy and generals of the Army who rendered long and 

distinguished service shall receive an increase of their pension to $50 per 

month, and the decision of a very few will suffice for the whole. 

Some of these cases standing upon substantially the same ground are 

reported favorably hy the committee; other exactly similar cases are 

reported adversely, just according to the constitution of the. committee, 

which was almost equally divided, at the meeting when the case happened to be reported. The committee felt that these cases had better 

be submitted to the consideration of the Senate and uniforn action 

taken with reference to them all. We have already passed some five or six like cases during this session, and this list which I have made 

comprises all that rep:tain upon the Calendar; and by incorporating 

them with the unobjected cases substantially all the pension business 

will be disposed of. 

Mr. PLUMB. If there is to b e any preference given to special cases 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 59:39 

I hope it will not be gi"\"en to those already getting pensions and already getting much larger pensions than the average pensions, but that we shall address ourselves to pensioning people who have no pensions. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is precisely what has been done all ession. 

Mr. PLUMB. Let us relieve those who are willing tp take a mini- mum pension, and who are not so socially intrenched that they can besiege us to do that, which we know to be unjust to the great body of 

the tax-payers raising the pensions of those who are getting $30 to $50 

when others are getting only or $10. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire 

asks unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of pension cases on the Calendar reported favorably, and also--

Mr. PLUMB. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state what the Senator from New Hampshire desires, after which he will ask if there be 

objection. The Senator from New Hampshire asks unanimous consent 

that the Senate proceed to the consideration of pension bills on the 

Calendar. reported favorably, and, if the Chair correctly understands, 

also the list of other cases which the Senator from New Hampshire has . read. Is there objection? 

Mr. PLUMB. I object. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I object to the last clause; I have no objection to 

the other. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. 

Mr. BLAIR. Then I move to proceed to the consideration of un- objected pension cases and also the list which I have sent to the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That requires unanimous consent, as it changes the ru1e in respect of the order of business. Except by 

unanimous consent the Senator from New Hampshire can only move to 

proceed to one case at a time. 

Mr. BLAIR. Then I move to proceed to the cases favorably reported. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire 

asks unanimous consent that private pension bills favorably reported be 

now considered. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is this to displace the regular order of business at 

1 o'clock? 

The PRESIDENT 1>ro tempore. Subject to a call for the regular order. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let the Senator ask for the consideration of un- objected cases. 

Mr. BLAIR. I prefer to ask for the consideration of ca..<~eS favorably 

reported. 

. Mr. COCKRELL. I object. 

:Mr. BLAIR. Is a motion to that effect in order? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A motion is not in order except to 

proceed to the consideration of one bill at a time. 

Mr. FRYE. The shipping bill that I tried to get up would have 

been through before this time. ... Mr. BLAIR. That may be, but some of these cases need to go 

through as well as the shipping bill.. I move that the Senate now proceed to the conside:ration of the bill (H. R. 103) granting a pension to 

Theresa Crosby Watson. 

lli. WILSON. :Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order on a motion 

to take up a bill. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Can we have the bill read for information? 

1\fr. WILSON. I ask unanimous consent that we may proceed to 

the consideration of unobjected pension cases. Mr. COCKRELL. I have no objection to that in the world. 

Mr. GROOME. Nor has any one else. 

Mr. COCKRELL. No one else has. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem:pore. Pending the motion of the Senator 

from New Hampshire, the Senator from Iowa asks unanimous consent 

that the Senate proceed to consider in their order on the Calendar the 

pension bills reported favorably. Is there objection to the request of 

the Senator from Iowa? 

Mr. BLAIR. I make no objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The Chair believes that the case moved by the Senator fr9m 

New Hampshire is the first. 

NEWPORT SEWER. 

l\Ir. MILLER, of New York. I ask leave at this time to make a re- port from the Committee on Commerce. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report will be received, if there 

be no o~j ection. :Mr. MILLER, of New York. I am directed to report back favorably, with amendments, the bill (S. 2041) granting the right of way to 

the city of Newport, R. I., over the breakwater at Goat IslRnd. 

l\Ir. ALDRICH. It is very important that the bill should be acted 

on at this session, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered 

now. It i~ only four or five lines, and there can be no objection to it. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the bill? 

Mr. PLUUB. I object. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. 

Mr. ALDRICH. It is only four or five lines. There can be no ob-, iection to it. 

' 

Mr. PLUMB. I withdraw the objection. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with amendments in line 6 to strike out "reaulations" and in ert "conditions·" 

and at the end of the bill to add the following proviso: ' 

Provided, That such conditions shall be accepted by the city of Newport before 

the work herein authorized shall be commenced. 

So as to make the bill read: 

That the city, of Kewport, R.I., is hereby granted the right to construct and 

maintain a ewer for drainage purposes through or aero the breakwater at Goat Island, subject to uch conditions as the Secretary of War may prescribe: 

Provided, That such conditions shall be a{!cepted by the city of Newport before 

the work herein authorized shall be commenced. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. · 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the 

third time, and passed. '" 

MES AGE FROM THE HOUSE . 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had non-concurred in the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7380) making appropriationsfor 

sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 

30, 1 5, and for other purposes, asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed 

Mr. SAMUEL J. RANDALL of Pennsylvania, Mr. WILLI.Al\I H. FORNEY 

of Alabama, and 1\Ir. THO:l\IAS RYAN of Kansas managers at the con- ference on its part. 

.The message also announced that the House had non-concurred in 

the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6370) to limit the time 

within which prosecutions may be instituted ~aainst persons charged 

with violating internal-revenue laws, asked a conference with the Sen3tte 

on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed 

Mr. WILLIAl\I C. OATES of Alabama, l\Ir. BENTON McMILLIN of Tennessee, and :Mr. SERENO E. PAYNE of New York managers at the con- ference on its part. 

INTERNAL-REVENUE PROSECUTIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair willlay"before the Senate 

the action of the House of Representatives on House bill 6370. The 

message from the House will be read . l'he Secretary read as follows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 3, 1884. 

Resolved, That the House non-<!oncur in the amendment of the Senate to the 

bill (H. R. 6370) to limit the time within which prosecutions may be instituted 

against persons charged with violating internal-revenue laws, and ask a con- ference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. 

Ordered, That 1\lr. OATES, Mr. 1\Icl\liLLIN, and 1\Ir. PAYNE be the managers of 

said conference on the part of the House. . 

Mr. GARLAND. In the absence of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 

LOGAN] who reported the bill to the Senate, I move that the Senate 

insist on its amendment and agree to the conference asked for by the 

House of Representatives. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr~ LOGAN, Mr. 

SHER:rtl.AN, and l\lr. HARRIS were appointed. 

SUNDRY CIVIL .APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chairs lays before the Senate 

the bill {H. R. 7380) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses 

of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for .other purposes, returned from the House of R{:presentatives. The ac- tion of the House on the enate amendments will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 3, 1884. 

Resolved, That the House non-<!o~ur in the amendments of the Senate to the 

bill (H. R. 7380) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes, and ask a. conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. 

Ordered, That 1\Ir. RANDALL, Mr. FORNEY, and Mr. RYAN be the managers of 

said conference on the part of t·he House. 

~Ir. ALLISON. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments 

and agree to the conference asked for by the House of Representatives. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the Prebident pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. ALLISON, MT. 

HALE, and Mr. BECK were appointed. 

THERESA CROSBY WATSO:N. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first pension bill on the Calendar favorably reported is Order of Business 764, being House bill103. 

The bill (H. R. 103) granting a pension to Theresa Crosby Watson was con idered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Pensions with an amendment, in line 7, before " dollars," to strike out "fifty" and insert 

''thirty;" so as to make the bill rea.d: Be i.t enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place .on the pension-roll of the United States the name of Theresa Crosby Watson, widow of James M. Watson, late a commodore in 

. 

= 
' 

5940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 

the United States Navy, and pay her a pension at the rate of $30 a month from 

and after the passage of this act, subject to all the other provisions and limitations 

of the pension laws. 

Mr. BLAIR. I wish to explain to the Senate the attitude of this 

ca e. This is a House bill, passed by the House, giving to the widow 

of Commodore Watson a pension at the rate of $50 per month. The 

Senate Committee on Pensions reported the bill favorably with an 

amendment reducing the amount to $30 per month. It is, as I said 

before, one of a eries of cases. Some are reported one way and some 

are reported the other way by the committee. Itwas the understanding with the committee that the question whether cases of this kind 

such as we have here should pass at the rate of $50 per month should 

be ubmitted to the Senate. 

Thls widow is now between 50 and 60 years of age. She is poor. 

She is dependent upon her own manual labor for a living. In addition to the ordinary infirmities of age she is disabled by a broken hand, 

which occasions great difficulty and pain in the process of ·writing, to 

which she is obliged to resort as the only means by which she can earn 

money for her own maintenance .. 

The almost universal practice of the Government has hitherto been 

to give incases of this kind to the widows of officers of long and eminent service 50 per month, when in addition to the ordinary elements 

iu such cases is to be found that of poverty, absolute need, which is 

tbe case here. · 

During the present session some six cases involving precisely the 

same principle have been reported to the Senate by the committee, all 

of which have been -passed. Some were reported favorably; some were 

reported adversely. For my own part, I am entirely unable to see 

upon w bat principle we can discriminate against the few remaining 

cases which are before the Senate. 

I do not know that I care to say anything more . . The long and eminent service of the husband of this woman and her dependence upon her 

own personal labor are conceded faets. There is no controversy in the 

committee upon that subject. The question really is, shall we use these 

widows as we have used the widows of other officers under like circumstances? If so, the amendment of the committee, which in this case is 

one of reduction, should be disagreed to. Other cases, so far as I know 

no more meritorious, are before the Senate where the committee report 

in favor of granting a pension of 50 per month.. I see no reason for a discrimination here. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I desire to offer an amendment to the bill or to 

the amendment, as may be deemed best .. 

ThePRESIDINGOFFICER (Mr.HARRISin the chair). The amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

That pensions heretofore or hereafter granted to widows of soldiers of.any war in which the United States is engaged, from and after the passage of this act, 

shall be at the rate of $12 per month, instead of $8 per month, as now provided. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. The subject-matter embrared in the amendment 

is one that will probably have the unanimous concurrence of this body 

and of the other House, that the widows of all the soldiers who served 

in any war in which the United States was engaged shall be pensioned 

at the rnt.e of $12 per month instead of $8. An attempt has been made 

to incorporate that and make it the law this session. It was placed on 

the Mexican pension bill, it is true, but the uncertainty attending the 

fate of that bill in the other House renders it necessary that this clause 

should be plaeed upon some bill which may probably pass. It is a plain, 

simple proposition that the widuws shall receive $12 per month, and 

there is no better plaee to put it than .on a bill which proposes a penion at a large amount according to rank. 

The PRESID NG OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska desire to offer this a an amendment to the amendment of the committee, 

or does the Senator desire it to come in elsewhere in the bill? 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I suggest to the Senator to withhold his amendment until the pending amendment is disposed of. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Probably that ~oold be as well. I desire to 

move it as an amendment to the bill instead of to the amendment now pending. . 

Mr. BLAIR. I understand that the Senator temporarily withdraws 

his amendment, but· I may as well say what little I wish to say in regard to it now as at any time. 

The Senator is aware, for we have wrought together in that field in 

the committe~ and elsewhere, that I am as strongly in favor of pensioning the widows of the oldiers of the country at $12 a month as he is. 

He has also alluded to a fact, which it seems to me is a sufficient reply 

to his motion to amend the bill in the way proposed, that the Senate 

has already discussed and passed a bill to that effect which has gone 

to the House for its concurrence, and I observe by yesterday's proceedings that the House is likely to pass the bill which gives this relief 

to the widows of all the soldiers of the country. 

It is therefore superfluous and quite inimical to this private bill to 

attach an amendment of this description to it. It is a House bill, coming like the others that I have mentioned here, almost every one of 

them, from the Honse. Unless we act finally upon it, it undoubtedly 

must fail for the session. The amendment can do no good to anybody 

and will hardly be likely to reach a conclusion so early as the Mexican 

pension bill itself, for that will be decided at this session probably, 

while if this bill goes baek with an amendment to the Honse it must 

be delayed until the next session. 

For this reason, it being utterly useless in every point of view either 

to this widow or to the widows of the common soldiers, I hope that the 

amendment will be rejected whenever the question is taken upon it. 

Mr. WILSON. There are a number of cases on the Calendar reported from the Committee on Pensions without division providing for 

soldiers and widows who are not now receiving any pension, and in 

order that we may proceed to cases that will not excite discussion I 

am disposed, if it is in order, to object to the further consideration of 

this bill, so that we can proceed with those cases which will not excite 

discussion, and afterward take up bills for the relief of those who are 

now provided with pensions and yet whose cases will excite discussion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was informed by the President pro te:mpore when the present occupant took the chair that we 

were proceeding to the consideration of unobjected pension bills favorably reported. That being so, the objection of the Senator from Iowa 

will carry the bill over at present. 

Mr. BLAIR. Unanimous consent was given to consider this bill. 

Mr. WILSON. I do not wish to throw this out of its place on the 

Calendar. I am willing that it should be passed over informally, retaining its place, but I do desire to have thosecasesagainstwhich there 

is no objection, and which will not excite debate, disposed of. Then 

we can take up the other cases. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had non-concurred in the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4696) to authorize the location 

of a branch home for disabled volunt-eer soldiers and sailors in either 

the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 

or Nebraska, agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and had appointed Mr. WILLIAM S. 

RoSECRANS of California, Mr. CHARLES H. MORGAN of Missouri, and 

Mr . .JAMES LAIRD of Nebraska. managers at the conference on the 

part of the House. . 

The message also announced that the House had non-concurred in 

the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4383) to relieve certain soldiers from the charge of desertion, agreed to the conference asked 

by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and 

had appointed Mr. WILLIAMS. ROSECRANS ofOtilifornia, Mr. CHARLES 

H. MORGAN of~fissouri, and Mr. GEORGE W. STEELE of Indiana man- agers at the conference on the part of the House. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, 

it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate ·the unfinished business which is the bill (H. R. 7162) to forfeit the unearned lands 

granted to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the 

construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the States of Missouri 

and Arkansas to the Pacific coast, and to restore the same to settlement, and for other purposes. 

Mr. WILSO~. I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill be 

laid aside informally, so that we may proceed with the unobjected pension cases. 

Mr. PLUUB. There will be time enough hereafter to considerpension cases. That is a class of legislation which will go through any 

way. I feel under constraint, having charge of this bill, to insist upon 

proceeding with it. 

Mr. WILSON. I withdraw the suggestion. 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the 

floor. 

Mr. PLU~fB. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. 

Mr. BLAIR. I wish to ascertain · the precise condition of the case 

which was being discussed when the Senator from Iowa. rose. It was laid before the Senate by unanimonsconsent, and ithadproceeded considerably in consideration when he rose to interpose an objection, if it 

was in order. I inquire of the Chair if under these circumstances the 

objection can be in order? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The present occupant of the chair was informed by the President pro tempore of the Senate that the Senate 

wa.s proceeding to considerunobjected pension bills favorably report-ed. 

If the Senate was proceeding to consider unobjected pension bills, the 

Chair thinks that the rule of objection applies here as under Rule VIII. 

That being so, the objection can come at any time, and the bill goes over 

under objection. 

Mr. BLAIR. Then, if the ruling of the Chair is correct, I suppose 

there is nothing to do but to allow the bill to be passed over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator 

from New Hampshire that the unfinished bUBiness is now before the 

Senate, and the bill to which he refers has been passed from. The 

Senate is not now considering it; it is not before the Senate. 

Mr. BLAIR. But I supposed that it might proceed to consider the 

bill at the present time. 

' 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. 5941 

Mr. HILL. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is 

occupying the floor. . 

Mr. BLAIR. I make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, whether 

it is in order now to move to proceed with the consideration of House 

bill103? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it would be in order 

for the Senator from New Hampshire to move to postpone the pending 

order until to-morrow; and ifthatorder is made, it will be in order for 

the Senator to move the consideration of any measure pending upon the 

Calendar. 

Mr. PLATT. May I be permitted to say a word just at this juncture, by unanimous consent? ' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill before the ~nate is debatable. 

Mr. PLA'IT. I think it is very much better to have it understood 

that the bill which is regularly before the Senate is to go on. There 

will be plenty of time for all these pension cases before we get through, 

I tllink. 

Mr. PLUMB. I call for the regular order. 

MARIA G. U;IT>ERWOOD. 

Mr. LAPHAM. I gave notice on Monday that at this time I should 

ask leave to submit ~me remarks on Order of Business. 787, beiii.g a 

resolution to pay Maria G. Underwood $5,000 in full compensation for 

the time and expenses of her husband in prosecuting his claim to a seat 

in the Senate. • 

Mr. PLUMB. What is the Senator's request? 

Mr. LAPHAM. I wish about half an hour. 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not feel as though I couldyield for that purpose 

now in view of the responsibility that attaches to me in connection 

with the pending measure. 

1\f.r. LAPHAM. Of course the Senator from Kansas is entitled to 

the floor, and I shall reserve my remarks until a later hour if the Senator desires. 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not feel as though I could take the responsibility 

of yielding at this time. 

FOURTH OF JULY CLAIMS. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, submitted the _ following report: 

The oommittee of conference on the disagreeing vot~s <'Jf tl.ie two Houses on the amendments of the Sena~ to the bill (H. R. 5:'>77) for the allowance of ce.rtain claims repomd by the accounting offieers of the Treasury Department, having 

met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recom- mend to their respe<ltive Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment numbered 1, 'and agree to the same with the following amendment, namely: In lieu of the Sena~ amendment insert the following : 

" MISSISSIPPI. 

"To Julia A. Nutt, widow and executrix of Haller Nutt, deceased, of Adams County, the sum of335,556.17." And that the Sena~ agree to the same. That the House re<!ede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Sena~ 

numbered 2, and agree to the same. 

The report was concurred in. 

ANGUS CAMERON, 

CHARLES F. MANDERSON, 

J. Z. GEORGE, 

Managers on the part of the &mate. 

JOHN B. STORM, 

J. H. ROWELL, 

Managers on the part of the House . . 

ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC RAILROAD LAND GRANT. 

Mr. PLUMB. I call for the regular order. , 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7162) to forfeit the unearned lands granted to 

the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction 

of a railroad and telegraph line from the States of Missouri and Arkansas to the Pacific coast, and to restore the same to settlement, add for 

other purposes, the pending question being on the amendment submitted 

by Mr. MORGAN, in section 1, line 17, to strike out all after the word 

"forfeited," as follows: 

.And the title thereto resumed by the Uni~d Sta~, and said lands restored to the public domain, and mac:J.e subject to disposal under the generall~ws .of th;e United States as though satd grant had never been made; but nothmg m this act shall be construed to recognize the right of said company to any land in the Indian Territory, or claim thereto, on condition or otherwise, except the right of way and land for stations. 

And in lieu thereof to insert: 

SEC. 2. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the -circuit court of the United States for the western district of MiBSouri to hear and determine all questions and controversies concerning the rights and equities in said forfeited lands that are claimed or asserted by the United States, or by any ~rson or corporation 

claiming the AAme under or in consequence of any laws of the United States, or any act of its lawfully authorized agents, and to enforce any judgment or de- cree, either interlocutory or final, that said court shall render in respect of said lands or any in~rest therein. · SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the 'western district. of Missouri, under the direction of the Department of Justice, to prO<Jeed in the circuit court of the United States for the said district, by bill in equity in the name of the United States of America as plaintiff, against any corporations or persons t-hat claim any interest in the lands hereby declar~ fo~­

feited arising under said act of Congress approved July Zlh1866, or under thiB act1 so as to bring before said court for its determination t e validity of such clarm, whether the same be legal or equitable. 

SEC. 4.. Any person or corporation not made a party defendant in said pro-. ceeding, but claiming any interest under the laws of the United States in the lands or any part thereof which are declared forfe ~ by this act, may present such claim by p etition in said cause, duly verified by oath, and If the court, upon consideration thereof, sh a ll decide that the a djudication and settlement of such claim is necessary to do complete justice in such cause the court sha ll direct that such further proceedings be had upon such ~tition as that the same may be fully heard and de_termined, and shall proceed to d ecree upon the same as fully as if such ~t tion r had been m a de a party d efendant in said suit : Provided, 

That no such petition shall be filed af~r twelve months from the date of the filing of the bill in said cause. SEc. 5. The court sha ll, if it see fit, tax a ll the costs of the suit 'under the third section of this act against the United States, and shall a pportion the cost of any proceeding under the fourth section of this act between the parties according to justice and equity. Any party to the suit instituted under this act shall have the right of appeal from any fina l decree therein to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same conditions as are pre- scribed by law and the rules of said court for appeals in equity cases. And the Supreme Court shall cause said appeal to be adva nced on the docket, so that the same shall be speedily de~rmined. But no right of appeal shall exist after six months from the time when said final decree is entered on the records of the circuit court of the United Sta~. 

:Ur. MORGAN. Itlr. President, in the remarks that I submitted on 

this bill when it was before the Senate several days ago I was attempting to enforce two propositions. The first was that there is a duty 

resting upon Congress under the existing circumstances to declare a 

forfeiture of what are termed the unearned lands of the Atlantic and 

PMific Railway Company. The second proposition is that after that 

declaration is made it is our duty to send the case to the courts without 

undertaking to shape the rights of any person by the force or weight of 

our legislation. 

I predicate my opinion in regard to the right to declare a forfeiture 

of the land grants upon the fact that beyond theN eedles, up the Pacific 

coast, the Needles being the place where the Southern Pacific and the 

Atlantic and Pacific unite, there is really no evidence of an intention 

on the part of this railway company to complete its road. 

If I could be convinced that this company intended to build a competitive line from San Francisco down to the Needles, so as to give the 

people of Calliornia the advantage of the two lines, one the Southern 

Pacific and the other the Atlantic and PMific, I should be willing to 

defer the forfeiture of this land grant at least to some future period of 

time. I should be willing to extend the time in order to enable this 

company to complete the building of that road. I would do this because I am a supporter of the doctrine that when the Government of 

the United States has made .a dedica.tiGn of property, public lands, 

for a great public benefit to great communities, such a dedication ought 

not to be lightly withdrawn, and as long as there is a reasonable prospect of carrying into effect the purpose of the original dedication it 

ought to be su.stained. But in the absence of any expectation justified 

by the facts that this dedication of public lands will be availed of by 

this railway company for the benefit of those communities it was intended to benefit, I am willing to go with the committee for the forfeiture. 

Against this view of the case very strong argument has been made 

and quite an array of persuasive facts has been presented. This company was represented before the committee by persons who made a 

number of important statements which it seems to me bear strongly 

against the equity of our conduct in the forfeiture of this land grant. 

The only question that the United States Government can make against 

/this railroad corporation in respect of its non-compliance with the obligation imposed upon it under the grant is simply that it has not completed the railroad within the time prescribed in the charter. As far as it has built its road it is a good road, a very valuable road to commerce; it opens up a country of great importance, and without this 

railway that country would have remained a wilderness for years to 

come; and there are political advantages that the Government of the 

United States gains from the building of this railroad, as far as the 

company has built it, which are of a very important character. 

One of the provisions of the grant was that the Government of the 

United States undertook to extinguish the Indian title and survey the 

land where the reservations of the Indians crossed the line of the road, 

which is practically the thirty-fifth parallel. Perhaps, in order to get 

that point distinctly before the Senate, I had better read the engagement of the United States in the act making the grant. . In section 2 

it was provided in the last clause: 

The United States shall extinguish, as rapidly as may be consistent with public policy and the welfo.re of the Indians, and only by their voluntary ces- sion, the IBdian title to all lands f~lling under the o~ration of this act and ao- quired in the donation to the road named in the act. 

That is a positive engagement on the part of_ the Government, one 

that we can not set aside at will; and if we had this duty resting upon 

us, is it not really a condition precedent to our right to demand a forfeiture for non-compliance by the railroad company in the building of 

the road within the time prescribed in the charter? 

We can not lightly set aside that provision. If it were an obligatien 

between private individuals and I was arguing it before a court, I think 

I should be justified in holding that until the grantor of the land had 

complied on his part with the condition J?Tecedent of clearing this road 

of an incumbrance which he alone had the power to clear it of, he 

should not be permitted to insist on this question of time resting upon 

the facl that the railroad eompany had not completed its road within 
5942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 3, 

the time prescribed in the charter as a ground for the forfeiture of the proper district attorney under his direction shill present his bill in 

grant. Whether that position is well taken or not, it is very strenu- equity in the nature of a bill of interpleader, and he hall take these 

ously urged in behalf of this railroad company. Counsel representing different parties into court with their rights entirely unaffected by legthe railroad company before the committee brought up this question islation so far as the value of them as it respects the title is concerned. 

and we were obliged to consider it. Let them stand for what they are worth under the law of the United 

There is another provision in the charter touching the same subject. States and upon the facts as they shall be established at the time of the 

I will read it: trial in that court. As a member of the committee I have not a umed 

SEc. 17. And be itjurU1e-r enacted, That the said company is authorized to ac- the duty or the authority to make a final decision of these fact<> or of 

cept to it.s own use any grant, donation, loan, power, franchise, aid, or assist- what their effect would be upon the title and upon the equities of these ance which may be granted to or conferred on said company by the Congress parties. I prefer to leave that to the adJ. udication of the courts. of the United States, by the Legislature of any State, or by any corporation, 

person or persons, or by any Indian tribe or nation through who e reservation ~Ir. President, there are other r~ons which operate again t the pol- the roa:d herein provided for may pass; and said corporation is authorized to icy I am advocating here of declaring a forfeiture of this land grant, hold and enjoy any such grant, donation, loan, power, franchise, aid, or assist- which were presented for the consideration of the committee, and which ance to its own use, for the purpose aforesaid: Pro~ided, That any such grant or d~nation, power, aid, or assista~ce from any ~dian tribe or nation shall be I deem it to be my duty very briefly to present to the consideration of 

subject to the approval of the Pres1dent of the Umted States. the Senate. The :first is that the financial panic of 1 73, which paraThis company asserts that the United States Government not only lyzed trade and largely weakened the confidence of capitalists in venthave not removed the Indian reservations which cro s their line of uring further investments in railroad building through undeveloped 

railway as projected and laid down on the map, but that they have sections, retarded the company in its progress, a cause that might be 

actually put other wild and savage tribes of Indians across their line, imilated without ir:~;everence to the act of God, a financial condition 

and have given them what are called executive reservations, or reser- which deterred men of large capital from investing their money in a 

vations by executive order, which have prevented the company from wilderness country. The econd point that they urge in this direction 

even making surveys of their line of road. That is the claim. is this: 

In view of these statutes, and in view of this assertion on the part The continu~d failure of the United States to put the company's grants in 

of this company, the question that I pre ent, and the only one that I condition for use by extinguishment of Indian titles as a basis for raising suffi- cient money for construction purpose naturally deterred capitalists from addesire to present, is this: Shall we so legislate here as to depri\e this vancing nece ary funds on the faith of a grant of lands which, because of existcompany of the right to make these questions against the nited ing Indian title , th~ company could not then dispo e of by sales to settlers, &c., 

States? I can state it more strongly than that: Can we so legislate as and the period of actual enjoyment of which rested in the indefinite future. '.rhese causes combined forced the failure of the company, a result sought to be to prevent and estop the company from making these questions against averted by earnest, repeated, but ineffectual appeals to Congress. 

the United States? When we demand a forfeiture·of thi land grant After having made their arguments they sum up certain conclusions 

upon the ground that the company have not complied with part of the which I will not read in. extenso, but the substance of which I will state 

requirement of the chart~r to build their road within the time pre- as being the ground which this company occupy in respect to the 

scribed in the act, can we insist, have we the power to so frame our United States as they claim the facts and the law to be. First they 

enactment as to preclude the company from raising that question and say that--

having it settled by a court? I do not think we can. The legislation of Congress applicable to this road should be construed as a Here is what the company as erts in reply to this proposition: whole. Undue effect should not be given to one provision of the law so as to 

The United States has not EWen attempted to fulfill its pr&mise to extinguish make arne inharmonious with other provi ions. It should also be construed 

the Indian titles. It has never commenced to put the land grant in condition with reference to the history of the times when the law wa enacted, in order 

to ue sold, pledged, or to be otherwise utilized as a means of raising money for to ascertain the reason a well as the meaning of particular provisions. 

construction purposes. So far from doing so, it has still further encumbered That is certainly a very sensible and very reasonable request. We these titles. In 1868-'69 it located the Cheyennes and Arapahoes directly across the pre cribed route of the road in the Indian Territory, and guaranteed their have found it necessary in order to build all the great lines of rail way exclu ive right of occupancy. The warlike Navajoe were located over u in to connect the Athntic and Pacific .that we should give them addiNew Mexico and Arizona in 1868 with similar guarantees. Small reservations ·tional power ' power to mortga~re all their franchises after they had for other tribes and for Pueblo Indians have been created iB our pathway and ~ 

military reservations have been put across our route. These not only deprive failed with the stock subscription system to get money enough to build us of the enjoyment of the land grant, but they also in the large areas covered their lines. The Government of the United States not only knew that 

thereby block our right of way and de troy our ability to take materials for con- these companies had failed to comply with the conditions subsequent struction. The War Department has ordered our tie-camps from theJimits of 

military reservations created by executive orders long sub equent to our act of in their contracts up to the time the power of mortgaging their estates 

Congre , and only after long delay, extended argument, and consequent loss of was given, but the Government understood perfectly well the reasons time and money were such orders rescinded. The Interior Department has fi th -~>-il d that th · bl · h orderedoursurveyorsoutoftheindianTerritory,whereinourrighttoconstruct or · e ll1> ure, an ese companies were excusa em t e eyes was guaranteed by charter and by treaty. The direct money loss consequent on of the people of the United States for not having been able to comply ~:;~oc~ned~3~ded 100,000, and long delays were incurred before such orders trictly with the terms of the grant. So it was that the Government, 

Since the road was constructed in Arizona and the granted lands thereby finding that these roads could not be built simply by private contribuearned the Government has establi hed new Indian reservations upon same, tions to the capital stock, as was at first hopefully expected, gave the 

:and without apparent regard to the existence of our,•ve ted property rights Northern Pacific and the Texas Pacific and the Atlantic and Pacific the 

:therein. These are the 1\ioqui, Suppai, and Hualpi reserves, which lie directly power to mort0!mge all that they had derived from the Government of 

npon ou1· grant, and the latter reserve reaching almost to our track. 

The United States has equally failed to survey the lands. .As will be presently the United States even down to the right of way and their franchises, 

:ehown, the company has pushed construction at such points and times as was for the purpose of inducing capitali ts t~ come in and invest their money possible to a bu iness enterprise; and as the road progressed the company hns · th rt b d 

pressed the United States to identifythegrantedsections by surveys and patents. ill e mo gage on s. This rea onable request has not been complied with. Failingtosecuresuchac- We had stood ' by until we saw that these roads were a failure; we tion from the Government, the company has asked the Interior Department to had stood by until various events bad occurred which would have techeither permit it· to deposit the requisite moneys 'under the special deposit law, nically entitled us to insist on a forfeiture of the grants·, and finding or to advance same as a credit upon thechargesrequiredto be paid upon issue of 

patents. Both requests have been denied. So that the Governruent has both that failure was inevitable, that the forfeiture would result in the disap- failed to do what it agreed to do in the matter of surveys, and it has refu ed to pointment of that grand expectation of the building of these highways to 

allow the company to do same at its own cost. t th t th Go t f th U 'ted States As a body, the land grant is still largely unsurveyed along the line of con- connec ese grea oceans, e vernmen 0 • e ru caD,le 

structed road. While the land grant, in that undefined condition, may be sub- in by this act of Congress, condoned and waived really and truly, not in 

jected to a general mortgage, there is no segregation of the particular sections terms but in effect, all previous causes and grounds of forfeiture, en- inuring to the grant from the adjacent mass of public lands . .An absence of 1a d th f th ti d +--ted th identification exists. Hence thecompanyishampered in its location of stations, rge e powers 0 e corpora ons, ~n ....... em upon a new depots,and.otberpermanentimprovements; itcanmakenotitlestopurchasers; system, the old one having failed to supply the means to build the 

it can not invite settlements. A railroad and a wilderness are incompatible roads. The new system placed these railroad companies directly upon things and can not long co-exist. Either t.he wilderne s must be subdued or th n.fid f tb •t lists f th t d to th h t the railroad must die of starvation. If land titles can not be perfected nor the e CO ence 0 e capl a 0 e conn ry, an gave em W a Dwnership of lands be identified, the process of subduing the wilderness will be was considered a sufficient security for the payment of the bonds which 

,slow and perhaps impracticable. they i ued.. 

That is what is asserted in behalf of this railroad company in re ist- Now, I recall the attention of the Senate to the fad that when we 

ance to our right to insist upon any forfeiture because of the lap e of gave them power in 1 71 to mortgage their franchises and their property 

time. I do not aasume to decide thi question between the railroad of every description for t.he security of bonds to be issued under the 

company and the United States; neither do I think that Congress ought mortgage to realize money to build the road, we did not fix a period of 

to assume to decide it. It is a question of fact affecting the equities maturity for those bonds. we· allowed that to be fixed by an agreebetween these parties, equities that reach down to the bottom of the ment between the railroad company and the bondholde~ the men who 

subject and present the legal question; also, whether we have now the loaned the money. If the Government of the United ~:States, when it 

right to declare this land forfeited by judicial sentence. But certainly was making this offer to the capitalists of the world that they should 

I will not consent by the le.gislative declaration that is proposed in the have the security of this railroad company- all that it had built and all 

Hon.'le bill to so fa.r affect the rights of this railroad company as to that it could build and all its property of every description, including 

deny what they claim. I want the political declaration, or the decla- •its franchise-did not impo e as one of the conditions of the mortgage a 

ration of public policy, to bema.ae by theCongressofthe United States period of time within which the road should be completed, then it can of t he forfeiture of the lands, so as to give the United States Govern- not be stated that there is not strong ground at least for argumentation 

ment ~ s.~ding in oourt1 and then that the Attorney-General or th e on behalf of this railroad company that we had waived the right to for- · 
I 

1884. CONG:RESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5943 

feit the lru;tds if the road was not built within the time previously prescribed in the original charter. 

I do not say that that is so. I do not take that view of the question. 

I will vote against that view of the question. I will vote that we have 

a Jjght to forfeit these landsbecausetheydid not build the road within 

the period fixed in the original charter, in order to bring the question 

before the courts. Nevertheless by our votes we can not extinguish the 

argument that is made against this exercise of power, and I can not say 

to the American public that these people who are arguing in this way 

and in good faith are clearly in the wrong, and that I am still disposed 

to cut their claims up by the roots and not to bear them in a court of 

justice. If the Supreme Court of the United States-or any of the other 

constitutional tribunals of this country shall decree that upon that state 

of facts it was the implied intention on the part of the United States to 

waive the ground of forfeiture mentioned in the original charter as to 

the question of time within which the road should be completed, then 

I want them to have the benefit of it, the right to it. 

Here I will mention again the fact that this committee have not 

been empowered by the Senate of the United States to ascertain the 

facts affecting these grants in a judicial way. We have to take the representations made pro and con upon this question by gentlemen aJl of 

whom are interested, and in no sense of the word have we engaged in 

any judicial investigation of the rights of these parties. We have to 

gather the facts a I state them here to-day fi·om the briefs made by 

the counsel, and fi·om oral arguments made and statements made by 

interested parties before the committee. 

As I understand the facts of this case, the time for completing the 

road was the 4th of July, 1878, twelve years from the date of the act. 

That was a rather short time, and I have a good deal of doubt as to 

the sincerity of the expectation of either party, Congress .or the railroad company, that so long a line of road-nearly 2,000 miles longshould be built within twelve years. On the 20th of April, 1871, Congress authorized the company to mortgage everything, waiving previous causes of forfeiture, not expressly but by implication, and extended the period of control over the lands indefinitely so far as the 

mortgages were concerned. 

The map of the general !oute was filed December 2, 1871, after this 

act authorizing the mortgaging of the lands had been passed. On J anuary 30, 1880; a tripartite agreement was m;W.e and was followed by a 

mortgage. That w~ an agreement between two other railroad companies and the Atlantic and Pacific Company that, for the purpose of 

getting an .outlet to the West over this road, the Atchison, Topeka and 

Santa Fe and the Saint Louis and San Francisco roads agreed that they 

would come in and guarantee the interest upon their bonds, and would 

actually mortgage their own income from their own roads in support of 

those bonds so as to give them currency in the market. That agreement 

was entered into January 30, 1880, and it was in pursuance of that 

agreement that the money was raised to build the road from Albuquerque out to the Needles. This was not an un.!awful act, neither was 

it without hazard. It was exactly in linewithapolicythat the United 

States eagerly sought to carry into effect. of completing this great transcontinental highway. 

A question was made before the committee, and I notice a question 

was made in a report made to the House of Representatives, that this 

railroad' company, .instead of commencing at one of its termini and 

building clear through in either direction, commenced in the middle 

of its route. Why, Mr. President, between Springfield, Mo., and Albuquerque there intervened the Indian Territory, through which they 

couldnotgo. Theywerenotpermitted togo through thereand the Government of the United States did not comply with the agreement to 

provide the means by which they should go· through with their railroad, and this road would not have been built to-day, it would have 

been a physical impossibility to build it, had it not been for the fact 

that the two roads to which I have referred.as having taken the bonds 

oftllls company found it convenient and necessary for their ·own business that the road should be commenced at Albuquerque and built west, 

they supplying the necessary transportation and carrying the materials, 

ties, rails, and things of that kind to the point at which the road could 

really be commenced to be built. 

Twenty-five miles of road were completed by this company by the 27th 

of September, 1870-mark the date-only twenty-five miles. From 

the date of the charter down to the year 1870, on the 27th of September, this company had only actually built twenty-five miles of its own 

line. It had, however, bought a road leading from a point near Saint 

Louis to Springfield, which is now the Saint Louis and San Francisco 

road. They bought that road or got the control of it, and were afterward 

compelled to surrender it. That road included, they had built one hundred and twenty-five miles of continuous line by July 4, 187 , the period at wrucb the charter was forfeitable. 

There were only seven years, from 1871 to 1 7 , within which Congress expected a line of more than 2, 000 miles to be built, if Congre s really did not intend, whenitgavethecompanythis mortgaging power, 

to make a waiver of the condition in the original grant that the road 

should be compfeted by the 4th of July, 187 . Up to this date, since 

the 4th of July, 1 7 , a r!>ad has been constructed and equipped in 

first-class style, and has become a very important factor in the commercial intercourse of that part of the country and of this part, too, 

with its nine hundred and sixty-four miles of railroad. It has got to 

be an immense trunk line. So, adding this to the road from Saint Louis 

to Springfield, there are now completed at least a thousand miles of 

railway. 

When we come to avtrage this through the period of thirteen years 

you will find that this company has built considerably more than fifty 

miles a year. It did not build :fifty miles in each year, butwhen itgot 

into a condition that it could work at all, could get materials from the 

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe road and from other roads, then it went 

immediately to work and built the road with very great rapidity. 

Now, taking this brief summary of facts together, is there not strong 

ground for the argument made by this company that the Congress of 

the United States in foro conscientim is bound to admit that it was a 

part of the intent and purpose of this Government in its dealingswith 

this road not to insist upon the technical forfeiture running back to 

or comm~ncingthe 4th of July, 1878. If we had the right of forfeiture 

of the lands on the 4th of July, 1878, why ha>e we not enforced it? 

Why has no bill been brought in here for the rnrpo e of determining 

this land grant, cutting it off on the legal technicality which arises upon 

the recent construction of this act? I am not answering that question. 

Indeed, I have not undertaken to answer any question in this case except the single one that the Government of the United States, in obedience to the public demand I will say, ought to declare a forfeiture of 

this land grant for the purpose of giving to the company and to the 

United St.:'1tes Government a standing in court and a tribunal, so that 

they may go before it with their rights unimpaired by any influence 

of Congress upon them to change or give color to them in favor of the 

Government or in favor of the other party, and there have them settled according to law. 

Now, 1\Ir. President, we are to have a great deal of this work to do, it 

appears. I look with very great apprehension upon the view of this 

case and of the many similar cases which would involve the Senate of 

the United States day after day, and session after session, and year after 

year in sitting in judgment upon facts to he ascertained before committees and upon the great mass of intricate and involved and difficult 

law questions that must arise upon the numerous grants which it is 

now sought to set aside and to annul. ·We shall have enough to occupy 

this body for the next five years, if we do nothing else, in the consideration of all the intricate claims which must naturally arise in the disposal of these vast land grants. As I stated to the Senate the other day, 

the number of these conditional grants exceeds one hundred, not all 

forfeitable and not all being pursued, but a number of them are forfeitable; a number of them are severely attacked. 

Now, what course are we to pursue in this matter? Are we to usurp 

to ourselves judicial functions for the decision of the facts and the law 

touching all of this great mass of grants, or shall we appeal. to that tribunal which is provided in the Constitution for the consideration, determination, and execution of the rights of every person, whether a corporation or a private citizen-the judicial department of the Government? 

What have we got judges for if we intend to usurp their functions? 

Why do we have courts, if we, in obedience to popular clamor or demand, 

shall organize ourselves into a high court of first instance, a nisi prius 

tribunal, for the purpose of hearing facts and deciding law and coming 

to grave conclusions upon these important matters? 

Mr. President, we are scarcely impartial; for after all the Congress of 

the United States stands closer to the Government and closer to the 

people than any other department of this Government, and we act in 

the name of the people and for their benefit continuously. Their impressions and their desires and their conviction~ are Yery largely ours, 

and it is proper that it shoulii be so, for we are the representative branch 

of the Government of the United States. It is one of our noblest as well 

as one of our most useful functions that we are here to represent the 

demands of the country in respect of its policy upon all questions. 

But, sir, the representatives of the people who claim to own this land 

are not the men from whom we shall expect the most impartial judgment upon questions of this sort. We have a tribunal which is set 

apart under the laws of the United States, apart from the people. The 

judges hold their offices under a life-tenure. They are carefully and 

cautiously removed from all influences of a popular character. They are not expected to yield to popular impressions, and though there 

might be 50,000,000 people clamoring for the destruction of a man or 

his rights these courts are so organized as that we confidently expect 

that a single judge shall stand in the breach and give a man his rights 

under the Constitution and under the laws against the whole power of 

the people. 

I do not wish, in an attempt to gratifY any eagerness on my part to 

satisfy a popular demand, to put myself in the shoes of the judges of 

th:is land and to take away from any corporation or from any human 

being the guarantees which we provided under our constitutional system for the protection of private rights. Let every man and every 

corporation, no matter how popular or how unpopular he or it may be, no matter what accusations can or may or hn,ve been brought against 

these people or again t these corporations as being monopolists or land-
5944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

grabbers or grasping tyrants, let them all ha>e an opportunity to be 

heard in the courts of the country, in an impartial forum, and after 

full pleading and after testimony delivered upon oath, let their rights 

be decided upon. If need be, let the chancellor call a jury to decide 

issues of fact, so that the body of the country, as it is termed, may pass 

upon questions of this kind, and then no one can complain of injustice. 

Now, as this is the first question that has been before the Senate, the 

first land-grant forfeiture, I believe, that has ever been considered in 

the light in which we a1·enow considering this question, I appeal to the 

Senate of the United States that they will take pause upon this case, 

and that they will in this case set a-precedent which we will hereafter 

follow, of providing a reasonable, expeditious, just, fair, and satisfactory 

method of trying e\cry right that is claimed, it makes no difference how 

absurd it may appear to our minds, arising under the laws of the United 

States touching these grants. We have no right to seize upon the powers of the judges to decide questions because we think we may ha>e the 

right to assume iu our own opinion that these judges, when they come to 

consider the questions, would decide them in the way we think they 

ought to be decided by Congress. We have no right, as is attempted in 

the House bill before us, to proceed to dispose of the title to these lands 

after we have declared their lawful forfeiture. We havenorightto say 

that the Government of the United States shall resume the title to these 

lands; for it mayturRout even in collateralproceedings.between other 

parties interested in these lands that the courts will say, ''You have no 

power over the title.'' We have no right to say that we will seize upon 

the title of these lands, and that they shall be restored to the public domain by act of Congress. That may be one of the results of the judgment of the court whenever it is rendered. .A.t the same time, when 

we give legislative expression to that result in advance of a trial we so 

far hamper and obstruct the judicial authority in paasing upon questions of this kind that it can scarcely afterward be said to be freely and 

fairly exercised. 

Mr. President, another thing we do in this bill which admits away 

an important feature of the whole case presented in the bill as the House 

sent it to us. We apportion this forfeiture, and we say that it shall 

apply only to those lands which.are adja.oent to and conterminous with 

the uncompleted portions of the main line of the said road. There is 

no such language as that in this grant. The power of Congress to declare a forfeiture of these lands for non-eompli.'Ulce with the condition 

subsequent was not in the act granting these lands limited to those 

that might be conterminous with the uncompleted or the oompleted 

portions of the road. . 

We take the gra11.t and cut it in two; we reaffirm it in part by act of 

Congress before we undertake to claim under its terms a forfeiture of 

another part. That is not legal consistency. It is equity, it is justice 

in our view of the case and in my view, as in that of e>erybody else. 

At the same time it is not a judgment pronounced as a court would pronounceajudgmentnpon that grant. Itcannotbe. Wehaveundoubtedly the right, if we have got the power of forreiture, to limit the forfeiture to a certain ~rtion of the land, which means simply that the 

Government of the United States, having a broader right of forfeiture 

than we choose to assert, will assert a forfeiture to a certain extent only. 

We have got the power to waive it, the power .to relinquish, the power 

to abandon this right of forfeiture in this way; but still, what does it 

prove in respect of the legal consistency of our action? Why, sir, it 

proves that the grant itself may be apportioned as well as the right of 

forfeiture. 

Now, the rafuoad company insists that there is an equitable apportionment of this grant, as when the company has equitably earned a 

portion of it it would be entitled to it under the decree of a court. 

Congress, when it cuts the grant in two and makes an appo'rtionment 

of it in directing the forfeiture, necessarily admits that it is apportionable as to the cau e or ground of forfeitUie, and so we proceed to act. 

It is in this view that the claim arises in favor of the company that 

there is such a thing as an equitable compliance with the conditions of 

the grant in the absence of a technical compliance. 

There is another thing that we do. Under the terms of this act we have the xight to alter, amend, or repeal the charter, and we have also 

the right to declare the forfeiture of the lands because they were not 

earned by the 4th of July, 1878. Bntwhatdowedo here? Instead of 

forfeiting all the property of this company and getting it into the possession of the Government so that it may execute another very important 

feature of this grant, we confirm the right of this delinquent company 

to the right of way and to land for stations, without saying how much 

land, through its entire length. Here we split the subject up; we confum a part and we iorfeit a part; we leave the right of way a.ccording 

as it has been established upon the map which was :filed in the Department and approved there, and that right of way extends from Springfield, in Missouri, to San Francisco. That is 3i valua.ble right; and after 

we have granted it in the original act and conf4"roed it in this act we never can take it away. So, then, in the very act which we are considering we c111t this grant to pieces, and we confirm to the company one 

~.fthe mostimportant features of it; we perpetuate this as a railroad 

company without the power of forfeiture hereafter, with the right of 

way extending from Springfield, in ~issouri, to San Francisco, in California. 

After having done that, perhaps it is very well for us to listen to some 

reasons that are urged and to give a little weight to the argument made 

on behalf of this company to the effect that there is an eqrutable apportionment of the right of forfeiture as well as of the property itself, 

and that when we have slept upon our rights and have not insisted upon 

the right of forfeiture we have waived it, and when we have conferred new powers upon this company of a most important character in the 

very face of the fact that we had the right then to demand a forfeiture, 

we have condoned it. And so I conclude that it is well for us to listen to 

what they say, and let them have a chance to prove it if. they can in a 

court of justice that the right of forfeiture may be waived and possibly 

has been waived. 

Justice requires that we shall answer to the demand on their part 

that they shall have a fair trial in court, and that yon shall not take 

the legislative ax and lay it at the root of the whole subject and cut it 

up beyond remedy. Sir, I must say that I abhor the idea of any legislative forfeiture merely because Congress has .got the power, or because 

it may be sustained by popular clamor or pressure of any kind. I revolt at seizing upon powers that do not legitimately belong to us and 

using them for t:he destruction of any man's rights. Whether we acknowledge them or not, if he hone&tly makes claim to them it is our duty to relegate the subject to the judicial tribunals in order that 

they may be there considered. 

This company make another very important point. They say that 

under the express provisions of this charter the Government of the 

United States never reserved the right offorfeiting these lands so as to 

recall the title back to itself; that it made a permanent dedication of 

these lands to a public use, and that after that dedication was thus permanently made the title was irrevocable by act of Congress. I do not 

assert here, it is none of my business to assert pro or con, that that point 

is well taken in law and upon the facts of this case, but I should be a 

little surprised if a court did not consider it a long time before it ruled 

against the company. 

We remember those two leading and important cases in 9 Cranch 

which I had on my desk this morning but unfortunately sent away, in 

which the doctrine is laid down in the broadest possible form that where a government has made a dedication of property even to religious uses, · 

and where afterward by an amendment of the constitution of the country it was forbidden that such dedications should afterward be made, 

still the prior dedications stand; and, under the doctrine of cy pres, if 

we could not find the particular person who is the donee of the benevolence we must find some person as near as possible in his shoes to execute the benefaclion in behalf of religion. I refer to the cases of Terrett and others vs. Taylor and others, and The Town of Panlet vs. Daniel 

Clark, both in 9 Cranch. 

It is not worth our while to belittle a question of this kind or to assume in the arrogance of our own power that there is nothing in it. We 

shall beconfronted'Withitwhetherwewishornot; andinoollateralsuits 

that will spring up under the legislation proposed by the House of Representatives, costing millions of money and involving thousands of people in private litigation, th.ese same questions will come back to us and 

find their wa:y into the Supreme Court of the United States in spite of 

all we may do. 

This question that I haTe just barely stated as one that is made by 

the corporation, of the irrevocability of the grant, the dedication of the 

lands, is one that we have got to meet. It may be true, and is true, 

that when the Congress of the United States has declared a great public 

use 01: benefit in this land grant, namely, the building of a railroad to 

connect the great oceans, and for distant communities, and has dedicated the lands to this important purpose-it is true that if this milroad company which is the beneficiary of the grant does not, can not, 

or will not build the road, Congress has reserved to itself and could exercise the power of having the road constructed by some other agency. 

Mr. President, it is also probably true that Congress can not recall that 

dedication so as to deprive the communities that were intended to be 

benefited of the advantages of the grant. 

When Co11oaress gave alternate sections of land along this immense 

and magnificent grant to the company and then put the other alternate 

sections at the double minimum, at $2.50 an acre, the policy was simply 

this, that the Government would lose nothing, because it would get 

double price for the land enhanced in value by the building ofthera.ilway; but further than tba.t, above that, far beyond the interests of the 

individua.Ls who might get a profit out of building the road or the interests of the present generation and reaching out to the interests of 

coming generations down the tide of time unmentionable, a great use 

and ad vantage were to accrue to these people from the building of this 

great railway. . Can Congress recall that grant and deprive \he:ie people of its advantages so long as there is power to execute it? I should not be at all 

surprised if the Supreme Court of the United States, after all, did not 

say that the Congress of the United States can not recall this grant and 

reclaim the land for other purposes, for the reason that words are not 

to be found in 'the grant to indicate that these lands are to revert to the 

United States. · Such words a.re not in the grant. But the CQnditions 

operating in favor of the power of Congress to control the lands after 

the condition subsequent has been broken are only that Congress shall 
1884. CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5945 

take this land for the purpose of completing this same railroad. That 

is an important question-one that 1 do not intend to debate, much less 

to attempt to decide it; but I am merely stating it as I am stating th~e 

other questions which arise under the act of Congress. I read section 

9 of the aCt, and I desire the attention of Senators to this section because this is an important point that the corporation makes in this 

case, and it ought to have fair consideration: 

That the United States make the several conditional grants herein, and that the said Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company accept the same, upon the fur- ther condition that if the said company make any breach of the conditions hereof and allow the arne to continue for upward of one year, then, in such case a1 any time hereafter, the United States may do any and all acts and things whi~h may be needful and necessary to insure a speedy completion of the said 

roa d. 

If any man can find in that language or in any other language in this 

a.ct a. reservation, expressed or implied, that these lallds were to return 

to the public domain I shall give him credit for great ingenuity. It 

may tum out that ~y after a judicial investigation, but I am. not 

willing to assume in advance that Congress has reserved to the United 

States the reversion of these lands to the public domain when there is 

not one word in the grant that indicatffi there is to be a reversion. 

On the contrary, the whole structure of the act, and every expression 

in it indicatffi that it was not the intention of Congress that the lands 

hould revert to the Government upon the breach of the condition subsequent, but that they should remain dedicated to the great public use 

of building this railway. Congress pledged itself that it would take 

the land in case the road was not built and all the property and all 

the franchises which it had granted to the company a.nd employ them 

for the purpose of insuring a speedy completion of the road. There is 

the continuing purpose distinctly announced, and the continuing obligation on the part of Congress acknowledged to accomplish that great 

result, and it is totally inconsistent with the idea that the lands are 

to revert to the Government of the United States in the sense of their 

becoJlling public lands and subject to public disposal instead of remaining lands dedicated to the purpose of building this great road. 

I have gone as far as I desire to do in this matter. I know that the 

bill can be discussed as it ought to be. There has not· been a more important bill in the United Statffi Senate in twenty-five years, unless it 

was something connected with the civil war, than this is. We can not 

now properly argue it. The Senate is no1! disposed to listen to argument about it. Numbers of the members of the Senate are now concerned in conference committees in the different committee-rooms for 

the purpose of trying to b~g together and close up the business of 

this long and laborious session, and it is reallyimpossibleforthe Senate 

now to give to this, this first case of the kind we have had before us, 

the sort of consideration that it ought to have. 

The best that I have been able to do with this great subject, in my 

own humble judgment, has been to offer the amendment which I had 

the honor to present, which, I will again state, is simply to stop the 

proceeding of legislation at the declaration of the forfeiture of the land 

grant, and then require the district attorney, under the diTection of 

the Attorney-General, to take these parties into court and there to have 

the whole of their respective rights settled and adjusted. 

The machinery which is provided in the amendment has been subjected to the scrutiny of the Committee on Public Lands, and I believe 

that there is no objection to it. I believe it is thought to be simple 

enough and convenient enough to secure the rights of every person in 

a rather inexpensive way and to accomplish one great desideratum, 

that is, in a single suit to be tried in the name of the United States 

and in•the United States tribunals, to settle up the controversies which, 

if we leave this matter in the shape that the House has sent it to us, 

will spread out jnto innumerable litigations involving private citizens 

in . extravagant and expensive lawsuits throughout the length and 

breadth of this great land grant. If we should accomplish nothing 

else by the amendment than to have one suit in which all these questions can be settled, that would be worthy the attention of the Senate 

of the United Statffi, and I hope that sufficient attention will be given 

to the details of this measure to enable the Senate to understand the 

importance of it and the necessity of adopting the amendment I have 

had the honor to propose. 

The Senate Committee on Public Lands, a majqrity of them, have 

reported a bill substantially as this amendment is. The committee are 

satisfied that there should be a general law upon this subject, and I 

should myself have moved a general law as an amendment to this bill 

but for the fact that I find it difficult to provide in a general law for 

the particular court which shall have jurisdiction. For instance, here 

is a court in California. which might take jurisdiction of this matter; 

perhaps one of the Territorial courts might do it; a court in Arkansas 

could take jurisdiction because one branch of the road runs into that 

State; a court in Missouri could take jurisdiction. In the bill that is 

pending I propose that the court in the State of Missouri shall take 

jurisdiction, because I suppose that tG be the nearest court to the com- pleted portion of the line eastward, and perhaps nearest to the witnesses 

and all the evidence that may be required in the trial of the cause. 

Ifl had proposed a general bill, in lieu of the amendment containing 

all ~he stipulations and provisions, Ishouldhave·round difficulty in designating the court in which these various land grants are to 'be kereafter tried. So I thought it was best, and I thought it was my duty: 

too, to bring forward this amendment upon this particular bill, so that 

if Congress shall vote that this land is forfeited then a provision is put 

in the bill itself designating the court into which the case may be 

carried, and where these rights may all be settled. I only wish tO secure a speedy and fair hearing of every claim and interest in these 

forfeited lands that anybody, claiming under the United States, may 

choose to assert in good faith; and I believe that all this can be accompli hed under this amendment. 

Mr. DAWES. I ask the Senator from Kansas to permit me to call 

up the fortification bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PLATT in the chair). The Senator from Massachusetts asks that the bill under consideration be laid 

aside informally that he may call up the fortification appropriation 

bill. 

llfr. PLUMB. I consent to that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and 

the Senator from Massachusetts moves to proceed to the consideration 

of the appropriation bill. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLABK, its 

Clerk, returned to the Senate, in compliance with its request, the bill 

(H. R. 5709) to amend article 72 of the Rules and Articles of War. 

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the enrolled bill (H. R. 1682) providing for two additional associate justices of the supreme court of the Territory of Dakota, one additional associate justice of the supreme court of the Territory of Washington, and for other purposes; and it was thereupon signed by the 

President pro tempore. 

FORTIFICATION APPROPRIATION BILJ,, 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 7440) making appropriations for fortifications and other 

works of defense, and for the armament thereof, for the :fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1885, and for other purposes. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Appropriations with 

amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. PLATT). Does the Senator from 

Massachusetts wish to have the bill read by paragraphs for amendment? · 

Mr. DAWES. Yes; let the amendments of the Committee on Appropriations be acted upon as they are reached in the reading of tlte 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, such will 

be the order of the Senate. 

The Secretary proceeded to read the bill. The first amendment of 

the Committee on Appropriations was, in line 26 of section 1, after the 

word '' projectiles,'' to insert '' and for the expenses of experiments in 

the use of dynamite or other high explosive projectiles, and for;" in 

line 30, before the word ''on,'' to strike out '' draughtsman '' and insert 

"draughtsmen;" and in line 31, after the word "bureau," to strike 

out "three" and insert "five;" so as to make the clause read: 

For the armament of seacoast fortifications, including the purchase of machine- guns of the latest improvement, the manufacture and conversion of heavy~ 

and carriages, projectiles, and for the expenses of experiments in the use of dynamite or other high explosive projectiles, and for fuses, powder, and implements, their trial and proof, and all necessary expenses incident thereto, includ- ing compensation of draughtamen on gun construction while employed in the Ordnance Bureau, $520,000. 

The amendment was agued to. . 

The nerl amendment was, after line 32 of section 1, to insert: 

For the preservation of Fort Marion, at Saint Augustine, Fla., and for the in- closure and improvement of the grounds attached to the same, said grounds to be in charge of the commanding otlicer of said fort, &5,000, said sum to be ex- pended under the direction of the Secretary of War. 

The amendmentwas agreed to. 

The next amendment was, after the word " determined," in line 44 

of ection 1, to strike out: 

.And to make the same knQwn to the public without unnecessary delay, by 

public advertisement, so as to open the enterprise of producing cannon for the Government to public competition andeno.urageprivatemanufacturersof can- non to produce, publicly test, and offer cannon of established endurance and power for sale to the Government. 

And in lieu thereof to insert: 

And to report the same to Congress at its next session. 

So as to make the clause read: 

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to cause the various calibers, lengths of bore, greatest and least admissible weights of guns for each caliber, togflther 

with the greatest and ]east weights of projectiles for ea{)h caliber, of all of the various calibers required for the service, together witb. the number of each cali- ber of gun required, to be determined, and to report the same to Congress at its next seasion. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, to strike out lines 52 to 78, inclusive, of 

section 1, in the following words: 

And it shall be the further duty of the Secretary of War to devise and mak:o 

' 
5946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

known to the publicliberal and fair regulations regarding the proof and purchase of guns, and upon receiving due notice that any projector or maker bas a gun ready for proof, to promptly appoint officers to be present to witness the firing and report the facts not only as to the firing, but as to the materials of which the guns have been made, the plan and mode of construction, the powder, the projectiles, and the carriages, all to be particularly described with regard to all trial guns so offered for ptoof by private manufacturers who desire to produce armament by a conversion of obsolete guns on hand or according to special de- signs, and to secure for service only the best and most effective kinds, especially as to power and endurance under rapid firing, and at the lowest prices of those kinds which best meet a11 the re(luirements of service, as specified, of whatever material they may be made, whether such cannon shall be produced by private manufacturers or otherwise. But in all cases, except where the trial guns are projected by officials and com- pleted in Government establishments, the guns and all the expenses of the test mu t be provided and borne at the cost of the manufacturer of the guns, and are not to become chargeable against the United States unless it shall be estab- lished by the proof that the cannon of each kind and caliber, of whatever material they may be made, shall fuJly meet all the requirements of the service. 

The amendment was agreed to. . The next amendment was, to trike out ection 2, in the following 

words: 

SEC. 2. That it shall be unlawful, from and after approval of this act, to con- struct more than one rifled cannon of any particular material, caliber, or kind at the co t of the United States until one or more of such cannon of the required caliber has been publicly subjected to crucial te t, in<:luding such rapid firing a a like gun might be subjected to in a.ctual battle, for the determination of its endurance, and shall have stood such test to the satisfaction of the President of the United State.s, or uchpersons as he may select; and he is hereby authorized to select not to exceed five per ons 'Y ho shall be skilled in such matters, and un- less it shall be demon trated that such cannon is equal as to power and endm'- ance to the best guns known to any military service, the guns shall not be pur- chased for the United State . 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The numbers of the remaining sections of the bill will be changed to correspond. 

The re..1.ding of the bill was resumed and concluded. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House haa concurred in the report of the 

committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. 5377) for the allowance of certain claims reported 

by the accoJlllting officers of the Treasury Department. 

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the enrolled bill (H. R. 46 0) to grant a right of way through 

the Indian Territory to the Southern Kansas Railway Company, and 

for other purposes; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro 

tempore. 

RENT OF ROOMS FOR COMl\IITIEES. 

Mr. BOWEN. I ask that the regular order p1ay be further laid aside 

that I may call up a resolution. 

Mr. PLUMB. I understand the Senator from Colorado simply desires to offer a resolution for reference, and I have no objection. 

Mr. BOWEN. It is Order of Business 321, being a resolution re- ported from the Committee on Contingent Expenses authorizing the 

Sergeant-at-Arms· and Architect of the Capitol to rent suitable rooms 

for the use of Senate committees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado asks unan- imous consent that the regular order may be further laid aside in order 

to consider the resolution indicated by him. 

Mr. PLUMB. I thought that the Senator simply wished to introduce a resolution for reference. 

1\fr. BOWEN. I simply wish to have the· resolution passed now. I 

withdraw the suggestion if there is any objection to it. 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not care to yield for that just now. There will 

be some debate on the resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas o.bjects. 

ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC RAILROAD LAND GRANT. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7162) to forfeit the unearned lands granted to 

the At.lantic and Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction 

of a railroad and telegraph line from the States of 1,fissouri and Arkan- sas to the Pa{!i:fic coa t, and to restore the same to ettlement, and for 

other purposes. ·Mr. DOLPH. 1\Ir. President, the bill under discussion is one of a number of similar character which are upon the Calendar, and will come before the Senate for its consideration. As this is the fiTst discussion 

in the Senate of the question of land-graut forfeitures, I shall not con- fine myself to the facts relating to this particular bill, or to the propriety 

of a forfeiture in this case, but ball submit some ob ervationsin regard 

to the history of Congressional legislation coucemingthe public domain, 

the origin o:f the land-grant policy, the question of land-grant forfeitures, and the power and duty of Congress in dealing with the question 

of forfeiture. I shall, however, endeavor to keep in mind the value of 

time at this late day in the session, and be as brief as po sible. 

On the 17th of April last my colleague, Mr. SLATER, delivered a 

speech upon the subject of land grants, in which he sought to contrast 

the management of the public domain by the General Government 

from the Revolution to .the time when the Republican party came into 

power, . with management under Republican administration, and in 

which by implication at least the supposed evils arising from the landgrant policy were charged upon the Republican party. I quote from 

that speech as follows: 

It is only too apparent that within the past decade the area of public lands available for settlement is rapidly diminishing, and just in proportion as the pub~c land suitable for settlementdil;ni_nish the improvident and wasteful prodJgahty of the bestowal of so many m1lhons of acres of public lands upon great and grasping corporations is made apparent. * * * 

Any polic~. that places needless re trictions or obstacles in the way of the people acqmrmg land for homes from the public domain strikes the best inter- ests of the country in a most vital part. It was a most unfortunate mistake for the best interests of the people whose circumstances and lot in life made them seekers of home upon the public domain when the Government was lured into the _t)olicy of making extensive grants of lands to corporations to aid in the con- struction of railroads. * * * 

And after referring to the grants made during the :first four years of a. Republican administration, he continues: 

. For seventy-eig~t years, counting from the close of the Revolution, the pub- ~lC lands of the ruted tates were regarded as a sacred trust, and were admin- IStered by the GeneTal Government, no matter what party for the time being held the reins of administration, as a trust, with a jealous care for the interest of the people who will ultimately make homes thereon. 

It i true, sir, they were not given as homesteads to settlers, but they were placed within th~ ea y rea.ch of all on such terms as all could readily comply :with, and by complying acquire land and homes. 

An~ while admitting that the homestead law was the crowning act, the Wisest and most beneficent of all the acts of Congress relating to 

the public domain, and after asserting that it was the only redeeming 

spot that he knew of in all the acts and doings of the Republican party 

in the administration of the public lands, he apparently sought to deprive the Republican party of the credit of that act by asserting that 

the "idea " was of Democratic parentage. 

I have been curious enough to trace .to some extent the origin and 

history of the land-grant policy and the history of legislation concern- ing the public lands to see what grounds exist for the claim that up 

to 1861 the public lands were "regarded as a sacred trust and were 

administered in the interest of the people," and I assert without fear 

of successful contradiction that an examination of the history of Congressional legislation concerning the public lands will show that the 

administration ofthe public domain by the Republican party, as compared with any previous administration, has been wise and judicious, in 

the interest of the settlers and of the public, and has been free from most 

of the mistakes and abuses which are to be found in the administration of the public lands dnring almost every previous administration. 

The :first act of Congress providing for the disposition of the public 

lands was an act of the Continental Congress, passed August 14, 1776, 

offering to receive and make citizens of deserters from the British army, 

and tendering each deserter fifty acres of 1mappropriated land in some one of the States. And from that date foraperiod of three-quarters of 

a century, running through the statutes of the United States is a series 

of law , probably a thousand in number, authorizing the disposition of 

the public domain other than for cash, or by pre-emption or homestead 

methods: including donations to States and to associations and persons 

for a great variety of objects. 

I :find in what is known as the report of the public land commission 

the following table, showing the dispositionofthe public domain prior 

to June 30, 18 .0: 

The disposition of the public domain from its origin to June 30,1880, is esti- mated at 547,754,483 acres, partially accounted for under the following items: 

Cash sales, which include pre-emptions, &c., and probably 30,000,- 000 or more acres accounted for under other ads, and commu- tation of homesteads, from establishment of land sy tem to 

.Acres. 

June 30, 1880 ................................................................................. 169,832,564.61 Donation acts, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico... 3, 084, m. 36 Land bounties, military and naval service..................................... 61,028, 430. 00 State selections (act of 1841) for internal improvements................. 7, 806,554. 67 Salines {salt springs and lands adjacent) granted to States............ 559,965.00 

~~~ji}~;f;~]'t:iLi.:_::?\ .\: L::\::i~:::Di.!:Z-\:: t m: ~ ~ Homesteads, 3,000,000 (estimated) acres of which have been com- muted and carried into cash sales above ......... .......................... . Scrip enumerated ........................................................................ . Coal lands .................. .................................................................... . Stone and timber acts of 1878 .. ......... ........................... .................... . 

Swamp and overflowed lands to State , elected or patented ...... .. . Graduation act of 1854 .................................................................... . &hools, seminaries, and agricultural colleges: Sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, for schools .. ... ......... 67,893,919 

Seminarie and universities .. ......... .......................... . 1, 165,520 

Agricultural colleges, land in place................................ 7, 830,000 

55,667,044. 95 

2, 893, 034. 44 

10,750.24 

20,782.77 

69, 206, 522. 06 25, 696, 419. 73 

Withdrawn or patented ....... : ...................... . ............................ ...... 78,659,439.00 

~~:xt~~d~~:.~.~~~-~~~~~~~-~~~~-~~~:·.·.:·::::.:·::::.:·:.::::·:.::::·:.:·:.:·:.:: .:·.·.:·::.:: ·~:~:~ And various amounts disposed of under special acts, to be found in the Stat- utes at Large. 

It wa many years before the experience of the Government in attempting to. dispose of the public lands led to the adoption of an effi.-
1884. CONGRESSIONA#L RECORD-SENATE. 5947 

eient system. Instead of the laws being administ-ered in the interest of 

the settler the policy of the Government for many years was to prevent 

entries upon the public lands until after their sale by the Government. 

I quote the following from an article upon the public lands of the 

United States in a work recently published: 

:Meanwhi1e a new difficulty was to be met, and force was necessary. Galla- tin recalls in his correspondence with Jefferson that from 1783 to 1786 immigra- tion into the territory north of the Ohio was encouraged by the peacefulness of the Indians, and that a company was kept going up and down the Ohio from the Pennsylvania line to Cincinnati burning every cabin and in some instances laying down or burning the fences. This operation bad to be repeated, and he kne w of persons whose cabins were burned and settlements destroyed three 

times. 

In 1785 an unsuccessful attempt was made to dispose of public lands 

through the States. In 17 7 power was given to the board of treasury 

to move about the nited States and sell surveyed lands at pleasure. 

By the act of May, 1800, an attempt was made to systematize the method 

of disposing of public lands. Land districts were created and the appointment of regjsters and receivers was provided for. Provision was made for the sale of surveyed lands at public vendue at not less than 

$2 per acre, one-fourth of the purchase-money to be paid down and one- fourth annually thereafter for three years. Under this system excessive 

purchases were made. The purchasers, or at least a large proportion 

of them, failed to meet the deferred payments. The lands reverted to 

the Government incumbered by tenants. Then Congress was flooded 

with applications for relief, and from 1809 to 1824 hardly a year pa.ssed 

without a relief act, suspending or mihlgating the general provisions of 

the law affecting such lands. 

In 1828, under the relief laws, 4,168,941 acres had been relinquished, discharging $13,778,347.37 of debt, and in 1830 the debt was wholly 

discharged. In 1835 the public lands became an ohject of wild speculation. In 1834 the sales amounted to $4,800,000; in 1835, to $14,700,-

000; and in 1836 to $24,800,000. The receipts for the lands consisted 

largely of notes of irresponsible banks. Land speculators organized a 

''bank," got it appointed a deposit bank if t.bey could, issued notes, 

borrowed them, and bought land; the notes were deposited, they borrowed them again, and so on. In due time the crash came, and nearly all the best lands in the market were controlled by companies or single proprietors who had purchased 

them for purposes of speculation. Under this state of things it became 

impossible to restrain settlers within the limits of surveyed lands. The 

population pressed beyond the surveyed limits to find lands suitable for 

homes not monopolized by speculators, and some measure became nec- e...~y to recognize these settlements and to give them priority of right. 

This was the origin of the pre-emption law. Up to the year 1840 the 

privilege of pre-emption was generally conferred by special laws of a temporary nature-relief bills, in fact--applying to a certain class of 

settlers. The pre-emption act of 1841 and supplementary act of 1843 

conferred the right of pre-emption upon all qualified settlers under the 

act, but the right of pre-emption was confined to surveyed lands, and 

it was not until1853 that the right of pre-emption was extended to 

unsurveyed lands. 

From a very early period the · public lands after they were surveyed 

were sold a.t public sale at dates fixed by law or by the proclamation of 

the President. By the act of March 3, 1803, providing for the disposition oflands belonging to the United States south of the State of Tennessee the President was authorized to make public proclamation of the 

sales, fixing therein a day or days for the same to take place, and such 

sales were to be made under the direction of the governor of Mississippi 

Territory, the surveyor ofthe lands and the register of the land office, 

the sales to take place where the land offices were ''kept.'' By the act 

of April 24, 1820, it was provided that the publif.! sales authorized 

thereby should be kept open for two weeks and no longer. No lands 

could be entered at private sale unless they had first been offered at 

public sale. This method of disposing of the public lands was kept up 

until the Republican party came into power. 

It will be seen at once that under .this system the choice lands were sure to be purchased by speculators. At the ·first session of the Thirtyfifth Congress :M:r. Grow, of Pennsylvania, then a member of the House, 

introduced into that body a bill for the protection of settlers on the pub- . lie domain; intended to give the settler ten years' preference over the 

speculator. The bill was as follows; 

Be it enacted, &:c., That from and after the 1st day of September, A. D. 1858, no public lands shall be exposed to sale by proclamation of the President until the same have been surveyed and the return thereof in the land office for n.t )east ten years. 

• The bill was defeated by 78 votes against it to 73 in favor of it, only 

nine Democrats voting for the bill. Again, on the 20th of January, 1859, 

to the House bill reported from the Committee on Public Lands relating to pre-emptions, Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved to add the following section: 

Be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act no public lands shall be exposed to sale by proclamation of thePresidentunlessthesame -shall have been surveyed and the return of such survey duly filed in the land -office for ten years or more before the sale. 

The amendment was opposed by the Democratic party and especially 

by Democrats residing in the Southern States, and a motion was made 

-. 

to refer the bill tO the Committee of the Whole, a reference that would 

have been its certain defeat. The motion was defeated by a vote of 92 

to 90, and the amendment carried by yeas 97, nays 81, all the members 

except one voting against it being Democrats. But the bill as amended was defeated by a vote of 96 nays to 91 yeas, the Republicans voting 

unanimously for the amendment as \hey did for the bill as amended. 

Every Southern member except two, Ur. Blair, of 1\fissouri, and Mr. 

Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, ... voted against the bill as amended. 

Only eight Democrats, all of whom were of the Douglas school, voted 

for the bill. 

On· the 1st of February, 1859, House bill 72, to secure homesteads 

to actual settlers, which had been referred by the House to the Committee on Agriculture and reported from that committee January 26, 

1859, came up for action. .A motion to lay on the table was lost by a vote of 113 nays to 71 yeas, and the House was forced to a direct vote. 

The bill was then passed-yeas 120, nays 76; the Republicans, without exception, voted solidly for the bill ; of the Democrats, 60 out of 

98 voted against it. The bill was defeated in the Senate by Democratic 

opposition without a vote upon its merits. 

The next session, on the 5th of March, 1860, 1\Ir. Lovejoy, from the 

House Committee on Public Lands, reported the Grow bill, to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, and on the 12th of 

March, the same year, it was passed-yeas 119., nays 66, the Republicans voting unanimously for the bill, while all voting against it were Democrats. . On the 17th of April, 1860, in the Senate, Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, reported from the Committee on Public Lands, as a substitute for 

the Grow homestead bill, which bad passed the House, a bill granting 

homesteads· to actual settlers at 25 cents an aere. When the bill eame 

up for consideration Mr. Wade moved to substitute the Grow billfor it, 

which motion was lost-yeas 26, nays 31; yeas all Republicans but 3. 

The Johnson bill passed the Senate on the lOth of May. The House 

refused to concur, and on the 19th of June the conference committees · 

came to an agreement by which the House accepted the Senate bill 

with some amendments, the provision of the bill requiring payment 

for homesteads at the price of 25 cents per acre being retained. . This 

bill was vetoed by President Buchanan June 22, 1860, as unconstitutional and unjust and unequal in its operations aud pretended benefits, 

and as a mea-sure which "will go far to demoralize the people." In 

the Senate the veto was sustained, 19 to 9, all the Republicans present 

not paired with Democrats on the question voting for the bill. 

On the 4th of 1\Iarch, 1 61, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated President of the United States, and the Republicans, now in control of both 

Houses of Congress, hastened to redeem the pledge contained in their 

platform adopted at Chicago in 1860 by enacting the homestead law. 

The homestead act is now the approved and preferred method of acquiring title to public lands. It has stood the test of over twenty-two 

·years, and was the outgrowth of a system extending through nearly 

eighty years, and stands as the concentrated wisdom of legislation for 

the settlement of the public lands. It protects the Government, it fills 

the States with improvements, it builds up communities, and lessens 

the chances of social and civil disorder by giving ownership to the soil 

in small tracts to the occupants tberoof. It was copied from no other 

nation's system. It-was originally and. distinctly American, and re- mains a monument to its originators. 

ORIGIN OF THE LAND-GRANT POLICY. 

To properly indicate the origin and growth of the land-grant policy a brief glance at the history of Federal aid for the improvement of rivers 

and harbors is necessary, as the policy of granting Federal aid to internal improvements grew out of the practice of appropriating money from 

the Federal Treasury for the improvement of rivers and harbors. 

Under the Articles of Confederation the only limitations upon the 

States to contrc;>l commerce were, that duties should not be levied on the property of the United States, or either of them; that such control 

should not conflict with treaties of the United States already concluded or provided for, and should not prevent the transfer to other States of 

goods imported. By the Constituhlon the control of commerce was given to the Federal Government, and it was provided (article 1, section 

10, paragraph 3) as follows: 

No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage~. 

In the constitutional convention, September 15, 1787, after the con- trol of commerce bad been given to the Federal Government, the following amendment was offered: 

No State shall be restrained from laying duties of· tonnage for the purpose of clearing harbors and erecting light-houses. 

.And it being suggested that there were other purposes for which tonnage duties might be conveniently levied by the States, the provision was modified as it appears in the Constitution. 

The intention of the framers of the Constitution appears to have been 

that each State should control entirely the improvements of its own 

seaports, levying tonnage duties for that purpose upon the commerce which should enter them, :first obtaining the consent of Congress; and 

the practice for years was in accordance with that intention. During 

the first half-century after the adoption of the Constitution a great 
l 

5948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

number of acts were passed by Congress authorizing States to levy sea{loast and were engaged to someextentinoceancommerce. In 1791 

tonnage duties. Vermont was admitted, an.d subsequently other States having no seaThe last act of that character I believe to have been the act of Jan- coast, and the original conception of the powers and duties of the GeRuary 19, 1861, which revived and continued in force until the 3d day eral Government as to improvements of rivers and harbors and as to 

of March, 1871, so far as the State of Maryland was concerned, an act internal improvements necessarily changed. As the burden of the tonof Congress passed the 17th day 9f Marcli, 1800, entitled "An act de- nage duties levied by the States having seapmts was indirectly borne 

claring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland in part by the citizens of inland States, the unfairness of appropriating 

and Georgia,'' and which, it was recited, had by subsequent acts been them exclusively to river ai:t.d harbor improvement , while the inland 

continuously in force until the 3d of March, 1861. States received no aid from the General Government for internal imCongress by an act passed April 2, 1802, made an appropriati9n for provements became apparent and the inland States began to demand 

the erection of public piers in the Delaware River, and by an act appropriations for the construction of roads and canals. This was the 

passed February 15, 1819, made an appropriation for the survey of origin ofthe internaJ.-improvement system of the United States. 

water courses tributary to and west of the Mississippi River, also those The first acl of Congress granting aid to a work of this kind was 

tributary to the same river, and northwest of the Ohio. passed in 1806, and was an act providing for the construction of a turnBy an act passed March 3, 1821, Congress made an appropriation for pike road, known as the Cumberland Road, at national expense, and, 

certain harbor improvements on the coa:st of New Hampshire and Maine, from that time forward, numerous bills for the construction of roads 

and: in the naval appropriatiGn bill passed the same day ·made an ap- in the States and Territories were passed. The constitutionality of 

propriation for the removal of obstructions from the river Thames, these acts was variously defended upon the ground of the powers of 

in Connecticut. These isolated appropriations were the beginning of Congress "to provide for the common defense," "to establish postthe system of river and harbor improvements by the General Govern- roads," and "to pass laws for carrying into execution the foregoing 

ment. Appropriations for the improvement of rivers and harbors were powers,'' and on t!:.e other hand the constitutionality of such approannually made by Congress with the exception of one year, 1848, from priations was warmly denied by leading statesmen, among others by 

1821 to 1862, and in some instances grants of land were made for like Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. But appropriations for internal impurposes. In the year 1826 the river and harbor bill assumed consid- provements in great numbers were every year included in the general 

erable proportions and included appropriations for the improvement appropriation bills, and in this manner received the approval of the Exof rivers and harbors, or both, in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, ecutive. 

Delaware, Ohio, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North O&olina, Alabama, The following table shows the amounts of appropriations for interand Michigan. nal improvements under the different administrations mentioned: 

Annually, from 1826 to and including 1838, river and harbor appro- JeJl"eraon............................................................................................... $48,400 

priation bills, embracing the principal rivers and harbors in the United Madison ................................. ...... ....................................................... 250,800 

States then used for commercial purposes, were passed. By the act of ~3a~O:::::::.::::::::::::: ::: ::::: ::: :: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::.: 2 ~n· ~~~ March '2, 1819, admitting Alabama into the Union, the policy of giv- Jackson ......................... ...................................................................... 10:582:o8s 

ing the States a portion of the net proceeds of the sales of the public Van Buren.......................................................................................... 2,222, 544 

lands within their borders was inaugurated, and by an act passed March Taylor ........ ························································································- 1, 076,500 

2, 1827, granting lands to the State of Indiana to aid in the construe- I submit a statement showing land grants to the several States for 

tion of the Wabash and Erie Canal, the land-grant policy was inaugu- railroad and canal purposes from 1827 to 1857; also a statement showrated. ing land grants to the several States for railroad purposes from 1853 to 

All the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had 1 1857, with additional grants for the same roads from 1864 to 1866. 

Statement slwwing land grants to tll..e several States for railroad and ca'IUJ.l purposes from 1827 w 1857. 

RAILROADS. 

State. Dateofact. Name. 

lllinois Central. ......................................................................................................................... . Mobile Central and Ohio River ................................................................................................. . Vicksburg and Meridian .......................................................................................................... . Gulf and Ship Island ................................................................................................................. . Mobile and Ohio River .............................................................................................................. . Alabama and Florida ................................................................................................................ . Selma, Rome and Dalton ........................................................................................................... . Coosa and Tennessee ................................................................................................................ . Mobile and Girard ............... ..................................................................................................... . Alabama and Chattanooga ....................................................................................................... . Coosa and Chattanooga ........................... .................................................................................. . South and North Alabama ........................................................................................................ . Florida and Alabama ........................................................... ,.............................. . ................... . Florida, .Atlantic and Gulf Central. ..... ............................. ........................ ................................ . 

r~i:t=~G~li\~~we:t :fudi~.fu~~it::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific-···· ..................................................................................... . New Orleans, Opelousas and Great Western ........................................................................... . Cairo and Fulton .....................................................•.................................................................. Memphis and Little Rock ....................................................................................................... . Do. ........................ .................. Feb. 9.1853 Little R<>ck and Fort Smith ............................................................................. ... ....................... . Hannibal and Saint Joseph ................................. : .................................................................... . Pacific and Southwest Branch .... .................................... ......... ... ............................................... . Cairo and Fulton ................................. ...................................................................................... . Burlington and 1\iissouri River_ .................... ............................................................................ . Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific .............................................................................................. . Cedar Rapids and l'.iissouri River ........................................................................................... . Dubuque and Pacific ................................................................................................................ . Detroit and Milwaukee ............................................................................................................ . Port Huron and Milwaukee ...................................................................................................... . 

~~i~~l;~:~l\1!~~~~.~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::: :: :::::::::: Grand Rapids and Indiana ............... ......................................................................................... . 1\Iarquette, Houghton and Ontonagon ...................................................................................... . Bay de Noquet and 1\larquette ....................................... ........................................................... . Chicago and Northwestern ........................................................................................................ . Ontonagon and Brule River ..................................................................................... ................. . Chicago and Northwestern ...................................................................................................... . La Crosse and Milwaukee ......................................................................................................... . Sa.int Croix and Lake Superior .................................................... : .................................... : ....... . Saint Panl and Pacific ................................................................................................................ . 

iE!fJ~1i~!!~¥.:i¥.~~~~~~~;~~~~:~~~;~::;-;~·;·;·;·::::::;·; ;~·;::~;-::;·;~·;·;·;-::::;-;·;·;·;·;·~~;-;-;·;~~·;·;·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~ Minnesota Central .................................................................................................................... . Southern Minnesota. ................................................................................................................... . 

=:;:;\~!ili!!\}-!l!!liilil:l:lil;llill:ll~ II !I 

Total .................................................. ·······················-····························································· ··· ·········································· .. ················ 

Estimated num- ber of acres granted. 

*2, 595, 053. 00 1, 004, 640. 00 404., 800. 00 652,800.00 

230,400.00 

419,520.00 

481,920.00 

132,480.00 

840,880.00 

897,920.00 

144,000.00 

576,000.00 

165,688.00 

183,153.99 

1, 568, 729. 87 1, 171,200.00 

610,880.00 

+*967, 840. 00 1, 160,667.00 

438,646.80 

550,584.09 

781,944.83 

1, 161,235. 07 219,262.31 

948,643.66 

1, 261, 181. 60 1, 298, 739. 00 1, 226, 163. 05 

355,420.00 

312,484.00 

1, 052, 469. 00 586,428.00 

629,182.00 

331,500.00 

76,880.00 

339,000.00 

288,000.00 

600,000.00 

600,000.00 

84c3, 552.00 748,800.00 

885,000.00 

1, 200,000.00 

765,000.00 

1, 200, 000. 00 386,040.09 

53,619.45 

33, 348, 26Q 72 

*State received full amount. tBy ad of July 14., 1870, the lands not lawfully disposed of by the State were declared forfeited to the United States. 

' 

' 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5949 

Statement showing land grants to the set~eral States for railroad and canal purposes-Continued. 

CANALS. 

State DateofMt. ! Name. Estimated num- ber of acres granted. 

Indiana ............................................. Mar. 2,1827 Do............................................ Feb. 27, 1841 Do ............................................ 1\Iar. 3, 1845 

} Wabash and Erie .................................................................................................................... .. 1, 4.39, 279. 00 

Ohio ...................................... ............ Mar. 2,1827 Do ............................................ June 30,1834 } Wabash and Erie. .................................................... ... ............................................................ 266,535.00 

Do ............................................ May 24,1828 Miami and Dayton............................................................................................................... .. ..... 333,826.00 Do............................................ 1\Iay 24, 1828 General canal purposes............................................................................................................... 500,000.00 

Dlinois ...... ................................. ...... 1\lar. 2, 1827 Illinois and Michigan.................. .......................................... ..................................................... 290,915.00 

Wisconsin......................................... June 18, 1838 Milwaukee and Rock River........................................................................................................ 125,431.00 

Michigan ......................................... Aug. 25,1852 Saint Mary's Ship-canal......................................................... .. ...... ..................... . ................ ...... 750,000.00 1------- Total .................................................................. .................................... ....................... : ............................ , .................................................... .. 3, 7ffi, 986. 00 

RECAPITULATION. Acres. Granted for railroad!! ......................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. 33, 34.8, 266.72 Granted for canals.......................................... ....................................................... ..................... ...................................... .... . ...... ...... ...... ...... .................... 3, 7ffi, 986. 00 Granted to State of Iowa by act of August 8, 1846, for the improvement of the Des Moines River (not in table.)............................................. .................. 569, 001.58 

Total .......................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................. '37,623,254.30 

Statement shO'I.Iling land gmnts to th~ several States for railroad purposes, from 1853 to 1857, with the additional gr.ants for the same roads, from 1864 to 1866. · 

~].; 1:8 I-< "d .... s:<..; <P~al .0 0 Q :r.l~ .0 0 = Scild ,..,.. cild S~o :s.o be ate :S,o-~ 

~8'd s::a~ "d<Ps;: Ci~ 'dQl"d 2 gJ'gj, cilo 2 gj'd • aSJ-1•.-c ""·~ a!E:al~ 8g~ o;:: 

:Z"" >=I <P"d ~~=e ~~ rJ} o .... "'o.~ 1lAl ~ ~ 

State. Name of road. 

Arkansas. ........................................ .. 1,160, 667.00 July 28,1866 778,240 Do ........................................... . Cairo and Fulton ................................................................................... Feb. 9,1853 

Memphis and Little R.ock ... .............................. ...... ... ... ................. ....... Feb. 9, 1853 438,646.80 July 28,1866 34.0,480 

550,584.09 July 28,1866 458,771 Misso~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Little Rock and Fort Smith.................................................................. Feb. 9, 1853 

Cairo and Fulton................................................................................... Feb. 9,1853 219,262.31 July 28,1866 182,718 

948,643.66 June 2,1864 

1, 

1, 

298,739. 

261, 181. 60 

00 June June 2,1864 2,1864 F~ *) 

629, 182.00 June 7,1864 531,200 

76,800.00 Mar. 3,1865 51,200 

339,000.00 Mar. 3,1865 225,480 

Iowa ............................................... .. Do ........................................... . Do ........................................... . 1\lichigan. ........................................ .. Do .......................................... .. 

WiscJ>~i~::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::: ~~~~¥~t}~):~ __ ;:_~:<i;;~;;~\(\\i··:·:::::::::::~:::::::·: ~: 1:~ West Wisconsin, formerly La Crosse and Milwaukee .......................... June 3,1856 600,000.00 May 5,1864 400,000 Do ........................................... . 843,552.00 May 5, 1864 565,000 

Minnesota ........................................ . Saint Croix and Lake Superior ............................................................. June 3,1856 

Saint J;>aul and Pacific, branch line....................................................... Mar. 3,1857 885,000.00 Mar. 3,1865 590,000 Do ........ .................................. .. Saint Paul and Pa{}ific, Saint Vincent Extension ................................. Mar. 3,1857 1, 200, 000. 00 Mar. 3,1865 800,000 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................... . 10, 451, 258. 46 ..................... 4,923,089 

*The act of June 2, 1864, enlarged the area within which the company might complete the quantity granted by theac_t of May 15,1856. 

These figures conclusively show when the land-grant policy was inaugurated and who was responsible for it. I have examined the debates upon some of the earlier bills making grants of lands to aid in the 

construction of railroads, and quote briefly from the remarks of some of the leading stateSmen in both Houses of Congress upon the same to 

show what they thought of ilhe land -grant policy and the reasons which 

then induced Congress to aid the construction of canals and railroads 

by grants of public lands. . 

On the. 3d of May, 1848, the Senate having under consideration the 

bill granting to the State of illinois the right of way and a donation 

of public lands to aid in the construction ol. a railroad connecting the 

Upper and Lower Mississippi with the chain of northern lakes at Chicago, Senator Crittenden said: 

Sir, I rejoice to see a portion of the public domain applied to such a purpose as this; for I do not know a more natural or more wise purpose to which it 

could be applied than to improveandsettlethelands themselves. * " * And 

in 1·egard to the constitutional question, it is a certain and undeniable fact that 

there has not been a President of the United Stales, there has aot been an administration since the formation of the Government by whom an a{>propriation 

similar to this has not been sa:1.ctioned; not one administration from Washing- ton down to this da.y that has not given its sanction to such a grant-. Old Colonel Zane had a grant made to him for marking out the first foot-path in Ohio, 

and preparing the way for settlement. If anything can be settled by precedent 

this has been. * * * If anything can be settled by precedent, if anything can be fixed as fundamental law by the unanimous approval of the wisest men,. such men as WashingtoR himself and such Congresses as have existed since the 

formation of the Constitution, this is such a question. I have no doubt myself either as to the constitutional right of Congress to make the grant or the wisdom and sound policy of such a measure. 

In the same debate, Mr. Benton said: 

I have been long enough here to have voted for the original grant to the State 

of Illinois for the purpose of connecting Lake :Michigan with the Illinois River 

by means of a canal. When I gave that vote I did not expect to remain in these 

councils unW the object intended to be accomplished should be attained; I did not expect the good fortune of seeing the United States made into an islarrd by a canal connecting the waters of Lake 1ichigan with those of the Mississippi 

in my lifetime. But it has been done by the aid of a grant of land to the State 

of Illinois, and I presume without that aid the work would hardly have been 

undertaken, much less been accomplished; now, how~ver, the work has been 

completed, and the United States is to-day-an island. 

Leaving the Gulf of Mexico at New Orleans, or the Atlantic at New York, you 

may go as you choose around the United States without touching land. The 

result then of a grant of land t.o the State of Illinois by Congress has been pro- digious; and even if there were no other advantageous result th~n the vast facilities afforded to our internal navigation, it well compensates us for parting 

with some acres of land over which this Government then wielded a barren 

scepter. I have no reason to regret that vote. I rejoice in it. * * * I do not, 

therefore, consider any of those grants as unprofitable; but, on the contrary, I fully concur in the opi.ri.ion that a great public object is gained in the transfer of 

these lands from those by whom they are not cultivated to those by whom they are made productive. I shall with great pleasure vote for the bill before the 

Senate; and hope that the construction of the contemplated railroad will pro- duce similar beneficial results to those effected by the canal. 

Mr. Calhoun sa'ld: 

The question in this case is a very simple one. We are authorized by the 

Conl!titution to dispose of the public lands. Here is a public improvement, pro- jected either by the State or individuals in the State through which it will pass. and by which the value of the public lands will be enhanced. If, then 

it will add to the value of our lands, ought we not t-o contribute to it? Would we not, as individuals, thus act? This is not a novel principle. It has been 

acted upon for more than twenty years. The case of the canal connecting the 

Illinois River with Lake Michigan is a striking one. There alternate sections were given to make a canal, and I suppose I can with confidence ask the Sena- tors from that State whether the lands reserved to the United States were not disposed of readily. :Mr. BREESE (in his seat). Thousands of acres were disposed of which would 

otherwise have never been' sold. Mr. CALHOUN. I have seldom given a vote the result of which gratified me more than the vote which I gave on that occa.sion. I then presided in that chair 

which you now occupy and gave the casting vote. I take to myself, therefore, some share in the credit of that magnificent improvement. Indeed I do not think there is a principle more perfectly clear from doubt than this one is. It does not belong to the category of internal improvementsatall. It is nota power claimed by the Government as a government. It belongs to the Government as a landed proprietor. And I will add that it is not only a right butaduty,an important duty. 

Now, what has been considered an equitable arrangemeut between the Gov- ernment and the State which may undertake an improvement pru;;sing through the public lands? Long since it was agreed that the grant of a lternate sections was a fair contribution on the part of the United States, considered as a proprietor, and from which the United States would be q. very great gainer. It appears to me to be an equitable arrangement; and I doubt whether in any case, either 

of a canal or a railroad passing through the public lands, the United States will not be a gainer. To that extent I am prepared to go, be the road long or short; 

if it be long, you gain the more; if it be short, you gaiR the less; and you con- . tribute in proportion to your gain . 

• 
/ 

5950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

Mr. Cass said: 

The Federal Government is a great land-holder. It po~e . es an e~ensive 

public domain; and we hav~ tJ:le power un.de_r the C~n~shtutwn ~ d.i~pose of that domain, and a very unlimited po'Yer 1t IS. The s1mpl~ questwn IS what 

disposition we may make of the public lands. No one will contend for the doctrine that we can not give them aw~y to a S_tate. As ~he Senato~ fr?m Ken- tucky has said, every President has s•gucd bills asscrtmg tl~e pnuCipl~ t!1at these lands may be di posed of by the General Government Without restnctwn as to the purpo e of such dL,.position. We may bestow them for school pur- po es, or we may bestow a portion for the purpo~e of improving ~he yalue of the rest. Wliat right have you to sit still and see your lauds growrn&" m. value 

through the instrumentality of individuals without rendering any aid 10 fur- therance of that object? It is the settlement o~ the ~ands tha~ mak~ them valuable. It is the settler who converts the howling w1lderne~s mto fruitful fields. It is the labor and ent-erprise of. the settl~r tha~ h~s give!?- you in. the Wc~t _a magnificent empire, and one which has anse.n Within o bnef a perwd that It IS 

almost incomprehensible. When I told the story in Europe that Iliad crossed the Ohio when there were scarcely 20,000 people in that country and tha~ it now ~ntained 5,~ 000, they did not laugh in·myface, to be sure, buttheyd1dno~bel!evewhat I sa1d: There is no parallel in the history of man, no sue~ splendid tnbute to human m~ustry 

and enterprise since the fir t man went out of the garden of Eden. It1s not twenty-five y~rs ago that I sat all night in a canoe at the head of the pond at Chicago, there being no hu!llan habitation in whic~ we co~tld obtain she~t~r 

from the mouth of tlie Ulin01s to the mouth of the Ch1cago River; and now 1t lS one of the great highways of. travel be.tween t~e northern lakes an~ the ocean. Sir, I hope the gent~emen will ~ut tb1s upon 1t t~ue gt:ound,leaymg out the constitutional questJon and taking alone mto cons1der~t10n what lS _you.r d~ty 

as land-holders in a new country-a country, too, whtch must denve 1ts Im- provement from the industry and enterprise of your own population where every stroke of the woodman's ax redounQ.s to your advantage. The man who sits down with his family in the wildernes to make for him- self a home evinces more moral courage than the man who goes into battle. No man who has not experienced the difticulties and dangers be bas to encounter can estimate them. 

On the 29th of Aprii, 1850 the Senate having under consideration Senate bill No. 22, granting the right of way and making donation of land in 

the State of illinois in aid of the construction of a railroad, 1\Ir. Douglas aid: · The bill proposes to grant the land in alternate sections, increasing the price of the other sections to double the minimum price. It is following the same system that was adopted in refer~nce to_iruprovei:?eD:ts.of a similar character in Ohio Indiana, Alabama Iowa, W1sconstn,and illinois In reference to her canal. It is ~imply carrying out a principle which bas been acted upon for thirty years, by which we cede each alternat-e section ·of land and double the price of the alternate sections not ceded, so that the same price is received for the whole. These lands have been in the market from fifteen to thirty years; the average time is about twenty-three years; but they will not sell at the usual price of $1 25 per acre because they are distant from any navigable stream or a market fo~ produce. 'A railroad will make the lands salable at double the usual price, because the improvement made by the State will make them valuable. Jt is an old practice long sanctioned by the Government. 

1\Ir. Clay, in the same debate, said: 

I have no doubt, I can entertain no doubt, of the right of the General Govern- ment as one of the greatest-the very greatest-of land-hol?ing propriet{)_rs, to appropriate a portion of that land for the purpose of makmg the remamder more valuable and available. 

.A. great deal has been said about the trusteeship of the Government. It is true that all government is a matter of trust. Individual men are tmstees created by Providence, bound to administer their faculties to the best advantage not merely for themselves, but for their fellow-men. But if by the use of the term trustees it is proposed to qualify, limit, or restrain the trust so as tore- semble the ordinary trusts that are created in the course of human transactions, I do not concur at all in that idea. The Government is a trustee for the purpose of administering the affairs oftbe nation according to its best judgment for the good ofthewholeandall th!'lparts of the whole. 'Vith re pect to the State of illinois-and I believe the same is true to a considerable extent with reference to 1\!is issippi and Alabama, but I happen to know something personally of the interior of the State of illinois- that portion of the State through which the road will run is.a.succession of prairies, the principal of which. i~ deno~inated the Grand Pra1r1e. ~do !lot recol- lect its extent exactly, but It 18,1 believe, about three hundred miles m length and about one hundred in breadth. Now, this road will pas directly through that Grand Prairie, lengthwise, and there is nobody who knows anything of that Grand Prairie who does not know that the land in it is utterly worthless for any present purposes; not because it is not fertile, but for the want of wood and water and from the fact that it is inaccessible, wanting all facilities for reach- ing a market or for transporting timber, so that nob~dy will go there and. settle while it is so destitute of all the advantages of somety anti the converuences which arise from a social state. And now, by constructing this road through the prairie through the center of the State of Ulinois, you will bring millions of acres of iand immediately into market which will otherwise remain for years and years entirely unsalable. 

Mr. Seward said: 

What then is the best and highest interests of the people of the United States in rega~d to thls domain? It is not to derive from it the highe t amount of cur- rent revenue; it is not to accumulate in our coffers the highest and greatest amount of avails in the sales of the public lands which is attainable. But it is to brinathem into cultivation and settlement in the shortest space of time and under the most· favora.ble auspices. And why is this the best interest of the Government? It is because the power of the Government is increased just in proportion as population is extended over w~t now co~titutes the p~blic do- main and that the wealth of the Government mcreases m the same ratio as the incre~e of population, and that the taxable abillty of the peoi_>le for purposes of peace and war is increased by the extension of the populatiOn, and by the increase of wealth. I can conceive it possible that it is more profitable, more conducive to the in- tere ts of the people of the United States, even in a fiscal or purely financial point of view, to make large appropriations frOIJ?- this domain for ~he purp_ose of enhancing their more speedy settlement than 1t would be to retain them m a miserly grasp for the mere purpose of revenue. It is therefore upon the ground that the most expedient and beneficial disposition of this portion of the public lands is to devote it to the con truction of public roads beneficial to all the peo- ple of the United States, as well as to the States which are immediately traversed 

by it that I am in favor of the principle of this bill and of all similar bills which are properly guarded in their provisions, an~ shaJJ. give them my most cordial and effective support. I hope that the bill will be passed. 

On the 27th of June, 1864, discussing the Northern Pacific Railroad 

bill, 1\Ir. Hendricks said: 

The bill before the Senate proposes to encourage the construction of a very 

• 

important railroad to connect the waters of Lake Superior with the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Everybody can see at a glance that it is a work of national importance. It proposes to grant lands in a northern latitude where, without the construction of a work like that, the lands are comparatively without value to the Government. No person acquainted with the condition of that section of the country supposes that there can be very extensive settlements until the Government shall encourage those settlements by the construction of some work like this. I do not think that a work of such national .importance ought to be embarrassed in its passage through this body and through the House of Repre entatives by amendments propo ing works that are comparatively local. 

The bill granting lands to the Oregon Central Railroad Company was 

passed Uay 4, 1870. At that time Hon. J. S. Smith was Representa,.. 

tive in Congress from Oregon. He was then and is now one of the 

ablest and most influential men in his party in the State of Oregon. 

While that bill was under con ideration in the House, Mr. Smith said: 

I want to pass this bill to-day and I do not care to make a speech. But I trust I shall have the attention of the House while I make a very brief tatement. I wish, however, to say just this in reference to the matter: '£hat this bill is in the interest of settlers or pro pective settlers on the public lands through which this road is designed to pa . The road will be about one hundred and thirty miles long. Fifty miles of that d.i tance the country is settled; for the remain- der of the distance it is not settled, and is not susceptible of settlement unless mean,; of communication through it such as are proposed by this bill shall be provided. The road ought to extend further up the Willamette Valley. The bill intr<>Ouced by me provided for one the whole length of the valley, and I had hoped to have it passed in that form. The committee failed to report in favor of an extension of the branch southerly, and I accept of what they have 

reported. .A short road is better than none. The Willamette Valley, which con- tains two-thirds of the population of the State of Oregon, has no outlet to the sea but by the Columbia River. That river flows across the north end of this Willamette Valley. On the west, between that valley and the sea, a mountain range extends along its whole length. Through this range of mountains to the mouth of the river we have no road of any kind. 

* * * * * "' * We want this road to give us an outlet to the sea at all seasons; and we want to open up the pass we have found through these mountains to the settlement. It is not a question whether by the passage of this bill this land shall be withdrawn from settlement, but the question is whether by the passage of this bill you will open up to settlement a region of country which otherwise never would be settled. It is a question whether it shall be occupied by settlers under the provisions of this bill or whether it shall remain a wilderness in the future as in the pa t, whether it shall be the home of a busy, thriving population, or continue to be the home of the elk and the bear. For twenty-five years, Mr. Speaker, this land has been open to settlement, 

first, under a donation law, and now under the homestead law; and yet no man bas gone there to settle. No white men ever went there until they went to find this pass for a railroad to the sea. The red man never lived there. It is a for- est, an Oregon forest, such as is found nowhere else, perhaps, in the world. And no settler will ever go there unless there is a railroad through the pass connecting this Willamette Valley with the sea. In that event some of the smaller valleys will be opened to settlement. The lands are rich; the timber is abundant; it is valuable. But the land and the timber would remain in the condition they now are for a hundred years to come if this road is not built. I have a letter in my hand from one of my constituents who settled in one of the valleys in the same mountain range further south, who has lived on this land for eleven years and has had a fa.mily grow up around him on it. His land it still unsurveyed; he can not have schools; he can not perfect his title; he is living there under the homestead law; is unwilling to remain and does not dare to go away for fear of lo ing his land. No man with a knowledge of the con- dition of the country and its future prospects would ever ettle there in the absence of this railroad. Now, this grant is a limited one. It is barely ssffieient to secure the objects in view; and I will state this, that every man in Oregon of both parties, whether along the line of this road or elsewhere, is in favor of this particular bill, and the man who votes against it here will do that people an inju tice and a wrong. 

Again1\lr. SMITH, of Oregon. * * * Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana bas remarked in his very remarkable speech that there was no Democrat on the floor of this House who would dare te support land grants. I claim to be as good a Democrat as the gentleman from Indiana, and I am happy to be able to say that distinguished Democrats from t.hat State who 'are as well acquainted . 'vith the public sentiments of the people of Indiana as that gentleman himself .will vote in favor of this bill and they will receive the approbation of their con- stituents for o doing. This is nota party question and it can not be made such. This policy really originated with the Democratic party. The first land grant of any magnitude ever made in aid of internal improvements wa made for the benefit of the State of Indiana, represented in part by the gentleman who moves to refer this bill. The Wabash and Erie Canal was constructed under just such a grant as is asked for this railroad in the State of Oregon. The first railway 

grant '"as to the State of illinois, and the bill was introduced by Stephen A. Douglas, and supported by a majority of both parties in the Hou e and in the Senat-e. 

1\lr. VooRHEES. Will the gentleman allow me to make a statement'! Mr. SMITH, of Oregon. Yes, sir. Mr. VooRHEES. Two or three years ago when the Northern Pacific Railroad Company had forfeited its charter by the lapse of time, and consequently the entire grant of lands that the Government had ma.de to it, the charter was re- vived and the land grant insured to them by an act that passed the House with but six Democrats voting against it. Mr. BECK. On the 1st day of July, 1868. Mr. SmTH, of Oregon. I am very glad to hear that. I wish to say one other thing in this regard. At least one, and I think more than one Democratic na- tional convention incorporated in its platform a plank in favor of such grants. And yet the gentleman says that no Democrat can vote for a land grant. 

Mr. President, I have referred' to these earlier grants of lands to aid 

in the construction of canals and railroads, not for the purpose of con- ' 

demning the Democratic party for inaugurating, or of excusing theRepublican party for continuing the land-grant policy, but for the purpose 

only of showing that if, as some contend, that policy was wrong, the 

Republican party is not responsible for its origin. I do not condemn 

the policy. Looking at the great results which have flowed from it, I 

am :x:eady to defend it. I believe that the most sanguine hopes of the 

authors of the policy and of its eminent supporters in Congress, among 

whom were Douglas, Benton, Calhoun, and Cass, have been more than 

justified. Sir, even now, with the light of experience, if I could claim 

for the Republican party the inauguration of the policy by which onr 

.vast territory has been made accessible and opened up to the landless 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5951 

for homes, and has been transformed from a wilderness to prosperous · States and Territories, I should not hesitate to make the claim. 

I believe that Congress has the constitutional power to aid works of 

internal improvement in the interest of interstate commerce, and that 

it is its duty to do so. And while it may be that in some of the acts 

granting lands to aid in· th~ construction of canals and railroads the 

interests of the people have not been sufficiently guarded I am not willing to condemn as wrong in principle, e.ven indirectly, legislation which 

has been productive of o much good. There are no doubt grants 

which ought to be immediately forfeited because the works intended 

to be aided by Congress by the grants have not been commenced or have not been prosecuted in good faith, and by reason of delay the 

country has been settled up and circumstances have so changed that the 

inconvenience and loss to the public which would result from longer 

withholding the granted lands from the operation of the land laws 

would be greater than the public benefit to be derived from the con- struction of the road. 

On the other hand, I believe that there are cases in which the construction of the works intended to be aided is being carried on in good 

faith, and the interests of the communities along the lines of the uncompleted portions of the mads as well as the public interests, would be 

greatly subserved by allowing the companies to complete their roads 

and earn the grants. Where settlers have gone into possE:SSion of un- earned railroad lands and have improved the same under a well founded 

expectation that the road would be speedily constructed and that 

they would thus be enabled to secure the title to such lands from the 

railroad company, I am satisfied that the rights of all parties can be 

better secured by permitting the lands to be earned by the company 

where that will be done within a reasonable time. Forfeiting the 

grants and subjecting the lands to the operation of the land laws will not 

preserve the rights of such settlers. Many of them are not qualified 

to take lands under existing land laws; many of them have improved more land than they would be entitled to take under those laws if qualified, and no general provision for their relief can be made which will 

meet all cases, but in every act of forfeiture some provision should be 

made by which the title of such settlers to limited quantities of land 

improved by them is secured to them. 

So far as questions· of vested rights are concerned, the railroad 

companies stand before the courts and before Congress upon an equality 

with the Government, protected by law. The grant to a railroad 

company or other corporation is a contract between the Government 

and the company, and the right to modify, alter, or repeal it so as to 

affect property and rights of property does not exist unless reserved 

in the charter. These grants were not intended as gifts to the com- . 

panies, and ought not to be continued for their benefit alone. The 

grants were made for the benefit of the public, in consideration of public 

benefits to be derived therefrom; and if proper to be made at the time, 

and the public interests demand their continuance, they should be con- tinued. So far as rights of property have become vested by compliance with the conditionsofthegrantssuchrights.are beyond the power 

of Congress. So far as equities have arisen by reason of circumstances 

that may have caused or may excuse the delay, such equities are proper 

matters for consideration. 

As between the Government and the corporations, unless the public 

interest requires the continuance of the grants, I am prepared to vote 

for the forfeiture of every unearned land grant, and for the forfeituTe 

of the unearned portion of every grant. But, until I am ready to 

condemn the policy inaugurated under the administration of Washington, and which Teceived the sanction of nearly every subsequent 

administration until .the Republican party came into power and the 

ardent support of the leading statesmen of every administration, I am not ready to admit that all" unearned land grants should be forfeited upon the principle that gra.nts of land in aid of internal improv:ements are wrong p€r se. The interest of the railroad company 

ought not to be a controlling question in determining the question of forfeiture. ·The test in my opinion ought to be, will the public interest 

be better sub erved by the forfeiture of an unearned grant and the res- toration of the land to the public domain than by permitting the 

grantee to comply with the conditions of the grant by the construction 

of the road and earn the grant? And as in the fu'St instance the grant was made for the benefit of the public, the question whether it ought 

to be forfeited should be determined with a view of protecting the public interest. 

Since March 4, 1861, a period of twenty-three years and over, fortyfour acts have been passed by Congress granting lands to aid in the 

construction of railroads. During the period from September 29, 1850, 

to March 4, 1861, a period of less than eleven years, Congress passed 

forty-seven acts granting lands to aid in the constructiQD of railroads. 

The grants made prior to 1861 were all made to aid in the construction 

of comparatively short lines of railroad located in Illinois, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Florida,, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, 1\Iichigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Nearly all these States had facilities for transportation by water. They had large populations. The public lands 

were accessible compared with the \ast unpeopled regions west of the 

Rocky Mountains. The cost of railroad construction then was com- paratively small, and the population and resom·ces of the regions where 

the roads were to be constructed assured a remunerative business 

when the roads should be completed and open for traffic. The lands 

granted were valuable both on account of their quality and accessibility. 

When the Republican party came into power the people of this 

country were demanding a transcontinental railroad. The party was pledged to Congressional aid for snch a road. The policy of granting 

land to aid in the construction of railroads was, as we have seen, the 

settled policy of the Government, advocated by leading statesmen of 

all parties. The Pacific coast and the intervening territory west of 

the :Mississippi was beginning to attract attention, and Congress wisely, as I think time has demonstrated, undertook by aiding the construe- · tion of railroads to open up this portion of our territory to settlement. 

The circumstances were different from those under which previous 

grants had been made. The roads were of great length and extended 

through unsettled regions of the country. A large portion of the lands 

along the linesofthe projected roads was worthless; and, owing to the 

distance from markeL and the total absence of the means of transportation, the whole territory was comparatively valuel~ss. 

The roads, it was well known, would be expensive to build, and when 

built would not for a considerable period have a remunerative traffic. 

Under these circumstances a grant of the same quantity of land that 

was made in some ofthe· earlier grants would have been insufficient to 

insure the building of a road, and the grants were therefore necessarily 

increased in quantity, the Government reserved every alternate section, 

and the lands retained by the United States within the land grants 

became increased tenfold in value by the construction of the roads. 

Out of the forty-four grants ofland to aid in the construction of railroads made subsequently to March 4, 1 61, twenty-nine were made to 

States as additional aid to companies which had received previous grants or to aid in the construction of new roads in the States of Arkansas, 

lYiissouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Kansas, the aggregate number of acres granted by these twety-nine acts being comparatively inconsiderable. The other fifteen grants were made to the following corporations: The Union Pacific, Kansas Division, Denver Division, Central Branch Union Pacific, Central Pacific, Western Pacific, 

Oregon Branch, Sioux City and Pacific, Northern Pacific, Southern 

Pacific, Atlantic and Pacific, Oregon Central, Texas and Pacific, New 

Orleans and Pacific, and the great bulk of land granted after March 4, 

1861, was to aid these great transcontinental roads and their branches. 

With the exception of some of the branches or divisions of the Union 

Pacific I presume the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was the most valuable of all these grants, and yet I venture the assertion without fear of successful cop.tradiction that the first grant ever 

made in aid of the construction of a railroad, namely, the grantto the 

State of Illinois, to aid in the construction of the Illinois Central Railroad, of six alternate sections per mile on each side of the located line 

of its road, was of much greater, I think I can safely say several times 

greater, value than the magnificent grant, in quantity, made to the 

Northern Pacific Railroad for any number of miles of its road wherever 

selected upon its line equal to the length of the Illinois Central. In 

other words, the best part of the Northern Pacific grant, for a distance 

equal to the length of the Illinois Central road, although it is in the 

Territories, twenty alternate sections upon each side of the located line 

of its road, was not when made, and is not to-day, equal in value to 

the grant made to the Illinois Central. 

I have seen it stated upon good authority that the land grant to the 

Illinois Central R.ailrOad was so valuable that the road was entirely 

constructed out of the proceeds ofthesalesofits lands. The Northern 

Pacific Railroad within the limits of Montana Territory is about eight 

hundred miles in length, and the number of acres that it will receive 

under its grant in that Territory, if it secures the entire amount, approximates 20,000,000 acres. I have what. 'I consider good authority for saying that the amount of 

agricultural railroad lands within tQ.e limits of the grant of that com- pany in the Territory of Montana does not exceed 2, 000,000 acres, and 

that not exceeding one-third of the lands are valuable for any purpose 

whatever. 

1'he attempted distinction between grants made to the State to aid 

particular improvements and grants mad~ directly to corporations to 

aid in like improvements, does not affect the question of the propriety of the land-grant policy. It was the constant practice of the States 

to transfer such grants to corporations, and the practice was well known 

to Congress. The grants to corporations were in effect like those that 

have been subsequently made to such corporations as should be designated by the Legislature of a State. · In proposing to forfeit a railroad grant, the first inquiry naturally is, 

how far should the a.ct of forfeiture, by its terms, extend? It seems to be supposed by some persons that a legislative declaration of forfeit- ure of a land grant will be conclusive as to the fact of the existence of 

a breach of the condition upon which the grant was made and as to the 

extent of its effect upon the granted lands. I do not believe any such 

doctrine. In my judgment an act of Congress declaring a grant forfeited is, in effect, a mere declaration of the intention of the Government to resume the grant for a breach of the condition, an act upon 

the part of the grantor which prevents the grantee from further com- plying with the condition of the grant, so as to make its title to that 

portion of the grant as to which the condition was unperforme4 at the 

date of the declaration absolute, but settling no questions of law or fact. 
5952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 3, 

If Congress shall attempt to do more it will attempt to do an idle 

thing. Judicial powers have not been conferred upon the legislative 

department of the Government, and no act of Congress can deprive the 

grantees and their assigns of the right to resort to the courts of the 

couniTy in some form to obtain a judicial construction of an act offorfeiture. 

Whenever a claim is made to any portion of a land grant by any person claiming under the Government subsequent to the declaration of 

forfeiture, the original grantee, or parties claiming under the grantee, 

can resort to the courts for adjudication of the question of title. It is 

true that under existing laws the grantees upon a declaration of forfeiture can not sue the United States to obtain a construc.tion of the act 

of forfeiture, and I agree with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] 

that this is a praetical denial of justice in all cases as to where there 

is an unsettled controversy as to the right of forfeiture or as to the extent 

to which it can be made, and that some amendment like tpe one proposed by him should be mane to this bill and to all similar bills; but a 

much stronger reason and the controlling reason with me why some 

such amendment should be adopted is that if it is not done litigation 

will ensue which will involve thousands of settlers, and, in all probability, deluge Congress with applications for relief. 

A .charter granted to::~. corporation by act of Congress is a valid contraet between the United States and the company. Out of a large number of cases in which this proposition is decided I quote from two. In 

the Binghamton Bridge Company (3 Wallace) the Supreme Court said: 

The Legislature therefore says to public-spirited citizens: "If yow will embo.rk with your money, time, and skill in an enterprise which will accommodate the public necessities, we will grant to you, for a limited period, or in perpetuity, 

privileges that will justify the expenditure of your money and the employment of your time and skill." Such a grant is a contract with mutual consideration; and justice and good policy alike require that the protection of the law should 

be assured to it. 

* * * * * * 'Ve have supposed if anything waa sett.led by an unbroken course of decisions in the Federal and State <..'Ourts, it was that an act of inco:.poratfon was a con- tract between the State and stockholders. All courts at this day are estopped from questioning the doctrine. The security of property rests upon it, and every suoceesful enterprise is undertaken in the unshaken belief that it will never be forsaken. 

.A departure from it now would involve dangers to society that can not be fore- seen; would shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business in- terests, and w~ken, if not destroy, that respect which bas always been felt for the judicial department of the Government. 

Chief-Justice Shaw said in the case of Boston and Lowell Railroad 

Corporation vs. Salem and Lowell Railroad Company (2 Gray, 32): 

In addition to the law-making power, the Legislature is the representative of the whole people, with authority to cont.rol and regulate public property and public rights, to grant lands and franchises, to stipulate for, purchase, and ob- tain all such property, privileges, easement~!!, and improvements as may be necessary or useful to the public, to bind the community by their contracts therefor, and generally to regulate all public rights and interests. It is under this authority that lands are granted, either in fee or upon any other tenure, that the uses of navigable streams and waters are regulated, the right to build over navigable waters, to erect bridges, turnpikes, and railroads, and ether similar rights and privileges are granted and justified. * * * Were all such grants and stipulations repealable by subsequent Legislatures, because they are in the form of laws, then the unlimited power of the ~gislature to alter and change laws-sometimes called, rather extravagantly, the omnipotence of par- liament~wouJd be a source of weakness and not of strength. * * * When such a contract bas been made by the Legislature upon considerations of an equivalent public benefit, and where the grantees have advanced their money to the public upon the faith of it, the State is l;>ound by the plain principles of justice faithfully to respect all grants and rights thus created and vested by contract. 

The grant of lands made by Congress to aid in the construction of 

this road, and most of the Congressional grants to aid in the construction of canals and railroads, were grants in prresenti and conveyed all 

the right and interest of the United States therein, subject to the conditions named in the grant. When such grants were made of alternate 

sections of the public lands along the line of a proposed railroad, not 

located, the grant was in the nature of a float. Whenever the line of 

the road was definitely fixed the gra.nt attached to specific tracts and 

became definite. AI though a grant was in prcesenti and vested the title 

in the grantee in fee-a qualified or base fee-at the date of the grant 

it may have been a grant upon condition subsequent and be liable to be 

determined by the entry of the grantor for non-performance of condition. 

In the cases of the grants to the Northern Pacific, the Atlantic and 

Pacific, and the Texas Pacific Railroad Companies, in addition to the 

claim mentioned by the Senator from Alabama that the United States 

bas failed to perform the conditions of the grant to be performed, it is 

strongly contended that under the terms and conditions of the grant 

Congress bas. not reserved to itself the right of forfeiture, but has provided in each of said grants what the penalty should be for a breach of 

the condition and that ~bat penalty is not'forfei tnre, but is only in case 

of such breach the right to do wha.t may be necessary to insure the 

speedy completion of the road. Some eminent lawyers bold to this opinion, and at least one Federal 

court has taken the same view of the question. 

The case of Hughes vs. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company and 

others, heard and decided by the circuit court of the United States for 

the district of Oregon, in October, 1883, was a suit in equity brought to 

restrain tke company from proeeeding further with the erection of a 

bridge over the Willamette River, and one ground alleged was that the 

company bad lost the right to build the bridge or further construct the 

road by failure to comply with the condition upon which the grant was 

made. In the decision the court (Deady, J.) says: 

But the condition imposed upon the defendttnt by section 8 of the act is even modified by the provisions of section 9, from which it plainly appears that so fur from Congress intending that the powers of a corporation should cease or become forfeit in any particular by reason of its failure or inability to keep any of the conditions imJ??sed by said section 8, it expressly reserved to itself the right, in case of such fa1lurefor the period of one year, to' ' do any and all acts and things which may be needful and necessary to insure a speedy completion of the said road." 

In this way Congress undertook to secure the completion of this great national work in anyevent,andsopbinlydeclareinadvance what otherwisemighthave been left to inference and argument from analogous cases, that it reser'"ed to it- selfthe right to deal with the defen<lant for any failure to comply with the con- ditions of the grant, and to excuse or enforce the same as it might under all cir- cumstances deem just to the defendant and best for the public good. Indeed, in view of the magnitude and hazard of the undertaking it was expressly provided that even Congress should not take ad vantage of a failure to perform any of the conditions for any period le&~ than a year. And even the land set apart by Con- gress to aid in the construction of the road was not left liable to revert to the public domain or be otherwise disposed of by Congress for the failure of the company to construct or complete the work as required by the act, but, as waa said in United States vs. Childers (8 Sawyer,174), it was devoted to the construction of the road in any event, and it is the duty of Congress to see that it is so applied. 

(See, also, on this point Southern Pacific Railroad Company vs. Orton, 6Saw., 178

~d this position is fortified by the fact that when Congress intended that the corporate existence of the defendant should be forfeited or affected by its failure to keep a condition imposed upon it, it basexpresslysaidso,asin section 19, where it is provided that unless two millions of the stock is subscribed and 10 per cent. paid thereon within two years ft·om the passage of the act," it shall be null and void." (18 Federal Reporter,106,108.) 

I also quote from an opiirion of Hon. J. S. Black upon the legal rights 

of the saHle company: 

Hon. RoBERT :M. McLA..>m, Chairman oft1U1 Cmnmittee on Pacific Railroads, 

House of Representatives : 

* * * * * * * Now, let us look and see if there is anything in this act of incorporation which declares that the land grant may be forfeited, or declared void, or resumed in any event. In the first place it will be observed that the grant is in verba de prresenti--the title is vested in the company at the moment when th.a charter is accepted. Un- like some other grants, it does not provide that the title is to be vested as the work goes on. It gives it all at once; and when tlle road is made patents may issue, not to create the title, but to confirm it. If, therefore, the right of the company is now to be taken away, the thing must be done by forfeiting a title already vested, not by refusing to make a title where none existed. The eighth section declares that the grant shall be held upon conditions, &c., one condition being the completion of the road within a certain time, afterward extended. This I admit would, if there were nothing more, make the estate conditional, and the grantor might exact a forfeiture for condition broken. But there is something more. The ninth section prescribes what the penalty shall be for a breach of the con- dition, and that penalty is not forfeiture. In case of such breach the right is reserved to do what may be necessary to insure the speedy completion of the road. By the terms of the contract this is the only thing that the United States can do. It excludes the conclusion which might have been drawn from the naked statement of the conditions of the eighth section. It has been argued (I do not know by whom) that the right to "do any and all acts and things which may be needful to insure a speedy completion ofthesaid road" includes the power to resume the land grant by legislative act. I hope this has never been ast'lerted by any respectable lawyer, for I must say that it is ab urd. I am not afraid that anv gentleman on this committee will believe it. The power to deprive a man of his property without process of law is a very different thing from the power to burry him up in his work. This privilege to speed the making of the road, in case it did not go fast enough, was put in on purpose to negative the right of resumption and furnish another-a specific and exclusive-remedy for the public injury which might be caused by delay or negligence. Besides, the resumption of the land grant is very far from being needful as a means of hastening the work. It is just exactly the contrary. Here is a company mo>ing rapidly along toward the completion of the greatest railroad in the world, and you propose to0 disable it utterly by taking away its means of going on. Call yon that insuring the speedy completion of the work? You might aa well cut the hamstrings of a race-horse to insure his fleetness. 

* * * * • * ... J. S.BLACK. YOBK, PA., ..4.prili9, 1881. 

Without expressing an opinion as to the correctness of this view of 

the law, I do not think that it is a matter to be overlooked or ignored. 

Some provision ought to be made for judicially determining the question 

ill case of the forfeiture of any grant containing like provi.<~ions. Conceding a grant to be a grant upon condition subsequent, for a breach of 

which the lands may be forfeited and diverted from the object for which 

the grant was made and restored to the public domain, and made subject to the general land laws of the United States, which, as I have said, 

in the case of the N orthem Pacific, Atlantic and Pacific, and Texas Pacific is denied, let us inquire what the rules of law applicable to such 

grants are, which, if not governing the action of Congress, limit its 

power to legislate so as to affect the title of the granted lands and the 

rights of the grantees. 

In case of a grant upon a condition subsequent it is well settled that 

the grantor alone can take advantage of a failure to perform the condition, and until he asserts such right the legal estate remains vested in 

the grantee. · 

This is no new doctrine, and in its application to grants of lands in aid 

of internal improvements by the Departments and the courts they have 

only followed the long-settled rule of law upon the subject. 

In an opinion dated November 29J 1879 (16 Opinions Attorneys-Gen-
1884. CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5953 

eral, 398), Attorney-General Devens, giving construction to the Minnesota land grant of July 4, 1866, states the law on this subject fully as 

relates to land grants. I quote the following from that statement: 

•While the part of the road to which your inquiries relate was noi completed 

within the time limited by law, no attempt has been made to enforce any forfeiture of the lands granted to the State of Minnesota, or by any means, legi l~r 

tive or other, to revest the title in the United ~tates. 

The question whether the State of Minnesota may still claim under the act of 

Congress lands which have been earned by the construction of the road since 

the expiration of the period, is determined by the case of Schulenburg vs. Har- riman (21 Wall., 44). This was the case of a grant of lands to the State of Wis- con in to aid in the construction of a certain railroad within that State, bvan act of June 3, 1856; the language there used in reference to the condition upon which the grant might be defeated by non-completion of the road within ten years was as follows: " No further sales shall be made, and the lands unsold shall revert to the 

United States. The road had not been complet-ed within the time required for 

it construction, which had not been extended, and Congress had passed no act nor taken any judicial proceeding to enforce any forfeiture of the grant for fail- ure to construct the road within the period prescribed. Upon this state of 

facts it was held t.hat a present interest was passed by the grant to the State. of 

Wiscon in; that the proviso was in the nature of a condition-subsequent; that 

the prohibition againstfurther sales if the road were not completed added nothing to the force of the proviso, because a cessation of sales was necessarily implied in the condition that the lands should revert, but that if the condition were not enforced the power to sell continued as before its breach, limited only by 

the objects of the grant and the manner of sale prescribed by the act; and that as no action had been taken, either by legislation or judicial .proceedings, to enfore a forfeiture or revest the title in the United States, that title remained in 

the tate as completely as it existed on the day that the title by location of the 

railroad acquired precision, and became attached to the adjoining alternate sec- tion . In direct answer to your inquiry upon this point I therefore reply that 

the Department is authorized by law to issue patents to the State of Minnesota 

for lands opposite that portion of the road constructed in sections of ten con- secutive miles since February 26,1877, the date at which, according to the fourth 

section of the act of July 4, 1866, it was provided in the event that the road was not completed that the lands not patented should revert to the United States; 

and this for the reason above stated, that no act, legislative or judicial, has been 

taken to revest the title in the United States." 

Attorney-General Brewster, in an opinion of date June 13, 1882, in 

the cac::e (Backbone case) of the application of the New Orleans Pacific 

Rail way Company for certain lands claimed under the grant of March 

3, 1 71, to the New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Railroad 

Company, s:1ys: 

The act of .March 3, 18il, passed to the New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Railroad Company a present interest in a certain number of alternate sec- tions of public lands per mile within the limits there prescribed. Its language 

is, .. There is hereby granted to said compapy" the number of alternate sec- tion mentioned, words 1\•hich import a grant in prresen.ti and not one in futuro. But the grant thus made is in the nature of a float. It .is of sections to be 

.afterward located, their location depending upon the establishment of the line 

Qf the road. Until this is definitely fixed the grant does not attach to any spe- cific tract of land. * * * The proviso in the grant that the company shall 

complet-e the whole of its road within fiye years from the date of the act is a -condition-subsequent, the failure to perform which does not fpsofacto work a forfeiture of the grant, but only gives rise to a right in the Government to en- :force a forfeiture thereof. Yet in order to enforce a forfeiture such right must be a erted by a judicial proceeding authorized by law, or by some legislative 

:action amounting to a resumption of the grant. (Schulenbergvs. Harriman, 21 Wall., 44.) Hence until advantage is taken of the non-performance of the con- dition, ui)der legislative authority, the interest of the grantee in the grant re- mains unimpaired thereby. 

In VanWyck vs. Kneval.s (16 Otto, 365) Mr. Justi-ce Field, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: · 

The defendant having failed to establish the validity of his own title, attacks 

the right of the company to the lands covered by the grant, alleging that the -company never completed the construction of the entire road for which the grant wa made; that after filing its map with the ~ecretary of the Interior it changed for part of the distance the route of the road, and that it never complied with 

the conditions of the law of Nebraska for the extension of its road within the 

limit of that State. We do not deem these objections, when considered with 

the facts on which they are based, as having any force. There is to them a ready 

.and conclusive answer. Assuming that the Burlington and Missouri River 

Raihoad, with which the company's road connected, was not, as averred by the 

-complainant, a branch of the Union Pacific Railroad, and that therefore the 

.company's proposed road W&i! not entirely completed, the factremainsthatthe company constructed a por.tion of the proposed road, and that portion was ac- cepted as completed in the manner required by the act of Congress. Patents for ome of the adjoining sections were accordingly is ued to the company, and .a right to all of them not specially reserved by the condition of the grant vested 

in it. o far as that portion of the road which was completed and accepted is 

concerned, the contract of the company was executed, and as to the lands patented, the transaction on the part of the Government was closed and the title of 

the company perfected. The right of the company to the remaining odd-numbered sections adjoining th~ road cpmpleted and accepted-not reserved-is 

equally clear. If the whole road has not been completed, any forfeiture conse- quent thereon can be asserted only by the grantor (the l..inHed Stat~) through j udicial proceedings or through the action of Congress. (Schulenberg 1:s. Har- riman, 21 Wall., 44.) A third party can not take upon himself to enforce conditions attached to the grant when the Government does not complain of their 

breach. 

In most, if not all, the Congressional grants to States and t.o corporation to aid in the construction of railroads, the grant is what may be 

called a divisible grant. By the ad:.s making the grants it is provided 

that as the construction of the road progresses and sections of a given 

length, usually from ten to twenty-five miles, are completed, the same 

hall.be inspected and if found to be constructedinaccordancewith the 

requirement of the act and the evidence thereof filed~ patents for the 

granted lands conterminous with the completed section shall be issued. 

ln my judgment such a grant is divisible, and the grant as to each sec- tion of the road should be so far considered as a separate grant as that 

when the condition of the grant as to any section of road is performed 

the title.of the grantee to the lands coterminous with such completed 

XV-373 

sections becomes absolute and not liable to be divested for a failure to 

perform the condition as to any other section of the road. In other 

words, it was not the intention of Congress, in case of the failure of .a. 

grantee t.o complete its road, t.o make the entire grant subject to forfeiture. 

It is a well-settled principle of law, that in cases of estates upon con- dition subsequent time is not of the essence of the contract, and that a forfeiture may be waived by the party who has the right t.o avail himself of the breach of the condition, and that if entry is not made by the 

graut.or or some act equivalent to entry done by him before the condition is performed, the title of the grantee becomes absolute. In other 

words, that the performance of the condition by the grantee, though 

after the time limited in the grant, before the grantor has signified his 

intention to take ad vantage of the non-performance of the condition, is. 

as effectual to transform the conditional fee into an absolute title as 

if the condition had been performed within the time limited in the 

grant. 

It is said that laches may not be imputed to the Government, but the 

maxim does not apply to a contract between the Gove~ent and its 

citizens. As I have before said, in construing a contract between the 

Government and individuals both tand upon an equality before the 

law. The doctrine that a condition subsequent attached to a grant of 

t.he fee to real estate may be performed after the time limited in the 

grant and before entry by the grantor for a breach is a rule of property, 

a.nd forms a part of the general law of contracts, and .enters into and 

becomes a part of a contract between the Government and individuals 

in the same manner that it applies to a contract between individuals. 

But if thiS were not so it would hardly be consistent with the honor 

and dignity of a great government to undertake to apply a different rule 

to the construction of its contracts with its citizen from that which 

is applied to the construction of contracts between individuals. · 

Something has been aid as to the rights of mortgagees and grantees 

of Congressional land grants. As the fee in such grant passes to the 

grantee there appears to be no reason why the grantee may not sell the 

granted lands or mortgage them, if in case the grantee is a corporation it 

has power under its char_ter t.o mortgage its property even before the 

condition is performed and the lands are earned. But it seems evident 

to me that the vendee or mortgagee of such lands takes no greater estate in them than the original grantee had at the date of the conveyance, namely, a conditional fee only, subject to be forfeited for non-performance ofthecondition upon which the graut is made. • 

Several bills for the forfeiture of railroad gratJ.ts have been reported 

from the Senate Committee on Public Lands. Among them is the bill 

under consideration, to forfeit the grant of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Railroad Company a bill to forfeit the grant of the Texas Pacific Railroad Company, a bill to forfeit the grant of the Oregon Central Railroad Company, and a bill t.o forfeit the grant of the Northern Pacific 

Raill'oad ·company. 

The facts in relation to the bill under consideration have already 

been fully stated. The company a.ppears to lack the present ability 

to complete its road and circumstances ha>e so changed !)IDee the grant was made that it is believed the public interest will be better protected 

by a present forfeiture of the grant than by longer withholding the 

lands from settlement. 

The Texas Pacific bill involves questions of law only, the grant being now claimed by virtue of an assignment by a company which constructed 

its road before it took the a signment. The committee was unanimously of the op~on that even admitting the right of the grantee 

to assign the grant, the construction of the road by the assignee com- pany before the a signment was made was not a performance of the 

condition of the grant, and that the grant should be forfeited. The 

facts concerning the Oregon Central land grant were .a follows: 

Byanaetof Congress entitled ''An act granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria and 

1\IcMinnville, in the State of Oregon,'' approved l\Iay 4, 1870, there was granted \<>the Oregon Central Railroad Company, its successors and as- signs, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Portland to Astoria, and from a suitable point of junction near Forest Grove to the Yam Hill River.~ near l\IcMinnville, in the 

State of Oregon, beside the usual right of way, materials for construction, and necessary land for stations, each alternate section of the public lands (not mineral, excepting coal and iron) desi~nated by odd 

numbers nearest the said road, to the amount of ten such alternate sections per mile upon each side thereof not otherwise ~po ed of or re- served or held by valid home tead or pre-emption. right at the time of 

the passage of said act. 

Immediately after the passage of said act the said Oregon Central 

Railroad Company consh'llcted its railroad from Portland to Saint J oseph, about one and a half miles from 1\Icl\Iinnville, and about fortyeight miles from Portland. The line as constructed passes in the vicinity of the town of Forest Grove. The road so constructed, and the 

lands, earned and unearned, have been transferred to and are now owned by the Oregon and California Railroad Company, another Oregon corporation·incorporated for the purpose of constructing :1 railroad 

from Portland to the southern boundary of the State. The latter com- pany is engaged in the construction of the southern extension of its 

I 
5954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3~ 

road to connect with the California and Oregon Railroad, now owned 

by the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and which is being extended 

northward to meet the Orego.p. and California Railroad, and thus form 

railroad connection between the cities of San Francisco, Cal., and Portland, Oreg. 

The Oregon and California Railroad Company also owns an extension 

of the Oregon Central road, built by still another company, the Western 

Oregon Railroad Company, from Saint Joseph to Corvallis, in Benton 

County, Oregon, a distance of about fifty miles, and is engaged in constructing an extension of the said road from Corvallis to a junction 

with the Oregon and California road at Junction City, in Lane County. 

Preliminary surveys of the line from Forest Grove to Astoria haye been 

made by the Oregon Central and Oregon and California Railroad Companies, but nothing has been done toward the construction of that part 

of the line. Petitions have been presented to Congress at the present 

and at previous sessions, praying the forfeiture of the unearned portion 

of the gran1. The petitioners mostly reside at Astoria and along the 

western end of the propo ed line from Forest Grove to A~toria. The 

Committee on Public Lands -early in the session reported favorably a 

bill to forfeit the unearned portion of this grant; that is, the grant for 

that portion of the road from Forest Grove to Astoria. 

I expect to support that bill. I shall do so not for the reason that 

the citizens of any localicyor localities have petitioned for the forfeiture 

of the grant, for I think that the citizens of the entire State of Oregon 

have an interest in the construction of the road, and consequently in 

the forfeiture of the grant, but I shall support the bill for the reason 

. that the construction of this part of the road, which may properly be 

termed a bmnch, has never been commenced, and, so far as I can see, 

is not likely to be undertaken within a reasonable time by the company: Applying the rule which I think should govern in determining 

the question of forfeiture to this grant, I think the lands ought not 

further to be withheld from the market without some satisfuctory assurance of the speedy construction of the road. 

The report of the committee upon the bill to forfeit the unearned 

portion of the Northern Pacific land grant is not a unanimous report. 

A minority of the committee are unwi.lling tl!at the portion of the grant 

for what is known as the Cascade branch, whjch is the projected road 

from a point where the main line from Lake Superior first reaches the 

Columbia River across the Cascade Mountains to Puget Sound, and 

which is a part of the direct line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound, 

shoul<} be now forfeit.ed. The bill introduced by me on the 19th of 

May last, and which I will ask the Secretary to read as a part of my 

remarks, is the bill which I think should be passed concerning this 

grant. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

:Mr. DOLPH. I need not to this body detail the history of this com- pany. Nor need I tate with what energy, since the company recovered from its financial embarrassments caused by the financial crisis. 

of 1873, the construction of its road has been pushed across the continent. The rapidity with which this road was constructed attracted the 

attention of the whole country, but the interest in the progress of the 

work in other portions of the Union was slight compa1-ed with the interest with which the people of the Pacific Northwest watched its progress. 

All eyes were turned with expectation toward it. We waited and 

hoped and at last rejoiced greatly when the last spike was driven and 

the main line from Lake Superior to Wallula·was completed, and Oregon 

was connected by rail with her sister States. 

Wallula is about two hundred and fourteen miles from Portland. The 

Northern Pacific there connects with the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company's road, which forms a part of the through line from Lak e 

Superior to Portland. From Portland along the south side of t he: 

Columbia to a point just below Kalama, which is upon t~e north or 

Washington -side of the river, and thence to New Tacoma, on Puget 

Sound, the road is completed. There is also railroan connection between New Tacoma and Seattle, partly by the constructed portion of 

the Cascade branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad and partly by a 

railroad constructed by another company. There is also completed 

and irl operation over twenty-five miles of the Cascade branch from 

New Ta-coma eastward, and the construction of that branch is being: 

carried on from the Columbia River westward. It will cost a large 

amount of money and require considerable time to construct the Cascade branch. If the land grant of the company should now be forfeited 

I have no doubt that the effect of the forfeiture will be the necessary 

suspension of the work of construction upon this branch as well as upon 

the main line. 

As to that portion of the grant between Wallula and Portland, applying the rule by which, as I have before stated, I think the que -

tion should be determined whether a grant should be forfeited, I think 

the time has come when the people will be benefited more by an immediate restoration of the granted lands to the public domain and to. 

the operation of the land laws of the United States than by longer holding them from market in order to secure the construction of the road. 

I am informed that the company during last year did some work along· 

the north side of the Columbia River upon this line, but the work ha 

not been pushed with an energy which indicates an intention and 

ability of speedily completing that section of the road. 

Another company has constructed a road from Portland to Wallula.. 

which gives the public the benefit of a through line, and to that extent lessens the public benefits to be derived from the constru~tion of 

the .Northern Pacific road, and by causing the rapid settlement of thecountry along the line of the road, bas increased the inconvenience and A bill (S. 2229) restoring to the United States certain of the lands granted to the · · to th "t hi h will be ed b h furth · Northern Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction o' a railroad lDJury e COIDIDUDl Y W C cans Y t e erwithhold-· from Lake Superior to Puget Sound, and to restore the same to settlement; ing of the lands from market. Many persons have settled upon these- and for other purposes. railroad lands and are anxious to secure title. As I have before said,, 

Be i t en4cte.d by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Sllltes of if it appeared certain that the road would be built at once, the mo t . America in Congress assembled, That all the lands heretofore granted to theN orth- satisfactory way to secure the rights of these persons, in my judgment, ern Pacific Railroad Company by an act entitled "An act granting lands to aid uld be to •t th lands to be · ed d h 1 in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line fromLakeSuperiortoPuget wo perml e earn an t e setters to secure· Sound, on the Pacific coast, by the northern route," approved July 2,1864, and their title from the company. subsequent acts and joint resolutions of Congress, which are adjacent or apper- In considering what should be done for the relief of the e pei on ta.intoandareconterminouswiththatpartofitsmainlinewhichextendsfrom th · ti rth f 'd · h Wallula Junction, in Washington Territory, to the city of Portland, in the St..'tte ere 18 a ques on wo Yo COnSl eration as tot e power of Congress of Oregon, except such of said lands as are adjacent or appertain to and are con- to divert the lands granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company terminous with the branch line across the Cascade 1\founta.ins, be, and the same from the object of the grant, namely, the construt:tion of the road,. are hereby, resumed by the United States and restored to the public domain and h' h I h al ead dis d Th bill ffi ed b lf r made subject to disposition and settlement under the general laws relating to W lC ave r Y cu.sse ·· e 0 er Y myse 10r the iorthe public lands. feiture of this portion of the grant avoids this question, and if it should. 

SEc. 2. That in all cases where persons have settled upon any of the lands become a law would at once, no doubt, settle the question of title to aU 

affected by said grant, and hereby resumed by and restored to the United States, th r rfi 'ted 1 ds It · th or have made improvements thereon with a bona fide intention of purchasing e 10 el , an · reqUITes e company to assent to the provisions the same of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, and such person is not en- of the bill. The company agreeing for itself, its stockholders, and bondtitled to enter the same under the pre-emption or homestead 13.ws of the United holders, and the United States agreeing for the public, to the forfeiture, 

States, such person, upon proving the same to the satisfaction of tbe Commis- the title to the lands and the power of Congress to dispose of them sioner of the General Land Office, shall be entitled to enter not more than three 

hundred and twenty acres of said lands, including such person's settlement or would be finally settled, whatever may be the power of Congress withimprovement, at the rate of $1.25 per acre: Provided, That in all cases where out such assent to declare a forfeiture of the grant. parties, persons, or corporations, with the permis ion of said Nortbern Pacific As a condition upon which an extension of time is granted for the· Raikoad Company, are in the possession of and have made improvements upon 

any of the lands hereby resumed and restored, and are not entitled to enter the completion of the Cascade branch, I have no doubt that the company same under theprovisionsoftbis act, such parties, persons,orcorporationsshall would assent to the provisions of a bill for that purpose by which thehave six months in which to· remove any growing crop, and within which time grant for a portion of its main line from Portland to Wallula would be they shall also be entitled to remove all buildings and other movable improve- ments from said lands. · forfeited. Should the bill repo1 ted from the Committee on Public· SEc. 3. That the said Nortbern Pacific Railroad Company shall complete its Lands become a law the courts would be called upon to determine 

said branch across the Cascade Mountains within fi">e years after the passage of h th Co had th to d · t h fr h this act, subject to the provisions, duties, and obligati.ons, and with the grants W e er ngress e power 1ver t e grant om t e obj ects. and privileges provided in said act approved July 2, 1804, and the joint resolu- to which it was made. But in the mean time, and until some final adtion relating thereto approved May31,1870; and also its main line in theStateof judi tion of the question <'.ould be had, the title of the settlers to the 

Wisconsintoitseasternterminusatornea.rthemouthofl'l!ontrealRiver,within land uld b d 1 d d b · 1 1 twoyea.rsaft.erthepassa.geofthisact,subjecttoand with the provisions, duties, wo e un er•a c ou , an t eu va ue wou d be greatly imobligations, grants, and privileges aforesaid: Prodded, That in case of its fail- paired. _ ure to complete said branch, or said part of the main line in the State of Wis- Looking at this question from my standpoint, unless the act to for- . consin, within the times herein respectively limited therefor, then and in such feit this grant should be passed in such a shape as to secure the assent ca e the granted lands appertaining to and conterminous with the then uncom- pleted parts of said branch and main lines, or either, as the case may be, shall of the company, I should be in favor of providing for the institution of' 

revert to the United States and become part of the public domain, and be sub- a suit at once by the United States against the company, and all parties ~~ disposition and settlement under the general laws relating to the public claiming under it whose rights are not provided for in the act, to settle 

SEc. 4. That the said Northern Pacific Railroad Companysball accept the pro- finally and within the shortest practicable time the question of title at 

visions of this act by a resolution of its board of directors, and file in the office the expense of the United States instead of leaving it to be settled at 

of the Secretary of the Interior, within sixty days after the passage of tills act, a h f ttl d th '1 d la d · · copy of such resolution authenticated by its corporate seal and the signatures of t e expense 0 se ers un er e an ws, an proVIding for an early its president and secretary. I final decision of the case by giving it precedence on the calendars OL 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5955 

all courts, requiring .the courts to hear it, and shortening the time for 

appeal. 

The circumstmces are quite different in regard to that portion of the 

grant for the Cascade branch. That part of Washington Territory 

lying west of the Cascade Mountains is entirely cut off and separated 

from Eastern Washington by the Cascade Mountains. Without the construction of the Cascade branch, which is in fact the direct line, the 

only communication between the two portions of the Territory is by 

way of the Columbia River Valley. The lines of transportation and 

travel pass through or connect at Portland. Western Washington contains about 30,000 square miles, and is about three and a half times 

.as large as the State of New Hampshire. It contains the great Puget 

Sound, with its fertile islands, capacious harbors, and its 2,000 miles 

of shore indented by bays and inlets. It probably now contains the 

most extensive and Taluable forests of timber in the United States. 

Underlying these vast forests of fir, pine, and cedar are inexhaustible mines of iron and coal. It has considerable tracts of the finest agricultural land. Its waters teem with :fish. In short, it is a valuable 

portion of the grea,t North west, destined to be the future home of millions of people. It was, until the establishment of the civil government for Alaska, the extreme northwestern portion of the organized 

territority of the United States. The citizens of Washington Territory 

were among the earliest and most intelligent friends of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad. They believe that they are entitled to direct railroad 

communicaM.on with the eastern portion of the Terr~tory and with the 

main line of the Northern Pacific Railroad by w_ay of the Cascade 

branch. 

I believe they are so en ti tied. I am frank to say that in my opinion 

the construction of the Cascade branch would not be immediately advantageous to Oregon, or to Portland, its chief city, and I even doubt 

whether its present constructio-n would be profitable for the company 

itself. I base my action in this matter upon broader grounds than the 

interest alone of the people of my State. I believe I should be false 

to my duty if I pennitted myself to be governed by such a consideration, and by my silence, my voice, or my vote helped to plaee an obtacle in the way of the completion of this b~ch. I shall be governed in this matter by what I conceive to be the interest of the whole 

Northwest and of the whole country, and will not without a protest 

see so la1·ge and promising a section oftbe country cut off from direct 

communication with the railroad system of the Union at a time when 

the long-deferred hopes of its people seem about to be realized. 

Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, :Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Kansas have all received from the Federal Government valuable lands for the purpose of 

aiding the construction of railroads, and many other States and Territories have received the benefits of valuable grants made to corporations to aid the construction of rnilroads within their limits. By the 

liberality of Ute Government they have been given the fadlities of railroads and telegraphs, daily mails abd schools; their resources have been 

developed, their unoccupied lands settled and cultivat.ed, and they 

have grown strong and independent of further national aid. Are the 

representatives in this bOdy of these States which have been heretofore 

so highly favored by the General Government, and whose Senators and 

Representatives were once suppliants for aid from the Federal Government for railroads for their States, willing to deprive far-off Washington Territory of the aid heretofore granted to secure to her a single 

direct railroad connection with the railroad system of the country ? 

It is said that the time is past when it is necessary for the Government to aid in theconstruetion of railroads. That may be true in most 

of the States and Territories, but it is not true as to Washington Territory. The condition of that Territory to-day is practically the same as 

was the condition of the Territories of the West w ben they received liberal GovernmeBt aid for the construction of their railroads, and which 

now, by reason of the settlement of their territory and the development 

of their resources, no longer require assistance. The sparse population 

of the great Northwest, the difficulties of constructing railroads, the 

great cost of the transportation of railroad material, the high prices 

of labor, render the cost of railroad construction very great. 

To the Gbvernment itself the question as to whether the land grant 

of the Northern Pacific shall be forfeited and restored to the operation 

of the land laws, or earned by the milroad company and sold to settlers, is of no great importance. I am not concerned about the sum 

that would find its way into the public Treasury if the lands were 

restored to the operation of the land laws. My concern is to know 

what is for the best interest of the people of Oregon and Washington 

Territory and of the whole countpY. If any people deserve liberal 

treatment at the bands of Congress it is the people who braved the 

dangers and endured the toils and hardships incident to pioneer life 

in that country, and who have waited so long for the tide of immigration just now setting toward it. 

I am asking of Congress in behalf of Oregon, in view of our great ex- . 

tent of territory, our great and rapidly increasing internal, interstate, 

and foreign commerce, our great rivers, our extended seacoast, our rapidly increasing population and development, liberal appropriations for 

the improvement of our rivers and harbors. I should feel in a measure 

estopped from asking such liberal treatment in this regard as our people deser-Ve if the reas>ns for doing so were not strong enough to prevent 

me from assisting in depriving the people of Washington Territory of 

the aid .heretofore granted by Congress for the construction of the great 

highway across the continent which for the last quarter of a century has 

been. the object of their hopes by day and the subject of their dreams 

by night. 

I briefly call attention to another matter which I deem worthy of careful consideration in connection with the proposition to forfeit the land 

grant for the Cascade branch of the N ortbern Pacific Railroad Company. 

The Canadian Government bas expended large sums of money in the 

improvement of the St. Lawrence River, and is making a great effort 

to secure the trade of the Northwest. The Canadian Government has 

also already expended and is expending fabulous sums in pushing the 

construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. It seeiUS certarn that in 

a comparatively brief period we may look for the completion of that 

road, and when that time arrives there is scarcely a doubt but that 

Great Britain will subsidize a line of steaiUShips between the city of 

Victoria and IThng-Kong and other ports of China and Japan; and Victoria will become a competitor for the trade of the East, not only with 

Portland and the cities of Puget Sound, but with San Francisco, which 

has hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of that trade upon the Pacific coast. 

In view of this fact it is not alone Western Washington or the people of 

the North west or the stockholders and bondholders of the N orthem 

Pacific that are interested in securing a through line of railroad for the 

.Northern Pacific from Lake Superior to PugetSound, but such a through 

line is a national necessity to enable ns to fairly compete with Great 

Britain for the commerce of China and Japan. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CAMERoN, of Winoonsin, in the 

chair). · The question is on the amendment of the committee, which 

will be read. • Mr. BLAIR. Is this the amendment of the Senator from Alabama 

[Mr. MORGAN]? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands there is an 

amendment proposed by the Committee on Public Lands on which the . 

question bas not yet been taken. The amendment will be read. 

The SECRETARY. In line 22, a.,fter the word "sta.tions," the Committee on Public Lands propose to insert: 

Provided, That the price of the lands so forfeited and restored shall be the same as heretofore fixed for the even-numbered sections within said grantl. 

l\ir. BLAIR. Mr. President, the elaborate speeches which have been 

made upon this subject and the impossil;>ility which I have found to 

make anything like proper preparation to discuss a question of this 

magnitude will justify me (as I am sure my course will please the Senate) in making my remarks very brief; and yet, a.s a member of the 

C(,)mmittee, having given some thought to the general subject that is involved. not alone in this bill but in the various bills that are before the 

Senate· and the other House of Congress and before the country, pro- . 

posing the forfeiture of the unearned and in many cases of the earned 

land grants to railroads which have been constructed by their aid and 

which it was expected would be constructed by their aid, and not having the good fortune to agree with a majority of the committee but being 

obliged to vote like the rest of the Senate, I feel that it is proper that 

I should give some expression to my views. 

All the land grants proposed to be forfeited were originally made 

between the years 1860 and 1870. They all had the same general purpose. From the Mississippi ValleY. to the Pacific coast our country 

was comparatively a wilderness, to be sure inhabited here and there. 

Even large States had been developed and political communities had 

been established in portions of that great territory, and yet when the 

actual ·population of that territory is compared with the teeming millions that it may well support, I am justified .in saying that at least in 

that period that portion of our country westerly of the Mississippi 

Valley and the Missouri Valley was a wilderness. · 

For the purpose of opening communication with the Pacific coast it 

seemed desirable that at least four great. natural lines of communication should be established connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific seas. 

They were chartered; they were all endowed with liberal land grants. 

They were separated from each other from three to four hundred miles, 

parallel lines, the Northern Pacific, the Central and Union Pacific, the 

Atlantic and Pacific, and the Texas and Pacific. Upon the Pacific 

coast lines connecting these great thoroughfares were also chartered 

and were endowed with a land grant as in other cases. . 

In round numbers something like 200,000,000 acres of land were 

granted to promote these great objects; substantially 50,000,000 acres, a little less [think, to the Northern Pacific; considerably less than that 

to the Union and Central; · some 47,000,000 acres to the Atlantic and 

Pacific, to which road the bill under conSideration has special refer- . 

ence; and a smaller amount to the Texas and Pacific, w hicb appertained 

only to the Territories lying westerly of the State of Texas. Including 

the lines extending along the Pacific coast which connected these great 

proposed thoroughfares, the sum total of the land grant was in round 

numbers about 200.000,000 acres. 

All these enterprises have been entered upon; one of them prosecuted 

to completion; theN orthern Pacific su bsta.ntially completed to-day; the 
5956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J ULY 3, 

Atlantic and Pacific more than half completed; the Texas and Pacific, 

now the Southern Pacific, wholly completed, while the lines connecting 

the Pacific extremities of these great roads are also practically com- pleted; so that from the Northern Pacific to the Texas and Pacific now the Southern Pacific, there will be in a very short time a continuous 

line of <>.ommunication. 

It must be admitted, I think, that substantially the great end sought 

to be accomplished in the chartering of these lines and in the granting 

of these immense tracts of land has been accomplished, or if not en- tirely accomplished it is now so near completion that in the eye of a nation looking to its development and to its destiny ~e may as the 

American people say that these roads are finished. Yet they are not 

complete. Certain almost indispensable things remain to be accom- plished, and that is the establishment of the termini on the Pacific 

coast and some of the connections on the East in order that these great 

competing transcontinental routes may be established for all time. 

I do not know that the Senate makes any proposition to deprive any 

of these J,"Oads of any portion of the grant which has, in the parlance of 

the time, been earned in any of these cases. That would be such flagrant and abominable injustice thllt at least the sentiment of this end 

of the Capitol has rebelled against it. I do not know that any mem- ber of the Committee on Public Lands or any member of the Senate 

entertains the idea of forfeiting the earned portion of any one of these 

great land grants. By the earned portion I understand that portion of 

the land grant which lies contiguous and oppo ite to the completed 

portions of the road. 

In this way there has come to be finally disposed of, vested in these 

variou corporations, their successors, their assigns their legal representatives (I speak in round mumbers now that the memory may be more likely to carry the figures), about 150,000,000 acres of the 200,-

000,000 acres-granted. Of the remaining portion of these land grants, th~ 50,000,000 acres, more or less, lying along the uilcomp,eted portions 

of these roads, no part of which, however, in any of these cases 4as failed 

to be surveyed, the line located, and more or le actual and important · expenditure made upon them-! say along these remaining uncom- pleted portions where lie the unearned portion of the grants the lands as a rule are relatively of very little value. I hall not undertake to 

speak with accuracy. Nobody can speak with accuracy. The data do 

not exist. Neither the Senate nor the other branch of Congress nor the committee has been from the beginning to the end of this investigation in the 

possession of the definite data whereon any jury would be expected to 

base a verdict, and no judicial decision affecting rights of property to 

the value of $5 or 5, 000,000 would be rendered anywhere in this broad 

land, I venture to say, before the most incompetent justice of the peace or the highest tribunal in the country, upon such sort of investigation 

of fact as has been made in any of these cases in either branch of Congress. Basing my statement upon sach information as I po ess, and 

such inferences as I think may be fairly made, considering that the un- completed portions of these various roads pass, many of them, through 

mountain gorges, that they go through wilderness and desert lands, 

that very large portions where the land is valuable are already located 

upon and will be held by private individuals or companies, homesteaders, pre-emptors, individual settlers- taking all these circumstances 

and others that might, if time would permit, be dwelt upon, I do not 

believe that to-day there is a really intrinsically valuable portion of 

the unearned land grants which ·will be recovered if all these bills of 

forfeiture are enacted into law, and all of them are successful, investing in thQ United States what they undertake to do, 10 000,000 acres 

of good land to-day that will be recovered by the United tates by this 

effort to forfeit land grants amounting to 200,000,000 acres . . 'Ve see in the newspapers and hear something in the discussions in 

both branches of Congress of the practical restllt that will come from 

this great movement to destroy vested rights and to humbug the Ameri- can people. The proposition that they are to recover immense portions 

of the public domain in my belief will simmer down to a recovery of 

not exceeding one-twentieth part of the land originally granted, and 

which the people are led generally in the discussions to expect that 

they will recover. So the real, practical, sensible proposition before us in the aggregation of these bills (I am not speaking now of the single one that is before the Senate) is to make an effort by this public demunstration or declaration of forfeiture of all these grants to recover to 

the United State not exceeding 10,000 000 acres of really >aluable 

lands. It is very true we might recover perhaps mountain tops, we might 

recover desert lands, lands that the companies themselves would be 

glad to part with for 5 cents an acre in cash, or 10 15 20, or 25 cents an 

acre in cash, and a much larger amount, nominally an amount in my 

belief not exceeding forty or fifty million acres and an actual amount 

not exceeding 10,000,000 acres of really valuable, homesteadable, if I 

ruay use the expression, land fit for occupation and for purposes of get- ting a livelihood on 160 acres. Most of this land .may be valuable in 

the way of pasturage, and it may be important to individuals in this 

country that the lands should be forfeited in order that vast projects 

in the direction of the accumulation of great ranches and the development of pasturage for cattle with a view to the accumulation of fortunes 

in that way may be facilitated; butiam talkingaboutthe actual va1ue 

of what we are undertaking to do to the ordinary American citizen, the 

homesteader, the man who understands that from the proeeeding which 

we are initiating here in these concluding moments of the session he 

is to have the opportunity, and his children after him, to establish a homestead on 160 acres as a consequence of our action to-day. 

Whether this is a project which it is worth while to undertake without due consideration, without ample investigation, without the settlement of all questions of fact in a substantially judicial procedure, although the action itself might be taken by Congress, is a very eri- ous question. I think it is understood from decisions of the courts and 

the general position of legal minds in this country that lands may be 

forfeited in either of two ways-by a judicial procedure or by an act of 

Congress. Whether an act of Congress is equivalent to forfeiture or not seems to be to ome extent a controyerted question. I think the best 

authority is to the effect that a declaration of forfeiture is simply equiv- alent to what is known in the common law as "office found." It i a 

declaration of an intention to recover the possession of whatever lands 

the United States may be entitled to in law. It is not an actual re- covery. It certainly is no recovery as ~aain t any individual or corporation who has a vested right. It is simply a declaration of an intention to get what belongs to the United States, to take possession of it 

and dispose of it as its own property. That it is not an actual recovery 

I think will be uni>ersally conceded as against an individual who had an already •ested right, and although the declaration may be made 

wherever there is a controversy, or an opportunity for controversy, th~ courts are still open, or if there is no legal procedure available it is the 

duty of Congress to make courts and to open courts which may adjudicate that controYersy. 

But, 1\b:. President, in whichever way this is done, the thing to be 

done is ubstantially the same. It is necessary to ascerta.in the fact. 

It must be conceded that the fact should b~ ascertained upon no les 

reliable testimony when we are to legislate upon that fact than should 

be required for its establishment when that same fact is to be made the 

basis of legal decision. If that is a sound po ition-and assuming that 

it i on the whole the duty of Congress to exercise t~e power of forfeiture whatever it may be--I say, in the first plaee, there has been by 

Congress no such procedure to ascertain the facts in this case or in any 

of these cases a would be required bytbe universal sense of justice on the part of mankind in the most trivial matter concerning property -or any human right. 

The Committee on Public Lands of this body which has reported all 

these bill<i has had no sources of information excepting the public records 

of the country and the tatements of counsel for the interested corporations. In not a single instance do the public records of the country 

shed the necessary light as a basis of action. They are the charters; 

they are the records of the survey and location of the varioUB routes. 

They show omething of the completion of these roads so far as they have 

been completed; the acceptance of certain portions of theprojectedlines, 

and the conveyance of the lands conterminous therewith; but so far as the uncompleted portions of the lines are concerned along which lie the 

lands which it is proposed to forfeit, there has been nothing like that 

sort of investigation as a basis of action on the part of the committee 

of the Senate, and in so far as I know of any committee, that would be 

required in the most ordinary judicial procedure. We have the statement of counsel representing these corporations, and that is all that we have on the other side. 

I believe that before we undertake to enact laws which will result 

unquestionably in a vast mass of litigation, in the violation of a great 

deal ofpriYate right, or at all events in inciting a vast amount of controversy that will have to be adjudicated somewhere, we should first for 

ourselves a certain the facts and in uch a way that the evidence would 

be satisfactory in any judicial proceeding. We certainly can not justify 

ourselves in dealing with these great questions, nor in dealing with 

minor que tions that concern the rights of property and the great public -questions which are involYed in the completion of the e roads unless we have the facts, and the facts, I assert, we ha•e not. 

Therefore, I say it is my belief tha~ the propo ition to forfeit, as i 

proposed in these various bills, any portion of these land grant i at 

the present time immature; and the first thing th..1.t hould be done by 

Congre if it proposes to pass- these bills, is to refer them to appropriate committees with instruction to in>estigate and report the fh.cts 

to the enate, and thereupon legislation may be safely based. I am opposed to the enactment of anyone of these land-grant-forfeiture bill 

at the present time. I believ-e they are radically wrong. I believe 

that they e imply the nterin~ wedge to distru·bance and futress ; 

that they are against ound public policy; that the land-grant-forfeiture 

bill which it is propo ed now to enact are imply humbugs, and are, 

if not designed to be, substantially misleading the American people. 

Now, ir, let us look a little more closely to the condition of these 

various roads. Take the Northern Pacific for instance. It is a route 

substantially of 2,500 miles in length. It ha.s its eastern terminus, not 

yet constructed, to be sure the one that it is proposed finally to rely 

upon. I think it has located at Ashland, on Lake Superior a little north 

of Duluth, and a short distance remains to be con tructed to establish 

the eastern terminus of that great road. It has been built westerly, it 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5957 

has passed through the Territories, it has crossed the Rocky Mountains, 

it has come to Snake River, in has arrived within two hundred miles 

of Puget Sound by the Cascade branch; it has arrived within two hundred and fifteen miles of Portland city, the other terminus on the Pacific Ocean of this great route. 

By the universal concession in the Senate, the whole length of the 

Northern Pacific is completed, with the exception of the two prongs 

which open upon the Pacific coast and which are its termini in that 

direction. With the .exception of less than five hundred miles lying 

directly on the Pacific, the road is completed; but tho e five hundred 

miles are not completed. To be sure, the Northern Pacific has an 

outlet to Portland over a rival line which it has hired or lea ed or obtained the use of for a limited period of time. It does not own that corp:.> ration· it does not own that road. 

:::luppose, now, that the Cascade branch is never constructed; suppo e 

that the main line down the Columbia River is never constructed, who 

· owns the Northern 'Pacific Railroad? Do the people of the United 

:::;ta tes? Has the Government control over theN orthern Pacific according to the conditions of the charter? Of what avail is it as a great 

transcontinental road if we are to abandon-and the object of the 

proposed forfeiture is the abandonment pradically of what is called the 

Cascade branch that goes to Puget Sound and opens to us the prospect 

of 6ontrol, by way of the Northern Pacific, of the great Asia tic trade of 

the future? That is to be removed from the possibility of construction. 

At all events if built hereafter there is no reason to suppose that it 

will remain in the ownership of the Northern Pacific Company. The 

forfeiture of the land grant down the Columbia River is instigated in 

my belief by parties, not homesteaders, not settlers, but great corporations who know that if they own the western terminus of this road they 

own the road the whole length of it. Whoever owns the two ends 

owns the road. I say in the interest of another great corporation it is 

proposed to forfeit the lands along the Columbia, the main line of the 

Northern Pacific, and thus to disappoint the people of the United States 

in regard to the purpose which was designed to be obtained by the construction of the great northern route. 

To the people of Oregon, to the local interests of Oregon, it may be 

very well that her Senators, one or both of them, should appear on this floor and say "forfeit both these branches" as one of them does 

say, and the other "forfeit o~e of them; forfeit the land along the 

main branch leading to Portland, but save the Cascade branch," which 

can not be constructed without great expense and requiring some three 

or four years' time to do it. I say it may be very well for local interests, for corporate intere8ts (for I believe those are the interests concerned here) to say forfeit the land grant along these two branches 

which open upon the Pacific and which practically control the North- ern Pacific transcontinental line, but for the people of the United 

States who have furnished the money that has built this great road, 

for the capitalists, for the small farmers, for the depositors in.savings' 

banks, for the widows and children and those who are the controll~rs 

of trust funds in my portion of the country to sympathize with a movement of this kind is not in the nature of things. Nor do I believe it to 

be otherwise than utterly subversive of .the great ends for which the 

Northern Pacific Railroad was originally incorporated. 

It is matter of common knowledge that the British Government is 

constructing a transcontinental Canadian railroad with its outlet practically upon Puget Sound, substantially and practically the &'\me terminus as our own line with reference to the great commerce in the future 

of the Asiatic continent and of our own possessions in that direction. 

As I said before, while it may be well enough for large pecuniary 

interests on the Pacific coast to come here and howl about this little 

bit of a land grant that is essential to the completion of the four or five 

hundred miles that remain uncompleted upon the Pacific coast, it is 

utterly subversive of the great ends for which the United States Government and the people of the United States first chartered this great 

line and devoted 50,000,000 acre of land to it. To say to the common 

American people those in pursuit of homeste..'lds, that a measure of 

thiR kind j in their interest is almost an infamous lie. 

I am very well aware that the position which I take upon this matter i not the popular position, and I had much rather take the oppoite. I hould very much prefer to vote for all these bills. I under- . tand how it is easier to drift with the current.., but I appeal from the now to the hereafter, and I as ert here in my place in the Senate that 

these bill , in my belief, are utterly subversive of sound public policy 

and destructive of private personal rights. 

~ow take the Atlantic and Pacific, which is the bill pending before 

us. That is a line connecting that portion of our country centering at 

Saint Louis and further south with the Pacific coast, or was designed o to do, by a line practically along the thirty-fifth parallel of latitude. 

Iwillnothere-becausethe toryha already been recited-undertake 

to ·peak of the efforts, ofthe struggles in good faith, and of the things 

accomplished already by this greatly crippled corporation. It has by 

itself or byitsassigns actuallyconstructed, if I am notmistaken about 

1,400 miles of road. In that I include the four hundred mile that 

have been constructed through the State of Missouri westerly and into 

the Indian Territory, including along with the rest that which was acquired by purchase. More recently and within the last four years, 

about 1,000 miles have been completed in what is practically the central portion of the Atlantic and Pacific line, commencing substantially 

in the center of the line as originally chartered and building both ways 

about five hundred miles. There you have the link which cost some 

16,000,000, which was constructed, as I said, between 1880 and the present time and so as to form a junction with the Southern Paeific, whlch 

extends from San Francisco southerly to Fort Yuma and then easterly 

to New Orleans. 

This junction has been accomplished with the Sou.thern Pacific, a 

rival ownership, and this 1,000 miles of road is to-day a feeder of the 

Southern Pacific on the one hand and of the Atchison, Topeka and 

Santa Fe route, another rival ownership, on the other hand. Before 

the purpose for which this road was chartered can be accomplished it 

must have an outlet upon the Pacific, and there is a point, the name of 

which has at this moment escaped me, almost directly westerly of the 

pomt of junction with the Southern Pacific, which is the outlet upon 

the Pacific coast originally contemplated and still contemplated as 

one of its outlets, and then farther off its line is to extend from that 

point northwa.rdly along the coast to San Francisco. 

If the land grant is forfeited along this uncompleted .line on the 

westerly end of this railroad, of course it is with the expectation that 

it will never be built, and it is not likely to be, at least for a great 

many years. That land grant, as such information as we get has shown, 

is not of much value. .A. great portion of it, I think, was described 

properly by the Senator who opened the debate, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB], as wilderness, waste land, sand, utterly useless, until 

by some expensive system of irrigation it shall be made valuable in the 

future, if it can be in fact made valuable at. all. Other portions of it 

maybe cultivable land; but the great mass of that land grant which is 

of value, I believe, is in what has been for a long time a populated 

country, and is already taken up, and is not available to the corporation. So that the land grant, which, if this bill passes, we shall recover west of the junction of the Atlantic and Pacific with the Southwestern Pacific, is very trifling in extent and still more trifling in value. 

It may be said that if it is of so trifling value it is of very little consequence even to the corporation whether it is forfeited or not; but 

omitting all reference to the matter of legal rights already vested in 

those who have contributed their money for the construction of those 

portions of the road already built, and who had taken security for their 

bonds along this same land grant, we all know that if you deprive this 

road of the credit, such as it is, based upon the possession of these 

lands, the fact will be taken advantage of by the road itself as an excuse for failing t.o carry out its stipulations with the Government, and 

it would be right that it should do so. On the other hand, if these 

comparatively unimportant lands, not valuable lands, are allowed to 

remain as they are in the possession of the corporation, and it could 

understand that it was not to be interfered with for a reasonable length 

of time, there is very little doubt that the necessity of finding an outlet upon the Pacific coast in order that the remaining portions of their 

expenditures invested in the constructed railroad should be of value 

to them would induce them, if left undisturbed, very soon to construct 

the remaining portions of their road, and thus give to us a terminus on 

the thirty-fifth line of latitude on the Pacific coast, and also have the 

extension northerly and another terminus of the same road in San 

Francisco. 

With reference to the other end of the Atlantic and Pacific connecting the portion constructed in the Territories with that already built 

westerly to Vinita, in the Indian Territory, and now in progress of construction still farther we. t, if we forfeit this land grant it is not likely 

to be built, and thus at both ends the original idea of a transcontinental line along the thirty-fifth parallel of latitude is utterly subverted 

and destroyed. The representatives, the officers of this company, and 

its attorneys came before the committee. They stated to the committee 

the efforts which they had put forth, the amounts of money which they 

had raised, and the amount of road which they had constructed, and 

the great portion of it in a very recent period of time, and they stated 

what they had done as an omen, as a pledge of the good faith with 

which they would proceed, if permitted to do so, to the completion of 

their great enterprise. I believe that if this road is not interfered with, 

the capital already invested will be made a. profitable investment by 

the completion of both extremities of this transcontinental line. I 

believe if we do not pass this bill but pass other legislation such as I 

sha,ll presently suggest to the Senate, we shall not only protect these 

private interests, but we shall very soon see the accomplishment of the 

great enterprise itself and the promotion of the interests of the American people in a very large degree. 

With reference to the other grants which extend northerly and southerly which are designed to connect theNorthernPaci:ficwith San Francisco, I have but little to say. Two such lines are nearly completed. 

The Oregon and California and the California and Oregon roads, the 

one running outherly and the other northerly, extend toward each 

other, and when they meet are designed to be practically the same line 

of road, though owned by different corporations. With reference to 

these corporations, the land grant is of very slight importance. It 

probably is not worth 10 cents an acre on the average. 

The roads are nearly completed. If I recollect aright, the officers 
5958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 3, 

testified that if they were left undisturbed, the road extending southerly from Portland in the direction of the California line, that is, the 

Oregon and California road, would be completed by next January, and 

they have come now to the most expensive portion of their whole road, 

a very expensive piece of tunneling to be done, so that the road itself, 

longitudinally speaking, is already almost completed, but very few miles 

remaining, the expenditure remaining being upon this exceedingly difficult pass or tunnel of which I speak. 

'l'he other road pushing northwardly is likely to be completed, if I 

remember the statement of those representing the company, within one 

year. The great mass of the land grant is already vested; the land to 

be recovered is exceedingly trifling, and the whole proceeding in my deliberate judgment, speaking with all respect to the views of others, is a 

mere farce, unsatisfactory to the people if it is done, no reward from it, 

nothing realized, and so far a.S anything is done we simply enter upon 

a course which subjects the people of the United States to a great mass 

of litigation in the future-simply that and nothing more. 

Mr. President, with these general, emphatic views in regard to the 

policy of this sort of legislation at the present time and until we have 

ascertained particularly the facts in all these cases, and then with very 

strong views that it would be entirely unwise to proceed to forfeit 

these lands, even if the facts alleged to be true ·were found to be so, I 

have thought it worth while to prepare an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to this bill, which I should be very glad to see adopted 

instead of the bill itself. I will read it; but before proceeding to do 

so I wish to say that while these roads, in my belief, should have further time, those that are proceeding and have been proCeeding in good 

faith to the completion of their ways to :finish them, I do recognize the 

justice of the complaint that in many instances settlers, homesteaders, 

private individuals are exceedingly embarrassed in the establishment 

of homes by reason of the delays that have in most cases, unavoidably 

I think, occurred in the construction of the roads. 

I think in any action that we take, while we give these roads a fair 

opportunity to construct their lines, particularly on accountofthe fad 

that the remaining portion of them involves the termini to the lines, 

if we give any further remedial legislation in the substantial nature of 

amendments to their charters, we have a right to impose such conditions as will protect the settlers and the common people of the country 

·who desire to obtain possession of the lands. There is no reason, it 

seems to me, why we may not in such legislation, while giving the 

roads the substantial benefit to be derived from the sale of their lands, 

at the same time take back into the possession of the United States, 

the land authorities of the country, the practical management of this 

domain. If we could do that and secure the completion of the roads, 

.and while we protected vested rights on the one hand gave on the 

.other full opportunity to those in the pursuit of homes to obtain unenqumbered, unquestioned, uncontroverted titles to the unearned lands, we should meet all the requirements of the public at large, at the same 

time that we do no injustice to those corporations. 

1\ir. VAN WYCK. Befor~ the Senator reaches the other branch of 

tbe case, will he allow me ~ask a question? 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I think he was charncterizing the desire to forfeit unearned lands as being in the nature of humbug or something of 

that kind. I do not object to the language. I merely wish to know 

whether the Senator would w.ean to apply those criticisms to the resolutions of the State of New Hampshire that were approved on the 7th 

day of September, 1883, and submitted by himselfin this body on the 

5th day of December last? Would he desire it to be understood that 

his remarks apply to the resolutions adopted by the State ofNew 

Hamp hire? 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator haa several times called my attention to 

tho e resolutions of the State of New Hampshire in our little controversies in our committee and elsewhere on this subject, and I have no 

dispo ition that in this public manner he shall undertake to fasten upon 

me the imputation of an affront to the Legislature that did me the 

honor at an earlier period to give me a seat upon this floor. I say to 

the Senator that he entirely misrepresents what I said to the Senate. 

I did not stigmatize the desire to forfeit these lands as a humbug. 0 I 

made no intimation of that description; and the Senator would do well 

before he arraigns me in this manner to note what I did say. I said 

that I looked upon the impression that was given ro the public as to 

the results of these proceedings for forfeiture as a humbug to the 

America-n people, and I assert it again, and I have endeavored to show 

to the Senate why I considerita humbug. Unless I am misinformed, 

I aver that it is my deliberate belief that the representation made by 

many that ought to be responsible sources of information to the American people that there are about 200,000,000 acres of land to be recovered by these proceeedings and returned to the public domain and 

opened for settlement to homesteaders and the people at large is a humbug to the extent of at least nineteen-twentieths of the mathematical a ertion. · · 

If every one of these bills is successful, if everything is forfeited that 

it i undertaken to forfeit by any bill before the Senate, for all of them 

combined cover nothing but unearned lands, not more than 50,000,000 acres in the aggregate will be covered, and those 50,000,000 acres comprise the mountain tops and desert lands, so that not more than 10,-

000,000 acres in my belief are of any substantial value. I say that in 

view of these ·facts, and I believ:e that they are facts, this assurance to 

the American people that we are recovering for the homesteaders of 

the country 200,000,000 acres of land is an arran ° and disgraceful 

humbug. 

Now a word in reference to the resolutions of the Legislature of my 

State. I am an American citizen. I do not live in Nebraska or in 

New Hampshire alone; I live in America, and I will read to my friend 

a more recent utterance ofthe na.tionalorganization of the Republican 

party, in which they proceed to say: 

We demand of Congress the speedy forfeiture of all land grants which have 

lapsed by reason of non-compliance with acts of incorporation in all cases where there has been no attempt in good faith' to perform the conditions of uch grants. 

I ask the Senator if in a single instance wherein these bills have been 

reported to the Senate, which he has sustained, he can say that any one 

of these corporations has made no attempt in good faith to construct it 

road? The Northern Pacific has built 2,000 miles of road under the 

most enormous difficulties, and the Senator now proposes to abolish the 

termini on the Pacific coast which alone make it of consequence to the 

American people whether it is completed or not. The Oregon and California and the California and Oregon roads are nearly completed under 

enormous difficulties. And :bas there been no attempt on their part in 

good faith, as well as on the part of the Northern Pacific, to complete 

their roads? The Atlantic and Pacific have constructed 1,400 miles of 

road under difficulties for the existence of which the United States is 

very largely responsible, as the Senator well knows and as the records 

of the country show. 

Will the Senator undertake to say that with only four or :five hundred miles remaining to be constructed on the Pacific coast, and tho e 

the miles that are essential to make the road valuable to the public 

at large, he does his duty to his own people or the American people, 

or shows allegiance to the L~oi.slature of his own State, or true allegiance to the great party of which he is so high and worthy a representative, by forfeiting those lands which are essential to the completion of 

those four or :five hundred miles on the Pacific coast? Does he undertake to say that there has been no attempt in good faith on the part 

of the Atlantic and Pacific Company to complete its line of road? 0 

Take the Southern Pacific. We know it was completed within the 

time, and that the questions involved in reference to that grant are not 

those which are involved with reference to the others, bec..'l.use tbe facts 

were already settled, the road is completed, the grant is assigned, the 

assig:D.ment is valid as they believe. It is a question of law who owns 

it, and it is a question that the courts must decide. No legislation we 

can have will have effect upon it. 

Now, I ask the Senator, in return for his question to me, if he thinks 

it is quite the thing, if it is quite the part of a gentleman to rise and 

interrogate me as though I had accused my own Legislature of an utterance in the nature of a humbug? 1\Iy State does not want to forfeit 

lands properly vested and which belong to corporation that have been 

chartered and that are endeavoring to construct their roads. My Legislature is not made up of the kind of men who desire to perpetrate 

highway robbery simply because they ha>e the power to do it. They 

would like perhaps to take the unearned lands; they would be glad 

where the corporations have abandoned the effort to build their roads 

to get back the lands; and o would I; so I hope would the enator from 

Nebraska. I am very sorry to be obliged to believe, if I draw my inferences from his conduct rather than from what I know of his motives 

and his heart, that h~ himself would, if he could, be willing to take 

some of the land that did not belong to him, speaking of him in his 

representative capacity. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. The Senator has in a measure answered the que -

tion. I very much regret t~at he should have felt that it was meant 

in an offensive sense. 

Mr. BLAIR. I presume the Senator had an idea that I would take 

it in an offensive ense. l\1r. VAN WYCK. I do not know why the Senator should undertake to take it in an offensive sense whether I desired him to do so or not. I can not understand that. 

Mr. BLAIR. Very well. 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. I thought I understood the ena.tor, and hi 

answer to the question shows that I did. I stated that he poke of 

certain operations in regard to the matter of forfeited land grants as being humbug, and the Senator concedes that he did use that language. 

1\fr. BLAIR. No; I concede nothing about my language. If I um 

to be quoted and quoted as assenting, I prefer to appeal to the record 

rather than the Senator s statement. 

Mr. VANWYCK. I appeal to the record, too; but the Senator distinctly repeated what he had characterized as being a humbug in this 

matter as the pretext that there were millions of acres more than there 

were, that the land was more valuable than it really was, that that 

pa,rt of it was a humbug; and then I merely propounded the question 

and apposed the Senator would consider that a:3 rather a favor than 

otherwise, because--

Mr. BLAIR. So I did. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5959 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. Because the question :nllght be propounded to 

him hereafter where he could not meet it so readily in his speech. 

l\Ir. BLAIR. Probably; but I am accustomed to take care of my own hereafters. Tf I need assistance in Nebraska I know I can call on the 

honorable Senator from Nebraska, and I shall get it. 

Mr. VANWYCK. Notat all; Isupposeditwasamatteroffriendly 

courtesy. 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly; I take it that way; but it was qui~ unnecessary. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands thatthe Senator from New Hampshire yielded to the Senator from Nebraska; therefore the Senator from Nebraska is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. BLAIR. I yielded for a question. I did not yield for a catechi m; I did not propose to do that. 

Mr. VANWYCK. No; I do not propose to come in any collision 

with the Senator. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will address the Chair. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. The Senator propounded a question to me also 

in hi concluding remarks, which I, of course, presume he intended I 

hould answer right here. Certainly the Senator will not refuse me the privilege to deny that there was any idea to intrude anything on his time which might be considered at all offensive; but in the innocency of my nature I asked whether that portion of his remarks was 

designed to apply to the resolutions of the State of New Hampshire 

upon the matter of forfeited land grants, and the Senator in answer to 

that reads a resolution of the Republican national convention at Chicago. I would only refer him to some very pertinent remarks made 

by the Senator from Ohio. 

Mr. BLAIR. I would prefer, if the Senator is to enter upon a lengthy 

discussion, that he should do, so when I have completed what little I 

have to say. I am perfectly willingthatthe Senator shall read the resolutions of the State of New Hampshire if he chooses, and I will incorporate them in my speech. The Legislature of New Hampshire ordinarily produces something worthy of the attention of any body. 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. That is what I supposed and that is the reason my attention was called to it. I knew it was worthy of notice when it came from New Hampshire. 

Mr. BLAIR. But when the Senator has read it, I desire to give him 

notice I propose to claim the floor. 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. I supposed the Senator did not want anything more. I will read the New Hampshire resolutions: 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 

Office of S~retary of State, Concord • . 

Joint resolution against land subsidies to railroads. 

Resolved by the senate and house of representatives in general oourt oonvened, That whereas the Government of the Unit~d States has given to the railroads 178952,688a{Jresofland,anarea.equaltothirtytimestheStateofNewHampshire, 

and comprising the best lands of our national domain, the land grants in many case being over 25,000 acres to every m.ile of railroad constructed; and Whereas if such grants were ever proper that necessity has passed away, and many of the roads recently built are uncalled for, far in advance of any public 

nee<l., and projected and constructed mainly to gain possession of immense tracts ofland to enrich a few men, who monopolize the best sections, holding them for a r ise, or to exact unreasonable prices from settlers, against the public wel- fare; and 1Vhereas the public lands are the property of the whole people, held in trust for the benefit of the whole people, and when sold they should be sold in such quantities and on such terms as to encourage settlement and improvement, and not be given to large corporations nor in any other way squandered: Therefore, Resolt'€d, That our Senators in Congress be instructed and our Representatives be requestw to oppose any further land subsidies to railroads except the right of way, and any land grants for any purpose except for objects of national im- portance; and, es~ially, to oppose any renewal of forfeited land grants. Resolt:ed further, That his excellency the governor be requested to send copies of this joint resolution to each of our Senators and Representatives, and to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, at the opening of the next session of our national Congress. 

.Approved September 7,1883. 

Now, if the Senator desires to resume the floor, I presume I must 

yield. Mr. BLAIR. "Any renewal of forfeited land grants" is what the 

New Hampshire Legislature objects to, and that is entirely consistent 

with everything I have said. I have not advocated the renewal of forfeited land grants at all. When a corporation comes here asking for a renewal of a forfeited grant it will be time enough to discuss that question. The Senator knows, I suppose, that the question when a land 

grant i forfeited is a question of law depending upon the faets that may 

be established in each particular case. It is getting to be conceded now, 

what was not earlier in the session, that it is impracticable and wrong 

to take from a corporation that portion of its land grant lying along the 

completed part of its road. A different doctrine was once held. That 

much has been conceded. That is not forfeited, and is not forfeited 

because it is earned, as they say. 

Now, suppose that the same corporation has partially constructed the 

remainder of its road, that it has expended large sums of money in so 

doing, that it has surveyed the entire length of its line, that it has done 

all these things in the nature of preparation essential to the construction of its line, and expended very considerable amoulil.ts of money on the whole length of the remainder of that line-you will say is a partially earned land grant perhaps, because that same process continued a little longer and the road is completed and then the whole of the 

grant would be earned. But in every one of these cases the time originally limited for the completion of the road has expired. What do the 

courts say as to tha.t? I know the Senator does not believe in the 

courts so much where their decisions touch land grants, notwithstand- • ing the courts make the law that all of us are bound by. 

I do not know why the decision of an honest court is not entitled to 

obedience, at all e\ents, if not to respect, as much in one case as in an- other. The courts have settled that where the time linllted for the 

construction of a road has expired so that the right to make the declaration of forfeiture has accrued or to undertake the forfeiture itself 

and the recovery of the land through a judicial proceeding, if, never- theless, the United States stands by and sees that corporation go on and expend its money in the further prosecution of its enterprise, it 

thereby gives to the corporation a license to continue its work, and it 

is under the operation of such a license that the greater proportion of 

the Northern Pacific Railroad has been constructed and the la.nds vested 

and transferred to the corporation. It is in consequence of a like license 

and the acquiescence of the Government in the exercise of its rights 

and the expenditure of its money by the corporation, that 1,400 miles 

of the Atlantic and Pacific have been ·constructed. 

Here I raise a question to which I ask the consideration not alone of 

the Senator from Nebraska, but of the Senate. If the country gives 

this corporation a license to proceed with its enterprise after the Government :bave the right to exercise a forfeiture legislatively or judicially, 

if they extend its time at all, I ask for what period do they extend it? 

Originally thA period was fixed in the statute, a reasonable period for 

the construction of the road as it was then supposed. It failed to hP 

a period within which the road was constructed. At all event~ '~e 

time is extended by the license, and for how long is it extended? .J..ow 

long in law, how long in reason is it extended? There can be .., ut one answer to a question like that. It is extended to such tir ..... e a-s gives 

reasonable opportunity to the corporation to complete the road, not to 

build an additional section of fifty miles or one hundred miles or five 

hundred miles; but if the company subsequent to that linlltation fixed 

proceeds to expend its money and undertakes to complete its entire 

enterprise, and the country lies quietly, acquiescingly, by and sees the 

expenditure going on, that license I say is a license for such reasonable 

time as is necessary to complete the whole enterprise; and the land 

grnnt of the Northern Pacific can not in law be forfeited, certainly it can not be forfeited in equity or in justice, until the Northern Pacific 

has had the utmost li:nllt fixed by law for the completion of its road, 

the Government having allowed it to go on beyond that time, until 

the Northern Pacific has had a reasonable time to complete its road to 

Puget Sound and to Portland. 

You may say that is not law; it is equity, and in my judgment it is 

law and equity both. And just so in regard to these other roads. I 

speak only of this as an illustration, for the principle is the same and 

should be applied to all of them. I assert that there is no legal right 

and still less a moral right on the part of the United States to exercise 

this act of forfeiture in a single instance that has been brought to the 

attention of the com:nlltteeorthe Senate, excepting in the case of one un- important road where there had been an actual and perpetual abandonment of the enterprise. I say the legal status is such that you cannot 

properly apply the term " unearned land " to a single portion of the 

line on the Nort.hern Pacific or on the Atlantic and Pacific or on the 

Oregon and California or on the California and Oregon road, and as to 

the Southern Pacific whatever questions may arise in the case of that 

corporation are simply questions of law because all the facts are already .in the past. 

And now, }.fr. President, I wish to proceed with the few further re- marks I was about to offer when I was interrupted. I should be glad 

to see adopted instead of this bill and instead of all these bills the measure I hold in my band; or if this is not as perfect in the matter 

of legal expression as it ought to be I should be glad to see it adopted 

with such modifications as the legal acumen of the Senate ma.y suggest: That whenever any portion of the public lands shall have been granted to any State, or to any corporation, it.s successors or assigns, not including the right of way and land for stations, to aid in the construction of a railroad westerly of the Mississippi River, and there has been failure to perform such conditions on the part of the grantee, its succe ors or assigns, and the cause of forfeiture, if such there be, has not been enforced by the United States, and since such failure to perform and the R{)Cruing of such cause of forfeiture there shall have been any further prosecution of the work of building such railroad in good faith , and with intent of completing the same on the part of such State or corporation, its successors or assigns, and such intention and purpose still exist, there shall be such further extension of time us may be necessary, not exceeding four years from and after the paAAage of this act, for the construction and completion of the road, and for the performance of the conditions contained in the acts granting such lands, which may be done either by the grantees, their successors or assigns, or such parties in interest, whethercreditorsorotherwise. as shall find the com- pletion of the road necessary for the protection of capital inve ted in the con- struction of such railroad, and who therefore in equity and good conscience should be allowed to perform such conditions and complete such road or roads. SEc. 2. That this act shall be construed strictly as a notification to every such State and corporation, its successors or assigns, and to all perwns and parties 

whatsoever, that the United States will declare, and hereby does declare all lands granted hitherto and embraced in the first section, and all rights ~nd franchises therein, which shall not, at the end of the extension f time provideci in the first section, be fully earned in accordance with the provisions of the grant, absokltely forfeited, and to be forfeited to the United States, saving only such vested rights as can not be forfeited according to law. SEc. 4. That nothing in this act shall be construed as perm.itting the with- drawal or withholding o! any portion of the granted lands-
I 

5960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 3, 

And I call attention to this section particularly, as it is the section 

that I should be glad to see adopted to practically vest the control of the 

lands along the uncompleted portions of thee roads in the United 

.States, saving only the consideration to the companies provided they 

complete the road: 

That nothing in thi act hall be const.rued a permitting the withdrawal or withholding of any portion of the granted lands not earned before the passage of thi act from occupation or ettlement or acquirement by actual settlers in good faith under the public-laud laws, or to enlarge or change in any way the rights of the grantees, their uccessors or assigns so a to prevent the acquirement of such lands by actual ettlers under the land law in the same way that would be permitted in con equence of the expiration of the limitation of time or breach of other condition in the original grants of such lands, and the acts amendatory thereof; but all such lands not already earned shall be open to occupation and ettlement and acquirement upon the terms and conditions which would exist if this act had not been pas ed; the consideration paid for such granted lands as may be sold and di po ed of after the passage of this act being paid by the United States to the grant.ee, its successors or assigns, o long as the conditions imposed by law upon uch grantee, its succe or or assigns, shall be complied 

with, and not afterward. EC. 5. That from and after the passage of this act patents for such lands shall i ue directly from the United States to the settler thereon who shall be entitled tothesame. · 

Legislation of that kind, it seems to me, would protect the public, 

and the i!ldividual, and the corporation-all those interested in the 

construction of the road. It is a very serious matter to this particular corporation to pa this bill. Within the last two or three years some $16,000,000 have been invested in the construction of the 1,000 

miles in the central portion of the line. I am informed by a party 

who cannot be mistaken that that portion of the road, owing to the 

want ofits eastern and it . Pacific conneCtions, is a dead loss. It is run 

at a loss of one or more hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and 

is likely to be for the future. The investment is drawn very largely 

from my portion of the country; and the question is whether this infinitesimal amount of the land grant shall be forfeited, and this great 

enterprise be crippled, dwarfed, defeated, and this amount of property 

drawn from capitalists and from all classes of people, those hoarding 

their little savings as well as those having larger amounts, is to be entirely lost. That is the question with which the Senate is dealing today, and I have felt constrained to give utterance to these views and 

to insist upon it that the Senate is dealing with a great subject involving many, many millions of dollars, and the failureofgreatenterprises 

having very much to do with the questions of transportation which so 

largely concern our present and our future. I trust that some heed 

may be given to these considerations, that at least we pause before we 

enact this bill without important modifications. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Committee on Public Lands, which will be read. 

The SECRETARY. In line 24, section 1, after the word "stations," 

it is proposed to insert: 

PrO'Vided, That the price of the lands so forfeited and rest<>red shall be the same as heretofore fixed for the even-numbered ections within said gmnt. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama [1\fr. MORGAN]. 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not desire to detain the Senate. I hope we shall 

be able now to •ote upon the several amendments without any further 

debate. There are many things that might be said, but the main facts 

of tht case are too plain to be a matter of dispute, and I think the Senate is fully advised in the premises. ' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment propo ed by the Senator from Alabama. 

l!Ir. PL MB. I think we had better ha•e the yeas and nays on that. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

l\Ir. BLAIR. Let the question be stated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from 

Alabama 'Will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 17, after the word "forfeited "it is 

proposed to strike out all down to and including the word" grant," in 

line 26 and to insert--

Mr. PL l\IB. The Senator from Alabama, a I understand, desires 

simply to attach hi amendment at the proper place to the amendment 

of the committee which has just been adopted. 

Mr. ~10RGAN. It will come in more properly and regularly after 

the pro,iso. I mo•e to trike out all after the word "forfeited," in 

line 17, down to and including the word "stations, ' in line 24.. That 

will bring the proviso which has just been· adopted at the end of the 

section· and then the additional ections will follow the proviso. 

The PRESIDI~G OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from 

Alabama will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is propo ed to strike on t after the word 'forfeited, ' in line 17, all of section 1 down to and including the word 

"stations, in line 24, and after the pro vi o at the end of section 1 to 

insert the following new ections: 

SEC. 2. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the circuit court of the United State for the western di trict of 1\lissouri to hear and determine ~ questions and controversies concerning the rights and equitie in said forfeited lands that are claimed or asserted by the United: State , or by any person or corporation 

claiming the same under or in consequence of any law of the United State , or any act of its lawfully authorized agents, and to enforce any judgment or decree, 

either interlocutory or final, that said court shall render in respect of said lands .or any interest therein. · . SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the western district of Mi souri, under the direction of the Departmen t of Ju - tice, to proceed in the circuit court of the United States for the aid di trict, by blil in equity in the name of the United Stn.tes of America. as plaintiff, again t any corporations or per on that claim any interest in the land hereby declared forfeited arising under said a{)t of Congress approved July 27, 1866, or under this act, so as to bring before said court for its determination the Yaliditv of such claim, whether the same be legal or equitable. • SEC. 4. Any person or corporation not made a. party defendant in said pro- ceeding, but claiming any interest under the laws of the United States in the lands or any part thereof which are declared forfeited by this act, may present uch claim by petition in said cause, duly verified by oath, and if the court, upon consideration thereof, shall decide that the a{)judication and settlement of such claim is necessary t<> do complete justice in such cause the court shall direct that such further proceedings be had upon such petition as that the same may be fully heard and determined, and shall proceed to decree upon the same a fully as if such petitioner had been made a party defendant in said suit: Pro1:ided, 

That no such petition shall be filed after twelve months from the date of the filing of the bill in said cause. SEc. 5. The court shall, if it see fit, tax all the costs of the suit under the third section ofthisactagain t the United States, and shall apportion the co t of any proceeding under the fourth section of this act between the parties according to justice and equity. A.nypnrtyto the suit instituted under this act hall have the right of appeal from any final decree therein to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same conditions as are pre- scribed by Jaw and the rules of said court for appeals in equity cases. And the Supreme Court shall cause said appeal to be advanced on the docket so that the same shall be speedily determined. But no right of appeal shall exist after six months from the time when said final decree is entered on the records of the circuit court of the United States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon this amendment the yeas and 

nays have been ordered. 

Mr. HARRISON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Kansas who has the bill in charge whether the provision for restoring this 

land immediately to the public domain· and making it open to settlement and entry at once does not leave settlers who may thus purcha e 

of the Government just in that unsettled condition as to their titles in 

which the people on the Des Moines River grant and the Ontonagon 

people and others are? 

llr. PLUMB. I do not think it does at all. Uy own belief is that 

the railroad company have no right that is not forfeitable absolutely at 

the pleasure of the legislative authority of the Government. I think 

it would be much wiser to declare this forfeiture nowandmakeitfinal 

than to submit the matter to the slow process of adjudication in the 

courts with all the uncertainty which would undoubtedly ensue. I 

am perfectly certain that no portion of the railroad in the State of California1 at. least, will be built under this land grari.t. If · should be, 

the question would at once arise as to whether under the charter it 

could be built on the line from which the lands are now withdrawn. 

I am as clear as I ever was of anything in my life that the railroad 

can not be built upon the line after the withdrawal is made. All these 

questions will remain to be determined hereafter, and I think the process of settling them in the courts will only add to the difficulties rather 

than eliminate them. 

Mr. HARRISON. I believe the committee have good reason why 

we should declare and why we may declare effectively a forfeiture of 

this land grant. I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Kansa in 

saying that the case is one where the declaration of the forfeiture ought 

to be mad.e; it is one where probably a declaration will be efficient.; but 

it can not be denied that there are legal difficulties connected 'vith the 

title to the lands which we thus seek to restore to the public domain. 

The question in my mind is this: Pending those legal difficultie , before 

they are settled and before the title has been established in the United · 

States by some judgment that will bind the railroad company and bind 

the mortgagees, is it wise for us to throw these lands open to ettlement 

and make them part of the public domain, and set the Commissioner 

of the General Land Office to work selling them? It seems to m~ that 

if we do that we shall have in many of these cases for years clouds oYer 

the titles of the settlers to whom the United States has con•eyed the 

property, so serious as to affect the value of the property and their ability to realize upon the sale of it, and perhaps ultimately throw the burden of litigation upon the people who buy of the United States as again t 

the railroad company instead of having the Government take the initi::ttive and get a decree which shall be binding upon the railroad company, 

and then put the lands upon the market. 

While we have the right as the owners {)f these lands, having old 

them on a condition subsequent to make a re-entry for condition broken, 

or to do what is equivalent to that in law, to pass this bill declaring 

the lands forfeited, after all, this legislative declaration is not binding 

on the railroad company. That is the trouble. A judgment of a court 

in a proceeding in which the railroad company was a party would be 

binding; it would be conclusive upon all parties before the court and 

upon their privies in interest. I feel if the bill pas es in the hape in 

which it is reported that we shall multiply all over this country just 

the difficulties which the ettlers on the Des Moines lancl grant in Iowa are now having. 

It eems to me, therefore, that it would be wiser to establish this forfeiture which we declare here, and which I think we ought to declare 

by ~orne competent -judicial proceeding, and when it has been est.ablished by a judgment that will bind the railroad company and bind the 

mortgagees and bind everybody having an adverse claim. then put the 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5961 

lands on the market and sell them when we can give a clear title to the 

people who get them. 

I am decidedly in favor, in all cases where it can equitably be 

done, of proceeding to declare the forfeiture; I think in some of these 

in tances it was a mistake that it was not done long ago; but I have 

great difficulty, and I am inclined to support the amendment of the 

Senator from Alabama, for the reason that it settles the question as to 

our being the owner of the lands before we put them on the market to 

sell them; and I do not see how the question can be settled in any other 

way. 

Ur. UAXEY. I call the attention of the Senator from Indiana to a trouble in my mind. If these people have a right, inchoate or com- plete, legal or equitable, under that clause of the Constitution which 

says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without dua process of law, I do not see how we can deprive them of the 

right to go into court, whether we say so in the bill or not. 

Mr. HARRISON. I agree with the Senator from Texas. I think 

if we pass this measure we have simply done that which declares the 

forfeiture. 

Mr. MAXEY. Precisely. 

ll!r. HARRISO~. Then whether there has been a breach of condition subsequent, as we have declared in the bill, is a matter to be 

ettled by the courts. I suppo e nobody else can settle it. 

Ur. MAXEY. It is a matter for the courts, and whether we put 

that provision in or not, we can not deprive them of the right to go to 

the courts. · Mr. INGALLS. The question is as broad as it is long, in my judgment. The Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of 

life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It has been held 

by the Supreme Court of the United States that an act of Congress is 

not due process of law. That has passed into the settled determinations 

ofthejudicial power of this country as theinterpretation of that clause 

of the Constitution. Therefore, if the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad 

Company, by virtue of the original act, acquired title or obtained a 

vested interest in and to a portion of this land grant, the act of Congress, in my judgment, that we may pass declaring a forfeiture will be 

ineffective so far as the divesting of their right or title is concerned. 

I do not believe it is within the power of Congress, I am very confident it is beyond the power of Congress, if the Atlantic and Pa{!ific or any of the other land-grant railroads have acquired by virtue of a previous act of Congress right or title, legal or equitable, to one acre or to a hundred million acres of the public domain, to deprive them of that 

right by an act of Congress. If we pass an act of Congress declaring 

the forfeiture of their title and attempting to deprive them of rights 

they may have previously acquired, I assume that they will proceed 

at once to test the constitutionality of that act and of our power to pass 

it. If the grant that they have received or that they claim they have 

received is valuable, t.hey will contend for it. So I do not see the difficulty that the Senator from Indiana apprehends. 

Mr. HARRISON. If the Senator will allow me, the difficulty is just 

this: Suppo e the Senator's idea as to what course the railroad com- pany will pursue be true, and that very soon after the passage of this 

bill they hring some suit and te&t it in some way. 

:Mr. INGALLS. It can be just as well tested on one acre as on the 

entire grant. , )lr. HARRISON. That suit may drag on and will drag on probably 

for years. In the mean time the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office is to go on and sell to ettlers; settlers will be moving in and 

taking their patents and locating all along on these lands. If the decision should be untimately against the "{Jnited States, we shall have 

put in under a statute of the United States these settlers, and the question in adjusting their rights as to what the Government shall do or what the railroad company ought to do is involved exactly as in the 

ca e in Iowa and thecae in Wisconsin. Mr. INGALLS. No. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. So it eems to me. If the Senator himself had 

old land upon a condition subsequent, and believed the condition to 

be broken ancl made the declaration or the entry which should declare 

the condition to be broken so far as he could, if his title was involved 

in doubt, until he or his adversary had procured a settlement of it he 

would not want to go on and divide the land into town lots and sell it. 

Mr. INGALLS. The law's delay, which has been the reproach of 

jurisprudence for many centuries, would apply in the one case as well as the other. While it is true thattheremightbedilatoryproceedings 

in the effort of the corporation to test the validity of the act of Congress, 

it is equally true that there would be delay and dilatory proceedings 

in any effort that might be made to secure the decree of forfei,ture by 

judicial proceeding. There is nothing gained and nothing lost one way 

Ol' the other. 

I a ume that in case this measure should pa R1 which there is no 

question we have a right to pass, if it has no other effect it will be a 

declaration of an intention on the part of the grantor to resume; and 

then if the corporation see fit to contend and proceed in the courts to 

te t the validity of the act of Congress, as I said before the suit may be · brongb as well upon one acre as upon the entire grant as it may be defined upon the map; there will be the notice of lis pendens, and whoever 

goes on the land will do so at his peril. 

I do not regard the case as parallel to that of the Des Moines River 

grant or the Ontonagon grant, because, as I understand, in those cases 

the judicial proceedings for determination have not been had, neither 

has any effort to determine the right been had by any act on the part of 

the Government. 

I have very grave doubts about the wisdom or propriety of the legislation here invoked. There are cases where this power of Congress 

bas been invited to which I should not, under any circumstances, give 

my assent. But it appears from the investigation of the committee 

that there was no effort at compliance on the part of the railroad cor- poration with the terms of the grant until long after the period when 

it expired by the terms of the original act of Congress. So far as I can ee there is a very strong prima fade case made up in favor of the Government and against the corporation. Relying upon the report of the committee, therefore, I shall with something of reluctance give my support 

to the bill. 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator will allow me to say with reference to 

the matter of fact that he is under a misapprehension. From three to 

four hundred miles, either by construction or by purchase, came into 

the possession of the company before the expiration of the original limit. . 

Ur. PLUMB. But not on the line of the road as shown by the charter. 

.Ur. BLAIR. It was from Springfield, Mo., westward, and so far as 

Vinita, some thirty-four miles, into the Indian Territory. That is my 

recollection in regard to it. Then the line acquired by purchase was 

practically the same line, for the reason that the corporation which was 

expected to connect at the easterly terminus failed to build its road, 

and the company was obliged to do that in order to have the line available. 

Mr. MORGAN obtained the floor. 

FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following 

message from the President of the United States; which was read, and, 

with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Claims, 

and ordered to be printed: 

To the Senate of the United States : 

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the lith ot February last, a. report of the Secretary of State relative to the papers on file in the Department of State touching the unsettled claims of citizens of the United States against France for spoliations prior to July 31, 180L 

CHESTER A. ARTHUR. 

EXEC1JTIVE MANsiON, Washington, July 3, 1884.. 

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the bill (H. R. 

5709) to amend article 72 of the Rules and Articles of War, returned 

to the Senate according to its request. 

Mr. LOGAN. I move that the Senate request a conference with the 

House of Representatives on the amendments of the Senate to the bill. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. LOGAN, Mr. 

HAWLEY, and Mr. MAxEY were appointed. 

GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE SERVICE. 

1\Ir. l\IAHONE submitted the following resolution; which was con- sidered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Superintendent of Public BuildingS and Grounds repo"rt to 

the Senate on Tuesday after the first Monday in December next a comprehen- sive system of telegraph and telephone for the Government service in Wash- ington on the Waring or other system of underground cable, presenting in de- tail the same and an itemized estimate of the cost. Also the costpera.nnumfor rentals and maintenance at which the existing service stands the Government. 

ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair appoints under the reso- lution offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY] yesterday and adopted to-day, toinquireintothe steel-producing question, &c., 

the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLEY], the Senator from California [1\Ir. :MILLER], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH], 

the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN], and the Senator from South 

Carolina (Mr. BUTLER]. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIG:NED. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the President 

pro tempore: 

A bill (H. R. 6925) to amend sections 4381 and 4382 of the Revised 

Statutes of the United States, relative to fees levied and collected from 

the owners and masters of vessels in domestic commerce; and 

A bill (H. R. 6 61) making appropriations for the support of the 

.Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes. 

FORTIFICATION APPROPEIATIO:N BILL. 

The message also announced that the House had non-concurred in 

' 
5962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3, 

-the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7440) making ap~ro­ ;priations for fortifications and other works of defense, and for the armament thereof, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other 

purposes, asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes 

.of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. SA~IUEL J. RANDALL of Pennsylvania, .Mr. WILLIAM H. FORNEY of Alabama, and 

Mr. J. WARREN KEIFER of Ohio managers of the conference on the 

-part of the House. 

Mr. DAWES. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendments 

-disagreed to by the House and accede to their request for a committee of 

-conference. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will lay before the Senate 

the action of the House ofRepresentatives. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

lN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 3, 1884. 

Resolved, That the House non-concur in the amendments of the Senate to the 

\bill (H. R. 7440) making appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense, and for the armament thereof, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and ;for other purposes, and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing -votes of the two Houses thereon. 

Ordered, That Mr. RAlrDALL, Mr. FoRNEY, and 1\Ir. KEIFER be the managers -<)f said conference on the part of the House. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts 

·moves that the Senate insist upon its amendments and agree to the conference asked for by the House of Representatives. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent the President pro tempore was authorized to 

..appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. DAWES, Mr. 

LoGAN, and Mr. CocKRELL were appointed. 

CALIFORNIA INDIANS. 

Mr. MlLLER, of California. I ask leave to offer a resolution to lie 

·Over under the rule and to be considered to-morrow. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California asks 

unanimous consent to offer at this time a resolution. 

Mr. HOAR. Let it be read for information. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be read for infor-

·mation, if there be no objection. 

The Secretary read the resolution, as follows: 

Resolved, That the provisions ofthe~solution of the Senate adopted June ll, 

1884, instructing the Committee on Indian Affairs to inquire into the condition -<>f the several tribes and bands of Indians in the Indian Territory, &c., be ex- tended to and embrace therein the Indians upon the several reservations in 

<Jalifornia.; and that the l!lllid inquiry be directed particulary to the Round Valley Indian reservation in said State; and that full investigation be made into ·the present and past ·management of said reservation and all abuses of the 

rights and interests of the Indians thereon. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the resolution 

being offered at this time? The Chair bears none. The resolution 

"'Will be printed and go over until to-morrow. 

. CATHARINE H. GLICK. 

Mr. VOORHEES. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] ha.s 

"kindly agreed to yield to me for a moment. Some days ago the Senate 

'Passed a bill (S. 1971) granting a pension to·Catbarine H. Glick, widow 

.of Elias B. Glick, late surgeon of the Fortieth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions informs me that 

the purpose of the committee was to have reported the House bill so 

·.that when it was passed by the Senate it would become a law. I thereupon asked for the return of the bill which the Senate passed. It bas 

.been returned and is upon the table. I ask unanimous consent at this 

·time to pnt the House bill upon its passage. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana asks unan-

-imous consent to report at this time from the Committee on Pensions 

the bill (H. R. ·6514) for the relief of Catharine H. Glick. [A pause.] 

The Chair was mistaken in stating that the Senator from Indiana re- ported the bill from the Committee on Pensions. He states that he is 

.authorized by the Committee on Pensions to bring the bill to the attention of the Senate. . Mr. VOORHEEs. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions, the 

.Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MITCHELL], is just coming in. I was .-stating, if the Senator will give me his attention, that in conference 

with.thechairm.an I was informed that it was the purpose of the committee to report the House bill in the case of Mrs. Glick, and on that 

.account I asked the return of the Senate bill. It has been returned, 

.and I am asking for the consideration of the House bill at this time, 

.and I ventured to state that it met with the approval of the Senator 

from Pennsylvania, the cb~irman of the committee. 

1\Ir. 1\fiTCHELL. As I understand the case, the Senate passed a 

'bill precisely like the House bill and I think we might as well take up 

-the House bill now and pass it. 

The PRESIDENT pTo tempore. The Senator from Indiana moves "that the Committee on Pensions be discharged .from the further cansid- ·eration of House bill 6514. Is there objection? The Chair hears no ,objection. The Senator from Indiana asks unanimous consent that the 

House bill be now considered. 

By unanimous consent the bill was considered as in Committee of 

Jthe Whole. It proposes to place on the pension-roll the name of Oatharine H. Glick, widow of Dr. Elias B. Glick, late n. surgeon in the Fortieth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment. ordered to 

a third 1·eading, read the third time, and passed. · 

Mr. VOORHEES. If necessary I shall move to post]i)one indefinitely 

the Senate bill. 

The PR~SIDENT pro te-mpore. The Chair lays before the Senate the 

bill (S. 19 1) granting a pension to Catharine H. Glick, widow of Elias 

B. Glick late surgeon of the Fortieth Regiment of Indiana Volunteers. 

Mr. v; ORHEES. I move that the bill be postponed indefinitely. 

The otion was agreed to. · c . 

ATL.A...~TIC A:ND PACIFIC RAILROAD LAN~ GRANT. 

e Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con ideration 

of the bill (H. R. 7162) to forfeit the unearned lands granted to the 

Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction of a 

railroad and telegraph line from the States ofMissouri and Arkansas to 

the Pacific coast, and to restore the same to settlement, and for other 

purposes, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. 1\foRGAN. 

Mr. MORGAN, It is very difficult to consider this bill in the order in 

which it ought to be considered with the great number of interruption 

thatarenecessaryatthistime. TheSenatorfromKansas [Mr. INGALLS] 

has suggested that this subject is as broad as it is long, by which I understandhim to mean that the remedies in favor of persons whose rights 

may be affected by this legislation are quite as good under the existing 

law as they would be under the amendment if it should be adopted . 

The tronbleabont that suggestion is this: The Government of the United 

States call not be sued by one of its citizens except in virtue of a special 

act of Congress authorizing a snit to be brought. The rights which are 

involved in this litigation are private rights, whether they are rights of 

corporate bodies or of citizens. If we allow this matter to go on after 

we have declared the forfeiture, and allow citizens in collateral proceedings, as they would be certain to do, to test the validity of our action 

and the extent to which it is valid, we shall encumber the people of 

this country with a vast amount oflitigation really resulting in no good. 

I will give an illustration of that. This land grant is forfeited under 

the provisions of the bill as it passed the House. That bill goes on to 

relegate the lands to the public domain, and brings in the right of all 

persons who might be upon the public domain in accordance with their 

respective claims, and they are very variant and almost innumerable. . 

One of those persons, whether it be a bondholder, a pre-emptor, a 

homestead settler, or whoever he may be, brings his action not ao-ainst 

the Government of the United States, for he can not sue the United 

States, but ~o-ainat some person in possession. That party sets up th~ 

title of the United States. The snit may be brought in one of the Territorial courts; it may be brought in one of the State courts of California or Missouri, or wherever the land may be. If the land lies in th.:. 

Indian Territory, of course suit could not be brought anywhere. The 

courts go on in that case and in a great many other cases of like character that would spring np throughout the length and breadth of the 

entire land grant after we had declared that the lands were forfeited 

and had become the property of the United States. The cases are ettled, one court deciding in one direction and another in another, conflicting decisions, which have been heretofore a source of unmeasured 

trouble and 4ifliculty in our legislation and in our dealing with the 

public domain. The courts of the Northwestern States are absolutely 

filled .up wit~ liti~ti?n~ of an inconsequential character brought by 

A agamst B, m wh1ch 1t 1s attempted to settle all these great questions 

which we are now trying to deal with in Congress. 

It was the intention of the committee to supply to the people who 

might be concerned in these land grants, whether corporations or private 

citizens, a remedy for the :purpose of contesting in a -suit with the Government of the United States these grave questions and settling t.bem once and forever, settling in one snit those controversies which have 

spread over the country and involve a great· number of snits. Conse- quently the Committee on Public Lands in another bill identical in 

principle with my amendment, which was reported by the majority of 

the committee to this body, have provided a remedy precisely like the 

one I offer to put into the bill by my amendment, requiring the Government of the United States to file a bill in equity in the nature of a 

bill of interpleader so as to settle all the material controversies between 

the Government and persons claiming under any law of the United 

States. That reaches every person in absolute or material interest con- nected with these affairs . 

Another section of the bill proceeds, however, to admit those parties 

who are not necessary p~t.rties, but may be proper parties, to file their 

petitions and bring their controversies before the court ii' they ee 

proper to do so in preference to going to the lo~al courts, the State 

courts; and thereupon the court examines the petition, and if it finds 

that the settlement of the question presented in the petition is neces- sary for the doing of complete.and full justice in the cause, the court 

will takejurisdiction of that matter and settle that also, discriminating in the bill between those who are necessary parties in order to determine the full measnro of the right of the case and tho e who may 

become proper parties upon petition to settle rights as between them-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5963 

elves. These rights are not mere private quarrels or controversies 

between citizens, but they must be rights that arise under the laws of 

the United States, and only in consequence t.hereof. 

I regret, I do not hesitate to express the regret, that this bill could 

..not have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, so that this 

whole subject could have undergone a very thorough investigation. 

N e\ertheless, in offering the amendment which I now offer and in re- porting the general bill which is on the Calendar, substantially the 

· arne with this amendment. from the Committee on Public Lands, I 

have consulted the action tak~n by the Committee on the Judiciary 

hitherto. They have made various reports, particularly in the Des 

Moines case, in which precisely the doctrine of this amendment is incorporated by the Judiciary Committee. I have also since that time 

taken the liberty privately to present the language of this amendment 

to various members of that committee, and they all concur that the .:amendment is properly and sufficiently guarded. 

I have no ambitioa to be considered the author of a bill for the purpo e of settling these great rights that have come forward in this way 

.and have been carried to the Committee on Public Lands by neceSsity; 

.and finding the committee in that attitude I have consulted the authorities of the Senate as far as I have been able to do, and I find that 

they concur with the amendment which I have had the honor to offer 

both in its principles and in its language. I have heard as yet no criti- -cism upon the language of the amendment. I have heard no one sug-

_gest that there was an inadequacy of its provisions for the purpose of 

_getting a proper judicial determination of all the rights thus presented. 

Now, let me call the attention of the Senate for a moment to the . tate of the British law on this subject as contrasted with the state of 

the American law. I will read an extract from Blackstone's Commen-

-taries. Speaking of inquests in reference to the forfeiture of land titles, 

he says: 

These inquests of office were devised by law as an authentic means to give the king his right by solemn matter of record, without which he, in general, can neither take nor part from anything. For it is a part of the liberties of England and greatly for the sa.fetr of the subject that _the ki?g may no_t enter UJ?On and seize any man's possess10n upon bare surmises without the InterventiOn of a 

jury. 

That is the power the Crown of England has over citizens. Further 

on the author says: 

'Vith regard to real property, if an office be found for the king it puts him in immediate possession, without the trouble of a formal entry, provided a sub- j ect in the like case would have had the right t.o enter. * * * If the king's -escheat or or sheriff seize lands into the king's hand without cause, upon taking them out of the king's hand again the party shall have the mesne profits re- s tored to him. · 

Again, speaking of the procedure and of the rights of the subject in 

England under such proceedings as we arehavingnow, "office found" 

in England, a declaration of forfeiture here, he says: 

In order to avoid the po ession of the crown, acquired by the finding of such office, the subject may not only have his petition of right, which discloses new facts not found in the office, and hi~ mcmstrans de droit, which relies on the facts .as found ; but, also, he may (for the most part) traver e or deny the matter of fad itself, a.nd put it in trial by the common-law process of the court of chancery; 

yet still , in some special cases, he ~ath. no rel!ledy left but a ~e~ petition of right * * * the party traversmg IS considered as the plaintiff, and must, there'fore , make out his own title as well as impeach that of the crown, and then hall have judgment quod manus domini regis amoveantur, &c. 

The proceeding in this amendment brings in the Government of the 

United States as the plaintiff and all the persons in interest as defend-

.ants by a bill in equity, as is suggested in the Commentaries from 

which I have just read, making it in the nature of a bill of interpleader, 

the Government asserting its right, in virtue of the declaration that we 

make here now, to all the lands, the corporation asserting its right by 

way of answer and defense, the bondholders suggesting their right by 

way of answer and defense, whoever else may claim under the corporation suggesting their right by way of answer and defense; and if there 

till may be any person whose .rights are necessary or proper to be determined in order to clear the field for the resumption of title if the 

Government of the United States bas the right to resume it, these perons come in by petition; the court considers the petition, and determines 

in limine whether it is proper that these persons should be admitted 

into the litigation. If the court shall so decide, then they become 

parties defendant to the cause as if they had been originally made 

parties defendant. That is the procedure which, as I remark again, I 

have not heard criticised. 

It is absolutely indispensable after we have declared a forfeiture of 

these lands that the citizen of the United States, whether a corporation 

-or an individual, should have the right to sue the Gove~ment to test 

the yalidity of our action and its constitutional extent and limitation, 

-or else the Government of the United States ought to bring the suit itselfinorderthat these parties may be made partiesdefendantandcomein 

.and test the right. Let me ob erve just one more thing, and that is that 

thi corporation is the creature of Congress. It is not a_ corporation 

-created by a State or Territorial Legislature. We created the corporation and gave it all its rights of every kind and character, and in dealing with it it is a proper thin~ for the Government of the United States 

to bring its action in the courts, so that that corporation and every per- son concerned in interest in any direction may have the opportunity of 

litigation. That is all I desire. 

I do not wish thatConbrressshalllayit:s hand in the balance to weigh 

. 

for or again~ the rights of any person upon the facts in thi case. Let us leave them to the justice and judgment of the judicial tribunals of 

the country, so that after we have gotten through this thing we can say to the country we have done our duty as a political body in declaring that it is the right and dutY of.the Government of the nited 

States to make assertion of its claim, and we ha•e further done om complete and full duty by relegating the whole decision of the ques- tic;m into the hands of the judiciary, so that they can hear the witnesses, hear demurrers, hear pleas, try the cause, and make a final 

decree and dispose of it. 

After these lands have been relieved of this difficulty which bas grown 

out of Congressional action, I am quite willing that the Senator from 

Kansas shall have the amendment which he proposes still further to 

add, which is a part really of the text of the original bill comingfrom 

the House, tliat these lands after the final decision shall pass into the 

public domain and shall there become lands subject of course to all the 

rights of citizens which may have accrued and have the determination, 

I do not care which, either of the courts of justice or the Department 

of the Interior. But. let us first get rid of the trouble which our own 

legislation and our own laches, if you can call it such, our delay to say 

the least of it, has caused in the nature of a cloud upon the title of 

every person concerned here. Let us remove that by the judicial au- thority, and then we can have a clear field for the decision of what- ever other questions may come. 

I should never have offered the amendment if I had not known that 

there was no adequate remedy provided by the laws of the United 

States, we having continually denied to our people the right to sue the 

Government except in cases where we have expressly so provided by 

statute. 

Mr. INGALLS obtained the floor. 

Mr. PLUMB. I wish to ask unanimous consent that we shaH take a vote on the bill some time to-morrow. I do this because I am advised that it is important to have an executive session this evening, 

and there are some other matters which ought to be disposed of in order 

to promote the convenience of both Houses. 

1Y1r. MORGAN. I suppose we could agree to take the vot.e at any 

time to-morrow. 

:Mr. INGALLS. Let us take it now. 

Mr. PLUMB. All right; if the vote can be taken without any further debate, I withdraw the suggestion. 

Mr. INGALLS. I do not wish to pursue the discussionif a vote can be had on the bill now. Mr. HAWLEY. I hope the Senator in charge of the bill will carry 

it through. 

Mr. PLUMB. I desire very much to do so. Mr. HAWLEY. Quite a number of us have bills on the Calendar 

upon which we would very much like to have action, and this bill is 

goingtodrawlon intonextwinter apparently. ["Question!" "Question!"] 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN], on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. HARRISON. I wish to ask the Senator from Alabama whether 

he thinks it is best to strike out all after the word ''forfeited,' ' or whether he had not better let the words stand '' and the title thereto 

resumed by the United States." 

Mr. MORGAN. That would be one of the effects of forfeiture. In 

the event of the forfeiture being successfully declared the title would 

be resumed by the United States, but I felt and I think that those gentlemen who concurred with me on the committee felt that that would 

be rather a rash procedure. It throws the weight of the legislation of 

the Government against the claimant of the property, and he does not 

have a fair trial after that when we declare that the title is resumed by 

the Government. I will say totheSenatorfromlndianathattheSena- tor from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] proposes ~hat after the final decree ha 

been passed then to have the lands revert to the Government and to be 

subject to disposal after the decree of the court. I do not care about 

its being done beforehand; I do not think it would be right. . 1Y1r. HARRISON. It seems to me that we ought to make this dec- laration of forfeiture ample. We ought to say all we can say as a legislative body in the direction of the resumption of these lands b~ tlae Government. If we were simply to say that they are declared forfeited, I think there would be some question whether that would be sufficient. 

1Ylr. MORGAN. IftheSenator will allow me, I will say to him. that 

is precisely the effect of office found after a prerogative writ and jury 

of inquest in Great Britain. That is precisely the effect; it goes no further, as I have read from the te~t of Blackstone on that question. 

I wanted to limit our action here precisely to the effect of office found 

under the common law. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question i on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Alabama, on which the yeas and nays 

have been ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. BLAIR (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

junior Senator from Kentucky [.Mr. WILLIAMS]. I do not know how 

be would vote. The roll-call was concluded. 
5964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 3, 

l\Ir. BLAIR. I am paired with the junior Senator from K~ntucky 

[1\ir. WILLIAMS] upon political questions. I observe that this is not 

treated as such and I therefore vote. I vote ''yea.'' •1\Ir. MITCHELL. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLO:U] who is 

absent, sick, desired me to state that he is paired with the Senator from 

West Virginia [Mr. KENNA]. If the Senator from Illinois were present, he said he would vote for the bill. I do not know how he would 

vote on the pending amendment. 

The result was announced-yeas 31, nays 11; as follows: 

Bayard, 

Blair, 

Bowen, 

Brown, 

Call, 

Colquitt, 

Dolph, 

Frye, 

Aldrich, 

Cameron of Wis., 

Coke,_ 

YEA8-31. 

Garland, Jones of Nevada, 

Hampton, Lamar, 

Harris, Lapham, 

Harrison, 1'\Iahone, 

Hawley, :1\Iaxey, 

Hoar, 1\Iit.chell, 

Jonas, Morgan, Jones of Florida, Morrill, 

Dawes, 

Hill, 

Ingalls, 

NAYB-11. 

Miller of Cal., 

Plumb, 

Sawyer, 

ABSENT-34. 

Allison, Edmunds, Kenna, 

Anthony, Fair, Logan, 

Beck, Farley, Mcl'llillan, 

Butler, George, McPherson, 

Camden, Gibson, Manderson, Cameron ofPa., Gorman, Miller ofN. Y., 

Cockrell, Groome, Palmer, 

Conger, Hale, Pugh, 

Cullom, Jackson, Ransom, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

PendletQn, 

Pike, 

Platt, 

Saulsbury, 

Sewell, 

Vance, 

Wilson. 

Sherman, 

VanWyck. 

Riddle berger, Sabin, 

· Slater, 

Vest, • Voorhees, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. It does seem to me that while the provisions of 

the amendment of the Senator from Alabama are right enough to provide for the mode of trial and to determine the effect of this legislation, yet if we are to give any vigor or force to the law at all we must 

go beyond a mere naked declaration of forfeiture. A mere naked declaration of forfeiture contained in the bill I do not think is worth the 

paper on which it is written, and I suppose as a matter of course the 

friends of the bill would regard it as practically its defeat. It is not 

worth anything at all. A mere declaration of forfeiture, leaving everything open, leaving the land in possession of the company, it seems to 

me is a defeat of the bill, and it had better at once be laid on the table 

rather than consume the few precious moments of the remainder of the 

session in its further consideration. 

Following the forfeiture with an aetual possession and recoupment 

of the land, I have no objection at all to the provision made for trying 

the rights of persons which may be involved hereafter, and I think the 

provi ions are wisely framed by the Senator from Alabama to try the 

rigbt.'5 of the company. I do not wish, by any act or vote of mine, to 

interfere with or impair t.he rights of any corporation or any individual. 

I wish to keep open the doors of the courts for the protection of their 

rights; yet it seems to me that if the Government is to forfeit this land 

it ought to follow that forfeiture with actual possession. 

After consultation with the S_enator from Indiana [M:r. HARRISON], 

who bas looked at this more than I have, perhaps, though he does not 

go quite 8o far as I do, I move to insert after the word "forfeiture" 

the words "and the title thereto resumed by the United States." 

l\Ir. PLU IB. I understa.Q.d that is already in the bill. 

1\:Ir. SHERMAN. That was stricken out by the amendment of the 

Senator from Alabama. · 

Mr. "PLUMB. I did not so understand it. I understand the amendment of the Senator from Alabama came in after the words "United 

States,'' in line 18. 

l\Ir. MORGAN. No; after the word" forfeited," in line 17. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is not sufficient. I wish further to add: 

And the title thereto resumed by the United St-ates, and said lands declared to be a part of the public domain, but not subject to disposal under the general laws of the United States until after the termination of the legal proceedings 

prescribed by this act. 

~Ir. PLUMB. I have ali amendment in regard to that part of the 

ection which I think will better accomplish the idea which the Senator from Ohio has in view. 

Ur. SHERMAN. Let it be read, and perhaps I shall accept it. 

.1\Ir. PLUMB. I propose to add at the close of the amendment of 

the Senator from AJabama: 

And such lands as ron be declared by the final judgment herein provided for to be the property of the United States shall upon the rendition of such judg- ment become a part of the public domain, and be subject to disposal under the general land laws of the United States as if no such grant had ever been made. 

Ir. SHERl\IAN. The Government of the United States now has 

waited for years for the completion of the railroad, and the company 

have done nothing except to earn a portion of the grant. Having failed 

to earn the grant, the Government of the United States ought to take 

possession of it, holding it, however, subject in its possession to the 

suit to be brought under the amendment. I think it would be restored 

to the public domain by the judgment of the court, or at least by the 

sub equent action of Congress, and we may at least leave that matter 

for the future action of Congress. 

Mr. PLUl\IB. There ought to be something, so that whenever it is 

decided these lands may be immediately open to settlement. 

l\Ir. SHERMAN. I have no objection to that, butlthinktbatmight 

properly be left to future legislation. This will protect the rights of 

the United States. I submit my amendment. 

Mr. PL Ul\1B. I understood the Senator from Alabama to insert his 

amendment after the words "United States," in line 18 of section 1. 

1\Ir. 1\lORGA...N". After the word "forfeited." 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question was put on striking 

out all after the word ''forfeited," in line 17, to and including the 

word '' st..'ttions," in line 24, and inserting the words of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama. If the Chair correctly 

understands the recital made by the Senator from Ohio, the words he 

now proposes as an amendment are a part of the very words the Senate 

has already voted to strike out. 

Mr. SHERMAN; Entirely changed, however, in very important 

particulars because they are reversed in some respects. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the 

Senator from Ohio will be read, after which the Chair will determine 

the question. 

The CHIEF CLERK. After the word "forfeiture," in line 17, it is 

proposed to insert: 

And the title thereto resumed by the United States, and said lands declared to be part of the public domain, but not subject to disposal under the general laws of the United States, until after the termination of the legal proceedings prescribed by this act. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks the amendment is 

in order. It changes the import of the words stricken out. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. I am very anxious, for one, that this declaration 

of forfeiture should be ample; in other words, that we should do -by 

this legislation all that is necessary to reinvest the Government with 

this title so as to enable it to proceed in the court to which this matter 

is to be referred for determination, having done all that it is possible 

for the legislative branch of t4e Government to do to reinvest the 

Government with the title to these lands. I therefore asked the Senator from Alabama, before voting on his amendment, his opinion 

whether the simple word "forfeiture" accomplished that purpose. I 

felt that there was some doubt about it, a.nd I am in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio because I think it puts. it beyond 

doubt. In other words, my objection to the bill as it came from the 

committee was that the Government was going into the busineSs of 

selling lawsuits. That is what we were doing, not providing for any 

action by the Government to settle this as one question. We were proceeding to let pre-emptors and homesteaders and purchasers of the public domain take up land in small tract& and · then turn them over to an endless litigation, separate lawsuits with this railroad company, to 

settle the question of their title. This title is involved; the railroad 

company will contest this forfeiture. 

I think, therefore, before we sell this land we ought to settle the 

question of our own title to it, and that the United. .States Government 

ought to bear the burden of that litigation and settle it in one suit. I 

want this bill to go far enough to make the declaration of forfeiture 

full and complete so far as we can do it; then referring the que tion as to the effect of our act. and the facts of the case to the courts for settlement, and when we have once got a title that we can pass to a preemptor or to a homesteader unclouded, then I want to se.e it put upon 

sale. 

· 1\lr. INGALLS. Does the Senator think we should acquire a title by 

saying that we resume it? 

l\Ir. HARRISON. I do not know that we should. I think it would 

be subject, of course, still to the determination of the courts. Nothing 

that we can do can reinvest the title, but we are to do something by 

legislation that will be equivalent to re-entry for condition broken. 

l\Ir. INGALLS. If we resume the title by declaring that it is vested 

again in the United States, what is the use of having the judicial proceeding? 

Mr. HARRISON. It is this, that before we undertake to sell the 

land we have ourselves ins~tuted a proceeding in the nature of a bill 

qu·ia timet, to settle the question whether we have actually been po - sessed and obtained title by this legislation. 

1\lr. !~GALLS. The Senator is not quite ~lear that a declaration 

of resumption would be really equivalent to the reinvestment of title 

in the United States. 

:Mr. HARRISON. I am not, but it is all we can do. 

. l\fr. INGALLS. I should think that under those circumstance it 

would be a very idle and nugatory declaration if we are to proceed by 

judicial investigation to determine where the title is, and to avoid that 

result the legislative declaration that the title is in the United States. 

is very simple. 

l\Ir. HARRISON. Not at all. While I have not examined- - Mr. INGALLS. Suppose the court decide the other way? :Mr. HARRISO~. While I have not examined this case critic-ally, 

yet I understand that the Supreme Court in a case before them base 

said that it rested with Congress to make by law some declaration that 

would declare the forfeiture of land grants. 
1884. . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5965 

Mr. INGALLS. Let us assume for one moment that the court in I have had good opportunity to observe that since I have been on thli: 

this determination, that the land belongs to the railroad company, what floor with him; and he will not ay that it is necessary for the Congre 

effect then would a declaration in the bill that it belonged to the of the United States to direct or to authorize the Secretary of the InUnited States have? · terior to enter into possession. He has got no possession of the public 

Mr. HARRISON. None whatever, of course. The question a.s to lands. The Government of the •United States as a government takes 

whether there has been a breach of condition subsequent is one that po ession in virtue of its legislation, and the moment that we declare the courts must settle, no matter what we say . If we go on and pro- a forfeit ure of lands granted by the Government, that instant of time 

vide for selling this land and put settlers in possession under their war- we are in possession, the Go\ernment is in possession as a government. 

rants from the Government of the United States, it till remains a ques- I ha\e no objection to those w~rds coming in bereexceptthati think 

tion which the courts will settle as between our grantee and the rail- they will mar the sene of the statute and might induce some judge to 

road company a.s to which has the superior title. But I think the suppo e that Congress after all in granting this relief to its own oitiwords proposed by the Senator from Ohio go somewhat further and zen had loaded it down with a declaration that it makes no difference, 

make the purpose of Congress to resume possession of this land or to as the enator from Kansas suggested what you have got to pre ent 

make it a part of the public domain clear and explicit, and then po t- to the court; the question is already decided against you, if the titl e 

pone the selling of this land to individual buyers until we have by the has been resumed. 

judicial proceedings prescribed in this bill, established our title to it. I wa.nt to leave the titie to be disposed of by the courts after the po -

.Mr. PLUMB. I think the words are very material, because they are session, after the right of entry, and all that belongs to these facts by 

equivalent to a re-entry, so far as the G-o>ernment needs to do that for rntue of the operation of law is secured as I think in the form of the 

the purpose of asserting its intention to oust the po ession of the rail- amendment I presented. I have no pride of opinion about it. I want 

road company and to dispose of its claim of title. The word of the to do precisely what the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Inbill, as I supposed they had been left in lines 17 and 1 , I think would diana are trying to accomplish, and I belie>e I 4ave secured it in the 

accomplish that purpose; and if, as my colleague say the court should amendment. But still if the Senate wants to vut in other words there 

decide the title in the railroad company beyond the power of Congress which I think will rob the court perhaps of itS juri diction to try the 

to reach it, then of course it would not amount to anything any more title, they may put them in, but I think they are dangerous words to 

than a re-entry of a private person would on an estate which he had those persons who claim rights against the United States for us here to 

granted away on a condition which sub equently proved not to ha>e say that we not only resume po ession as upon office found, and not 

been fulfilled. only resume po ession as a privateownerwould wboha.dmade a grant 

1\Ir. MORGAN. Mr. President, in preparing.my amendment I bad upon condition sub equent that wa forfeited , but we go further and 

the full intent and purpose of putting the Government of the United by legislati>e declaration we resume the title, it makes no difference 

States in the possession of all its rights under this grant. What are bow the judge may decide. 

those rights? Assuming, or admitting rather for the sake of the argu- The Senator from Kansas put a question very pertinently I thought 

ment, not according to the way the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Com- to the enator from Indiana-what will be the attitude of the case if 

pany looks at it, but for the sake of the argument, that upon the fail- after we make the declaration the judge still decides that the title is 

ure of that company to complete its line within the period prescribed in the claimant? How are we to get along with that? I really think 

in the act the lands absolutely revert to the United States, putting it that the apprehensions of enators on that subject are not well founded. 

upon that hypothesis, the words which are in this amendment are all They are not founded in the state of the law. This is a new question, 

that are necessary to cause the reversion. I will illustrate it if the and I venture my opinion very gingerly about it. At the arne time 

Senate will bear with me for a moment. A private man make a grant we have got no analogies that we can appeal to except those derived 

<>f lands upon condition subsequent. That condition is not complied from the English common law, and under that system I think it is 

with, or it is broken. That man has a right of entry upon his lands very clear that as far as we ought to go as far as we need to go, is to 

in consequence of the breach of that condition. His entry made in that declare the forfeiture of the land, which puts us in us of our former 

way is exactly in conformity with the law; he is not a trespasser, in right. · 

<>ther words, because be has reserved the right of entry in posses ion in Mr. HAWLEY. I was about to move an executive session, in the 

the deed making the grant. So the very moment be enters into the hope that we might return to legislative session in a few minutes and 

po ession the title unites with the posse ion and he is in, as the books finish this bill. There is important business to be attended to in exec- say, as of his former right. · utive session. 

Now the Government of the United States, or any other government, everal E~ATOR . Let us vote now. 

havingmadeagrantoflandandnotbeingcapableoftakingpedispossessio, Mr. HAWLEY. Very well; I shall·not make the motion. 

beingitselfanincorporealestablishment,throughitslegi lativeautbority The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

makes a declaration of its right of entry; and in Schulenberg vs. Harri- of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMA ~]. 

man the Supreme Court has held that that declaration is equivalent to The amendment was agreed to . 

.an entry by a private owner, it is equivalent under the English law to Mr. PLUMB. I now move to add the words which will be found 

office found. The entry by the private owner, or office found under the in line 20, commencing with the word " but" down to and including 

English la.w, unites the possession with the title. The party is in as of the word ''stations,' ' in line 24 of the original bill, as follows: 

his former right. But nothing in this act shall be construed to recognize the right of said 

Here we make a declaration that these lands are forfeited. The very company to any land in the Indian Territory, or claim thereto, on condition.or moment that that declaration becomes a law, the Government of the ot.herwi e, except the right of way and land for stations. 

United States is in possession of these lands, and if the title unites with The PRESIDENT pro t_e?npore. Those are the very words which the 

the possession because of the fact that the forfeiture has occurred, then Senate has stricken out. 

the Government's title is full and complete. If, however, it turns out ~ Mr. PLUMB. But in connection with other words. 

that the cause of forfeiture did notactuallyexist, theGovernmentlo es Mr. INGALLS. Much more wa tricken out. 

its title, and the courts under this power, as the court of equity in Eng- Mr. PLUMB. Thi is only a portion of what was stricken out. 

land would have done, restore the possession to the original grantee. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read, after 

That is the condition of the thing. which the Chair will decide. 

Now, suppose we go further, and not merely declare a forfeiture of 1\Ir. PLUMB. I will mo>e it as a separate ection according to a 

the land, but al o make a legislative declaration that the title is re- suggestion of the enator from Alabama, commencing wit h the word 

s nmed to the Unitt.d States or reconferred on the United States, then ' 'nothing: ' 

we do that or attempt to do that by legislation which is the part only Nothing in thi act hall be construed t-o recognize the right. of aid company <>fthe judicial authority. The Government of t be United States-there t-o any land in the Indian Territory, or claim thereto, on condition or otherwise, ean be no mistake about it-gains every righ t under a declaration of except the right of way and laud for tations. 

forfeiture that it could gain by the most po itiYe de ·laration of there- The PRE !DENT pro tempo-re. The Chair thinks that this is the sult of that. identical language which has been tricken from the bill by a vote of 

1\Ir. HARRISON. Will the enator from Alabama allow me to a k the enate. 

him why, if we declare tbi to be a part of the public domain and the 1\Ir. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent to insert those words. 

United States should direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter, we The ESIDE~T pro tempore. The enator from Kansa a k \man-

.a.re not settling legal questions we are not taking it out of the domain imous con ent that the question be taken on re toring the e words to 

<>f the courts any more than in the case of a priYate grant on condition the bill as an addition to the amendment agreed to. 

ubsequent. where the grantor enters a of hi original right4 Then I Mr. PL MB. A a separate ection. 

want to say to the Senator, a. some of us have agreed with 'his view The PRESIDENT pro tempO"re. As a separate section. Is there obin the main, that this can not do any harm if b e be right in saying that jection ? The Chair hears none, and the amendment is received. ~e 

if it is a declaration of something that hould be re erved for the courts que tion i on agreeing to the amendment. 

the courts will say so, and it is simply a conces ion to some of us who The amendment was agreed to. 

think that the language as it stands doe not go far enough to do that The bill was reported to the enate as amended. 

which we ought to do in this <'.ase. I hope, therefore, be will let the Mr. JO~AS. I a k that the bill be read at the desk as amended. 

amendment come in. - The PRE !DENT pro tempore. The bill as amended in Committee 

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator from Indiana is an excellent lawyer. of the Whole will be read. 
5966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 3,. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Be it enacted, &e., That all the lands, excepting the right of way and lands for 

tation , heretofore granted to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company by an act entitled "An act granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad 

and telegraph line from the States of Missouri and Arkansas to the Pacific coast," approved July '1!1, 1866, and subsequent acts and joint resolutions of Congress, which are adjacent to and conterminous with the uncompleted portions of the 

main line of said road, embraced within both the granted and indemnity limits, as contemplated to be constructed under and by the provisions of the said act of July '1!1, 1866, and acts and joint resolutions subsequent thereto and relating to the con truction of said road and telegraph, be, and the same are hereby, declared forfeited, and the title thereto resumed by the United States, and said 

lands declared to be part of the public domain, but not subject to disposal under 

the general laws of the United States until after the termination of the legal proceedings prescribed by this act; Prcmided, That the price of the lands so forfeited and restored shall be the same as heretofore fixed for the even-numbered 

sections within said grant. SEC. 2. That jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the circuit court of the United 

States for the western district of Missouri to hear and determine all questions and controversies concerning the rights and equities in said forfeited lands that are claimed or aSBerted by the United States, or by any person or <.'Orporation claiming the same under or in consequence of any law of the United States, or any act of its lawfully authorized agents, and to enforce any judgment or decree, either interlocutory or final, that said court shall render' in respect of said lands or any interest thereon. 

SEc. 3. That it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States 

for the w-estern district of Missouri, under the direction of the Department of 

Justice, to proceed in the circuit court of the United States for the said district, by"bill in equity, in the name of tlle United States of America as plaintiff, against ariy corporations or persons that claim any interest in the lands hereby declared 

forfeited arising under said act of Cong1·ess approved July '1:7, 1866, or under this act, so as to bring before said court for its determination the validity of such 

claim, whether the same be legal or equitable. SEC. 4. That any person or corporation not made a party defendant in said 

proceeding, but claiming any interest under the laws of the United States in the 

laud , or any part thereof, which are declared forfeited by this act, may present such claim by petition in said cause, duly verified by oath; and if the court, upon con ideration thereof, shall decide that the adjudication and settlement of such claim i necessary to do complete justice in said cause, the court shall direct that 

such further proceeding be had upon such petition as that t.he same may be fully heard and determined, and shall proceed to decree upon the AAme as fully as if 

such petitioner had been made a. party defendant in said suit: Provided, That no ncb petition shall be filed after twelve months from the date of the filing of the bill in said cause. SEC. 5. That the court, if it shall see fit, may tax all the costs of the suit under 

the third section of this act against the nited States, and shall apportion the costs of any proceeding under the fuurth section of this act between the parties a.CQ<>rding to justice and equity. Any party to the suit instituted under this aMt shall have the right of appeal from any final decree therein to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed by law and the rules of said court for appeals in equity cases; nnd the Supreme Court shall cause said appeal to be advanced on the docket so that the same shall be speedily determined; but no right of appeal shall exist 

after six months from the time when said final decree is entered on the records of the circuit court of the United States. 

SEc. 6. Nothing in this act shall be construed to recognize the right of said 

company to any land in the Indian Territory, or claim thereto, on condition or otherwise, except the right of way and land for stations. SEC. 7. That the act of March 3, 1875, entitled •' An act for the relief of settlers 

within railroad limits," is hereby repealed. 

:hlr. PLUMB. I move in the first line of section 3 of the amendment--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The Chair 

will state that the question is on concurring in the amendments made 

as in Committee of the Whole, unless the Senator proposes to amend 

one of the amendments. 

Mr. PLUMB. I propose to amend one of the amenrlments by inserting the word "immediately, " in line 3 of section 3 of the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, so that it shall be made the duty 

of the Department of Justice to immediately proceed.. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from 

Kansas will be read. 

The CHIEF CL:ERK. In section 3, line 3, after the word ' 'Justice," 

it is proposed to insert the word "immediately;" so as to read: 

SEC. 3. That it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States 

for the western district of Missouri, under the direction of the Department of 

Justice, immediately to proceed in the circuit court of the United States for the 

said district, &c. 

The amendment .to the amendment was agreed to. 

The amendment! made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be 

read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

POSTAL TELEGRAPH. 

Mr. HILL. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 

2022, Order of Busines 474. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado moves 

that the Senate proceed at this time to the consideration of a bill the 

title of which will be read. 

Ur. INGALLS. Pending that motion, I move that the Senate proceed--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title of the bill will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. Order of Business 474, Senate bill No. 2022, to 

establish a postal-telegraph system. 

l\.Ir. INGALLS. Pending that motion, I move that the Senate proceed to the con ideration of executive business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. HILL. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays being ordered and taken, resulted-yeas 12, nays 

31; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

Bayard, 

Butler, 

Blair, 

Bowen, 

Brown, 

Call, 

Cameron of Pa.., Cameron of Wis., Colquitt, 

Dolph, 

YEAS-12. 

Coke, 

Garland, 

Ingalls, 

Jonas, 

Jones of Florida, Pendleton, 

NAYS-31. 

Groome, 

Harris, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hill 

Jon~ of Nevada., 

Logan, 

McMillan, 

Mahone, 

Manderson, 

Maxey, 

Miller of Cal.,. Mitchell, 

Morgan, 

Morrill, 

Palmer, 

ABSENT~. 

Allison, Fair, Jackson, Anthony, Farley, Kenna., Beck, Frye, Lamar, Camden, George, Lapham, Cockrell, Gibson, McPherson, Conger, Gorman, Miller of N.Y., Cullom, Hale, Ransom, Dawes, Hampton, Riddleberger Edmunds, Hoar, Sabin, 

So the motion was not agreed to. 

Pugh, 

Vance, 

Vest. 

Pike, 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

Saul bury, Sawyer, 

Sewell, VanWyck. 

Sherman, 

Slater, 

Voorhees. 

Walker, 

Williams, 

·Wilson. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the motion of 

the Senator from Colorado that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the bill the title of which has been read. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWLEY.· Now, the bill being upMr. CAMERON, ofWisconsin. Letitbelaid before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read by title. 

The CHIEF CLERK. "A bill (S. 2022) to establish a postal-telegraph 

system.'' 

Mr. H.A WLEY. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration 

of executive business. 

Mr. PL UUB. I ask the Senator to allow me to call the attention of 

the Senate to the conference report on the District of Columbia appropriation bill. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Is it desired to have action on that report now? 

Mr. PLUMB. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I have no objection. 

Mr. PLUMB. The conference report has been submitted and is on 

the table of the Presiding Officer now. It ought to be dispo ed of. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A conference report is in order if the 

Senator desires to present one. 

POST-QFFICE APPROPRIATIO~ BILL. 

Mr. PLUMB. I have the conference report on the Post-Office appropriation bill. I am advised on very good authority that in view of 

the action of the· House receding from the disagreement to the amendments made by the Senate, it is not. necessary so far as the bill itself is 

concerned that this report should be presented. At the same time it 

is proper that the record of the .Senate should disclose the fact of the 

report having heen made in order to have a continuous narrative of ~he 

proceedings. I therefore present the report of the conference committee 

on the Post-Office appropriation bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask that instead of being read it may appear in the 

RECORD. I do not make any motion in regard to it. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question will be, Will the Senate 

agree to the conference report? And by unanimous consent the Senate 

may act upon it without its being read, but it can only be done by 

unanimous consent. · 

Mr. PLUMB. That is a question I desire to have settled: if it is nec--

essary to take adion on this report. I simply present the report in 

order that the RECORD may show what has actually taken place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the Senate must 

act upon the conference report by agreeing or disagreeing to it. By 

unanimous consent the Senate can act upon it without its being read or 

after the reading. ["No o~jection."] 

Mr. H.A WLEY. The bill has passed, I understand. 

Ur. PLUMB. Yes, sir. 

Mr. H.A WLEY. And the bill has gone to the President. 

Mr. PLUMB. I understand it has. 

Mr. H.A WLEY. The House has concurred with the Senate in the 

passage of the bill, and this paper is dead pn,per. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is true, but at the same time the records of the 

Senate should show exactly what was done and how the result was 

arrived at. 

Mr. H.A WLEY. I was addressing myself' more particularly to the 

proposition that it was necessary to take a vote. It eems to me it 

would be absurd to take a vote when the vote has no effect upon anything. 

Ur. ~IILLER, of California. There is nothing to vote upon. 

Mr. HAWLEY. General consent might spread this on the record 

for the satisfaction of the Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that the report be placed 

on record without any further action of the Senate. 
1884. · CONGRESSION~L RECORD-HOUSE. 5967 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not hear the request 

of the Senaoor from Kansas. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that the report of the conference committee on the Post-Office appropriation bill be spread on 

the record without further aetion by the Senate. It seems oo me the 

report should be out of the custody of the conference committee• and 

in the possession of the Sena.te. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already ruled that the 

Senate must aet on the conference report by agreeing or disagreeing to 

it, or postponing its consideration. The Senate could, by unanimous 

consent,,act upon it without its being read, but the re~rd must show 

that the Senate agreed to it or disagreed 00 it. ~1r. BUTLER. It seems 00 me we can get around the trouble by 

simply receiving it as information. That is what the Senator from 

Kansas is driving at. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is what I suggest. 

Mr. HARRISON. What objection is there to having it read? It is 

brief. 

Mr. PLUMB. It simply records a disagreement between the two 

Hou e , and that would necessitate the necessity of taking up the question whether the Senate would adhere to its position. I only want it on record in such a way that our Journal shall show exactly what was 

done. 

Ir. HAWLEY. Our record does show by a message from the House 

that the House receded on the identical bill, and concurred in the passage of it. The record on the bill is complete. 

Mr. PLUMB. But it does not show that the committee had met 

and that a disagreement had occurred which preceded the action of the 

House in receding from its disagreement to our amendments. 

:Ur. HAWLEY. The bill has passed. 

l\Ir. PLUMB. There is no doubt about that. I ask leave to withdraw the report. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas can withdraw the report if there be no objection. Tp.e Chair hears none. 

DISTRICT APPROPRIATIO~ BILL. 

lli. PLUMB. Now I desire to have action of the Senate upon the 

rep..ort of the conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 

the District of Columbia appropriation bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas asks that 

there be laid before the Senate a House bill pending on a report from a 

conference committee. The Chair will lay before the Senate the bill 

(H. R. 6656) making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the. 

government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 

30, 1885, and for other purposes. 

Mr. PLUMB. Now, purely as a formal matter I move the adoption 

of the report of the conference committee, and that will bring up the 

subject which has been· heretofore in controversy. I wish to say now 

in regard to the question that I should be glad to have the Senate in 

some authentic way settle so far as it can what shall be made the· subject of action by conference committees of the two Houses; and for the 

purpose of illustrating to some extent what has been done, not a long 

time ago, but recently, I call the attention of the Senate oo the report of the conference eommittee upon the pension appropriation bill, 

which is found on page 5679 of the RECORD of June 27. It will there 

be seen that the conferees reported to the two Houses, and the two 

Houses by adopting the report have accepted a provision changing the 

law in regard to certa.in very important matteis of administration in 

the Pensio• Office; and not only that, bnt inserting provisions-which had never been in print or never been considered by either House of Congress 

prior to the time when they were presented in the conference report. 

. That is ·not singular, because I presume I may state what is within 

the knowledge of every person here, that a little over a year ago we 

got a tariff bill in the same way. I remember hearing a member of 

the committee that brought forth that bill describe in somewhat terse 

and lurid languap;e the manner in which certain conclusions had been 

arrived at. But the faet remains that a tariff bill was prepared subtantialJy in a committee conference a year ago last Uarch by the conferees, or at least a considerable number of items were inserted which were not the subject of controversy between the two Houses. 

I speak of this not for the purpose of justifying anything that has 

ueen done by anybody else, but for the purpose of illustrating the rule 

that has obtained heretofore, and also the necessity that there should be 

some rule Of action which shall govern beyond any po ible controversy. 

l do not care so fur ~ I am concerned for the present or for the future 

within what narrow limits the action of conferees is brought. It is 

much easier to get along here as it is elsewhere without assuming too much responsibility, and certainly I suppo e no one who . may have 

charge of bills of any description cares to have a responsibility which 

is not especially committed oo him by a vote of the Senate. 

I could go a great deal further than I have gone in regard to what 

has heretofore been done in the way of legislation by conference com- mittees; but I do not care to plead anything as a precedent for what 

appears in tltis report. I will only say that the amendment objected to was tendered to the Senate conferees by the House conferees and was accepted by the Senate conferees at the hands of the House conferees 

and agreed to by them as a matter proposed substantiaJly by the House. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas moves. 

that the conferees report read and then printed for the use of the Senate on a former occasion be concurred in. On that occasion the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] and the Senator from Rhode Island 

[Mr. ALDRICH], as the Chair recollects, raised a question of order in 

regard to the last amendment of the Senate, that the subject agreed to. 

by the conferees had not been committed to the conference and was. 

not in dispute between the twe Houses, and also that it introduced 

legislation contrary to the rules of the Senate. If those points of order 

are insisted upon, the Chair will express his opinion about them. Ii 

they are not, the Chair will put the question on the motion of the Senator from Kansas. [A pause.] If there be no objection the Chair 

will put the question on the motion of the Senator from Kansas that 

the conference report be adopted. 

The report was concurred iu. 

THERESA CRO BY WATSON. 

Mr. CALL. I ask unanimous consent that the pending order be laid 

aside informally, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration pi 

Order of Business 764, being the bill (H. R. 103) granting a pension to. 

Theresa Crosby Watson. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I feel obliged to object, because IknowmanySenators desire an executive session. I move that the Senate proceed to. 

the consideration of executive business. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Se.uator from Florida asks unanimous consent that a bill, the nature of which he has stated, be now 

considered, pending which the Senator from Connecticut moves that. 

the .Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. Thequestion iS on the motion of the Senator from Connecticut. 

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After nine minutes spent in executive 

session the doors were reopened; and (at 6 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.} 

the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

· THURSDAY, July 3, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev~ 

JoHNS. LINDsAY, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. 

EXPLANATION. 

Mr. FINERTY. I desire to state that I left the House yesterday 

before the vote was taken upon the Fitz-Jbhn Porter bill, and with theunderstanding that I was paired if that question came up. I find this. 

morning that no pair was announCed for me, and I desire to state that 

had I been present, I should have voted for the passage of the 'Bill notwithstanding the veto of the President. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. A single word of personal explanation. Not having been very well for some time past, I left the Hall yesterday about 3o'clock, not expecting that anything of importance would 

come up. I wish to say that had I been here I should have voted for 

the passage of the Fitz-John Porter bill over the President's veto. 

VIOLATIONS OF INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS. 

Mr. OATES. By direction of the Committee on Revision of theLaws, I ask that the Senate amendments to the House bill6370, to limit 

the time within which prosecutions may be instituted against persons. 

charged with violating internal-revenue laws, be taken from the Speaker's table and non-concurred in. 

Mr. REED. Let the Senate amendments be read . The amendments were read, as follows: 

In line 2, strike out the word" crime" and insert the words" of the variousoffenses." - In line 5, strike out "two" before the word "years" and insert " three." In lines 7 and 8, strike out the words "beyond the reach of legal process" and 

insert in lieu thereof the words" absent from the district wherein the same i 

committed." 

In line 9, strike out the word" a~tion" and insert the word" proceedings." In line J 1, strike out the words " pending cases" and insert in lieu thereof thewords "offenses committed prior to its passage." , Also at the end of line 11 add the following : "And provided further, That when a complaint shall be instituted before a com- missioner of the United States within the period above limited the period shall 

be extended until the discharge of the grand jury at its next session within thedistrict." 

So that the section will read as follows : "Be it enacted, &:c., That no person shall ue prosecuted, tried, or punished forany of the various offenses arising under the internal· revenue laws of the United 

States unle s the indictment is found or the information instituted within threeyears next after the commission of the ofl'ense: PrO'IJided, That the time during which the person committing the offense is absent from the district wherein the- same i committed shall not be taken as any part of the time limited by law forthe commencement of such proceedings: Provided furtJter, That the provision of this act ball not apply to offenses committed prior to it-s passage : And prov-ided further, That when complaint shall be instituted before a commissioner of 

the United State within the period above limited the period shall be extended 

until the discharge of the grand jury at its next ession in the district." 

.Mr. OATES. I move that the Senate amendments be non-concurred 

in, and that a conference be asked. 

The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER announced as the conferees on the part of tlie HonseMr. 0.ATES, Mr. ·McMILLIN, and Mr. PAYNE.