1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1547 

Also, petition of Anna. Shelmidine, of Lorraine, N.Y., and others, ~king for an increase of widows' pensions-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By l'tlr. STORM:: Petition of Rev. J. B. Woodward and 57 others, 

citizens of East Stroudsburg, Pa., praying for the passage of certain bills 

for the suppression of polygamy in the ~nited States-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, petition ofthe Commercial Exchange of Philadelphia, praying 

for the enactment of a law for the acquisition by the United States of 

the Portage Lake and Lake Superior Ship Canal-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. WEMPLE: Petition of citizens of GloversYille, N. Y., urging 

action by Congre son the bills now before them. for the suppression of 

Mormonism-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. JAMES WILSON: PetitionofWilliam Mauler, for compensation-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The following petitions for the passage of the Mexican war pension 

bill with Sell!ltte amendments were presented and severally referred to 

the Committee on Pensions: 

By l'tlr. BURNES: Of numerous citizens of Mound City, of Ebony, 

and of Maryville, Mo. 

By Mr. COBB: Of numerous citizens of Green and Knox Counties, 

Indiana. 

SEX ATE. 

THURSDAY, February 12, 1885. 

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. 

EXECUTIVE COl'tiMUl\TJ:CATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in 

answer to a resolution of the 5th instant, a report of the Commissioner of 

Railroads and letters from the A··ttmney -General and the president of the 

Union Pacific Railroad Company on the subject of the settlement of the 

indebtedness of that company as provided in the Thurman act, so called. 

;lf there be no objection, the letter of the Secretary, with the accom- panying letters and papers, will be prit)ted, and they, with the accom- panying printed documents, will be r~erred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

The PRESIDE~T pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in compliance 

with section 194 of the Revised Statutes, a list of all persons employed 

• in his Department during the year ended December 31, 1884; which wa ordered to be printed., and, with the accompanying papers, referred 

to the Committee on Printing. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Navy, transmitting, in answer to a resolution of the 4th ins·tant, a report of the s~ps taken by him to establish an advanced cou~e of 

instruction of naval officers at Coasters' Harbor Island, Rhode Island; · which, on motion of Mr. SHERMAN, was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 7522) for the relief of Joseph F. Wilson was read 

twice by its title. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that the Senator from Kansas not now in his seat [Mr. PLUMB] desired that this 

bill should be laid upon the table for the time being if he were not in 

the Senate at the time it was presented. If there be no objection the 

bill will be laid on the table. · 

The bill (H. R. 851) for the relief of the heirs of Mary Jane Veazie was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

The bill (H. R. 483) for the erection of a public building at Keokuk, 

Iowa, was read. twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

TOTIFICATION TO THE PRESIDENT-ELECT. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives, which will be 

read. · 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 11, 1885. 

.Resolved by the House of .Representatives (the Senate concurring), That a commit- tee of three members of the House ofRepresentatives be appointed by the House, 

and two members of the Senate be appointed by that body, t-o wait on Grover 

Cle...-eland, of ~eState of New York; and to notify him that he ha.s been duly elected President of,~he United States for four years, commencing with the 4th 

of Mnrchr 1885; and also to notify Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of Indi- ana, that he has been duly elected Vice-President of the United States for four 

years, commencing with the 4th day-of March,1885.· . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present •consideration of the resolution? 

~.1r. GARLAND. I move to refer that resolution to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. If such a resolution be d~med proper or necessary, the language of this one needs some correction, and it is 

better for it to go to that committee for investigation. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo-re. The Senator from Arkansas moves that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Privileges and 

Elections. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PETITIONS A..."'\D 1\IEMORIALS. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I present a resolution adopted at a meeting of 

steamboat owners and managers held in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, 

in which they remonstrate against the repeal of section 4419 of theRevised Statutes, and state that if that section should be repealed a use- less and unnecessary burden would be added to the alrea-dy oppressed 

navigation interest. I move that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. PENDLETON presented petitions of the Daily and Weekly Local, 

of Sandusky, Ohio; the Daily and Semi-Weekly Torchlight, of Xenia, 

Ohio; the Standard of the Cross, of Cleveland, Ohio; the Christian Witness, of Newark, Ohio; the Standard Publishing Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; the Yellow Springs Review, of Yellow Sprin~, Ohio; the 

Weekly Echo, of South Solon, Ohio; the Western Traet Society, ofCincinnati, Ohio; the- Independent Press, of Wakeman, Ohio; the East 

Liverpool (Ohio) Tribune; the Hocking Valley Printing and Publishing Company, of Athens, Ohio; the Ohio Educational Monthly, of Akron, Ohio; the Buckeye Vidette, of Salem, Ohio; the Republican Gazette, of Logan, Ohio; the Beverly Dispatch, of Beverly, Ohio; the 

Independent, of Richmond, Ohio; the Toronto Tribune, of Toronto, 

Ohio; the Free Press, of Fredericktown, Ohio;. the Deunice Novovelrn, 

of Cleveland, Ohio, and the Portsmouth Blade, of Portsmouth, Ohio, praying for a reduction of postage on second-class matter; which were 

referred to the Committee on Post-Office.3 aud Post-Roads. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of Cleveland, Ohio, praying 

for the repeal of the law which fixes the term of certain administrative officers at four years; which was referred to the Committee on 

Civil Service ami Retrenchment. 

REPORTS OF CO.:.'IfMITTEES. 

Mr. JACKSON. The Committee on Claims, to whom was Ieferred 

the bJ.ill (S. 1400) for the relief of Edward C. Garlick, have directed me to report the same back adversely. At the request of the Senator 

from Ohio [ltfr. SHERMAN] I ask that the bill be placed on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. 

Mr. SAWYER, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, 

to whom was referred the bill (S. 1999) for the relief of John K. Le 

Baron, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. SEWELL, from. the Committee on 1\ffiitary Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1668) for the relief of George T. Dudley, reported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

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

(S. ·2503) for the relief of Charles E. Maris, submitted an adverse re- port thereon, which was agreed to; ::~:nd the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Claims, to 

whom were referred the following bills, submitted adverse reports 

thereon, which were agreed to; and the bills were postponed indefinitely: 

A bill (S. 632) for the relief of the heirs of l'tlanning R. Ariail and 

Samh Fish, deceased; and 

A bill (S. 1370) for the relief of Washington Ford. 

Mr. HALE. By direction of the Committee on Naval Aftairs Ireport back a communication from the Secretary of War, with sundry 

papers accompanying it, ·on the subject of establishing signal stations 

upon the Island of Nantucket, Massaehusetts, and ask that the cozn:. mittee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be re- ferred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

The report was agreed to. 

Mr. MAXEY, from the Committee on Military Afthlrs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1327) for the relief of J. H. Hammond, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

CHA.NGE OF N .AME OF BANK. 

Mr. ~IORRJLL. I am directed by the Committee on Finance, to 

whom was referred the bill (S. 2571) to authorize the Merchants' National Bank of Little Rock, Ark., to change its name to the First 

National Bank of Little Rock, to report it favorably with an amendment. This ·is a. very short bill, and it is rather necessary that it 

should reach the other House in season to be aeted upon the~ I 

therefore ask for its present consideration. 

By unahlm.ous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 
'1648 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SEN.ATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

The amendment re~rted by the Committee on Finance was to add 

to section 2 the following words: 

And that after such change of name the First National Bank of Little Rock .shaH continue to be in all respects the identical association pre,'iously known as the Merchants' National Bank of Little Rock. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended and the amendment 

was concurred in. 

The bill was ordered to be engros.Sed for a third reading, read the 

third time, and passed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore subsequently said: The Cha,ir begs 

to call the attention of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] to 

the bill (S. 2571) to authorize the 1\Iercbants' National Bank of Little 

Rock, Ark. , tochangeitsnametotheFirstNationalBankofLittleRock. 

It appears onlooking at the bill after its passage that in the printwbe1·e 

the word " months" should be printed it is printed "month." 

Provided, That such a.cceptancc be made within six month after the passage 

of this act. . 

The Chair will ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of 

the bill that may be ma<le to read ''months'' instead of '' month '' to 

make sense of it. The Chair hears no objection. 

THE STEA:\IER .ALERT. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. I am instructed by the Committee on Foreign Relations to report an original joint resolution to n.utborize the 

return to the Government of Gr-eat Britain of the Arctic relief steamer 

Alert. As it is necess;ary that this measure should go to the other 

House as soon as possible, I ask for its present consideration. · 

The joint resolution (S. R. 121) to authorize the retum to the Government of Great Britnin of the Arctic relief steamer Alert was read 

twice by its title. · Mr. CONGER. Let it be read for information. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be read at 

length for information. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: . Be i t resolvc<l, <!:c., That the President be, an d he is herebyr authorized tore- turn to the Government of Great Britain the A-r:ctio relief steamer Alert, pre- sen~d by that government to form a part ~f the United States relief expedition which on the 22c.l of June, 188-J, rescued L1eut~ A. W. Greely and the survivors of~ party at Cape Sabine ; an~ the Pl·esi(Jent is also hereby requested in re- turnmg the Alert to eJo."}Jress smtable acknowledgments for the action of said 

government in so promptly placing the vessel at the service of the United States. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the presentconsideration of the joint resolution? The Chair hears none aild it is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. ' 

- The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, 

ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and 

passed. 

THOMAS 0. OSBOR~. 

. Mr. MILLER, o.f California, from th_e Committee on Foreign ;Relations, reported a bill (S. 2635) to permit Thomas 0. Osborn ministerresi~ent and con:sui-~eneral of the Uni~ States ~ Bueno~ Ayres, to 

receive a symbolic shield from the Argentine Republic; which was read 

twice by its title. 

Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Senator from California. will ask that the 

bill may be p~ed at once so that it may go to the other House. 

1\fr. 1\fiLLER, of California. I will make that request. I ask u~an­ imous consent that the bill be now considered. 

. l\1r. INGALLS. Let the bill be read at length su~ject to objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read for information. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follows: 

Be it enacted~ &c., That Thomas 0. Osborn, minister-resident and consul-gen- eral of. the Umted States at Buenos Ayres, be;anc.l he is hereby authorized to receive an engraved symbolic shield from the .Argentine Republi'c. 

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. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. INGALLS introduced a bill (S. 2636) granting a _pension to Laura ~I. Cheek; which was read twice _by its title, and, with the accompanyrng papers, referred t.o the·ComlDlttee on Pensiona. 

. 1\ir .. VAN WYCK _introdu?ed a-joint r~solution (S. R. 123) probibitrng railroad corpora~10ns selling, mortgagrng, or pledging lands donated 

by Congress or offermg so to do when a bill for forfeiture is under con- sideration in either branch of Congress or patents have not been issued 

fo~ the same; wlticb was read twice by its title, and referred to the Comlnlttee on Public Lands. 

LOAN OF TENTS. 

1\lr. JONAS introduced a joint resolution (S. R.122) authorizing the 

Secretary of War to loan twelve hospital tents and outfits to the Ameri- can Society of the Red Cross for use in New Orleans· which was read 

twice by its titJe. ' 

M_!. JON AS. I request the immediate consideration of the joint res- olution. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have it read for information. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be read for 

information. 

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: 

Be it resolved, dlc., That the Secretaryof,Var is authorized and directed to lonn to the American Association of the Red Cross for use by their branch in New 

Orleans at the World's Exposition grounds twelve hospital tents and outfits: 

Provided, Satisfactory security is given . for the safe-keeping and 1·eturn of the same. 

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

proceeued to consider the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution was Teported to the Senate without amendment, 

ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and 

passeu. · 

MEXD::UE~TS TO APPROPRIATIO~ BILLS. 

1\Ir. SHERUAN. I submit an amendment intended to be proposed 

to the sundry civil appropriation bilL In support of the amendment I 

present certain letters from the Treasury Department containing a rec- ommendation for the proposed appropriation. I move that the amendment, with the accompanying papers, be referred to the Committee on .Appropriations and printed. 

The motion was agreed td'. 

1\lr. LAPHAM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the river and harbo1· appropriation bill; which was referred to 

the Committ ee on Commerce, aml ordered to be p1inted. 

COUNT OF ELECl'ORAL VOTES. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I wish to submit a resolution in regard to a formal matter. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two resolutions went over yesterday 

which it is the duty of the Chair first to lay before the Senate. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Very well. 

The PRESIDENT pro t<>mJJore. "Concurrent or other resolutions" 

being in order, the Cba,ir lays before the Senate the resolution offered 

y~sterday by the Senator from Kansas [¥r. INGALLS]. 

The resolution subrnHted yesterday by 1\Ir. INGALLS was read, as follows: 

Provi~cl, That the Senate. do~s not assent to the concluding declaration of tb~ President of the.Senate m the announcement of the vote for President and 

Vice-President of the United States made in the presence of the two Houses of 

Oongress this day. 

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

l'esolntion. 

1\fr. HOAR. I mo\e that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Electione. I propose to make the same motion 

in regard to the resolution offered by me yesterday. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from 1\Iassachusetts moves that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Privileges 

and Elections . 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT JJro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the resolution offered yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts 

[Mr. HoAR]. It will be read. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of it. 

The Senate heard it yesterday. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the reading of the resolution will be dispensed with. 

1\fr. HOAR. I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

Mr. CO:NGER. Will the resolution be printed in the RECORD the 

Sa.me as if read? 

1\Ir. HOAR. It was printed in yesterday's proceedings when proposed. 

Mr. CO:NGER. It is not printed in to-day's RECORD, I think. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair underst.c'Ulds that it is 

printed in the RECORD. It will not be reprinted in to-day's proceedings ordinarily. The Senator from Massachusetts moves that the res- olution be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. · The·motion was agreed to. 

INAUGURATION OF TilE PRESIDENT-ELECT. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I offer the following resolution, which I believe 

is in accordance with the usual custom of the Senate: 

Resolved, That a committee of three Senators be appointed by the President 

of the Senate to make the necessary arro.ngements for the inauguration of the Prcsiden~lect of the United States on the 4th day of March next. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore subsequently appointed .Mr. SHERMAN, 1\lr. RAWLEY, and l\11-. RANSOM as the committee of an-angements. 

l\IESSAGE FRO:\! THE HOUSE. 

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

Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 8183) tore- move thepoliticaldisabilitiesofW. H. Murdaugh, ofVirginia· in whkh 

it requested the concurrence of the Senate. ' 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. • 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House bad signed 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-·SENATE. 

the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the 

President pro tempore : A bill (S. 235) to provide for the erection of a public buildina in the 

city of Augusta Me. ; ·"' 

A bill (S. 591 ~ for the relief of the estate of Chester Ashley· and 

A bill (H. R. 7131) toauthorizesl}itsfordamages where death results 

from the wrongful act or neglect of any person or corporation in the 

District of Columbia. 

TEXAS PACIFIC RAILROAD LA~DS. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. ?tlr. President, I rise to a J?arliamentary inquiry. 

On the 9th day of December the bill (H. R. 3933)todeclare a. forfeiture 

of lands granted to the Texas Pacific Railroad Company, and for other 

purposes, was ordered to be placed upon the Calendar of Special Orders. 

It. :;emained !-ln thespecial-?rdercalendaruntilwithin a few days, when, ~thout havrng been considered by the Senate, it wa.s displaced from 

1ts order and does not appear upon· the Calendar of Special Orders. I 

ask ~ there has been ~me mistake on the part of the clerks in taking 

the b1ll from the SpeCial-Order Calendar, or whether it has been done 

by a. vote of the Senate? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that there has 

been no mistake ·on the part of the clerks. The· bill was laid beJore th~ Senate as a special order and. considered, in the technical sense of 

bemg ~ntered on the Journal as considered, as a bill before the ~enate 

for acti?n. The Sen~te by a vote refused to consider it, and proceeded ~ ~llSlder another b1ll. . That, under the constant ruling of the preSlding officer, sent the bill back to its place on the General Calendar 

and it ceased to be a special order. ' 

· Mr. VAN WYCK. Then I ask unanimous consent. that the bill be 

restored to ii:B place on the C~lendar. na a special order. I doubt very 

much whether Senators considered, m the hurry of the moment when' 

they resolved to take up for consideration t.he silver bill that they were displacing this bill upon the Calendar. ' 

Air. HOAR. What would be the place of the bill? . Mr. VAN \VYCK: It wo~d be at the head of the Calendar of SpeClal Orders. There IS where It belongs. I ask unaninlous consent that 

the bill be restored, to its place. 

- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state to the Senator, 

fro~ Nebraska and totheSen_at~, ~vhat perhaps~entir~ly~nece~ry, . 

that under the present rules It ISm order for a Senator at any time after 

the mo,rnin~ bnsi?ess is close~ to rise in his place an4 move to proceed 

to the COJ?.SlderntiOD. of any bill on the Calendar which motion :iS to be 

determined at once and without debate. ' 

The Chair will now .. state the request of the Senator from Nebraska. 

The Senat.or from Nebraska asks un.a.nimous'consent that the bill (H. 

R. .3933) to decL.·ue a forfeiture of lands granted to the Texas Pacific_ Railroad Company, and for other purposes, be restored to the place it 

formerly held at the head of the Calendar of Special Orders. Is there ~~oo? . Mr. DOLPH. I inquire if that would affect the unfinished business 

which is the pending order? . _ ' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will not affect the unfinished 

business. 

Mr. INGALLS. I did not understand under what rule the bill 

having been made a special order, was retired to a place on the Cal~ endar of General Orders. It seemed to me at the time the decision was first announced, which I believe was on the morning after another bill 

h~d been taken up, that the Senate ~as not properly advised, or it 

might not have consented to the ruling which wna made. I did not 

understand that any public announcement had been delivered from the 

Chair as to the rule or the interpretation of the rule under which the 

special order was displaced. It occurred to me at the time when I first 

discovered it that it was not in accordance with the spirit of. the rule. ~ have always. understood that when a bill was made a 'special order 

1t would remam such under our rules unless displaced in the manner pointed out by the rules. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The rule, Rule X, in relation to 

special orders, reads in this way: 

1. A?Y subject may, by a. vote of two-thirds of the Senators present be made a. spemal order; and when the time so fixed for its consideration ar~iYes the presiding officer sl_lalllay it before the Senate unless there be unfinished busi- ness of the precedmg dayThis the Chair did, and it was before the Senate for action upon the 

billand if it is not fi~ally disp~sed or on that ~ay, it shall take its place on the Calend!"'r of Spccllll Orders, ~n the order of t1me at which it was made special, unless 1t shall become by o.dJ?Urnment the unfinished business. 2. When two or more speetal orders have been made for the same time they s~ll have pr,ecedence according to the order in which they were ·severally as- signed, nnd th!l-t order shall only be changed by direction of the Senate. And all. motions to chang.e such. order, or to proceed to the consideration of other busmess, shn.ll be decided without debate. 

Pending this bill, which pursuant to the special order of the Senate 

bad been laid before the Senate and was before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole for action, under another rule of the Senate the 

Senator fro?~ V ~ont [Mr. Mo~RILL) moved that the Senate proceed 

to the collSlderation of another bill. The Senate on the yeas and nays 

voted that it would proceed to the consideration of that other bill, and 

t~t in the· understanding of the Chair (he consulted some Senators 

e1ther then or on a iormer occasion) finished that bill as a special or- d.er. To hold otherwise would be to hold that a bill once made a speCial order would thrQugh a whole session retain its place unless it was 

acted upon directly by a. vote rejecting it or passing it. The Chair 

could not put that interpretation on the rule and did not. 

Mr. INGALLS. I do not speak (l9mplainingly of the decision but 

I am very sure that the Senate bas not until this time understood it. 

It -yvas not th~ purpose in .the vote which I gave in any way to displace or mterfere With the spec1al order. But I see that there are still on 

the C~lendar ofSJ?ecial Orders, the time for which has long since passed, 

that IS, the particular day bas long since passed, three bills or joint 

resolutions yet remaininga...~igued as special orders; and I can not un- derstand why, if one special order was displaood by a yea-and·nay vote 

upo~ ~he question to take up another bill, all of those, which had beeh 

:prev1onsly reached in the order of time, at least so far ·as the almanac 

IS concemed, should not have taken the fate of the first upon the list. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. While the order of time had gone 

by, they had no~ been ~eached in the procedure of the Senate, and they ~ad not had therr day ill court, so to speak, as special orders not havrng been reached before, the Senate always having had before itunfin..! 

ished business. The Chair may add to the Senator from Kansaa that 

the present occupant of the chair voted against the motion of his col.! 

league, because the Chair tmderstood what his own interpretation of 

the rule was, and be did not wish to displace the Texas Pacific bill. 

Mr. INGALLS. Does the Chair then understand that if the Senate 

should vote to-day to take up another bill, the first special order upon 

the assignment would be displaced and go back to the Calendar of General Orders? 

T?e PRES~ENT pr.o tempore. The Chair does not so understand, it 

until thatspec1al order IS placed before the Senate and is before the Sen- a~ as a bill to be acted on . . Mr .. HOAR. ·wm the Chair be kind enough to state under what rule. 

a mot10n to proceed to take up another subject is in order when a special 

order is pending, that special order having been made so by a two-thirds 

vote? 

- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that when a 

bill is made a speci~l order and is laid befor~ the Senate, that special 

order of the Senate has been executed. It has been placed before the 

Senate for corisideration at that time. That being done, the Chair UJi.: 

derstands the provisions of Rule IX, as well as the provisions of the rule 

relating to ~pecial orders which expressly recognize a motion to proceed 

to other busmess, entitle any Senator, the special order having been laid 

before the Senate and the bill being under consideration to move to 

displace that, as he might any other bill. ' 

Mr. HOA.R. Rule IX and Rule X both seem in·theirletter as also 

~be general rule about mo.tions, to exclude the right to put that question ill that forn1 when a. spectal order is before the Senate. Rule IX says: 

If there shall be no special orders for that time, the Calendar 'or General Orders shall be taken up and proceeded with in its order * * • and in such case the following motions shall be in order. 

Then the other rule says what motions shall be in order-to amend 

to adjourn, and so-on; and Rule XXII says on page 13: ' 

When. a question is pending no motion shall be received but- To adjourn, . To-adjo.urn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall be to a daycertam, 

To take a recesl'!, &c. · 

~either of these ~les a4mi.ts a moti~n to proceed to take up another 

subJect whe~ a spec1al order IS before the Senate. ; 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The rule as to special orders-the ·Chair will call the attention of the Senator from Massachusetts to it- ~tood _before its last. amendment at the last session differently from what 

It does now; but Rule IX stood very much, if not entirely the same; 

Under the rules as they then stood the Chair announced his Aecision on some question that was presented, that it would be in order to move to 

proceed directly to the consideration of any other bill on the Calendar _under the second clause of the enumerated motions under Rule IX. 

TJ:lat'Was doubted upon the suggested ground that special-orders once lmd before the Senate did not fall within the scope of the ninth tule. 

The Chair thought that they did; but that being doubted the matter was referred to the Committee on Rules, and they reported two amendments, among which the Chair thinks be remembers wa.S this one at 

the end .of Rule X: 

And all motions to change such order, or to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate. 1 

The Chair thinks, if he understood the Committee on Rules the 

purpose of ·that wa8 to put a special order once laid before the S~ within the same category of the power of the Senate upon motion to• 

proceed to other business if it chose to do so. ' 

Mr. HOAR. Then the :first clause of the tenth rule would seem tO 

be nugatory; -that is, that if ·the. special order be not :finally disposed o.f 

O?.that <)ay it shall re~ ita place. Certainly it is nota :final dispoj 

SitiOn of that order to lay 1t before the Senate. It is not a final ~ 

position of it to substitute some other business for that day. If it ~ not finally disposed of on that day it shall take ita place on the Calen.~ 

dar of Special Orders in the order of time in which it was- made ~ 
]550 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

special order unl~ it shall become by an adjournment unfinished 

!business. That is the provision. It seems to me that would require, 

!if the special order were displaced by something else, that it should 

take its old place on the Cale~dar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair sees the force of the suggestion of the Senator from Massachusetts and saw it when the mat- 'ter was under consideration on a former occasion, but taking the whole 

rules together, the Chair thought and still thinks, with great r~pect, 

that a special order is finally disposed of as a special order when it has 

been regularly laid before the Senate and is up for conSideration and 

by a vote of the Senate it is declared that it will not consider it and 

will consider something else. 

Mr. HOAR. The rule contemplates that if it continues during the 

day and is the unfinished business by adjournment it is not firially 

di<;posed of. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It finally disposes of it as a special 

order, and it becomes unfinished business by the very language of the 

rule, as the Chair thinks. 

Mr. HOAR. If it be not finally disposed of, it shall be so and so, 

unless it becomes by adjournment unfinished business, implying that 

it is not finally disposed of in that case. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair puts exactly the opposite 

interpretation on those words, that when it becomes •the unfinished 

1business it ceases to be a special order and has been disposed of as that, 

but stands at the very top of the whole Calendar as unfinished business, having therefore a preference ove:J;" all special orders. 

1\Ir. S~LL. Does not the third section of Rule IX apply to the case in point? It reads thus~ 

t Third. A motion to pass over the pending subject, which, if carried, shall 

have the effect to leave such subject without prejudice in its place on the Calendar. 

That is as I understand the case. ' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That was not·the case. A motion 

to pass over is different from a motion to supersede a bill and proceed 

to another bill. Passing over is quite a different thing from displacement on motion. . Mr. SEWELL. I understood this bill was set aside temporarily or otherwise passed over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That was not the motion. The mo- tion was a direct one under another clause of the rule to proceed to the 

consideration of the trade-dollar bill, and on the Chair's understanding 

of the rule he voted against the motion of his colleague although he 

:Wished to have the trade-dollar bill considered, voted .on the yeas and 

nays to keep the special ·order where it stood for action. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I asked unanimous ·consent that the bill be re- stored to its place on the Calendar of Special Orders. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. Is there objection to the requ.est of 

the Senator from Nebraska that the TexasPaeific land-grant forfeiture 

bill be restored to its old place at the head of the Calendar of Special 

Orders? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. 

ORDER OF BUSTh"'"ESS. 

Mr. SHERMAN. In order to prevent any struggle, for we have come to that period of the session when it is likely to come, I suggest, 

without knowing the bills on the Calendar, that by unanim<>us consent 

the House bills now on the Calendar may be taken up under the eighth 

rule, subject to objection and alf?O subject to the five-mi,nute limitation 

'Of deb;lte. In that way we may dispatch a number of bills that will 

excite but little opposition, or if there is any objection after that they 

go over and take their chances with other bills. I make that suggestion. 

' M.r. WILSON. Does that displace the pending bill reached in the 

call of the Calendar? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No; it brings them under the eighth rule. I move to take up House bills. 

Mr. SEWELL. Suppose you take up a House bill and I object to it? 

Mr. SHERU.AN. Then it goes over. It is subject to the eighth 

rule. I propose to take up House bills under the provisions of the 

eighth rule. 

Mr. WILSON. If that interferes with the present position of the 

bill for the relief of settlers on the Des Moines River lands, I object to it. · l'tir. SHERMAN. It does not interf~e with that. We dispose of 

this order first, and leave that still standing. . Mr. WILSON. Then I object. That bill, as I have stated l>efore, was reported nearly a year ago and it has got by repeated displa~ements until now it is at the head of the Calendar, and I desire it to be 

continued. 

l'tir. SHERMAN. I want to vote for that bill, but it c:m come up 

again as soon as this order is dispOsed of. 

Mr. WILSON. It was reported last l'tlarch. It will require the ac- tion of the House of Representatives if it passes the Senate, and I can not consent to its displacement now. Mr. SHERMAN. Are we to stop until the State of Iowa does justice to its citizens? For the State of Iowa ought to pay every dollar 

of this money. I do not want to go· into that discussion; but I think 

it is wrong to keep that bill in the way of all others. 

Mr. WILSON. Then I say the Senator ought not to start that discussion. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I do not think it is exactly right to let that bill 

stand in the yray of all legislation. I do not know what the bills from 

the House are, but I know that there are several important bills that 

the Senate is very much in favor of. We can probablyin a short time 

dispo e of all those to which there is no objection, and thus get rid of 

and enroll those bills in time tobaveitdone methodically and without 

misl;ake. I have always proposed and expect to >ote for the bill of the 

Senator from Iowa, but I do not think it ought to stand in the way of 

the general legislation of Congress. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio asks unani- mous consent that the House bills on the Calendar of the Senate be 

taken up in their order as under Rule Vill, subject to objection and 

to five minutes' debate? Does the Senator from Ohio ask that Rqle 

VIII shall also operate in regard to a vote of the Senate to consider a -bill notwithstanding an objection? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes; let the order be under the operation of the · eighth rule entirely. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore . . The Chair only wanted to understand it. The Chair will therefore state the request again. The Senator from Ohio askS unanimous consent that the House bills on the 

Calendar be taken up in their order as under the whole operation ot 

Rule VIll. Is there objection ? 

1\fr. INGALLS. I object. 

The PRESIDEl\TT pro tempore. Objection is made. 

DES 1\IOINES RIVER LANDS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further "concurrent or other resolutions," that order of business -is closed and the Chair 

lays before the Senate the Calendar under Rule VIII. The first bill 

in order on the Calendar is Senate bill No. 1886. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration 

of the bill (S. 1886) to quiet title of settlers on the Des Moines River 

lands in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading of the report will pro· 

ceed. 

The Chief Clerk resumed at page 26 the reading of the report submitted by Mr. PLmm from the Committee on Public Lands April 8, 1884. 

:i'Jfr. MORGAN. I hopethattheSenatorfromNewYorkwillconsent 

that the further reading of this report may be dispensed with. It does 

not go into the RECORD, the reading of it does not inform the Senate 

about anything; it is mer.elyin the way of the progress of the bill; and 

unless the Senator desires to hear it read himself! hope he will consent 

that the further readingmay be dispensed with. We can refer to such 

parts of the report as we desire in our remarks, and tho e parts will 

then go into the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRISON . in the chair). The 

Senator from Alabama asks unanimous corusent that the further reading 

of the report be dispensed with. Is there objection? 

l'tir. LAPHAM. Since the statement was made yesterday that no part of this report can go into the RECORD I am inclined to yield the 

demand that it shall be read; but I supposed that the report being read 

it would be placed in the RECORD, where it could be seen. Under the 

ruling ofthe Chair it appears it will not go into the RECORD. I want 

in some way that the views of the minority, which are addressed directly to the consideration of the question before the Senate, shall be 

either printed in the. RECORD or read to the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the.Senator from NewYorkobject to the suggestion of tpe Senator· from Alabama? 

l'tfr. MORGAN. I suggest to the Senator that he can put any part 

of the report he chooses in his own remarks so as to bring out anything 

that be desires to inform the Senate of. That will answer every purpose. 

Mr. LAPHAM. Although I was charged yesterday with being an obstructionist because I insisted upon the reading of the report of the 

committee in support of the bill, I have no desire to detain the Senate 

with the reading of the residue of this report; none whatever. 

The PRESIDING .OFFICER. The .Chair hears no objection to diSpensing with the further reading of the report. The further reading 

is dispensed with by unanimous consent. 

l'tfr. MORGAN. 1\Ir. President, I move the indefinite po tponement 

of this bill; and my purpose in doing so is to get the question at issue 

before the Senate directly as to whether we ought to considerit orn9t. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama moves that the bill be indefinitely postponed. · :I'Jir. l'tiORGAN. The subject has been before the Senate very frequently. I suppose it has received as mnch examillation as almost any 

other question of a like character at least that has ever been here. It 

has been before the Committee on the Judiciary and received a most 

thorough examination from that committee, :md they made a unani- mous report. I think it was unanimous. The report to which I refer was presented by the Senator from Arkansas [M:r. GARLAND], declaring that there was nothing in this case of which Congress had any 

jurisdiction. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 155] 

The history of the case is a very prolonged struggle between the State 

of Iowa and ita own citizens, between the State of Iowa and the United 

States Government, and between the citizens of Iowa and the United 

States Government. It originated, as the Senate knows, in a grant of_ 

land made to the State of Iowa for the purpose of• improving the Des 

Moines River. The first question that arose in it was whether the land 

thus set apart for this public work was granted above the Raccoon Fork 

of that river. While this controversy was; pending here a number of 

citizens, attracted doubtless by the excellent quality of the land and 

the beauty of the country, moved ·in there and commenced their settlements. They were originally squatters, as they are termed, and I 

believe they still honor the name by having located under that title in 

the State of Iowa, a large number of them doubtless most excellent 

people, perhaps as good a community as there is in that State. 

They commenced to set up their titles to this tract of land; t)ley pr~ their claims upon the local land offices and afterward upon the 

Department of the Interior, and many of them obtained certificates of 

entry, -and some of them obtained patents. 

Congress sought to relieve the difficulty by passing a joint resolution 

explanatory of former legislation. The effort of Congress was evidently 

only to quiet the title, to give to the State of Iowa. the grant of lands 

that was embraced in the original act, not the later interpretation, but 

to confirm as far as they could confirm the titles that had been made 

under the sanction of the laws of the State of Iowa. 

Out of this imbroglio ar-ose a number of lawsuits between quite a number of differ_ent parties. These lawsuits originated, all of them, I 

believe, in the State of Iowa and in the State courts of Iowa; at all 

events the State courts of Iowa were appealed to from the local land 

courts up to the supreme court, and from thence appeals were taken to 

the Supreme Court of the United States, and a variety ·Of cases that it 

is not necessary now to enumerate have been decided by the Supreme 

Court of the United States. 

Now this bill provides for a new lawsuit; and that is all that it does 

provide for-a lawsuit in which the Go>ernment of the United States 

shall be one of the plaintiffs, and a certain class of persons interested 

in these lands shall join with the Government in the action, the object 

of it being as declared to settle all questions of controversy in respect 

to the ownership of these lands. 

When this·case was before the committee we went over the subject 

and investigated it as thoroughly as we could, having also the advantage of the report made by the Committee on the Judiciary, which was an exhaustive report. A minority of the Committee on Public Lands 

agreed with the Committee on the Judiciary that we could find no ground of jurisdiction for legislative purposes remaining in Congress; ,that this whole matter had been decided by the courts of the country, 

and that there was really no question left open that we would discover 

that. the courts had not practically adjudicated touching the .title to 

these lands. · · · 

Mr. President, a very fair way to try this matter would be this: it 

would be for some of the Senators who insist upon the passage of this 

bill and the renewal of this litigation to state a case bhat actually ex- ists that is not coYered by some decision made by the supreme court of 

Iowa or by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

I do not refer now to a case that we can make.by legislation; I do not 

refer to a case that may spring up after we have legislated to change titles 

here; but upon the existing state of fa.cts, under the existing laws of 

the United States, let some Senator now state a case as one actually ex- isting, nob hypothetical, but one actually existing, which is not cov- ered by some de~ision that has been made by the supreme court of 

Iowa or by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Then when we get that case stated, we can understand, I think, how 

far we can go in legislating to give a, remedy in that particular case. But this matter has been embarrassed by an almostuniversal complaint ~mong a certain setof claimantsthattheirrightshadnotbeenfairlyconsidered, that they had not had a full and fair opportunity to have them 

adjudicated, that the Government of the United States has not taken 

those steps which are necessary to declare the rights of persons who 

claim under it; that therefore it is necessary to have some Congr8!3-

sional declaration, and following that Congressional declaration to have 

a new lawsuit to determine how far Congress can affect titles that already exist. In my judgment the bill, while well intended, while intended to give repose to agreatcommunityand toquietdownquestions 

:which ought never to have existed, instead of quieting down those questions and settling those disputes only sows another harvest of litigation, and it will be years perhaps before that can be terminated. 

The Committee on Public Lands were not only embarrassed by the manner in which this claim was presented, but their sympathies have 

been greatly worked upon; mine have been. I confess that I have a great desire to compensate those people, who have been misled in the 

investment of their money both in the purchase of these lands and in 

the improvements put upon them in some way or other. I feel that 

the Government of the United States has been derelict about this mat~ 

ter. Congress itself is not without blame in respect of it; but the offi- cers of the Government of the United States having charge of the public 

lands have made a contrariety of decisions, they have made contradictory decisions, repugnant decisions in regard to these titles, and they 

have left the people of Iowa in a condition where some of the officent 

would indnce them to. go on and 'ID.ake' expenditures of money and of 

labor in the··improvement of their farms, while other officers would come on succeeding them and overturn their titles entirely. Then 

they would rush into the courts, and they were not satisfied of course with the decisions of the courts of the ·State of Iowa; .and then Congress was appealed to to come in and indemnify the State of Iowa, to 

grant lands in excess oftheoriginalgrant, which was done; so that the 

State of Iowa out of the lands granted, I suppose, might have made com- pensation to her citizens. It is insisted on one side that Iowa having re- ceived this indemnification at the hands of· Congress, it is her duty to 

indemnify her people. I ha-ve not adopted that view of the case, because I have. never begrudged to any of the new States the lands v.-ithin 

their borders.- ! have always felt that there was a certain degree of inequality between the new and the old States in respect of the domain within their 

borders. The old thirteen States. and several others that were carved 

out of them by the assent of Congress received not from the Government of the United States, it is true, but they received in the partition ~f territory which they acquired in our revolutionary struggle the absolute title to all the lands within their borders, subject to certain con- tributions that they had ·to make to pay some of the expenses of the 

Revolutionary war, and also to pay bounties to some of the soldiery of 

that war; but practically the old States·got all the land within their 

borders, while the new States got no part o~ the land within their borders except certain reservations which they made for school purposes 

aud purposes of locating and building State-h~u.ses and the like-very 

small parcels of land compared with the vast domain that they surren- dered by their acts of cession to the Government of the United States. 

So I have never been at all disposed to be strict in giving to the new States the lands within their own borders. ·for any public purpose that 

might be useful to the people; and so I have not adopted the new which some Senators have taken in committee and elsewhere, that because the 

State of Iowa received certain lands iu the nature of an indemnity, she 

should have furnished them to her people to compensate them, for the 

losses which they had sustained because of our loose legislation, and 

because of the contradictory decisions made in the Land Office. I have never believed that that relieved the Government of the United States 

from its own obligation morally and equitably to compensate those 

people for the difficulties and traps_ into which they had been led by our legislation and by our system of decisions in the Land Office. 

Now, sir, I announce my willingness on this floor to-day to have an account taken between every settler in Iowa who bas been misled by 

the action of the officers of the Government of the United States and 

the United Sta~ Government, have the balance struck, and pay it in 

money, so that no citizen of that State shall have the right to complain 

of the Government ofthe United States that he has been misled by its 

action into making iruprovementa upon lands that he purchased and 

paid for to the Government under the decisions of the General Land 

Office; but I want this matter out of the way, so that we can proceed 

to make that compensation in order that the Government of the United 

States ~ discharge itself of this debt, as it must of every honorable 

obligation resting upon it, it makes no difference whence derived. I can conceive of no obligation of greater weight in the scale of honor than 

that which arises in favor of a citizen of the United .states who has 

been misled by the judgment or action of the Government officers in 

placing his home upon a piece of public land and making improvements 

thereupon of which he is deprived afterward in consequence of the fact 

that those officers had no right to authorize the settlement. 

Here are other persons who are interested in these lands. Laws were passed and decisions made by courts of the highest appellate authority. 

These laws settled the rights of men to go to Iowa and buy these lands. 

People living in distant States went there and invested their money. 

They are innocent purchasers in every sense of the word. They bought 

not onlyin innocence of any defect in the title, but they bought actually 

under the invitation of the Government of the United States and also of 

the State of Iowa. We can not regard these men as being intruders into 

the State of Iowa, it makes no difference if some of them have got more than one hundred and sixty acre$ of land in a body. 

At the time these laws were em.cted the State of Iowa was an unsettled country to a large extent; it was verjr new; it needed population 

and it invited population, and Congress seconded the invitation, to get 

not population only but capital into that country. And mark how she 

has prospered. What State of all the number of the yonnger sisters in 

this great Confederacy has had greater prosperity than Iowa? But she 

has been dependent for it very largely upon the public-land grants that 

have been made to her so liberally by Congress. It was right to make 

them. She has enjoyed the benefit of them; she has got population; 

she has become wealthy. Now it is not right that we should turn 

back and say to the men who took their money in there and invested 

it in Iowa lands, "You shall have no title," or that, "Yon shall have 

eternal litigation before till$ matter is ended.'' 

I might remark, I think with great justice also, that the laws and decisions of the United States are not fully respected in Tegard !(}these 

lands in Iowa. There is a disposition there. to resist the laws, n. disposi-. tion not to allow them to have their full effect, a disposition to contr.\-
1552 CONGRESSIONAL RECOltD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

vene the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. There are organizations there having ostensibly for their purpose, if not resistance to the decisions, at least the protracting of the litigation over these 

lands. That is a bad state of affairs, and I should like to remedy it. 

We can not get rid of that feeling by holding out a vain hope to theSe 

people that they can possibly overturn the decisions of the.Supreme 

Court of the United States in some further litigation. We had better 

express a decisive judgment, as was done bytheCommittee on theJu-

' diciary, and say that Congress has no longer any power over this ~uestion, for that is the fact. 

If Congress has not pa...c;sed the title to these lands, then there is no use of passing laws, making decisions, and issuing patents; and I believe, so far as I have been able to understand the facts in this case, 

Congress has just as much right by an act to take the title of a tract of 

land that I may hold under a patent that is thirty o::r forty years old 

out of my hands and give it to any otherSena.tor on this floor as it has 

to go back and rip up these ·decisions by enacting a. new law, create a new litigation, and enable a court to make a d~cision ·contrary to the 

decisions that have already been made. There must be a time when 

the Government of the United States can rid itself of its title; and 

whenever that Government has issued a patent that is not fraudulent ·on its face-by which we mean a patent thatisnot affected with fraud 

in the fact of its issue-Congress can not recall that patent and undo 

it by a legislative act. It is a conveyance made by theCongressofthe 

United States, having· power to make it, hav:illg an understanding of, the facts, certainly not subject to duress; and when the conveyance is 

not affected by a fraud that inheres in the patent itself and makes it 

void as a 'muniment of titl~, that patent conveys that land,' and after we have gotten- rid of it in that aspect, whatever question arises in re- spect of the title to that land afterward becomes a judicial ai:ul not a · legislative question. 

So I think that every question in this case, as far as I have .been able 

to see, indeed I am sure that every question in this case tha-t· is now sought to: be raised by this bill and to be brought back again before the ~urts for adjudication, is a judicial question merely, and not a legislative question. The whole subject of the title to these lands has passed 

beyond the domain of Congressional legislation. What we have done 

is a finality, so far as the Government is concerned, and if we have done 

wrong; nothing remains for us to do but to pay the damages to the· people that we have injured by onr contradictory and inconsistent course of legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the mqtion of the 

Senator from Alabama, that this bill be indefinitely postponed. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, it is not my purpose to- detain the 

Senate long in submitting the remarks upon this motion which it is 

my desire now to do, but if Senators will give me their attention for a 

few minutes I think I can present this case in a manner that will give 

it clear understanding to the mind of every Senator. 

In the very heart of the State of Iowa there are living to-day more than one thousand families to whom the passage of this bill means more than I can tell or we can realize. These famili~ include many persons now in the winter of life. Years of adventure, hardship, and toil are 

behind them, all of whj.ch were expended in hopeful endeavors to se- cure and improve homes for themselves and their families on the lands 

to which this bill relates and which they now believe of right belong 

to them. For more than a quarter of a century have many of them 

lived where they now live, h..·wing commenced their terms of occupancy 

in fnll belief that the end would be perfect titles to peaceful homes. 

Relying on the good faith of the Government and depending on the as- surance of written public la.w, they entered upon the struggle through 

which homes in theW est were then secured. As they pursued the even tenor of their ways the wilderness was subdued, waste places were re- claimed, civilization advanced, homes were established, farms unfolded 

their beauties, families multiplied, and happy communities evolved the 

elements of thrift and prosperity. They had no suspicion of danger to 

the titles to which they looked for an assurance to them of the results 

of their willing sacrifices and sturdy endeavors. It was no fault of 

theirs that governmental action and inaction induced the presence of 

conflicting claims and controverted rights. 

Twenty-five years ago the· section in which these lands a-nd homes are situate was the frontier of Iowa settlements. No: one then had 

reason to believe that the conditions which now exist relative to the 

titles to the lands there situate would ever transpire, and these settlers 

began their work in that new ref,rion in full belief that under and in 

pursuance of the land laws of the United States perfect titles would 

eventually come to them from the Government. They did know what 

Congress, the Secretary of the Interior,. the Commissioner-of the General Land Office, and the State of Iowa had done. This they were 

bound to know. But they did not and could not know what these 

powers and officers might do or attempt to do in the future. Nor did 

either prudence, duty, or the law require them to enter upon inquiries 

relative to the possibilities which might appear in that uncertain :field 

of action, and they now believe-that whatever was subsequently done 

could not lawfully affect their rights. 

It is not necessary for me here to affirm that vested rights can not be 

divested by an act of Congress or by the mistake or unlawful act or decision of an executive officerofthe Government. We all know that it can not be done. Whateve-r rights these settlers had they, in contemplation of the law, now have, in spite oflegislative or executive action, 

whether it be that of the United States or of the State of Iowa. And 

this doctrine ~ apply with as effective force to the bill which we are now considering in the event of its enactment by Congress as it does to 

the acts which have cast a cloud upon the titles to the lands which con- stitute one of the most beautiful sections of the State of Iowa. Hence no one can be harmed by the passage of this bill. Even the temporary 

disturbance which may be occasioned by the commencement and prog- ress of the a-ction which it directs shall be instituted on behalf of the 

United States by the Attorney-General will be more than compensated 

by the perfect title to be assured by the judicial determination of the con- troversy. And this-view of the case leads me to remark that the contention which it is the office of this bill to terminate is not wholly measured 

by the private rights involved in it. It is one of those disturbances 

which rufect a conside1·able region of country in all of the relations which 

influence values, contentment, prosperity, a right progress. From this 

aspect of the case a public question results. This broadens a~d intensifies the character of tlie bill. Its object embraces the interests of all 

of the people of the· region immediately affected; indeed of the entire 

State of Iowa, and Of the individuals, r~dents of other States, who: 

Claim title to any part of the lands involved adve~e to the settlers. 

Each and all of these are definitely interested in obtaining, at the earliest practicable day, a fin~l judicial determination of the controversy 

which rests like a blight upon the titles of all. 

I do not state the case too strongly when I say that the conti:Qversy 

which it is believed the methods provided by this bill will settle res~ 

like a blight on all of the titles to the lands affected. No one who bas 

not come personally into contact with the facts and effects of this case .can fully realize or perfectly appreciate how absolutely this blight has 

settled upon its every feature. But every person in interest knows full 

well how malign its inOuence has been and still is, and it will get no better but rather grow worse until in some such way as is now proposed a definite judicial remedy Shall have been applied; and I am sur- prised that the De8 .Uoines Navigation and Railroad Company and all 

of its assigns and grantees do not join in asking for the passage of this 

bill; for the title of that company and of its jlSS:igns and grantees will 

remain in doubt, challenged and uncertain, until some such remedy 

shall have been provided and applied. 

Many of the settlers who are urging the passage of this bill, I am infoTmed, are grantees ofthe said company, having endeavored t.operfect 

their titles by purchasing that claimed by the corporation also. Still 

others, who have no title but such as they have derived from the com-: pany by: purchase, approve this measure and ask that it be enacted into: a law. 1\Iy information is t.o the effect that these ·several cla.'3Ses of 

claimants ancl grantees _can noither sell their lands nor raise ·money on them by incumbrance. Every phase of the title is regarded n.s in some way imperfect, and is the subject of suspicion. Nor will this condition 

be remedied by any worrying-out process on behalf of the r~ting c~;>rporation. A thonsand families, some of whom have been occupying these landsashomesfora~hirdofacentury,andmanyofthem,asihavealready 

stated, for more than a quarter of a century, will not give up the contest even though this bill should fail of passage. They are not ask:ii:lg that 

the rights of others be interfered with, but simply that their own shall 

be protected. They claim that in fact and in law the legal title to all 

of the lands covered by this bill is in the United States; that having 

complied with the laws relative to pre-emption and homestead entries 

they are entitled to patents for the lands on which they have settled 

and mane their homes; that as to the remaining, concerning which no adverse claims exist, they are content to haYe them confirmed to the 

said company or to its gran ices as this bill provides. That is the whole case as these settlers present it. They simply ask that all of the ques~ 

tions involved in the conflicting claims to these lands shall be judici! 

ally determined, alleging that in none of the cases cited against theni 

has this been done. 

In this latter allegation they do not stand alone, as is abl,llldantly evidenced by the fact of the universal suspicion which rests upon the titles 

involved. The cases cited are not free from the taint of alleged conn.: sion. I make no charge in this regard, nor shall I enter upon an exam.! 

illation of the said cases. It is sufficient for my purpose and in justi; 

ncation of this bill to say that in none of the. said cases has the United 

States asserted its title, and the settlers who ask fo:r the passage of this 

bill have had no opportunity which woul'd allow them to do so. The representatives of those settlers tellme that they and all of their 

MSociates will promptly and pea-cefully yield to the· result of the judi.:. 

cial proceeding which this bill proposes to institute should it prove tO 

be adverse to -them. It may be responded ro thisthatin so doingthe;Y. 

would but be obeying the law and performing a duty incumbent on 

every good citizen. This is true; but it is also true that it involves the 

surrender of the results of the labors of their lives, the loss of homeS 

which have sheltered them, and in which their families have been reared~ 

and another start in the struggle of life with too many of their years 

gone for those yet remaining to move upon them freighted with hope 

and goodly promise of success and fortune. 

Mr. President, the citizens who ask for the passage of this bill have 
: 1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-~EN.A.TE. 1553 

long importuned Congress for relief. They have been patient and re- spectful. It does not seem just to deny their prayer. They can not 

put their case in the courts. But the Government can go there nnder 

the provisions of this bill. These citizens are humble; but their rights, 

though they may embrace merely claims to titles to small holdings of 

lands O!! which they have spent the best years of their lives in hardy 

endeavors to found and possess homes, should. be as sacred in the con- t-emplation of the Government as though they were the owners ofprincipalities of lands and millions of invested capital. A government can be as truly great in guarding· the comparatively insignificant rights of 

its humblest citizens as in contests for empire. We can give the protection prayed for in this case not only without injustice to other citizens, but in a manner which, while it protects private rights, will also 

promote the public welfare. For it must be seen by all 'that even though the 1·emedy proposed shall fail of that full measure of good re- sult which would secure to these patient settlerS their homes, it cer- tainly will quiet the titJes to all of the lands whose conditions are disturbed and values unsettled by this long existing controversy. Hence, 

whatever the final issue may be, a good result will have been reached. 

A conflict of many unpleasant features will come to an end. I can but 

hope that the end will assure to these · patient people their homes. 

But should it fail of this, it will give rest and perfect title to one of 

the most beautiful and fruitul sections of the State of Iowa. The 

Government will have done its full duty, and the citizen will feel that 

it is not unmindful of him, though he may be poor and his home humble. This will tend to remove unrest and establish contentment; and 

noresul ts of government are more to be desired than these. 

With this description of the case I am willing to submit it, so far as I am concerned, to a test of the motion made by the Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. GARLAND. :Mr. President, some four yeal"$ ago almost exactly 

I had occasion at the i.I).stance of the Judiciary Committee to examine 

this matter very thoroughly, and I made a very careful and elaborate 

examination of it so far as I was concerned; and as a result I was directed to submit as the unanimous voice of that committee a report in 

accordance with the views expressed by the Senator from Alabama 

[Mr. MORGAN] a few moments ago. 

In making that examination I had every syropathy with what are ca.lled the settlers there, and I used the few faculties I had to the best 

of my ability to find out some way to give them a remedy o:r to give 

them relief; but I was forced to the conclusion, as was the committee 

unanimously, that there was no relief that Congress could give, that 

the matter had long since passed out of the legislative jurisdiction of 

Congress. 

One of your predecessors, sir [Ur. HARRISON in the chair], Mr. Pratt, 

years before I came into the Senate, and ·years before I ever had any 

idea that I should be able to get to the Senate, made a report from the 

Judiciary Committee, which was unanimously indorsed, to the same effect as the report I made and as the minority report made now by the 

Senator from Alabama. The Senator from .Alabama has expressed my 

views so thoroughly and so completely that I shall not detain the Senate 

many minutes. I will simply attempt to re-enforce, with some additional light on the question in more recent years, what the Senator from 

Alabama has said. Coming down to the pure stubborn question of fact 

and law, the settlers do not stand in relation to this property as innocent 

purchasers. It can not be ~lain1ed. But while that is true, as was so well stated ~y the Senator from AlabaiD.a, I have some,. sympathy with 

them, and believe that possibly Congress in dealing with them ought 

not to hold them to thestrictletterofthelaw, butmightopen its sympathy and give them some relief, possibly in the way suggested by the 

Senator from Alabama, but certainly not in the way the bill proposes. • Now I wish to call the attention of the Senate for a few minutes to 

the closing part of the report which I made four years ago from the 

Judiciary Committee on this subject: .• · 

Notwithstanding the opening of the land office.'! in 1868, by the direction of 

the Secretary, to the entry of these lands as Government lands it seems t.o the 

committee that the settlers were put upon their guard ,not only by the decision 

in the Wolc?tt case, but .th~ injunctions granted by the circuit court, that there was a. ques~on as to ~h~rrrtght to enter the 1!1-nds. T_hey chose to take the risk, 

and the ultunate deciSIOn proves they acqmred.no title. From the very start ~here was a cloud of doubt.. T~ey.can not, in faceofthese facts, be regarded as mnocent purchasers. The mtrms1c va.lue of the lands at the time when they made their filings and entries was probably nearly as great as now aside from 

the improvements. But the committee understand the fact to be th~t the lands 

in controversy were all settled upon while the order was inforce-withdrawing them from sale, although many applications for entering at the land -bffice appear to have been made since. 

So that acoord.ing to the law of the case from the foundation of the 

Government to the present day the Government is never understood 

to warrant and covenant in regard to the grants it makes. · The parties in all cases take them subject to their own risks and 

here, according to the report, there was sufficient to put these settlers on their guard, and in law the opportunity of knowing is knowledge. 

But, as stated by the Senator from Alabama, if you could compl!te this 

in money and give it to them in meritorious cases I should have no objection. The closing paragraph oftbe report is: 

The more recent dec~ions (Wolsey vs. Chapman, 101 U.S. R., 755, and Litchfield ~·County ofWeber, lbid:, ~73) approve the earlier cases on this subject already ciietl, and from them all1t 1s clearly to be gathered that this matter bas passed 

XVI--98 

beyond the reach of Congress, and whatever rights the settlers seek to show or may ~h to establish, they are not within any remedial legislation of Congress· 

they cannot be a~"e<:te~ b.Y any actofCongre~s; in fact, it iss subjecto\·erwhich Congress has no JuriSdJCtlOn ; and the committee ask to be discharged from the 

further consideration of the bill, and recomm{\D.d it be indefinitely postponed. 

In that report, and in the report of Mr. Pratt which preceded it some ye~s, the litigation on this subject 'Yas analyzed from the casein twentythll"d Howard ~bout twenty-fiv.e years ago, and they·run in one current 

from that down to one hundred and ninth United States Reports which 

I have here, and from which I shall read a short paragraph, the S~preme Court holding without a dissenting voice that Congress had passed this 

property away from the United States. Here I wish to call the attention of the Senators from Iowa to one fact which in this report is not 

stated, but I will now undertake to state it. Sharing with them in the 

fullness of their sympathies and their desire to aid these settlers, I yet 

say that the State of Iowa should do this. She was the recipient of all 

these lands and of this grant; and if she has come in between the 

Greenleaf settlers and the United States, she should take the onus of 

protecting the parties, and it should not be thrown on the United States. 

She parted with the property over twenty years ago. In the report the cases are all referred. to; b~t sinct; then, a year or more ago, in the case~ of Th~ Dubuque and S10ux C1ty Railroad Company vs. Des Moines Valley 

Railroad Company, the Supreme Court said where this very question came upThat the act of July 12,1862, (c. 162,12 Stat., 543)-

Now nearly twenty-three years agotransferred the title from the United States and vested it in the State of Iowa 

for the use of its grantees under the river grant. · 

And they refer to the Wolcott case and the Litchfield case and the 

Weber case and all the decided cases; and so you see that by an un- broken course of decisions for twenty-five years past this property has 

been detennined to have passed to the State of Iowa-to. have passed 

away froth the United States-with which the United States has now no more to do than it has with my home in Little Rock. There is the 

whole case in a nutshell. 

But the Senator from Iowa who has just taken his seat said these 

parties never had any opportunity to test this question. Let us see. I hold in my hand a .transcript of a case decided by the Supreme 

Court over one month smce, the case of Bicknell vs. Comstock on appeal from the eastern district of New York, where one of these' persons 

had sold his land and made a covenant and warranty of title. The 

vendee caught him in New York and ~ned him there for a breach of 

warranty. The Supreme Court reviewed this whole question a!!'clin 

from the Litchfield case in twenty-third Howard down to the cas~ in one hundred and ninth United States Reports, and detennined that 

this party had no title, that Congress had passed the title to the State 

of Iowa, and he must account on his warranty. 

Now, what is Congress asked to do in the :face of all this? To perm.i,.t parties to go into the tribunals in Iowa to litigate about property 

thl:l.t the Supreme Court of the United States has said the Government 

has no title to. It has said it now almost five times five. The honorable Senator from Iowa says the bill can do no harm. Suppose, for 

the sake of the argument, that to be true; I mightjustaswellask Congress to pass a law to permit me to sue for the great ranch of my friencl 

from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS] in Texas that I might covet and desire. 

The Government does not own it; Congress has nothing to do with this 

property. It may be a very interesting business for Congress to permit 

people to go into court and litigate; but if the Government bas no title 

to the property about which the litigation is to be instituted, Congress 

has no business to pass such a bill. But I wish to say to the Senator from Iowa that it will do harm. 

How? It will simply bring litigation upon these people that the courts 

will be compelled to. dismiss upoo a motion or on a demurrer to the 

complaint filed, because if there is no title, if there is no right to this 

property in the Government, Congress can give no right to bring a suit 

for it; and a court on demurrer will dismiss the bill and say, ''You have 

nothing to litigate about, so far as Congress is concerned.'' You point 

to these innocent people who, according to the speech of the Senator 

from Iowa, have already suffered greatly, and you plunge them into an additional expense for litigation. That is the harm it will do. I 

sympathize with the settlers, and I am willing to stretch, if you please, 

the legislative conscience of Congress to do something !or them in mer- itori9US cases; but not to invite them to litigate about a matter where 

there is no right to the property in the General Government. This bill' 

would be a delusion to them, it would be a snare, and then they would come back to Congress after their complaint was dismissed and say, 

''Well, we thought you were giving us bread, but it turns out to be a stone. We ask now for some further relief.'' 

As Congress has virtually passed on this repeatedly, and the Supreme ~urt so often, there is nothing left, it seems to me, but for the Senate1 

to sustain the motion of the Senator from Alabama that the bill be indefinitely postponed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thehomofl 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. 7004) to repeal all laws providing for the 
·1554 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

pre·emption of the public lands and the laws allowing entries for timber-culture. • CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE BILLS. 

:M:r. HARRIS. I ask the Senatm: in charge of the bill to yield to me for a moment. I ask unanimous consent of th~ Senate to present at ,this time the following resolution: 

Resolved, That after the call for "concurrent and other resolutions " has been 

concluded, it shall be the duty of the Presideot of the Senat-e to lay before the tSenate, i~ their order, House bills oo the Calendar which have been favorably 

1

reported by a Senate committee, subject to the frovisions of Rule V1II, which shall continue until! o'clock each day until al of such bills shall have been considered. _ 

Mr. HARRIS. I ask that the resolution may be printed and lie upon 

the t-able until to-morrow morning, at which time I shall ask the Senate-to consider it. 

M:r. SHERMAN; It is offered so that it will be in order to call it 

up to-morrow. 

Mr. ALLISON. I offer the following amendment to that: 

That this order shall not interfere with the pending case. 

Mr. HARRIS. I have no objection whatever to that amendment if 

the Senator from Iowa desires it inserted. .Mr. ALLISON. I do desire it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be so amended 

by consent. 

Mr. HOAR. Let the resolution as amended be read again for information. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be read again fo! 

information. 

l\1r. SHERMAN. I object to the amendment being adopted. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairwill state that it has not 

been adopted. It has been simply accepted by the Senator who offered 

'the resolu.tion as a modification. The amendment of the Senator from 

Iowa will be read. 

The SECRETARY. It. is proposed to add to the resolution: 

Provided, That the pending order, Senate biU No. 1886, shall not be int-erfered 

with. 

Mr. HARRIS. Let it appear that that isanamendment, nota modification. I have no objection to it, but I do not care to be responsible 

for it. 

The PRE"IDING OFFICER. Then the Senator from Iowa proposes an amendment to be printed. 

llr. ALLIS_ON. I desire that my amendment shall cover the scope 

of. the bill pending before the Senate in the morning hour. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does tho Senator from Iowa desire to 

propose the amendment now, or will he withhold it until the resolution is under consideration? 

Mr. ALLISON. I am not very pa-rticular. I will ofterit now. 

.Mr. SHERMAN. Let it be acted on. Mr. ALLISON. I :;ive notice of it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa can at this 

time give notice of an intended amendment and ask to haveitprinted. 

It can not be properly offer¢ as an amendment now, because the resolution is not pending. . . l1r. A.LLISON. I think the Senate very well understands the general scope of the amendment I propose. It is hardly worth while to 

print it. . . 

1\Ir. HOAR. I ask that the resolution be read as it would read if 

amended. 1 

The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. liARRrs with 

the amendment of Mr. ALLISON added thereto. 

1\Ir. HOAR. I understand that the resolution is not now before the 

Senate for action, but I beg leave at this time to ask the Senator from 

Tennessee whether he proposes to have the resolution passed in such 

terms that it will deprive the Senate of the ordinary power to take up 

upon motion any matter that it may see fit during the morning hour? 

Mr. HARRIS. I do not think it would have that effect. 

Mr. HOAR. If the Senator does not intend that effect, will he be 

good enough in the interval to look at the resolution and see whether 

it may not possibly have it? 

Mr. HARRIS. My present request is that t-he resolution be printed 

and lie on the table lin til to-morrow morning, at which time I will. ask 

the Senate to consider it, and in the mean time I shall J>e glad to have 

the Senator from Massachusetts look at it, as I~ do. 

PUBLic-LA~TJ> LAWS. 

The Senate _resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7004) to repeal all laws providing for the pre-emptiori. of the. public lands and the 

laws allowing entries for timber-culture, the pending question being on 

the amendment proposed by Mr. P ALliER as an additional section. 

Mr. VEST. Istatedyesterdaythatlwanted this bill postponed until 

to-day in order that I might submit to the Senate some papers tha:t I 

had received in regard to it. It is hiu-dly necessary for me to say that 

I have no personal interest in the subject, but on the 26th of .January 

I received from a person unknown to me, but I spoke about him to the 

Senators from his State and others, who concurred that he was a gentleman of high character, as high asanyonein thatState, and he makes 

some suggestions· in regard to the question pending on this bill whic~ 

it seems to me, should :receive attention. . The matter should be the 

subject of a separate bill, and should not be plaood by amendment on this bill in the way now proposed to be dol).e. I ask the Secretary to 

read this letter I send to the desk. I will not give the name of the 

writer, but he is known tq the Senators from 1\!ichigan. The statement 

is of a public nature and relevant to the matter now before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The paper will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Hon. GEORGE G. VEST, 

Wa~ington, D. a.: 

SAGINAW, 1\lrCH., Janua711 26, 1885. 

SIR : Permit me t.o call to your notice a bill recently introduced by Senat-or PALl!IEB. ofth~ State, reported on the 20th instant from the Committee on Public Lands, and recommended for imm.ediate action, which provides : "That 

wherever lands have been wit-hdrawn from sale to. aid internal improvement, or where the lands have been reduced in price to $1.25 per acre, and such lands 

have been purchased in good faith and patents obtained therefor, without 

havingbeenfirstprocla.imed by the President, such patents shall be valid, where on the 25th of January, 1885, there are no contlicting claims," &c. 

The bill is drawn in the interest of a. few men, who were permitted by officials 

in the local land offices, and more especially inN ortllern Michigan and Wisconsin, to purchase at private sale, for cash, at $1.25 per acre, valuable lands ofthe United 

States worth $25 to SlOO per acre, and this, though in direct conflict with the law 

providing "that all such lands shall first be proclaimed by the President and 

offered at public auction to tp.e highest bidder,$1.25 per acre being the minimum price," thereby throwing the lands open to competition and enabling the gen- eral puhlic to attend the sale, purchase if they so desire, and cthe Government t-o realize approximat-ely,at least, the value ofthe lands. 

And now come these persons before the country posing as innocent purchasers in good faith. _ 

c~~!~. was no good faith in these transactions, and none can properly be 

The bill is not in the interest of homesteaders or actual settlers; on the contrary, its design is to cut these people off, and is in direct conftict wU.h the design of 

theGoyei'IlJ11ent to reserve its lands for a()tual settlement. 

It is an effort on the part of certain land speculators to bolster np by legisla- tion claims procured in a notoriously unlawful manner to lands the titles to 

which have already been declared void by the Supreme Court of the United 

States. A few individuals have quietly entered,he choicest and most valuable tracts before the people generally are aware of what is going on, and after these persons haYe secured what they want, the knowledge gradually spreads that 

the lands are being taken, and a. few isolated pieces are picked up by A,~. and C. I trust you will not permit this attempt t-o make the Government a party to robbing itself to pass unnoticed. 

The ·washington correspondents of our l\fichigan newspapers seem to be in 

the employoftheseinnocent(?) partiest astheydonotgivethefacts, but a garbled 

stat-ement, leading one to understand tnat homesteaders and poor men are to be 

injured by the ruling of the Secretary of the Int-erior and the decision of the 

Supreme Court. 

Ir. VEST. Iwouldnot submit a private lettertothe Senate unless 

I knew the character of the writer, and I know this gentleman from 

the statements of Senators to be a man of high character, whose statements are entitled to respect. He states here that the Washington 

correspondents of theW estRrn papers, especially of Wisconsin and l'lfichigan, are entirely in the interest of this amendment which was reported 

here as a Senate bill. Attached to this letter are extracts from the 

correspondence of some of these correspondents. There is one statement made in behalf of the amendment from a correspondent of the 

Detroit Post manifestly in this interest. He says: 

For twenty-five or thirty years the officers of the Land Department have been 

offering Rt private sale lands which had been withdrawn from market for railroad and other purposes and then restored without another public auction of 

them. Thousands of citizens of Michigan have been purchasing these lands for 

many years. In a great number of cases men haYe made it their chief business 

and haYe by this time become the owners of large tracts. Two or three citizens 

of Detroit have written here that their entire fortnne consists in lands which 

they have thus been acquiring. 1\Iineshave been dug upon lands so purchased homes sec~red, and farms !Jlld out. :M:essrs. Barnhart, Hill, and Freeman, ol 

Grand Rapids, Case & 1\IcKmnoo, of Marquette and others, who are in W"ashingtou now, own probably 100,000 acres of the e lands. 

I read this, coming from a party favorable to this amendment, to 

show that this 'legislation is not in the interest of the poor men of 

Michigan and Wisconsin, that it is not in the interest of home teaders or ofpre-empters who seek, ¥aaccordancewith the generalpolicyofthe 

land laws of the United Stater,' to secnrehnmblehomesupon the public 

lands, but it is in the interest of speculators. Here are these gentle- men whose names I have read from the lips of their friends, who are in 

Washington now, to secure title to 100,000 _acres of the public domain 

by this ·act of legislation alone, showing that the statements made by 

the gentleman whose letter I have read are true and shown to be true 

from the public press. 

Will it be pretended that these were innocent purchasers? Who 

ever heard of men buying 1 oo; 000 acres of pn blic land without knowing 

exaetly what they bought? Who does not know that men will not put 

their entire fortunes in a speculation of that sort without examining 

every fact and having the best legal opinions that can be bought for 

money in this entire country? . 

With no knowledge personally, with no acquaintance personally with 

any of the parties interested, I am authorized to declare here from my 

seat in the Senate that the facts show beyond question that this is a stupendous speculation fo.r the purpose of buying up hundreds of thousands of acres of public land on an uneertain title at a price at which 

the land could not otherwise have been bought, and then by an act of 

Congress to legalize the speculation and put immense fortunes into the 

pockets of certain individuals. I am opposed to all such means; and 

with the lights before me, with the facts which I have brought here, and 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1555 

which, I take it, ron not be contradicted, because especially the salient 

fact that these lands are in vast bodies in the hands of certain individuals comes from a friend of this measure, I am authori~ed in making 

the statement that 1 have made. 

Therefore I hope the amendment will be rejected. - Mr. PALMER. The Senator from J)fissouri has pictured a frightful 

representation of the amount of turpitude involved in the amendment. , I suppose very likely some men may possibly have gotten title there in 

late years knowing that they were getting an imperfect title; but those are not the men whose rights I desire to ~ecure. 

At the time when there was a carnival of land grants in Congress, 

along about 1856, nine lines of road, I believe, were given gra-nts. They 

threaded our State in every direction. Certain amounts of land were withdrawn from market, and owing to the peculiar directions in which 

the railroads were run it took out from market nearly one-half of the 

northern half of the lower peninsula. Those lands have been purchasednotonlybyspeculators, bylumbermen, butbyfarmers-menwho 

have put their sweat, their blood, and their toil in those acres, and now a cloud has come on their title, which always existed, but which they were not aware of till the last decision of the Supreme Court, which 

was to the effect that all la-nds which had been withdrawn from market 

should be again offered at public sale before they were subject to _private entry. 

In many of these cases, as the Commissioner of the Genernl Land Office 

states in his letter to the Committee on Pnblic Lands, there was no offering at public sale. I do not know how far the defect in the titles of 

those lands will extend or to how many thousands of acres, but I know 

that a vast majority of the land-owners of the northern half of the lower penins~a of IDchigan are in jeopardy by reason of not having their 

titles confirmed. They bought the lands honestly, they paid for them, 

they have held them, some ofthem twenty-years, paying taxes on them, 

and now they a-re liable to the depredations of land-jumpers and jackals 

of every character. 

In regard to the letter which the Senator from J)fissouri has read, I 

will say that I know the gentleman who wrote it. He is a reputable 

man, and I can not conceive the animus of that letter unless it is that 

he has some private pique to gratify, and if the thing should be followed up, if it were worthwhile, I have no doubt that would be established. As to the land he speaks of in the upper peninsula of Michigan I know bnt little. Possibly there may have been some titles gotten 

there by men who knew that they were buying a defective title, but-in 

the case of the vast majority of the lands where the defect in title is 

attempted to be cured by this measure the owners are honest men and men who deserve relief. I suppose there can not be anything of this 

kind brought up before Congress without the vision of a big land steal 

being involved. I hope the matter will be exhaustively discussed. I am ready to answer any questions in regard to it. 

If Senators 'vill look at the letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office they will see the animus of this measure and why it 

should pass. He says: 

~ From the foregoing it appear3 that, briefly stated, the practice of this office 

has been: 

1. In the earlier grants to the States to restore to private entry by a simple public notice such lands as had once been offered. 

Again he says: 

U for any reason ]ands which had once been offered at $1.25, and afterward at 12.!>0, were reduced to Sl.25 per acre, a second offering at that price does not appear until of late years to have been considered necessary in order to render 

them.subject to private entry. 

Whose fuult was it that these men got defective titles? It was the • fault of the officers of the United States; and where there are no con- tlicts it seems to me that common honesty and common decency re- quire that Congress should validate the titles. The amendment provides for that where there are no conflicts. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, let me say a word in regard to--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan yield 

to the Senator from J)fissouri? 

Mr. PALMER. Certainly. 

1\Ir. VEST. I beg pardon; I thought the Senator was through. 

ltir. PALMER. No; but I should like to hear what the Senator 

from J)fissouri wishes to say. 

t Mr. VEST. I was about to say, and possibly I had better say it in 

the way of an interruption, that I think there is not a single Senator 

here (speaking for myself I am absolutely certain) who, if a question 

should ever be presented such as I take it from the character of the re- marks of the Senator from Mic~~ he thinks is presented to the Senate, would hesitate one instant in Yalidating the title of an honest bana 

fide purchaser who went to the land office and bought for a home a reas- onable amount of land, whether one hundred and sixty acres or more, 

and was in actual possession of it for the purpose of making a. home. I 

take it•there is not a Senator here who would hesitate to validate such 

a title and give such a man a prior right over any one else for land thus 

acq nired. But I submit that at any time when facts exist (I do not say 

whether they do or not, but they are quoted here from a responsible 

source, a man of good character) showing that speculators have gone on bn1l knowing that the title was defective, kno~g that the land officers 

were exceeding their authority, or where there was a probability that 

they were exceeding it, and have bought up hundreds of thousands 

of acres of valuable land at a dollar and a quarter an acre in fraud of the 

rights-of the Government and in fraud of the rights Of other citizens 

of the United States, in that case we ought not to pass a law which 

validates their titles. The speculators took their chances; they lost 

the case in theSupeme Court of the United States, and it is unfair and 

unjust by a sweeping a.ct of Congress 'to give them their game after they 

had taken the chances and lost. 

Mr. PALMER. I will state, in answer to the Senator from Missouri, 

that the amendment is not entirely in the interest of speculators. 

There are thousands of farm titles which are also involved in the same uncertainty by the acts of the Land Office, as well as the titles of men who have bought for speculation. I do not consider that t!lere is any 

great crime in speculating in lands. I consider that the United States 

is benefited, and that all parties are benefited, if men buy lands and 

pay taxes on them and hold them for sale. 

But the amendment is not intended to- benefit rich men alone. It 

involves more poor men than rich men. If the Senator sees in it anything that appears _to him like an attempt to defraud the Government 

I hope he will propose t-o so amend the amendment that it may ·pass- in such a shape that the northern half of the- southern peninsula of 

Michigan at least, and also the Lake Superior region, may be relieved 

from an incursion of land-jumpers that would be worse than that of 

Attila and the Huns or the Goths and Vandals, and which would un- settle half the property in the northern part of the lower peninsula of 

Michigan. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan [J)Ir. PALMER]. 

1\Ir. HALE. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. _ 1\Ir. CONGER. I do not know on what authority the Senator from 

Missouri says this measure is intended for the advantage of men own- ing50,000 and 100,000 acres of land in J)fichigan. It will be news_ to 

any Michigan man to have such a statement made. I have never seen 

any such statement coming from any of the persons who have written 

lette:rs or sent petitions in regard to this matter. I understand from 

the Senator that he gets his information from private sources, and I do 

not know how authentic. they may be. 

The real truth about this matter is that the deeision of the Land 

Office, confirmed by the Supreme Court, throws a cloud upon the title 

of lands that have been entered for the last twenty or twenty-five years 

as the homes of hundreds and thousands of people of Michigan. I speak 

of Michigan because I 1."Dow more about that, bnt in Wisconsin, 1\Iinnesota, and other States there have been public lands situated as these 

public lands were, and where by the action of the Land .Office they 

have been held out to the people of Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota as subject to entry without having been first offered at public 

sale. The people who bought these lands, whether they bought more or whether they bought less, have been misled by Government officers! 

They hav:e been deceived in regard to a law which it was supposed the executiw~ officers of the United States understood, and they have paid 

their lll •. d :lY and bought their lands and received their patents and their 

certificates of ownership. Hundreds and thousands of men have gone 

with their families into the northern part of our lower peninsulli, and 

into the upper peninsula, and have spent years with their families there 

clearing land and making homes with the patent of the United States 

in their hands, believing that they had a home under the laws of the 

United States, believing that the great p.'ltentof the United States gave 

them their lands and gave them their homes, and after years of toil and 

years of sacrifice of comforts in the wilderness, when. they had a career 

of some comparative comfort and competence before them, all at once by a new decision of the Land Office, supported by the decision of the Supreme Court, they find th.'\t they have no right to these lands, or at least 

that there is a cloud upon their title, and they find, worse than that, 

that any speculatillg man may go right upon their farms and pre-empt 

their home, their house, the4' barn, their garden, their orchard, their 

fields, or may go and settle upon it and claim it as a homestead even, 

and take away the rights of all these settlers at a grasp. 

There is no sense in such a state of the law as that, and Congress 

should provide a remedy immediately. It may be that some have 

larger portions of land and some smaller, but it affects all alike. Why 

should not this remedial measure be passed to stop the rapacity of 

those who would take away from· the settler his hard-earned orchard 

and garden and house and bam; or, if he has died in the struggle to 

make him a hQme, who would take it away from the widow and from 

the children, and they, standing there with the broad seal of this Government upon a patent to their lands, are driven off by whatever spec! 

ulator, knowing this cloud and defect upon their title, may see fit to 

plant himself in the midst of this home gained by so much toil and by 

so much labor? 

I care not if there be a few men who haYe large possessions. I speak 

for the hundreds and thousands of the poor men of Michigan who settled that country, who within twenty years have made the wildorness 

of the nortlrern part of our lower peninsula smile like a garden, beautified by homes, cheered by the improvements which their hArd labor 
'1556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . . FEBRUARY 12, 

has made, and which are about to be swept away and taken away by 

the rapacious land-shark. An:d men will vote ~ooainst this measure in 

favor of homestead settlers, giving them the right to go and take these 

lands, when by' doing it they wring the hearts of thousands of men, wo~en, and childre~ in all these States and take away their possessions. 

The Government made this defect in title. The Government failed 

to put these lands up at public auction. The Government of the United 

States, the paternal Government of the United States, led them into 

this trap into which they are to perish to lose their homes. 

I make this appeal for the settlers {)n these lands. I make this appen.l in favor of making valid the great patent of the United States to 

the homesteader; to the pre-emptionist, and to the settler. 

The State of :Michigan in the last twenty-five years bas doubled its 

population, and it bas doubled it by inviting to these wild lands settlers from every State in the Union, who have gone there, improved the 

lands, and made their homes; and years afterward they find a cloud 

upon their title-ay, they find themselves in the position of having it 

all wrested from them because the President fhiled to order the lands 

to be offered at public sale. 

I do not know a case in all the legislation of Congress where justice 

and equity and right more demand the passage of such a measure as this to secure the people of the United States in homes that they ha>e 

already made. I would go as far as the farthest in preserving the public lands of the United States for homes for the people, for lands for the 

landless, but I shall not doitattheexpense ofthosewbohaveputupon 

their lands the toil ofyears. I would not drive the father of the family and the mother and the children fTom the homes into which they 

have put all their labor, all their toil, all their love for the family and 

for their children during long years ofprivation·and labor. 

That is what this amendment means. It would save those homes to 

the thousands of people of these States where this class of lands has been 

sold and patents given, and where, by an unexpected order of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, sustained properly probably by 

the Supreme Court on mere technical points of law, they are to be driven 

from their homes, driven into exile in their old age, driven from their 

gardens and their fields; from their houses and from their barns into a 

hopeless exile. 

I have stated the object of the amendment. If it happens that some 

men more fortunate, with more lands, have a large number of acres in some few places, it may have that objection. But are you not to do 

right by those who have got more lands? The main object here is to 

preserve the thousands, and I bad almost said hundreds of thousands, 

of individuals-the thousands of families-from being wreckedand destroyed, with the muniments of title to their lands in their bands. 

What a spectacle it would be to let a speculator come and take away 

these lands and drive off as with a flaming sword the people who have 

toiled and labored so long for a home and see them wandering away 

from their homes, to the eternal disgrace of this nation and this people, 

bearing aloft and fluttering in the winds a valid title and patent of the 

United States, :with the great seal of the United States attached to it ! 

Yet that is what those who oppose this· measure will compel in these cases unless some remedy lilte that proposed in the amendment is held 

out to our people there. 

Mr: MITCHELL. I desire to repeat what I said yesterday upon this 

question. There are quite a. large nulnber of citizens of Pennsylvania 

who claim that their titles are clouded in such a manner that this measure would cure the defect. They are respectable citizens who have 

written to me in regard to the matter, saying that t hey purchased on the faith of the derivation of their title directly through a patent by 

the Governruent ancl paid their money, and they. hold that they are 

entitled to a clear grant from the Go\'ernment of the United States. It 

appears to me, therefore, to raise tl,le question of the protection of the 

innocent purchaser in this case, in addition to that of the settler. For 

that reason and for the reason stated by the Senator from Michigan I -shall vote for the amendment. . Mr. MORGAN. Yesterday I took the ground in discussing this 

matter that the subject ought to come up again before the Committee on Public Lands. A bill was reported from thatcornmittee substantially 

the same as the amendment now proposed by the Senator from Michigan 

[Mr. PALl\IER]; ~ut it was offered merely as a general proposition of 

law, a sweeping proposition affecting all cases of this kind throughout 

the United States. I had no idea that there was any controversy about 

lands in Michigan or elsewhere of the character suggested by the statements made by the Senator from l\iissouri [Mr. YEs~]. It seems, 

though, that there is a question of conflict of title between the claimants to these lands, and that question has been pending a long time. 

I suppose from the information the Senator from Missouri gave us 

this morning that the whole controversy arose out of the case of Eldred 

vs. Sexton, the head-notes of which I read yesterday, decided by the Supreme Court in 1873. It has been nearly twelve years since that decision was made, and I am not aware that any movement has been made 

since that time for tJ;te remedy of this difficulty by act of Congress. I am totally unfamiliar with the state of facts about these controverted titles, 

and the Committee on Public Lands, so far as I am awar~, are totally 

unfamiliar with it. We looked at the proposition that was sent to us 

as a general propositio;n which upon its face was very fair and very ·plausible. At the same time it ought not to have the application that 

is intended to be given to it here. The Congress of .the United States 

ought not to interfere between private claim.ants to la.nd_from the Government to settle questions that in their nature are only judicial. The 

laws of the United States, as expounded in the case of Eldred vs. Sexton--

1\Ir. PALMER. Will the Senator from Alabama allow me to interrupt him? 

M:r. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. I think the Sena.tor from Alabama labors under a wrong impression in regard to the amendment. Where there are any 

conflicting or adverse claims it is not intended by the amendment to cure the defect in the title; such cases go to the proper tribunals. 

Mr. 11-IORGAN. That was the manner in which the bill was fust 

reported from the committee, but still Senators have put in it a question of valid conflicting title. We are to legislate so as to declare, con- trary to the decision of the Supreme Court, that an entry of lands 

within these railroad limits at a dollar and a quarter an aere is valid. 'l;'ha~ is the first step ·taken in the amendment. It is to validate · an entry which the Supreme Court of the United States has declared to 

be invalid under the law. Having taken that step, another party comes 

in with a conflicting claim, and you require that that claim shall be 

valid. In other words, it is proposed to legislate out of the hands of 

whoever may be the holder of the property a title which he holds under 

the Government of the United Sta.tes, for which he has paid $2.50 an acre, and then legislate it into the hands of a man who holds a certificate for which he paid a dollar and a quarter an acre, which the Supreme Court held to be invalid. You declare the invalid title to be a 

valid title, and you exclude the man who paid $2.50 an acre for his 

land unless he can prove that his title was a valid one. That is deciding the whole case by legislative action in a single proposition. 

The Congress of the United States ought not to be asked to do a thing 

of that kind. If the Government of the United States has sold the land 

to any person for a dollar and a quarter an acre, and there is no per&on 

else who claims the land under any purchase from the Government 

whatever or under any right of homestead or any right of pre-emption, 

then I am willing to confirm the certificate that was granted at a dollar and a quarter an acre, because what we should do then would be 

merely to waive the difference between a dollar and a quarter and two 

dollars and a half an acre. on the price of the lancl; but to go beyond 

that and to take up the question of title and make valid by act of Congress an· invalid title, <lecided to be so twelve years ago by the Supreme 

Court, and then to fence in and protect that title, to put it in a bombproof by saying to the holder of that title, "You shall. hold it against 

every person in the world except some man who shall show a valid 

title against the United States," is merely to sweep the lands out of 

the handsofpersonswho may have purchased them at two dollars and 

a half an aete and give them to persons who bought them at a dollar 

and a quarter .an acre. I think there has been a good deal of delay about this matter. Why 

should these parties have slumbered upon their rights without seeking 

the intervention of Congress for twelve years since the decision in 

Eldred "':S. Sexton? If the Congress of the United States in regard to 

the public lands will concern itself simply in overruling by legislative 

action the decisions ofthe Supreme Court of this country, we n~ed not 

attempt to do any other kind of business; Congress will be converted 

into a court for the trial of land titles, and we shall be appealed to con- tinually by men who have got equitable claims, or claims that they 

conceive to be equitable, who will bring them in here for the purpose of' 

having them vamped up by act of Congress so that they may go back 

and assert them in the courts and beat any person else who bas a prior 

legal ti tie. 

I lament very much that Congress is being called upon almost every 

day-that has been my observation since I have bad the honor of a plaee 

upon the Committee on Public Lands -to legislate titles out of the hands 

of some grantee of the Government and arrange them so that they will 

fall into the hands of some other grantee or some homesteader or some settler upon the public lands. It is hardly worth while to argue before a body composed entirely of lawyers that this is a transgression of the 

constitutional power of Congress, for when we enact laws and the people acting under those laws and in conformity with them acquire interasts in the public domain, we have no power to set aside those interests and to recall the lands at our will and pleasure. After we have 

granted the title to an individual in pursuance of. the laws of the United 

States, held to be valid •by the Supreme Court or otherwise, it will not 

be insisted that we can assert the power on the part of Congress to recall those lands at our pleasure and bestow the title in some other direction. 

It seems that we have set ourselves up as a SQrt of supreme court of 

appeals from the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse by legis- lative decree what they have solemnly decided to be the law of the land. 

The Supreme Court in making these decisions exercised only its constitutional functions. In providing by law to overturn those decisions and 

take from parties in whOSQ favor they have been. made the benefit of 

them we ~usurping tights that we have no authority to usurp under 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD¥S~~TE. 

the Constitution of the United States; we are transgressing the bon.nclaries of our jurisdiction. 

I repeat that I think this case ought to be considered by the Committee on Public trmds. I had no suspicion that there was any such con- troversy as that which has been suggested by the remarks of the Senator 

from Missouri who sits behind me until he made known this statement 

in the Senate. The Committee on Public Lands have hacl people from 

J4ichigan upon various controversies before them in large numbers, and some of the ablest lawyers in that section of the country and in other sec- tions of the country have been here to represent the controversies about 

the Ontonagon Railroad grant and the various complications which have 

arisen out of that and about grants to canals and other works of public improvement which have been construed in one way and another by 

the authorities of Michigan, and by the an~horities of the United States 

Government, so as to involve those people in a labyrinth of difficulty ·and turmoil and litigation. But when this case came up I did not suppose that there was any actual controversy in respect to the title to a 

large body of land in that State between private individuals. I bad no thought of such a thing. I thought that what was presented was a general proposition of law, and I was trying to prevent, so far as I was able, any application of the general principle insisted upon in the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, which might prove inconvenient or damaging or destructive to the titles of people who had acquired titles 

in good faith under the Government of the United States. 

Now, it appears that here is a priva.te controversy about thes~ lands. 

It appears that certa.in persons have bought these lands, if I understood the remarks of the Senator from Missouri, in good faith, paid 

their money for tliem, and they insist that they are entitled to the lands. 

Shall we, by passing a measure as sweeping in its provisions as this, 

whieh applies all over the United States, undertake in this indirect 

way to settle a private controversy between persons in the State of 

Michigan about tracts of land? It seems to me that it is preposterous 

that we should undertake to do it. 

The Senator from Michigan ought to be willing to allow this bill, 

which has been reported by the committee, and I think improvidently 

reported, to come up on its merits, and to let those people in Michigan, 

who are now notified by the fact that such a bill has been reported, come in and present their controversy and their contention about these 

lands. Do not let us decide a case of the magnitude that this appears 

to be in this indirect way, and ~ithout offering the opportunity of a. 

hearing to those people in Michigan. 

We have before us a bill for the purpose of repealing the pre-emption 

laws, the timber-culture laws, and the desert-land act. That is the ob- j~t of the bill. Senators on this floor, persons interested everywhere, are notified that when the bill is called upon the Calendar the Senate 

intends to engage itself in considering those changes in the general land 

laws of the United States. While that bill~ 1,1nder consideration the 

Senator from Michigan ofters an amendment to it which purports to be 

general and universal in its application, but which touches upon a subject that is not hinted at in the _bill which the honorable Senator from 

Oregon is conducting through the Senate. When the·people,wbose 

rights were referred to in the remarks made by the Senator from Missouri, come to inquire of us why it was that on a bill to repeal the preemption laws imd the timber-culture laws we took up and considered a matter entirely foreign to it, which drew into controversy a private litigation between citizens in Michigan and elsewhere, what have we to 

say about it? . l I am very much obliged to the Senator from Missouri for having furnished the Senate with information that nobody else has furnished it 

with heretofore. It is now made known to the Senate of the United 

States that there is a private controversy abo1,lt this question, and the 

Senate ought to allow the committee to hear both sides of it, or at least 

the Senate ought itself to beilr both sides of it before it decides upon a question of such magnitude. 

Mr. CONGER. The amendment of my colleague bas been before the 

Senate as a separate bill for a long time. There bas never come to the 

knowledge of the Senate by any public petition or memorial or document whatever anyopposition to the measure from any source. Mr: MORGAN. Not until this morning. 

Mr. CONGER. Nothing bas come to the Senate as a body in the 

way of petition or memorial from any source, and yet it is the subject 

of constant and continual notice in a.ll the Michigan papers to-day and 

bas been for weeks. 

?tfr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to say 

th;J.t it can not be the fault of any member of the committee, there being no Senator on that committee from Michioo-an, that we did not know. of this private controversy in his·own State? Hemightbaveinformed us of it. I suppose be knew it. -

Mr. CONGER. There is no controversy in the State of Michigan ex- cept by those men who want to get away these lands from the settlers, 

as I said, and the Senator is defending, by oppos4lg the amendment, 

that class of men who, from a defect in title, as shown by a decision of 

the Supreme Court, think they have a right to go upon all these lands 

and make homesteads and entries and pre-emptions upon t~em. That 

is the condition of it. . 

Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

• 

Mr. OONGER. Let the Senator wait for a moment until I conclude, 

and then I will hear him. 

Mr. MORGAN. I just wish to ask t'Ue Senator' a question. 

Mr. CONGER. Very well; I yield for that. 

Mr. MORGAN. I understood the Senator from Missouri to say that 

the gentleman who had made this representation was from Michigan, 

and was an honorable man. ' 

Mr. CONGER. I told the Senator from Missouri so when he asked 

me, for I knew be was an honorable man. Mr. MORGAN. I am willing to defend that sort of a man here at 

any time. 

Mr. CONGER. Yes; but I want to defend the hundreds and thousands of poor, innocent, hard-working settlers in my State. The Senator ma.y defend those who desire to get away their lands if be chooses, 

but I am not in that role. 

Now, whatdoes theamendmentdo? IaskeverySenatortoseewhat 

it does propose, and only what. It proposes that where a certain class 

of lands-and I ask the Sena.tor ft·om Alabama to listen to me in this 

argument if he will--

Mr. MORGAN. I surely will; I always do that, as the Senator 

knows. 

ltfr. CONGER. The amendment applies to a certain class of lands 

which have been withdrawn from market for purposes specified in it, 

and have been restored to the great body of the public lands, or where 

they have been among the lands reserved for a railroad before its line was built, and after its line was built they were found to fall outside of 

the fifteen or twelve mile lirllit and went into the body of the public 

lands. Everybody knows that they were then public lands subject to 

entry, homestead, or pre-emption; and although they bad been at $2.50 

an acre until the railroad had denned its central line and the limits were established, the moment that was defined they fell back into the 

kind of lands to be bought at $1.25 au acre. Where there was reserved 

from market for any reason and again restored to market any public 

land, the law, so the Supreme Court decides, required that be1ore it 

should be purchased or settled upon it should have been .again offered 

at public sale. 

That class of lands js not railroad lands, not forfeited lands; but 

lands that in a great width of twenty or thirty miles perhaps across a country were reserved from market until the railroad company ran its line, and then by the terms of the law all outside of the limits of 

the line of the milroad itself fell back. They were not used; they were not granted, but merely reserved by the Land Office until the 

location of the road. The court decides that before those lands were liable to entry, to .fall back into the domain of public lands, they 

should have been offered at public sale; and so of all the other classes 

which are specified in the ame11dment. The amendment says: 

Wherever lands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on the pnrt of 

the United States by reason of grants made to aid in construction of railroads or other works of internal improvement, and such withdrawals have been terminated _by act of Congress, executive order, or order of the Land Department. 

That js one class of land. That is outside of the limits. There are 

hundreds and thousands of acres in that class. another class isOr where lands have been, by operation of law,reduced in price to $1.25 per acre. 

Where Congress has ordered that they should be, or afte1· offer put 

them at that price. That would include all those outside of railroad 

limits that were reserved from market, and then when the railroad 

limits were established fell back into the body of the public lands and 

fell back from $2.50 an acre to $1.25 an acre. Again, where such landshave been purcbsed, in good faith, at said price, or entered with warrants or scrip, and the officers of the Land Dcpartmentha.ve issued certificates or pafents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entryNow comes the point that the Senator refers towithout such lands having first. been proclaimedOr in case such lands have not been proclaimedby the President and offered at public auction. 

As the Supreme Court decided they ought to be before they were offered. Where lands of these classes have been purchased and patents 

given v.ithout this having been reoffered by proclamation at public sales 

the amendment applies. Those are the classes of land and the only 

classes to which it applies; and that is the only defect in the title 

that the amendment is to heal, where t.he lands had not been proclaimed and offered at public auction. 

And where, on the 25th day or January, 1885, there were no valid conflicting claims thereto, or settlements thereon, all such entries, and the certificates and 

patents issued thereon, are hereby confirmed and declared valid and legal. 

The only point to heal is the simple point that these lands were not 

proclaimed and offered at public sale. That is the only thing which 

the amendment affects; and where prior to a certain time there were no conflicting claims, and where prior to a certait} time there was no- body settled on the lands, then the en. tries are declared valid. It is a simple question of healing; curing the non-action of the United States 

in reoffering the lands. It can not affect any other claims. Where 

there are two conflicting claims of any kind whatever, then jt does not. heal. 

Mr. MORGA..i~. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to ask 
il558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

I 

him a question for information? I do not know anything about the 

particular case he is arguing. · Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. The Senator from reading the provision 

will see that I have stated thE! point correctly . . :Ur. l\IORGAN. I wish to get at some facts about it. Who are the 

conflicting claimants? Who are the persons alluded to in the amendment? 

Mr. CONGER. The United States. 

l\lr. MORGAN. And nobody else? . Mr. CONGER. That is all there is who can be affected by the amendment. It merely heals the lack of title clouded by the decision of the 

Supreme Court. 

Mr. MORGAN. And there are no pe:rsons--

1\lr. CONGER. If there are other conflicting claims it does not heal 

them, it does not cure anything. If even some settler squatted and 

made a settlement on these very lands for which other men have patents, the amendment does not heal that title. I think the amendment 

is drawn carefully to protect simply the rights of those who suffered 

because the United States authorities did not do their duty in proclaiming and offering at public sale these lands. That is all that is intended 

to be healed by it. 

Mr. MORGAN. If the Senator will allow me, he is arguing tqat 

nobody can be hurt by the amendment? He is arguing that no con- flicting claims of any validity can be affected by the provisions of the 

amendment? 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MORGAN. There might be some difference of opinion about 

1

the effect of this provision between the Senator and other Senators. I 

wish to ask the Senator in regard to one fact. Are there Mrsons living ,upon these lands or any of them who have acquired an interest in them 

either under the homestead laws or the pre-emption laws, or by purchase from the Government of the United States in good fuith? 

Mr. CONGER. These very men whom weare trying to protect have 

by purchase or by pre-emption, or as homesteaders, settled upon the 

lands. They have got their patents, and they would be secure in their 

possession if it was not for a decision of the Supreme Court which says 

that the lands were not properly in market to be patented or to have 

'homes Lead settlements upon. I will tell the Senator who would be affected adversely by this legislation. By that decision of the Supreme 

Court technically these settlers and these purchasers had no legal title. 

Having no legal title, the Senator or myself, or any other man if he desired to go there and pre-empt one hundred and sixty acres of land, or if he desired to go and make a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land, these occupants having no legal title, may go and claim preemption upon one hundred and sixty acres of land that has been cultivated for years, and when it is tried the occupant now ca!l not protect 

himself by his title under the decision of the court. 

.Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator· allow me to ask him how I could 

go and pre-empt that land, or how I could go and take a homestead on it in the face of the fact that a person has settled upon it, and has got 

his home there already, and is claiming it? 

l\Ir. CONGER. There can not be any question about that. I have 

had here in the Congress of the ·United States a case which illustrates 

that so completely that I will state it for the benefit of the Senate. 

One of my neighbors in Saint Clair County bought twenty-five or thirty 

years ago a piece of land in Saint Clair County. He got the patent of 

the United States for it, lived there, and cultivated it with his family. 

He wrested it from the wilderness and made a beautiful farm out of it 

with a fine house and barn. Finally some person wept to the St:\te 

land office of Michigan and found that that happened to be, by the listing, among the swamp lands given by the extension of the Arkansas 

swamp-land act to Michigan. He went and bought it by description 

of the State of Michigan, and when he came to .find where his description was it covered the eighty acres of land of whicli I have spoken. 

Suit was brought in court. The person who bought the swamp-land 

right brought suit to eject the man who had lived upon the tract for 

thirty years. The court decided that the Arkansas swamp-land act, 

extended to the other States, operated per se; that although the lands were not described and were to be listed afterward, it operated as a grant per se to the State. After the passage of that law, but before the 

lists were made out, the United States had sold this tract to the occu- pant and given a patent for it and received his money; but the court 

held that the United States had already granted that land to the State 

of l\1ichigan by an act of Congress, the particular land to be found out 

by reference to the field notes and lists of the surveyor-general, and 

the new purchaser held the land, and there was no remedy. The Supreme Court of the United States said it was the law, and I tried in 

vain to get a bill passed giving some relief to this neighbor of mine who 

lost his land by operation of law through the fault of the Government. 

1\ir. MORGAN. If the Senator will allow me, I will call his attention to the distinction between that case ·and the one I put to him. in 

the case of the swamp-land grimt the title was granted in fee by the 

Government of the Unit.ed States to the State of Michigan? 

.Mr. CONGER. Yes. 

l\1r. MORGAN. After that o.f course the Government had no further 

title to the land. 

l\Ir. CONGER. Of course the court decided right. 

Mr. MORGAN. But in a case where there has been no grant ofland 

to any person, where an attempt was made to grant the land which 

.fhiled because the lands had not been brought into marl:et and thereby 

the certificate of entry became void or voidable, if that person is in the 

occupation of the land claiming it as his homestead or having upon it 

the right of pre-emption, he having complied with the conditions of the 

law as prescribed in the homestead and pre-emption acts, how could I go 

there and claim :;t. homestead upon that land or claim a pre-emption right 

upon it? I could not go and ride down the possession and claim of a. person on a tract of Government land in that way. 

l\Ir. CONGER. The Senator knows very well that the settler could 

not sustain any right there under the pre-emption law. 

Mr. MORGAN. He could if he was protected under this amendment. 

l\fr. CONGER. Under this, yes; but he could not without this. 

Mr. 1\IORGA.N. The question of fact is this: .Are there any persons 

upon these lands who have bought them, for instance, at $2.50 per acre and claim the right of ownership over those who bought them previously at one dollar and a qnarte:~;? 

Mr. CONGER: Not at all. There can not be one. The man who 

bought them at $2.50 an acre got his patent for them at that rate. He 

holds them by virtue of a good title because he could buy without their 

being restored. Such men have patents, and there is no conflict between these two classes of cases. They do not interfere with each other. 

They can not from the very nature of the case. 

Mr. l\IORGAN. Now will the Senator indulge me one word further, because this is all new matter to myself; I heard nothing of this 

controversy about the questions of title until it was mentioned by the 

Senator from Missouri. 

Is it conceded that those persons who hold these lands at a dollar 

and a quarter an acre under certificates that they got from the local 

land offices obtained them in good faith, or did they go and induce- as has been done in some cases andcomplained ofbythe Departmentthe local land office to issue certificates for these lands at a dollar and a quarter an acre for the mere chance or- getting the title if they could 

afterward work it through? 

Mr. CONGER. Oh, Mr. President, these men bought their lands in 

good faith after the lands had been restored to market by the determi-

. nation of the limits of the railroad grant in that class of cases. There 

is no question about that. The Senator has not heard and will not 

hear all this session or all next session any public statement contradictory of what I am saying here from anybody in :Michigan. . 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. It was held by the Land Department that the lands were properly restored to market, and that they 

could be legally sold and entered at that price, and no one (loubted that 

until the determination of the Supreme Court which has been re- ferred to. 

Mr. CONGER. There was no question about tbeir being properly 

restored to market and properly subject to sale, except this technical 

thing, that the President had not proclaimed them and ordered them 

to be offered at public sale; and if the Sena.tor will read the amendment he will see that it says, "without such lands having ~been 

proclaimed by the President and offered at public auction." That is 

the only thing ~ttempted to be cured. · 

The Senator says it has been many years since this decision of the 

Supreme Court. Men with their patents in their hands, settlers in the 

wilderness, the common people of the country, do not stop to think, 

with such a muniment of title, whether there is any defect in the Government's action about these things. They are too busy at work; the 

toil of the day and the necessary sleep of the night prevent their hunting around for defects of title or for crimination against their Government for having deceived them. 

Mr. MORGAN. But !understood the Senator'scolleaguetosaythat 

many of these lands had gone into the hands of speculators. 

· Mr. CONGER. No. If the Senator will just bear this in mind, I 

have said that the defect in title will now allow men to go there and 

jump these lands and put on another title. This defect was not understood till within a very short time, although the decision may have been as long ago as the Senator from Alabama said. The people did not 

dream that a decision could take away their lands in that way until men began to go and put pre-emptions and homesteads onto the farms 

of these men. That is what awakened attention to it. And now, I say 

it in sorrow, sir, to-day all thl'Ough the northern part of Michigan and 

Wisconsin and some parts of Minnesota families are trembling at the 

approach of the land-shark to take away their fm:ms. Letters are being 

sent bythosewho have just awakened to a sense of the precarious condition of their titles, imploring their representatives to lay their ca e before Congress and ask for relief, not against other holders, because where 

there is a conflict there can be no question of the operation of this provision, but against their Government. 

I hope that this amendment will prevail. In my. solemn judgment it can do no injury to any honest claimant in the world, but it will quiet 

the hearts and quiet the homes of thousands and thousands of the citi- zens on the wilderness lands of W~nsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.. I 

do not know that it applies anywhere else; probably not. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. 1559 

Ur. VEST. 1\Ir. President, this debate s~ems to attract only the attention of three or four Senators, and I do not feel like addressing the 

Senn.te on a subject in which there appears to be no particular interest; 

but the truth ought to be vindicated at any hazard, at any expense of 

time. 

I said to the colleague· of the senior Senator from 1\Iichigan, who has 

just taken his seat-possibly he was absen.t from the Chamber-that I 

did not think there was a olitary Senator here, and speak"ing for myself I was positively certain that not a vote would be cast 3noainst a 

measure whenever offered, at any tlme, to secure to any bona fide settler 

his home. I will vote for any such amendment; and I would not un- der any circumstances take a.way from any human being a home upon 

the public lands of the United States, because, to say nothing more abou~ 

it, I a.m a Western man, appreciate what a homestead means, understand it thoroughly, and would never directly or indirectly violate the 

spirit of the public-land system of the United States and our manifest 

destiny, which is for giving to every settler a home upon the Western 

prairies. That is not this case. I read here from a reputable gentleman, a. constituent of the Senator, a statement over his own signature, 

and I gave the Senator his name this morning, in which he says there was collusion between the officers of the land offices and a body of speculators in order to get the most valuable lands in the States of Michigan and Wisconsin at a dollar and a quarter an acre in violation of the 

laws of the United States; and I undertake to say now that I hold in 

my hand a paper which, in my judgment, makes it absolutely i~possi.ble that there should not have been collusion between these speculators and the officers of these land offices in regard to this matter. I 

quote from a report, No. 684, from the Public Lands Committee of the 

House of Repre entatives upon this subject, and I call the attention of 

Senators to it. Says the majority of the committee: 

It further, in respect _to these entries, satisfactorily appears to your committee that they were made in violation of direct and positive instructions from the General Land Office, forbidding such disposition of the land; that these instruc- tions were issued at intervals from 1865 to 1880; that not the slightest attention was paid to them by the local officers., who still continued to dispose of the lands at privat-e entry, and that in this way, within the limits of the Ontonagou and State Line grant alone, there were disposed of, between 18-36 and 1&!{)-

Mark the dateas already stated, 88,471 acres of lands, more than three-fourths of which were entered by less than thirty corporations, firms, and individuals. 

Mr. CO~GER. Will the Senator allow me a word? 

Mr. VEST. Certainly. . 

Jltlr. CONGER. I venture to challenge the gentleman to show that 

that refers to one single acre of this class of lands in any possible way. 

Mr. VEST. We will see: 

These figures are compiled from the pamphlet entitled History of the Onton- agon and State Line Railroad Grantl a document prepared by the privateentry claimants themselves, and Co.rnisned the committee for use in this case. Some of the orders, emanating from the Land Department, prohibiting these entries, read by counsel to the committee, found in their brief, with references to the official record, and uncontradicted, were as followsNow see whether these are the.lands or notThe Commissioner [of the General Land Office] to t•egister and receiver, July 

5,1885-

Twenty years ago. 

T ou will not forgetSays the Commissionerthat all odd-numbered sections in your district nortll of township 40 and west of range 21 (including the lands in cont-est)-

M:r. CO~GER. What lands in contest? 

Mr. VEST. The lands that are involved in this veq amendment 

now. :Mr. CONGER. Not an a<!re of them. 

Mr. VEST. Then this committee have stated what was absolutely 

false and incorrect, and put it on record. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. It refers to a different matter altogether. It has not the remotest relation to the lands that will be affected by the proposed amendment. 

Mr. VEST. These lands were withdrawn, as I underStand, by an 

order of the General Land Office, and then they were entered at a dollar 

and a qua.rter, when they ought to haTe be~n, under the decision of the 

Supreme Court, put up at auction. Is not that so ? 

Mr. CilfERON, of Wisconsin. That is not the whole truth. The 

lands to which the Senator from Missouri refers were never restored to 

market by executive order or otherwise. 

M:r. CONGER. And are not yet. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. _ And are not yet. 

1\lr. PALMER. If the Senator from Missouri will read the amend- ·ment he will see that the cases he is referring to are excepted. 

J\1r. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. He is on the wrong track altogether. 

M:r. VEST. This is the very bill that is now in discussion here before the Senat-e. The House committee say in the report from which 

I am reading: 

During the argument of the matter before your committ-ee it was asserted by coun el for homestead and pr~mption settlers that most of the applications to enter were filled ou~ in the handwriting of the then register of the Marquette office, the officer to whom the various prohibitory orders were sent ; that they were frequently made on top of subsis~ing pre-emption and homestead claims, 

and that the t·egister who allowed the most of them is now a member of a." com- mitt-ee of land-owners," urging the passag~ of the confirmatory bill. 

1\Ir. CONGER. That is a matter which has been in controversy for 

years as to what are called the Ontonagon and Brule Railroad lands. 

That is the kind of land that the land officers there ·allowed people to 

purchase inside of the railroad limits, the alternate sections, but that can not be affected and can not be reached in any way by this amendment, for those lands have neve1· been restored to market, they never~ 

have been forfeited. A bill is pending now in the Senate to forfeit 

them. They are no such lands as these that have been restored to 

market. 

Mr. VEST. Even assuming that the statements made now by the 

Senators from Wisconsin and Michigan are true, one fact remains about 

which I take it there will be no sort of question, and that is that large 

tracts of this land, the very land in controversy here now, amountin$, 

according to a statement which I read this morning, to 100,000 acres, m the hands of three or four individuals, are affected by this amendment. 

If the Senators will bring in an amendment which confines this reme- dial act to homestead settlers or to men who own a home, whether it is 

one hundred and sixty or three hundred and twenty or six hundred and 

forty acres, I will vote for su<;h an amendment, and I do not believe a single Senator in this Chamber will vote against it; but I do say in justice a.nd in perfect candm· that where a set of gentlemen, ingenious and 

refined in the art of making money, have amassed capital together to 

the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars, have deliberately gone 

to the land office and in violation of law, plain, express, and manifest 

law, as the Supreme Court of the United States has declared, entered 

hundreds of thousands of a<!res of pine land in order to make immense 

fortunes out of them, they ought not afterward to come to the Congress 

oJ the United States and say ''we must have _relief in the interest of 

homestead and pre-emption settlel'S. ' They do not stand upon any 

uch footing. They speculated with their eyes open; they put in their 

money, and they now ask the Congress of the United States to take this enormous amount of the public domain and hand it over to them. I 

submit to Senators in all candor and truth and justice that is not right, 

that is not the spirit of the public land laws of the United States. 

As to these facts I know not.bing. I have exhibited my authority 

for the statement I have made. The gentleman who wrote me that 

letter gave names, and he gave the names of five gentlemen in this city 

at the time he wrote the letter, on the 26th of January, who were here 

in the interest of the bill now offered as :m amendment, for the purpose 

of confirming their title; and he asserts in that letter that they hold 

100,000 acres of the public domain. Tha,t is not the pathetic picture 

that my friend from Jltlichigan [blr. CoNGER] has drawn here of a humble settler on the public domain, under his vine and fig tree and 

w:. h his wife and children about him. 

Mr. CONGER. Will the Senator permit me? 

Ur. VEST. Certainly. 

Mr. CONGER. The Senator's letter and the statement he read in a 

report was in regard to 88,000 acres of land of the alternate .tions of 

the Ontonagon and Brule Railroad lands, which never have been restored 

to market. The five gentlemen the Senator spe.aks about were here to 

try and get a bill passed securing them their titles. I say I do not know a living man from the State of Michigan or Wisconsin who is interested 

in this proposition who has been here in reference to this measure or in the cjty of Washington at all, now or formerly-not one solitary man. The Senator speaks ofSO,OOO or 100,000 acres. That relates to land 

insideofthe limits of the Ontonagon and Brule Railroad which the land 

officers at Marquette permitted to be entered while they were then, as they are now, alternate sections within the railroad limits, and gave 

patents for. I know of 88,000 acres. That one statement there refers 

to that. I presume there are others. There were last year and the year 

before, but not this year that'! know of, for I have not seen that cL.'l.SS 

of men here-there were men interested in that raihoad disputing the 

right to .thost lands. They were sections belonging to the railroad as contemplated by the law, not lands belonging to the United States; 

and those were the gentlemen-I could name them if it was necessarywho have been here trying to hold against the railroad company those 

lands which were sold while they were railroad lands and have never been forfeited. It does not apply to an acre of the class of lands af- fec~ by this amendment. · The Senator from Missouri I know wants to be fuir in such a matter as this, but he has caught up a.ccidentally a report which refers to a class of lands the dispute about which is between a railroad company 

and private purchasers. I know these lands very well. They are the 

subjects of another bill; they are the subject8 of frequent comment between Senators on this floor, one Senator and another. Now, the pict- ure that I have drawn of these purchasers and homesteaders and settl_ers and pre-emptioners is not a vine-and-fig-tree picture. 'The gentleman 

has mistaken the character of that rude boreal region. It is a settlement in the northern cold regions of Northern Uichigan and Lake Superior. 

I thank the Senator for giving me permission to use so much of his 

t.ime. 

Mr. VEST. .That is all right. We will eliminate the vine and figtree from this compensation, and can talk now of the pine-woods set~e-
1560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

ments. But I am in favor of protecting the home of the settler whether 

it a in the tropics or at the North Pole. I want that distinctly understood; and I will vote for any amendment that does that. But this 

amen~ment covers any case wherelands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on the part of the United 

States by reason of grants made to aid in constt·uction of railroads or other works 

of internal improvement, and such withdrawals have been terminated by act of Congr~s. executive order, or order of the Land Department, or where lands 

have been, by operation oflaw, reduced in price to $1.25 per acre1 and said lands 

have been purchased, in good faith, at said price, or entered with warrants or scrip, and the officers of the Land Department have issued cert.iticates or patents 

thereon in accordance with &nch purchase or entry, without such lands having 

first been proclaimed by the President and otl'e red at publicauction 1 and where, on the 25th day of January, 188.3, there were no valid conflicting clauns thereto, or settlements thereon. 

I call the attention of the move't of this amendment to the fact that 

if he means there a settlement in gootl faith, the phraseology ought to be 

changed, because as it is there it applies to any settlement, even the 

settlement of a party who went to the land office and in whose interest 

this amendment is presumed to prevail, unless by construction the 

word '' confticting '' applies both to the words '' claims '' and '' settlements' '-- · Mr. CONGER. Conflicting claims or conflicting sett.lements. 

:Mr. VEST. I suppose that may be the meaning of it; bot if that 

~the me..'\Iling, the word "conflicting ' ought to be repeated. But 

whether this bill affects the Ontonagon lands or not, the point still 

remains that there are different statements here made in regard to the 

quantities of these lands that have been entered under this law. If the 

intention be to prot-ect homesteaders and pre-emptors :md bona fide settlers to build homes on these lands, let such an amendment be offered 

here and I will vote for it; bot as it stands now it protects enormous 

tracts of land, and it is intended to protect speculators and does in fact 

protect them: 

As to matters of fact, I will not go into any controYersy with the Senators from !tiichigan, who as a matter of course know all about the facts 

that cover this case; but the law itself ought to apply to those persons 

who have gone there and made hom~ upon these lands, and if there are speculators who by collusion· with the officers of the land office Or 

otherwise have devoted, as the letter stated which I read this morning, enormous amounts of money and years of their time in order to purchase these lands for the purposes of speculation, then the la.w ought 

not to protect them. . .Mr. CONGER. I desire to say to the Senator that I have been charged 

with the duty and have tried to perform i tc ot: preventing the carrying 

out of the plaus of men who purchased large masses of land ior pine 

purposes._ I am one of those who have stood here for two or t.hree years 

opposing any confirmation of the lands that I described and that are described in the report the Senator read, which were bought when they were railroad lands. I have stood here in obedience to a resolution of 

the Legislature of the State of Michigan asking nie to ,staud by the 

railroad corporations to which Michigan had intrusted the building of 

the rai.d by ex tending to it this grant. Censured by my friends who own these lands, .censured in the papers, opposed here for opposing the 

confirma,tion of the very lands mentioned in that repOrt, I know what 

these lands are. My duty as a Senator under the instructions of my 

State, under the solemn resolution of the Legislature of my State, re- quires me as the representative of that State to oppose the confirmation 

of those lands and the title to those lands which the Senator has re- ferred to. I think I know my duty; I think I know the interest of tl;le 

people; I think I know that this amendment is to heal the title and cure the title of innocent purchasers and of homesteaders and of preemptors; and I think I know that I am not in advocating this amendment carrying out a measure in direct opposition to the instructions of 

the Legislature of my State. _ .Mr. VEST. Before the Senator takes his seat I want to ask him a question. I make no i8sue with him as to his duty to his constituents; no question of that sort can be brought into this discussion; but I want 

to know from him if be does hot believe, if there can be any doubt, in 

other words, ·about the fact that under this amendment as it stands 

now, if there are lands entered by speculators at $1.25 an acre in defi- ance oflaw, the amendment will perfect their title? 

Mr. CONGER. Ifthe defianceoflaw be that the President had not 

proclaimed these lands and had them offered at public sale, then all 

purchasers, pre-emptors, and homesteaders have violated the law in the sense the Senator means; bot I do not stand here to say that when 

lands were properly in market and were liable to purchase, he or I or any other Senator may not buy forty acres or four thousand acres. I 

do not know of :my of these great purchases of these lamls. I do not 

believe they exist. ~Ir. VEST. That is only a question of belief. 

Mr. CONGER. I say this only cures the title where the defect was 

the non-offer of the lands at-public auction. If from any other defect 

the title is doubtful, this amendment does not help it. · Mr. VEST. One thing is certain; no controversy can exist here a bout 

tha t; and that is, whether the person who made the entry was a preemptor or speculator, under the decision of the Supreme Court in nineteenth Wallace both parties violated the law. 

)\Ir. CONGER. The homesteader did, too. 

Mr. VEST. Andthehomestcader, too. Inotherwords, these lands 

were not subject to pre-emption, they were not subject to homestead, 

they were not subject to sale. That was the decision made by Judge 

Davis in nineteenth Wallace in the Eldred case. Mr. CONGER. Not these purchasers violated the law, but the officers 

of the United States from the President down to the receiver of the 

Land Office all violated the law, and we are trying to remedy their violation of the law. 

Mr. VEST. I can not concede the proposition that these officers violated the law. 

Mr. CONGER. They issued patents; they sold the land. 

Mr. VEST. They did. They issued patents; but the President of 

the United States had an option as to putting these lands up at auction 

in regard to the time in which it should be done; and he might have 

been upon the eve of performing his duty at the very time the land officers permitted these entries to be made and these patents to issue. 

Mr. CONGER. He has not done it yet, and most of these patents 

were issued years ago. 

Mr. VEST. The circumst-ances may vary in particular cases. As a matter of cour e, where a patent has emanated from the Government 

it is beyond the ·control of the Government of the United St.:1.tes; the 

title having once emanated according to the decisions of the Supreme 

Court has passed away from the Government. It is true that as between individuals Mr. Smith may bacome, if he has perpetrated a fraud, 

a trustee of that legal title for 1\Ir. Jones, but that is a question for the 

jurisdiction of the courts, and not for the action of Congress. All these 

parties are wrongdoers in the eye of the law, but I submit to the senior 

Senator from Michigan that t4ere is a vast amount of difference between wrongdoers. If I innocently perpetrate a wrong upon my neighbor, if I innoc.ently violate a law of the United StateS in letter, still if 

I am guiltless in spirit, Congress, as a great court; of equity, ought to come to my relief. 

Mr. CONGEft That is what we ask. 

Mr. VEST. Bot if I go with my eyes open and undertake to appropriate to myself without the forms of law large tracts of the public domain, 

not for a home but for speculation, and I am deceived in my judgment, 

I am defeated in my speculation, stocks go down with me inste..'l.d of 

going up, I have no more rig'Qt to come to Congress for relief than a 

stock gambler in Wall sb·eet, when he says ''I thought Congress meant so and so; I invested my money in Erie aud it went down inste..'ld of 

going up; I ani entitled to relief." There is a vast difference between a pre-emptor or the owner of a homestead right and a speculator who 

has gone in through his sharpness and his avarice and his greed to get 

tbe better of the Government and his fellow-citizens and put money in 

his own pocket. 

I do not know anything about the facts, and I care nothing. The 

Senator from Michigan says he knows of no speculators interested here, 

and be believes there are none. That will not do for legislation. Let 

the Senator who claims to protect these settlers and pre-emptors come here with legislation that gives to every man who has made a bona fide 

settlement his home and I will vote for it; but I will vote for no law 

that covers men who have gone and bought 100,000 acres of the public 

domain and then come bere and say to Congress, ''We were mistaken 

about the laws; our lawyers deceived us, and now we want relief." 

Mr. CONGER The concluding remark of the Senator from Missouri would indicat-e that I had said that none of these lands were held 

by men who were not pre-emptors or homesteaders. 

1\fr. VEST. No. 

Mr. CONGER. I meant to say no such thing. I said they might 

have been bought for pine lands. I knew of no such general purchase as that; still any man who knows anything about lumbering knows 

that no man can lumber on a single quarter-section, or section, or mile 

square of pine in the wilderness, any more than a herd of cattle can graze on a quarter-section of land in Missouri. They must accumulate 

lands. I am not saying that because it is so in this case, but there 

must be, to make any kind of lumbering profitable, accumulations of a tract large enough to warrant the expense of making the improvements, of building the tramway, of getting the logs to the stream, and 

getting them to the mill. 

A man would be an insensate fool who thought he could come in and 

by enteripg quarter-sections of land miles and miles apart carry on 

lumbering in a pine region. Therefore I am not foolish enough to say 

that either from pre-emptors or purchasers or from whatever source some of these lands may nQt have been aggregated together in quantities of several sections for the purpose of lumbering in the pine lumbering States of Michigan and Wisconsin. I do not know how it is, 

but I do marvel at the opposition to this amendment so carefully guarded 

and carefully prepared, and where it only on the very face of it undertakes to cure and heal the defect of title caused by tho wrongdoing of 

the authorities of the United States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. :PALMER], on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. FRYE (when his name was called). I am paired with the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. GEORGE (after having voted in thenegative). I inadvertent!' 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL~RECORD-SENATE. 1561 

voted. I was paired with the Sen~tor from Rhode Island [Mr. CHAcE]. 

I withdraw my vote. 

"Mr. SEWELL. I am paired on this question with my colleague 

[Mr. MoPHERso~]. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am paired with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. 

GOR~.AN]. 

The result was announced-yeas 25, nays 22; as follo~s: 

t~on, 

Bow~n. 

Brown, 

Call, 

Cameron of Wis., Con,~;;er, 

Bayard, 

Butler, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Fnir, 

CuUom, 

Dolph, 

Hale, 

Hawley, 

Hill, 

YEA8-25. 

Miller of Cal., 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Palmer, 

Pike, Jones of Nevada, 

McMillan, 

Platt, 

Sabin, 

Garland, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

Harris, 

Harrison, 

Ingalls, 

NAY8-2'1. 

Jackson, 

l\lorgnn, 

Pendleton, 

Pugh, 

Saulsbury, 

Slater, 

.ABSENT-29. 

Aldrich, Frye, Lamar, 

Beck, George, Lapham, 

Camden, Gibson, Logan, Cameron ofPa., Gorman, McPherson, 

Chace, Hoar, 1\Iahone, 

Dawes, Jonas, Manderson, 

Edmunds, Jones of Florida, 1\Iaxey, 

Farley, Kenna, Miller of N. Y.; 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck, 

Wilson. 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Williams. 

Plumb, 

Ransom, 

Riddle berger, 

Sewell, 

Walker. 

Mr. MORGAN. I offer the following amendment to come in at the 

close of the amendment just adopted: ~ 

And aU questions relating to such conftictingclaims or settlements sha.U be subject to adjudication and final decision in the Department of the Interior; and in case there is any actual settler on any o£ said lands in good faith under the homestead and pre-emption laws of the United States, the rights of such settler shall prevail against any previous entry at the price of$1.25 per acre. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendnient of 

the Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. MORGAN. I willexpl~in tben.mendment. The senior Senator 

from Michigan [Mr. CoNGER] stn.ted tba~_ one of his purposes was t-o 

protect the homestead and pre-emption settlers there. A controversy 

would arise I think naturally between those persons who bad entered 

the lands a.t a dollar and a quarter an acre and the homestead or preemption settlers upon the same lands. When weare ratifyingandeon-

:firming the titles of those who entered at a dollar and a quarter an acre, those entries being decided to be illegal by the Supreme Court, 

I propose to provide for the honest, bona fide settlers and homesteaders, 

bysayingthattbeirclaim upon these lands shall be adjudicated as other 

claims are in the Int.erior Department, and they shall prevail over those 

purchasers of the lands who have paid a dollar and a quarter an acre 1or them. Of course the effect would be this: :Mr. A, a speculator, a lumberman, or whatever be may be, five or ten years ago -bas bought a tract of land tkere at a dollar and a quarter an acre. Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Suppose Mr. A be not a speculator or lumberman or a farmer, but bought a tract of land eight or ten or twelve years ago, and erected a dwelling~bonse upon it, and is residing 

thereon with his family? 

Mr. MORGAN. That only suggests another one of the difficulties 

which I have adverted to several times, that we are trying to 1ettle 

private titles by adjudicatingthemin the Congress of the United States. 

That is my objection to the entire proposition. We are by legislative 

decree trying to settle private land titles. That is what the proposition means anyhow. Of course difficulties of the kind suggested by the 

Senator from Wisconsin would arise to any man who bas the subject in 

view, but the Senator from Michigan emphasized tbefactthatbewanted 

to protect this class of people, homesteaders and pre-cmptors. 

lth-. CONGER. And purchasers. . Mr. MO.RGAN. You can not protect them all. If there is a homesteader or a pre-emptor upon a forty, eighty, or one-hundred-and-sixty acre tract of land in good faith residing there, and at the time you pass 

this meas-qre there is somebody else who holds title to the land at a dollar and a quarter an acre, an invalid title, a bad title, and you undertake now to make that title-valid by an act of Congress, yon say that 

you will not protect the homesteader and the settler. Does the Senator say now that be does not want to protect the homesteader and 

settler against the man who holds an invalid title acquired at a dollar 

and a quarter an acre? 

Jlli:. CONGER. The Senator asksmetbatquestion. Would'belike me to repeat wha.t I said about my desire to protect the homesteader? 

Or does be say that to throw some discredit upon what I have said? 

Mr. MORGAN. Not at all. The Senator asked a queiStion, 

Mr. CONGER. I should like to know what tlie objectoftheSenator 

is in insinuating as to my belief. 

Mr. MORGAN. No insinuation about it. There is alittletoomuch 

tender-foo1&lness about this measure anyway; there is too much 

crowding about it anyway. It does not come in like other bills do on 

the floor of the Senate. If the Senator will allow me to say it, Iljl.ve 

been a little mild in my opposition to it; but.now if the Senator wants 

to have the subject brought up in square form I will say to bim that 

I do not like the aspect of this measure in the Senate. 

It looks to me too much as if some private enterprises were being car- ried forward here. When I bring in an amendment which carries out 

the very purpose that the honorable Senator himself insisted be wants 

carried into this bill, I bear objections. 

Now, sir, if we mean in good faith to protect men who nave honestly 

bought this land and paid a dollar and a quarter an acre for it let us do 

it. If we mean, however, in good faith to protect those men who have 

gone upoh this land and have made their homestead and pre-emption 

settlements uponit, let us do that. Undertbepre-emptionandbomestead laws-oftbe United States every man not only bas the right but 

be is invited by the Government of the United States to go upon the 

public lands and make his settlement. 

Here is a class of people who have gone there under this invitation. 

They have made their settlements; they have built their houses and 

opened their farms. Now, the question is whether we shall validate~ 

title, whicb·somebody got ten or twelve or fifteen years ago at a dollar 

and a quarter an acre contrary to law, to the exclusion of a man who 

bas a right of homestead or pre-emption. I do not profess to be par.; 

ticularly the partisan or friend of the homesteaders-or any ptber class 

of Settlers on the public lands; but I do profess to want every man to 

have his ju8t right~ under the laws of the United States. Senators 

who make themselves the champions of the homesteaders and the pre~ 

emptors in this country have a. fair opportunity for a square vote and no mistake about it between those speculato~ and lumbermen who have 

taken up these lands, as the Senator from M:issiouri bas more than int~.! 

mated, under combinations with the Governi)lent officials there, fraudn~ 

1ent combination~, and the men who have gone under the invitatio~ of 

the Government and settled upon thes~ public lands a;nd made their 

homesteads there. Now, sir, we have a square issue in this case. The 

amendment brings it up. I have n-o more to say about it. 

l\Ir. DOLPH. I do not rise for the purpose of expressing any opin: 

ion as to the policy of attaching the amendment which bas been already adopted to the bill. The eftect of that amendment, as I under~ 

stancl it, is only to confirm the title of parties who have been permitted 

by the officers of the general and local land offices to purchase land at a _ dollar and a quarter an acre at private entry. Whether those pur:! 

chasers were speculators or not I do not know, but a large proportion of 

the present owners of the land are persons who are residing upon the 

lanq, poor men. The amendment as adopte<l does not affect any con.: troversy which exists between such holders of land purchased at pri~ 

vate entry and settlers under the homestead and pre-emption laws! 

because -they are specifically excluded from the operation of the amendment. Now, as I understand it, all such controv_ersies must b_e deter~ mined in the General Land Office in the first instance, and if the pur; 

chases at private entry h!Lve been illegal the Comm~sione!, of the 

General Land Office will decide in favor of the pre-emption and home! 

stead settlers, and t.bey will obtain their patents under existing laws! 

The only object of the amendment now proposed by the Sena,tor from 

Alabama is to change the existing law and provide a new and special 

rule for the disposition of lands the title to which is controverted iri 

the Land Office. Suppose it should turn out that some of these entrieS 

where there are contests were legal; suppose it. should hereafter he de~ 

cided that those lands were open to private entry when they were purchased, and by adopting this amendment we provide that notwithstand~ 

ing that fuct the Commissioner of the Gene:rnl Land Office and the Sec! 

retary of the Interior should award these lands to the homestead and 

pre-emption claimants, would that be right? · There is·no necessity in my judgment for this additional amendment, 

for any controversy concerning these lands must be determined in the 

General Land Office, and the Commissioner of tlie General Land Office 

must be governed in rendering his decision by the ln.w of the case, and 

if the law gives lands to the homestead and pre~emption claiman~ 

they will get them, and if it does not they certainly ought not to have 

them. 

This proposed amendment brings into this bill the decision of a con- troversy between private parties, the very thingthatbas been declaimed 

against by Senators on this floor. The amendment of the Senator froni 

Michigan [Mr. PAU1ER] which bas been adopted does not provide for 

the settlement of private rights. Because lands have been sold by in! 

advertence at private sale which were not subject at the time to pri: 

vate entry, and the Government has received the money for theni 

where there are no other claims to them, it is proposed to confirm the 

titles. We had better get rid of the controversies concerning these 

lands now while we may do it. 

There are already, as stated by the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office, in the particular locality where the lands in question lie, five 

hundred controversies between homestead and pre-emption claimants 

and persons who hold under private entries; and if we defer action until 

another session of Congress there will be five hundred more. Tb~ 

parties, both classes of claimants, have been before the Committee on Public Lands. There are cases which have been before the Committee· on Public Lands in connection with railroad grants where the railr&uls 
1562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. · FEBRUARY 12, 

'\ 

claim the lands, where purchasers from the railroads claim the lands, 

whhe persons who have entered the lands at private entry claim them, 

and where pre-emption and homestead claimantB claim them. It is 

time some action was fuken to prevent further controversies. We should 

dispose of these lands in some way so as to prevent further controversy. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I ask the Senator from Oregon how it happened 

that officers of the United States Land Office, acting under the laws and 

the instructions of that Department, utterly ignored the laws, trampled 

them under foot, and permitted these private entries to be made? 

Mr. DOLPH. I will state to the Senator from :Missouri that I understand there have been different rulings by different Commissioners of 

the General Land Office, and by different Secretaries of the Interior. 

At one time it was held, as I now recollect, that lands which had once been offered at public sale and had become subject to private entry and were then withdrawn from private entry for railroad purposes, and afterward, on the location of the road, were restored to the public domain 

and opened to settlement, might be sold at private entry without being 

again offered at public sale. 

Then another decision was made to the effect that such lands must 

be offered at public sale before they were open to private- entry, and 

then the decision of the Supreme Court which has been referred to was made. In the mean time sales had been made under the rulings of the 

Department. Again, in one instance it appeared to the committee, or at least to myself, as if the local officers had disregarded the instructions of the General Land Office, although they claimed that for some reason the instructions, which had been sent in time, were not received 

until after the sales were made. The officers of the Government have 

been to blame. The parties who purchased the lands, whether specubtors or not I do not know, duly entered the lands and paid their money 

for them; and the amendment which has been adop~dis only intended 

to cure a technical defect in their ti tie. 

1\lr. COCKRELL. Are those officers still in control of these land 

offices now? · 

Mr. DOLPH. Oh, no; that was years ago-thirty years ago, some one says. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN]. 

:Mr. CALL. I wish to say a very few words. I voted for the amendment proposed by the Senator from llichigan [l'tlr. PALMER] upon the 

ground that Senators ~ured us it was not in the interests of speculators, that there was no job in it, that there were large numbers of bona 

jid-e settlers, whether by purchase or under the homestead and pre-emption laws, in actual residence on these lands whose titles were involved 

in this error or irregularity which would be cured by the amendment. 

I wish it understood that I put my vote upon the assurance of Senators 

from the State that this was a measure to save and perfect the titles of 

actual residents upon the lands. Now I think it would be onlywiseto 

adopt the amendment of the Senator from Alabama which makes that 

absolutely conclusive, and gives to any settler nowuponthelandswho 

hns a claim under the 1aw a right to appear before the Department of 

the Interior. It is true he has that right already, but it is also true 

that it is more certain with a legislative declaration accompanying the 

l:l.w that it is not intended to preclude him from the assertion of that 

right. 

Mr. CONGER. I ask the Senator from Alabama who offered this 

amendment whether thetime in.Jannaryin the bodyofmycolleague's 

amendment relates to the provision of this amendment also ? 

1\Ir . .M:ORGAN. My amendment is a mere addition to the amendment already adopted. ~Ir. CONGER. Would the limitation as to the 25th of .January apply? 

Mr. MORGAN. That is my understanding. 

Jlrlr. CONGER. If it does, it leaves the law just, a far as I know, as it was before. 

i Mr. MORGAN. :Mynnden,"'tanding is that it operates from the date 

stated in the original amendment. For instance, a settlement made 

nQw, a homestead taken now, would not prevail; indeed the question 

could not arise between a homestead taken after the passage of this bill 

and a prior entry, I think. 

' Mr. CONGER. The amendment of my colleague und.ertakes to say 

that no conflicting claim-by jumping these lands after the 25th of .J anu- ary shall be allowed. If the amendment does that also, it saves the 

rights of these men to that extent. 1 Mr. MORGAN. I do not think it changes it, though the Senator can make it perfectly certain. by moving to amend. 

Mr. CONGER. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be again read. 

The Chief Clerk read the amendment proposed by Mr. MORGAN. 

Mr. CONGER. If the Senator will put in the llmitation, "made 

prior to the 25th of .January," so that it shall not cover entries being made now, I shall not oppose it. 

1tlr. MORGAN. I have no objection. The Senator can amend my amendment. I will accept it. 

Mr. CONGER. Let it be amended. Mr: BLAIR. The word "heretofore" is in the amendment of the 

Senator from ~fichigan, so that that word would make the limitation 

which is suggested. · 

Mr. MORGAN. ~think so, too; but I am willing to make it S!ltisfactory. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. Will the Senator from Alabama 

state the modification? 

1\Ir. MORGAN. lam not offering any modification. !said I would 

accept that offered by the Senator from 1\Iichigan. 

Mr. CONGER. Let it be again l'ead. . The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The amendment will be read. 

The Chief Clerk again read Mr. MoRGAN's amendment. 

Mr. CONGER. After "laws of the United States" I move to insert 

the words "made prior to the 25th of January, 1885." All I desire to 

a<:CQmplish is that the constantly accruing attempts to get these lands 

by settlement shall not be efficacious. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

to the amendment. · Mr. DOLPH. I regret exceedingly to feel compelled to say another 

word in this debate, and I do not propose to say a word on the merits 

of the sill. I am anxious to get to a vote. At the same time I do not 

like to have this matter pass off by apparent agreement between two 

Senators. I should like to ask the Senator from Alabama if he does 

not understand that all such contests must now be adjudicated by the 

Land Office? 

l!Ir. MORGAN. Yes. I want to keep the Land Office from getting 

into the courfs. 

Mr. DOLPH. Then the object of the amendment is to make the decision of the Land Office conclusive, so that the party defeated can not 

get into court? 

Ur. MORGAN. No, sir, we can not do that, because we can not deprive the judicial establishment of this country of jurisdiction in that 

way. That is a constitutional question. 

Mr. DOLPH. If the contest must now be determined in the Land 

Office, I suppose it must be determined according to the existing laws, 

and if the homesteaders or pre-emption claimants have the best title 

they will prevail in the Land Office. 

Mr. MORGAN. I should think so. Mr. DOLPH. Therefore we will add nothingtotheexisting law by 

this amendment unless we provide that notwithstanding the person who 

entered the land at private entry has the best title, the pre-emption 

claimant claiming the land shall be preferred to him. 

1\Ir. 11..-~RGAN. If we confirm a patent, for instance, issued by the 

United States Government at a dollar and a quarter an acre which at 

the present moment is invalid, and confer the title of the United States 

upon that patentee, he can go into court and eject the homesteader? 

Mr. DOLPH. No. · Mr. MORGAN. I waut that question settled in the Interior Department before the patent acquires any validity. 

Mr. DOLPH. But does the Senator from Alabama suppose for a moment that the amendment already adopted refers to any land where 

there is a present pre-emption or homestead settler claiming it? 

Mr. MORG.AN. Well, I am afraid it might. . Mr. DOLPH. I think that is not the intention, and certainly in my 

judgment it does not have that effect. 

l\1r. P ALM:ER. I will state that the amendment from its very 

phraseology indicates that it does refer to where there are conflicting 

claims. 

Mr. DOLPH The amendment of the Senn.tor from Alabama.? 

Mr. PALllffiR. No, my amendment. It merely confirms titles 

where there are no conflicting claims. ~fu DOLPH. Then the Senator means to say it does not refer to 

such claims. ~Ir. PALI\illR. It is in the negative. · Mr. DOLPH. It refers to them and excepts them. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes. 

Mr. DOLPH. So I can not see th~ necessity for this amendment of 

the Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I do not know whether I understand the effect 

of this legislation or not, because I am not familiar with the facts to 

which it is intended to -apply; but if I understand the amendment already adopted, with the amendment proposed by the Senator from 

Alabama, it would nave this effect, thatifuponanyofthese lands there 

have been settlers who have acquired their titles by pre-emption or homestead settlements and received a patent therefor, and npon other 

portions persons have secured title by purchase, by entry, and hM·eprocured their patents as purchasers, and they may have disposed of portions of that land to innocent persons who knew nothing about any 

defect in the title, and these innocent persons, purchasers from the original patentees, may have actually settled upon the land holding their 

titles under the patent, and they would be onsted under the amendment of the Senator from Alabama-it would distinguish against settiel'S by purchase in favor of settlers by pre-emption or homestead settlement, and it would not protect such at all, if I understand the effect 

ofthe amendment. · 1\Ir. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The Senator from Minnesota will 

remember t.hat there can not be any valid holders by purchase of these 

lands until we confirm the title. • Mr. Mcl'tiiLLAN. Yes; but our legislation should not produce any 

confusion in titles. That is to be avoided. Ifl understand the effect 
1885. CON.GRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 1563 

of the first part of the amendment, it relieves the defect in the title to 

any part of these lands which consists in having entered or purchased 

them when theyhadnotbeen offered for sale at auction. That extends 

to all titles by entry and purchase and by pre-emption and settlement. 

The first part of it covers the whole ground; but the latter qualifies it 

only as to pre-emptors and homestead settlers, and distinguishes bona 

fide purchasers even in the occupancy of land. That I understand to 

be the effect of this amendment. · Mr. MORGAN. I will state, if the Senator will allow me, that the 

effect is simply to validate what are now invalid titles in favor of per- sons who have purchased andpaidforthesameatadollarand a quarter an acre, saving to the homesteaders and pre-emptors their rights, giving 

them a prior right. 

Mr. McMILLAN. If! understand the effect of the amendment it is 

this: The provision already adopted does cure the defect in titles either 

of pre-emptors, homesteaders, or persons who purchased at private 

entry. The latter part of the amendment, that now proposed, protects 

pre-emptors and homesteaders against any persons who entered the lands 

and against any persons who hold under a title by entry, though they 

may be in the actual occupancy of the land under a conveyance from 

the original patentee where the entry was by private purchase. 

Mr. HARRISON. The Senator fromMinnesotawillallowmetomake a suggestion. He seems to be interested for those who, having acquired 

title under the persons who;;e imperfect title is to be confirmed by this 

bill, and who under that title so derived are on the land, lest they may 

be affected by this provision of the Senator from Alabama. It can not 

do so at all. This bill operates to ·confirm the title of their grantor, 

and of course they would be secure in their title unless it was a case 

where some homesteader had a prior right. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I think the Senator from Indiana does not com- prehend the ecope of this amendment. Upon these lands which were purchased at private entry there may have been persons who entered as settlers but have not obtained a patent, and as against any person 

holding a title under the purchaser by private entry those men would 

take and their title would prevail, because the first part of the amendment is qualified and restricted; but the latter part of it distinguishes 

against any title which accrued under the purchaser by private entry. 

I think it would produce confusion. I lq:low nothing about where this 

legislation is to apply or what would be the effect of it fnrth~r than the 

language of the amendment, and I see it has that effect. 

:Ur. HA.RRISO~. I am not inclined to resent the imputation of the 

Senator from Minnesota that I ~o not comprehend--

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Presidentr.---

1\Ir. HARRISON. I say I am not at all inclined to resent it, but I 

rise to sayth:J,tlthink tbathasbeen the trouble with this whole amendment with which we are dealing here. We are dealing with a proposition that the committee of this body that should have had charge of 

it have never investigated, and that not a single member of the com- mittee has yet been able to contribute any information on the subject; 

but still I think as to the particular matter to which I called the attention of the Senator from Minnesota I had perhaps a fair comprehension 

of the "scope of the amendment of the Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I made the allusion to the Senator in no offensive 

sense, and I am sorry that he is so sensitive upon the subject. I had 

been listening to the entire debate upon this amemlment, and I am rather inclined to think the Senator did not hear it all. This amendment of the Senator from ..Alabama. is intended to qualify the original 

amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to this bill. I think 

the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama does quali.fY the 

original amendment and leave the matter in confusion. 

Mr. CALL. There is no difficulty between the original amendment 

and that proposed by the Senator from Alabama. The original amend- men t provides simply and unmistakably that the entries of all unoffered 

lands, except where there are conflicting claims or settlements, shall be 

confirmed. The amendment of the Senator from Alabama. proposes 

that where there is a conflicting homestead or pre-emption claim or settlement, that shall be adjudicated in theDepartmentoftheinterior, and 

shall be heard and decided there. That is all. There is no difficulty, 

I apprehend. · · 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask unanimous consent that this bill maybe laid 

aside informally in order that I may bring before the Senate the Army appropriation bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa asks unani- mous consent that the pending order be informally laid aside and that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Army appropriation bill. 

Is there objection? The Chair hears none. 

1\IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

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

C_Ierk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 1609) to proVIde for the purcba e of a site and the erection of a public building 

thereon at Detroit, 1\!ich., with an amendment, in which it requested 

the concurrence of the Senate. · · 

The message also apnounced that the House had disagreed to the a.~endments of the Sena~ to t_he bill (H. R. 7785) making appropriatiOns for the payment of mvalid and other pensions for the fiscal year 

• 

ending June 30, 1886, and for other purposes, asked. a conference with 

the Senate on the disagreeingvotes of the twoHonsesthereon, and had 

appointed. :Mr. JOHNHANCOCKofTexas, Mr. JOHN F. FOLLETT of Ohio, 

and Mr. W. D. WASHBURN of Minnesota managers at the conference on its part. 

The message further announced that the House had disagreed to the 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7857) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the Government for 

the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1886, and for other purposes, and asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 

thereon, and had appointed Mr. JAMEs N. Bt"RNES of Missouri, Mr. 

RICHARD W. TOWNSHEND of Illinois, and Mr. W. D. WASHBURN of 

Minnesota managers at the conference on its part. 

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS. 

A message from the President of the United States, by 0. L. PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the President had, on the 11th 

instant, approved and signed the act (S. 1793) to amend section 4434 of 

title 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United States concerning com· merce and navigation and the regulation of ste.."l.m vessels; and this day 

the act (S. 646) for the relief of R. G. P. White, Peter Hanger, and L: 

T: Green. ARMY .Al'PROPRIATION BILL. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 8120) making appropriations for the support of the Army for 

the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1886, and for other purposes. 

Mr. A.LLISON. I ask unanimous consent that the first or formal 

reading of the bill may be dispensed with, and that as the bill is read the 

amendments of the Committee on Appropriations may be considered in 

their order. · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa asks that the 

first reading of the ~ill in extenso be omitted and that the bill be read 

for amendment and that the amendments of the Committee on Appropriations be considered as the reading proceeds. Is there objection? 

The Chair bears none. The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the bill. The first amendment of 

the Committee on Appropriations was, after the word "departments," 

in line 20, to strike out the words: 

Being forth~ purchase of the necessary articles of office and desk furniture, 

stationery, binding, maps and books of reference, police utensils, and similar 

I\ecessaries. 

So as to make the clause read: 

For contingent expenses of the Adjutant-General's Department at the headquarters of military divisions and departments, $2,500. 

The next amendment was in line 27, after the word ''including,'' to 

strike out "snch;" so as to read: 

For expenses of the Signal Service of the Army: Purckase, equipment, andrepair of field electric telegraphs; signal equipments and stores; binocular glasses, telescopes, heliostats, and other necessary instruments, including absolutely nec- essary meteorological instruments for use on target-ranges. 

The amendment was ~greed to. 

The next amendment was, in the appropriations for the ''Pay Department, "to strike out the following proviso from lines 86 to 91: 

ProV"ided, That the cost of such telegrams shall not exceed the amount fixed 

and paid by the Government, under contract, for telegrams composed of a similar number of words, exclusive of address and signature, officially sent to and 

from the Signal Service stations of the United States. 

l\fr. ALLISON. I think I ought to say a word with reference to this 

amendment. The effect of it is to increase rather than dirojnish the 

cost of Government telegraphing. The Government now has no con- tract with reference to the sending of these messages. They are all sent 

under a schedule of rates fi~ed by the Quartermaster-General from time 

to time under the law of 1866: The cost has been reduced within the 

last year about 45 per cent. from previous years. 

The amendment was agr~ed to. 

The reading of the bill was resumed. The next. amendment of the 

Committee on Appropriations was, in line 124, to reduce the total amount 

of the appropriations for "subsistence of the Army" from $1,900,000 

to $1,800,000. • The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in the appropriations for ''Quartermaster's 

Department,'' in line 1~, after the word ''offices,'' to insert ''and for 

sale to officers; '' and in the same line, after the word ''officers,'' to strike 

out: 

And for extra-duty pay ' to such enlisted men as may be employed in procuring and caring for fuel, forage, and heating apparatus: Provided, That fuel 

in kind may be :issued to officers when on duty. 

So as to read: . 

For the regular supplies of the Quartermaster's Department, consisting ot' stoves n.nd heat.ing apparatus and repair and mainte~nce of same, for. heating barracks and quarters; of ranges and stoves for cookrng; of fuel and lighta for 

enlisted men, guards, hospitals, storehouses, and offices, and for sale to officers; 

of forage in kind for the horses, mules, and oxen of the Quartermaster's Depart- ment at the several po ts and stations and with the armies in the field, including its care and protection, &c. 

The amendm,ent was agreed to. · The next amendment was, in line 158, to reduce the appropriation for 
1564 CONGRESSIONAIJIIJRECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 121 

purchase of horses for the cavalry and artillery and for the Indian scouts 

and for such infantry as may be mounted, from $200,000 to $180,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 159, after the word ' ' that, '' to strike 

out "hereafter;" so as to make the proviso read: 

Prcn,"ided, That the number of horses purchased under this appropriation added to the number actually on band shall not at any tiine exceed the number of en- listed men and Indian scouts in the mounted service. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in the appropriations " for incidental expenses of the Quartermaster's Department,'' in line 178, after the word 

"clerks," to strike out '' and other employes; " so as to read: 

Compensation of clerks to officers of the Quartermaster's Department; com- pensation of forage and wagon-masters authorized by the net of July 5, 1838, &c. 

The amendment was agreed to. ' 

The next amendment was, in line 182, after the word ''for,'' to strike 

out the words "the rewards for;" so as to 1:ead: For the apprehension , securing, and delivering of deserters, and the expenses incident to their pursuit,.&c. 

The .amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 192, to reduce the total amount of 

the appropriation '' for incidental expenses '' of the Quartermaster's Department from $690,000 to $650,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in the clause making appropriations '' for 

transportation of the Army, '' in line 219, before the word ''repairing, ' ' 

to insert the word "or; " and in line 220, aft~r the word "transportation," to strike out: . 

• And employed as train-masters. and in procuring wa.ti!r, opening roads, nav- igating vessels, and building wharve . 

So as to read: 

Pay of enlisted men on extra duty driving teams or repairing means of trans- portation; transportation of funds for the Pay and other disbursing Depart· ments. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 229, to reduce the total amou11.t of 

the appropriation "for transport~tion of the Army" from $3,000,000 

to $2,900,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 231, after the word ''That,'' to 

strike out "hereafter;" so as to read: 

Prollided, That the whole number of civilian employes, including agents, su- perintendents, mechanics, packers, teamsters, and train-masters, paid from ap- propriations for transportation of the Army, shall not at any one tiine hereafter 

exceed 1,000, &c. 

The a.mendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 255, before the word "thousand," to 

strike out "seven hundred" and insert" six hundred and fifty;" so as 

to read: 

For barracks and quarters for troops, storehouses for the safe-keeping of military stores, for offices, and for grounds for camp and summer cantonments, and 

for temporary buildings at frontier stations; for thwconstruction of temporary buildings and stables, and for repairing public buildings at established posts, 

t650,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 256, after the word ''That,'' to strike 

out "hereafter; " so as to make the proviso read: 

Provided, That no expenditure exceeding $500 shall be made upon any building or military post without the approval of the Secretary of War for the same, upon detailed estiina.tes of the Quartermaster's Department; and the erection, 

construction, and repairs of all buildings and other public structures in the 

Quartermaster's Department shall, so far as may be practicable, be made by 

contract, after due legal advertisement. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to strike out the following clause, from 

lines 274 to 276, inclusive: · 

For quarters for quartermaster-sergeants, commissary-sergeants, ordnancesergeants, and veterinary surgeons, $la,OOO. 

The amendment -was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 286, after the w01·d ' ' million,'' to 

strike out "four hundred" and insert "two hundred and fifty;" so as to make the clause read: 

'For cloth, woolens, materials, and for· the manufactut·e of clothing for the 

Army; for issue and for sales at cost price, according to the Army Regulations; 

for altering and fitting clothing and washing and cleansing when necessary; for equipage, and for expenses of packing and handling and siinilar necessaries, 

$1,250,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, before the word ''thousand, 1' in line 306, 

to strike out "five" and insert "ten;" and in the same line, after the 

word "all," to strike out "ten" and insert "fifteen;" so as to make 

the clause read: 

For the Army 1\Iedical Museum, including ordinary repairs of the museum ball, preservation of speciinens, and the preparation or purchase of new speci- mens, $5,000; for the lib!"ary of the Surgeon-General's Office, $10,000; in all, Sl.o,ooo. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in line 353, after the words ' ' purchase 

of," to strike out ·u Gatling or Hotchkiss;" so as to read: 

For the purchase of machine-guns suitable for field service, ~,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to strike out section 2, as follows: 

SEC. 2. That article 94 of section 1342 ofthe Revised statutes of the United Slates 

be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and amended so as to read as follows: "ART. 94. Proceedings of trials shall be carried on during such hours 1\8 the 

court-martial shall determine." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

l!Ir. SHERMAN. The Secretary read so rapidly that I did not have an opportunity to call for a division on the last amendment on page 

16, to strike out section 2. I ask that it be read again. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PLATT in the chair). The amendment will be read. · · 

The Secretary read section 2. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Article 94 reads as follows: 

ART. 94. Proceedings of tri:\ls shall be carried on omy between the hours of 8 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, excepting in cases which, in the opinion of the officer appointing the court, require immediate example. 

Under the provisions of that article a recent court-martial was con· tinued here for weeks and months because the court was compelled by 

the express provisions of law to adjourn at 3 o'clock each day. I am told that the origin of that rule was derived from the British service, 

and the reason for it was that after 3 o'clock a. gentleman on a courtmartial was not expected to be sober enough to pass judiciously upon a proposition. The whole habits of our people, the hours of taking 

meals, &c., have changed, and therefore it is perfectly absurd to keep 

alive the old article of war which requires a court-martial to adjourn 

promptly at 3, and yet they must do it by law. 

It is true this is legislation in an appropriation bill; it changes an article of war; but as it is here put on by the House, evidently in the 

interest· of economy, I take it every Senator will assent to it unless some good reason should be given for striking it out. The article as 

proposed by the House is: 

ART. 94. Proceedings of trials shall be carried on during such hours as the 

court-martial shall determine. 

Surely a general court-martial convened for the trial "of offenses 

ought to be allowed to adjourn and fix their hours of adjournment so as to be convenient to themselves and convenient to witnesses and the 

public. I hope therefore the law will be ehanged. 

:Mr. ?!HLLER, of California. I agree with the Senator from Ohio. -This article of war ought to be changed substa,ntially as the House has 

attempted to change it. The language, however, of this section 2 is 

very peculiar: 

SEC. 2. That article 94 of section 1342. of the Revised Statutes of tb,e United 

States be, and the same is hereby, repealed and amended so as to read as follows: 

I think that is rather contradictory, to repeal a· section and then 

amend it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We can amend that bystrikingontthe word "repealed.'' 

Mr. ¥ILLER, of California. It ought to be, " that article 94 be 

amended to read as follows.'' 

Mr. ALLISON. · We can not amend it here under our rules. 

l\IL MILLER, of California. We can not amend it ! Why n.ot? 

1\Ir. ALLISON. It is legislation. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. We can do it by unaB.imous consent so as to give it sense and meaning. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. Unanimous consent can do it. 

1\Ir. MILLER, of California. It is obviously a. mistake in the print,. 

or else done by inadvertence. 

Mr. ALLISON. This article 94 has been in existence, as stated by 

the Senator from Ohio, since the foundation of the Government, and was drawn from the articles of war of Great Britain. The law now provides that a court-martial shall be held between the hours of 8 in 

the morning and 3 in the afternoon. I quite agree with the Senator 

from Ohio that it may be inconvenient at times in general courts-mar7 

tial, such as that referred to by him for the trial of General Swaim, to 

hold the court between these hours; but this is a general provision; it 

relates to the entire Army of the United States, and I suppose it was inserted originally somewhat for the benefit of those who are accused 

of crime in the Army. It was intended that the accused should have 

full opportunity every day to bring his witnesses to the presence of the 

court; that a court-martial " organized to convict," if you please, as courts-martialhavesometimes been organized hitherto, it is said, should 

not put the accused through under a bop, skip, and jump; that he should 

have an opportunity day by day with his counsel to bring forward wit-" nesses and to examine the testimony as far as the trial had gone. It 

may be necessary, after the close of the day's sitting, that the accused 

should have an opportunity of reviewing the testinlony. 

The Committee on Appropriations did not feel itself authorized to 

take up on an appropriation bill the change of an article of war which 

had been carried through several wars in this country, including the 

late civil war, without change. ~Ir. SHERMAN. I am told by officers that it wa.~ not observed. 

Mr. MILLE~, of California. I will say to the Senator from Iowa 

that during the war, when we had numerous courts-martial, they held 

sessions at other hours than from 8 to 3. The~ held s~ions nil <lay 

sometimes. 

Mr. ALLISON. These articles, I believe, were revised after the war. Mr. MILLER, of California. I suppose the Secretn.ry of War, being 
, . 

1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1·565 

the authority by which courts-martial are authorized during the war, 

probably set the article aside in that particular, because I know that 

court-martial sessions were held all through the day and in the night. 

Mr. ALLISON. I agree that this is rather an inconvenient hour in 

the city of Washington, but it may be a very convenient hour elsewhere; and I trust because of some inconvenience in a single instance 

that we shall not on an appropriation bill .change this law, especially as we have no report from the Secretary of War and no report from the 

Committee on Military Affairs, the proper organ ofthe Senateinrefer- ence to such matters. If this is an inconvenience and if it requires 

change, it will be an easy thing any morning for the Military Committee to report an alteration of this article ofwar and to pass it through 

in a moment, and if it is so pressing, certainly there can be consent to 

pass it in the House of Representatives. 

1.1r. SHERUAN. The Senate being so thin, I do not propose to di- · vide the Senate on a question of this kind; but I think the new idea of 

avoiding legislation on appropriation bills is running to seed, although 

I see some provisions of a legislatiye character even in this bill that are not stricken out. But I have called the attention ofthe Senate to it, 

and I hope the committee of conference when they meet on this bill, if 

they do at all, will allow this section to stand. I -do not propose to divide 

the Senate at this time and in its present condition. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will put the question on the amendment of the committee to strike out the second section. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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. 

THE NEW ORLEANS EXPOSITIOY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following 

message from the President of the United States; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed: 

To the Senate and House of Repl'esen.tatives: 

I transmit herewith a copy of the report of the board of management of the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, dated February 2, 1885, 

requesting an additional appropriation to extinguish a deficit in itsaccounts, and asking authority to reopen the exhibition during the wint& of 1885-1886. A failure on the part of the management to carry out the oxiginal intentinre~ 

gard to the exposition might refiect upon the honor of the United States Gov- ernment, since twenty-one foreign nations and forty-six States and Territories have joined in the enterprise through faith in the sanction of the Government. In view of this fact, and in consideration of tlle value of the eXposition to the cause of material progress and general education, I respectfully submit the report mentioned for the favorable consi~cration of CC~TER A. ARTHUR. 

EXECUTIVE l\IANSION, 

JVash-inglon, Februa1·y 12, 1885. 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT DETROIT, )IlCH. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the bill (S. 1609) to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection 

of a. public building thereon at Detroit, Mich., which passed ihe Senate and has been returned by the House of Representatives with an amendment. The action of the House will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

IN TliE HO"CSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 12, 1885. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate, No: 1609, entitled "An act to provide for the ;f?Urch!U!e of a site and the erection of a public building thereon at De- troit, Mich.," do pass with the following amendment. In line 25 of the bill, at the end of section 1, add the following: "Pr(}vided, howevm·, That if a new site shall be purchased for said building, as hereinbefore authorized, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, after the site for said building shall have been purchased, to cause a plan and specifications of said building to be prepared, which said plan and specifications shall not involve an expenditure in the erection and completion of said build- ing and the approaches thereto exceeding th·e portion of said $900,000 remain~ 

ing after the site of said building shall have been paid for; and no plan for said building shall be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury involving an ex- penditure exceeding the sum so remaining alter paying for the site of said building." 

Mr. PALMER. I move the reference of that bill with the amend~ 

ment to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PENSION .APPROPRIATIO'N BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tetnpore laid before the Senate the action of the 

House of Representatives concurring in some and non-concurring in 

other amendments of the Senate to the -bill (H. R. 7785) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United 

States for the :fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, and for other purposes, 

and asking a. conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 

the two Houses thereon. 

Mr. ALLISON. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments 

disagreed to by the House and agree to the conference asked for by the 

House. 

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. ALLISON, Mr. 

DAWES, and Mr. CALL were appointed. 

CONSULAR A.J.~D DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before-the Senate the action of the 

Rouse of Representatives non-concurrii;lgin the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7857) making appropriations for the consular and 

diplomatic service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 

30, 1886, and for other purposes; and asking a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. I move· that the Senate insist on its amendments 

and agree to the conference asked by the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the. President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Sen~te; and 1rir. ALLISOY, Mr. 

HALE, aJ?-d Mr. BECK were appointed. 

.AMEND)IENTS TO BILLS. 

Mr. MILLER, of California, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported an amendment intended to be proposed to the sundry 

civil appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

1\Ir. MILLER, of California. Let the accompanying documents be 

printed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be made if there be no objection. 

Mr. PLATT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the river and harbor appropriation bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. 

On motion of Mr. HOAR, it was Ordered, That the petition of Samuel B. Gregory, with the accompanying papers, now on the files of the Senate, be withdrawn and referred to the Com- mittee on Pensions. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by 1rir. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 1751) to amend an act entitled ''An act to provide a building for the use of the United 

States circuit and district courts of the United States, the· post-office;· internal-revenue offices, and other Government offices at Erie, Pa.," 

and making an additional appropriation therefor, with amendments; 

in which it requested the concurrenceofthe S~nate. 

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 8183) to remove the. political disabilities of W. H. 

Murdaugh, of Virginia., was read twice by its title, and referred to the 

Committee gn the Judiciary. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN presented the petition of John Hancock and other 

gas-consumers of Washington, D. C., praying Congress to take such 

action in their behalf that they may be supplied with illuminating 

heating gas of superior quality and cheap manufacture known as steamcarbon gas; which was referred to the Committee on the District of 

Columbia. 

Mr. CONGER presented resolutions of the committee o~ foreign and 

coastwise commerce of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, Pa., and 

the executive committee ·of the Philadelphia 1\iaritime Exchange, protesting ~ooainstthepassageofthe bill (H. R. 7163) to regulate the forms 

of bills oflading and the duties and liabilitief'! of ship-owners and others; 

which were referred to the Committee on Commerce. i 

:Mr. MAHONE presented a memorial of the Chamber of Com,merce of, Richmond, Va., prayingthatRichmond bemadeanavalstation; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

COL. HEl\'UY J. HUNT. 

Mr. HAWLEY submitted a report to accompany the bill (H. R. 78) 

to provide for the retirement ofCol. Henry J. Hunt as ~ajor-general 1 

of the United States Army, heretofore reported by him from the Committee on Military Affairs. 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT ERIE, PA. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PLATT in the chair), laid before 

the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill 

(S. 1751) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide a building for the use of the United States circuit and district courts of the United Stat-es, 

the post-office, internal-revenue offices, and other Government offices at 

Erie, Pa.," and making an additional appropriation therefor. 

The amendments were read, being in lines 6 and 7, to strike out the 

words "three hundred" and insert the- words " two hundred and 

:fifty ;" in ]jne 10, to strike out the words " three hundred " and insert the words" two hundred and .fifty;" and at the end of line 10, 

;Utertheword "dollars," to add: "Andnoplanshall be approved which 1 

will involve an expenditure fo1· site and building complete greater than 

the amount hereby :fixed as the limit of cost.'' 

l'Ir. MITCHELL. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House. I will state that the House amendments reduce 

the limit _$50,000. · We think it ought not to be reduced; but to secure the passage of the bill I consent to the' amendments. 

·The amendments were concurred in. 
1566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- · SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE REBELLION. 

Ur . .ALDRICH submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

lir. :MORGAN. A finHl settlement of a matter of this kind in th~ 

Interior Department relates only to the issue of the patent. It does 

not relnte to the title, because that is all the time-a matter open for 

controversy in the courts. Nobody can prevent that. 

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Printing are hereby directed tore- Mr. SHER?!'fAN. I should like to ask the Senator a question. Sapport what, if any, further legislation is necessary to secure the prop~r clistril;m- pose tL-t under the amendment proposed the imperfect ng· ht of a per- tion of the copies of the Official Rooord3 of the War of the Rebellion, wh1ch lli1l 

members of the Forty-seventh Congress who have deceased since the passage son who has entered the lands at a doJ.lar and a quarter an acre and 

of the act of August 7, 1882, were entitled to at the time of their death. paid his m"Oney into the Treasury of the United States is defeated by a 

PUBLIC-LAND LAws. subsequent entry by some person under the homestead ·act, would not . · . ·that make at once a claim against the Government of the United States 

The PRESIDING OF~ICER. _It IS· the ~u~ of the _Chau to la.J be- in favor of the person who had bonght the land for the amount of the 

fore the Senate the ~~ed busmess, whi~h IS the bill qr. R. t004) purchase-money of the land, perhaps with interest, and would not that 

to repeal allla~s proY"l:ding fo~ the pre-emption of the public lands and multiply the difficulties that arise oat of this state of affairs? 

the laws allowmg entnes for .timber-culture. . . . 1\'fr. MORGAN. There is no doubt about its making a claim against 

Mr. P~Ul\IB. I ask unamm~ms consent, pen_din~ the consideration the Government of the United States for the amount of money paid in, 

of that bill, to take up House b1ll No. 7522, whlch Is on the table. the dollar and a quarter an acre, and we have a general statute now 

. The PRESIDING 9FFICER: ?-'he Se:r:ta~r from Kans.~ asks unan- which provides that in all such cases the money shall be returned to I~ous consent to co~der at thiS time. th~ b~ (H. R. 752 .... ) for the re- the party who had made the entry, without interest. The Senator from 

lief of J osepb F · Wilson. . Is ther~ obJection · Ohio does not want to pay interest, I presume? .1\Ir. HARRIS. Yes, srr; there IS. · • Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senato! fr~m Te~essee obJects. ?tfr. MORGAN. That is the law now. I confess my surprise at the at-

?tfr. HARRIS. I want to fi:.'lke up House bills m theu regular order. titude of some of the Sena:tors on that side of the Chamber on this ques1\Ir. PLU~IB. I_ ask unammous c_onsent ~be allowed to make a tion. I thought that they in good faith were trying to protect the 

statement about thiS case. N~, I believe I will not make a~tement. homesteaders and the pre-emptors. Thatwas the impression made on Mr. HARRIS. I d~ not obJect to a .statement, but I obJect to the my mind by the different resolutions motions and amendments that 

consideration of the bill. . . . . . have been made. Now, when I sngge,!;t that these men shall have patThe Senate res~ed ~e conSideration. of the b1ll (H: R. 7004) tore- ents for their lands upon the basis of the homestead and pre-emption 

peal allla'Ys proVI?Jng for. the pre-emption of the public lands and the laws, and that those patents shall prevail against the void entries and 

laws allowrng entries for ttmber-culture. . . . against the void patents paid for by the lumbermen and the specuThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The question iS on the amendment lators at a dollar and a, quarter an acre, I find oppo ition from the Senproposed by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN]. ators from Michigan and others. Well, sir--

Mr. PALMER. I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. BLAIR. May I ask the Senator a question? 

The yeas and nays were ordered. . . Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARRISON. I understooi[ the Sena~r from 1\Iichi~an, J?erhaJ?S 1\'fr. BLAIR. I was not present when the vote was taken on the Senboth Senators from that Sta~, to say tha~ with some modifi.cati~m tbiS ator's amendment and I suppose it is still pending. I do not underamendment was altogether m harmony With the amendment which has stand why he uses the word ''final'' with reference to the controversy 

been adopted. before the Department when under existing law parties always have a The PRESIDING OF_FI~R. The yeas _and nays have been ordered. right to go further to the courts. . 

llr. 1\Ill..LER, of Caliform.a.. I should ~e to have the amendment Mr. MORGAN. The word "final" relates to the action of the Deread so that I may know what we are voting upon. . partment. 

The PRESIDING OFFI~ER. The amendment~ be read. Mr. BLAIR. Does it have any effect whatever? Does the Senator 

The CHIEF CLERK. It IS proposed to add to section 7- mean it to have any effect whatever? 

And all questions relating to such confiicting ~!aims or settlements shall be Mr MORGAN It has effect on the officers of the Department of subject to adjudication and final decision in the De~rtment of the Interior, and · · · ' in case there is any actual settlement on any of said lands in good faith under course. · . . thehomesteadandpre-emptionlawsoftheUnited States made prior to January 1\'fr. BLAIR. I do not understand m what way It has any effect on 25,,1885, the ~ights of such settlers shall prev~il against any previous entry at the the officers of the Department to provide that their action shall be final. 

price of SL25 per acre. Their action will be the same in any case. The word ''final'' comes 

1\!r. MORGAN. I confess my surprise at the objection made by the in in such a way as to prevent further action beyond the jurisdiction of 

Senator from Michioaan [Mr. CONGER]. I thought the amendment the officers of the Department. It seems to me that the Senator's po- was exactly in the line of his policyinregard to the public lands. Now, sitionlimits andrestrictsand injures the homesteaderorthepre-emptor, 

I wish to remark to the Senate that the bill as amended secures titles as the case may be, who is in possession; it deprives him of a right to 

by subsequent ratification of the Congress of the United States to those be relieved of injustice by the action of the courts when it is perpetrated men who had no titles, who had entered landsat adollarandaquarter against him bytheDepartment. Thatrighthenowhas. Ifthatword an acre, and· it stops right there. Both the Senators from Michigan "final" were striken out, the amendment, to my mind, would be persaidthattheyhadadesiretoprotecthomesteadersandpre-emptionclaim- haps one in the direction of relief. It is now one of injury andreants upon these same lands who had no right, of course, to file their en- striction. 

tries upon this description of lands until Congress enabled them to do ?t'fr. MORGAN. The Sentttor attributes too much weight to the so or until the lands were offered a second time for sale. I thought word ''final'' in the context. The object of putting that word in was that while weweresecuring titlestothoselumbermen who had bought to have the decision finally made as between these litigant.s or contestthese lands at a dollar and a quarter an acre under circumstances that ants for the patent, and only for the patent. were not entirely free from suspicion, it would be exactly in ·harmony Mr. BLAIR. Is not that the case now? Does not the Department 

with the policy indicated by the senior Senator from Michigan that we proceed to a decision npon which the patent is to be issued? . should also secure titles to those men who had made homestead and Mr. 1\IORGAN. It certainly does, but at the same time--

pre-emption entries upon the same lands, who in good faith had built Mr~ BLAIR. Then, if the Senator will pardon me for asking a qnestheir homesteads and made their pre-emption entries upon the same tion, what is the effect of the word n final" so far as the action of the 

lands. Department is concerned? 

I also thought that it was right, inasmuch as I supposed both Sena- 1\Ir. 1\IORGAN. The bill brings within the jurisdiction of the Detors concurred in it, that we should give the preference to a homesteader partment a class of cases that are not now within its jurisdiction, and or a pre·emptor over a man who had bought the land at a dollar and a w bile the adjudications of the Department are final under the existing 

quarter an acre and bad got a certificate which was entirely void, en- law in respect of the issue of a patent, giving the consent of the Govtirely invalid under the law. Therefore I proposed to iplprove the ernment through its authorized agents to the passage of the title from 

amendment offered by the junior Senator from Michigan. While we the Government to the par~ purchasing-while that is the fact in re- were granting good titles to these men who had void titles and who had gard to the general operations of the Interior Department, when we paid a dollar and a quarter an acre for them, I proposed to grant patents bring a new subject within the jurisdiction that is not now within it, 

also, after investigation in the Interior Department, to those men who it is proper to apply the law as it exists to this new subject. 

had ffiade homestead entries upon these lands, and in ca.se of contest Mr. BLAIR. I understand that the Senator proposes to make a law 

between the homesteader or pre-emptor and the person who held the under which the Department will have a jurisdiction to decide someinvalid title, my amendment gives the preference t.o the homesteader or thing and to decide everything up to the point of the issuance of the 

the pre-emptor. patent. The adjective "final," ifl comprehend it and its use, can have 

1\Ir. BLAIR. Suppose the conflict is between a homesteader and a· no reference whatever to the action of the Department in the exercise 

pre-emptor, what would be the effect of the amendment in that case? of its jurisdiction until it has issued the patent, and then its operation 

M.r. MORGAN. Then the amendment suggests that it shall be set- is such as to restrict the exercise of the litigant's right of appeal. It 

tied in the Interior Department. prevents the.exercise of any such right to go further. 

:1\-Ir. BLAIR. And that the settlement be final and that the existing Mr. MORGAN. An appeal to what? 

right to go to the courta be denied. The word "final" is still in the Mr. BLAIR. If the decision is final there can be no appellatejnrisamendment. diction beyond it. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1567 

Mr. MORGAN. Is there any now? I ask the Senator, is thereany 

appellate jurisdiction now from the Department of the Interior to any 

court in the United States? 

:M:r. BLAIR. Not direct from the Department, perhaps, but there· is a right to go to the courts. There is no provision of law that the 

litigant is concluded by the decision of the Department; he may have 

his resort to the courts. The Senator's amendment deprives him of 

the right to try his cause and have it adjudicated by a jury of his coun- trymen, if I understand it. 

.ltl.r. 1\IORGAN. Then the Senator does not understand it. 

Mr. HARRISON. 1.\Ia.y I ask the Senator from Alabama whether 

the word ''final '' as used in the amendment is at all essential to the 

amendment? 

Jltlr. MORGAN. I do not think that it is at all essential. 

Mr. HARRISON. It seems to me not. . 

Jlt!r. BLAIR. Then strike it out. 

Mr. HARRISON. I suggest to leave it off. 

t Mr. MORGAN. No, sir; I do not choose to submit to aimere hypercriticism which does not amount to anything. Every lawYer understands that the action of the Department of the Interior upon a question of title to a tract of land culminates and is fully expressed in the 

issuing of a patent or in the rejection of an application for a patent; 

and a..twr the party gets his ·patent to that tract 9f land it is open to 

attack in court precisely as if he did not have any patent, precisely as 

the title is. That is all I undertake to provide in this case. I merely 

try to apply the laws of the United States in the very sense in which 

they are now applied to this new case brought within their jurisdiction. 

That is the whole matter. 

Senators seem to ·be very much afraid that somebody who has bought 

these lands and got a paten~ for them at a dollar and a quarter an acre, 

the patent being entirely void, will not be able to oust somebody else 

of the right to an interest in these public lands. I insist that the 

statutes of the United States ought to apply to this case precisely as they are applied to all other questions adjudicated in the Interior Department, and as this is a new jurisdiction conferred only by the bill 

giving rights which now do not exist, I thought that it was only proper 

that we should apply the law as it does exist to these new titles and 

this new jurisdiction. That is the whole of it. 

Jltlr. BLAIR. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question? 

Jltlr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

}1r. BLAIR. I ask ~hether the law as it now stands in reference to 

the jurisdiction o( the Land Office upon matters properly before it in 

controversy provides that the decision of the Inter~or Department shall 

be final? 

Mr. UORGAN. Final as to the right of the party to the muniment 

of title, the patent? 

Mr. BLAIR. Final in its broad sense? 

Mr. MORGAN. Oh, no. 

Mr. BLAIR. Final in the broad sense in which the word ' 'final ' ' 

is used in the amendment? That is the question. . I wish now while I a·m speaking to resent the su&,ooestion of the Senator that the proposal that the word ''final' ' be stricken out is an effort 

in the direction which he intimates. I should be very glad t-o support 

his amendment if I did not believe that the use of the word "final" 

has the e1l'ect to rob the litigant of a right which he now has and must 

have. · 

Mr. 1\IORGAN. That is nottheintentionofit. TheSenato.rbroad- ens the meaning of the word "tinal" so as to extend it to title, and I am applying it. only to a muniment of title. That is the difference between us. The action of the Department shall be final so far as the 

patent is concerned in passing the title from it to the other party through a deed, a patent. That is all of it. After you have got it into the 

hands of the patentee it is open to litigation in respect of everything 

but the lawful issue of the patent, precisely as it was before any action was taken upon it. I am merely applying the law as it stands to the 

new case that is to be brought before the Department in which a new jurisdiction is to be conferred. I have no pride of opinion about it, but 

still I can not recognize that the Senator's point of objection is material, for he is thinking about the bill having an effect upon the question 

of title, when I am sure it does not. It will have an effect only upon 

the muniment of title, the patent. 

Mr. HARRISON. I have just looked at the amendment for a mo- ment, and I wish to ask the Senator from Alabama whether he will not 

consent to insert after the words ''Secretary of the Interior '' the-words 

"and the judicial courts of the United States;" so that the decision 

would be left to the Interior Department so far as the law provides for 

the consideration of any qu.estions there, and so far as questions may 

arise for the courts the parties may go into the courts. I think it would 

help to secure the adoption of some portion of the amendment, which 

I think is in the right direction. 

Mr. MORGAN. I have no objection to having those words go in to 

explain it to the satisfaction of any Senator who does not understand 

the law very well 

Jltlr. HARRISON. I was.making a concession. 

Mr. MORGAN. I beg pardon. 

Tbe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Indiana move to amend the amendment? 

Mr. HARRISON: Yes, I move to insert after the words ''Secretary 

of the Interior," in line 6, the words "and the judicial courts of the 

United States." 

Mr. BLAIR. How will it read then? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read as it 

would read if amended. 

The Secretary read ~ follows: 

And all questions relating to such conflicting claims or settlements shall be subject to adjudication and final decision in the Department of the Interior and the judicial courts of the United States; and in case there is any actual settle- ment, &c. 

Mr. MORGAN. I suggest to the Senator that be had better put in 

words so as to include the judicial courts of the States. 

Mr. HARRISON. Does the Senator from Alabama make a suggestion that the phraseology used would limit the jurisdiction to theFederal courts? . Mr. MORGAN. That is the way I understand it. 

Mr. HARRISON. That was not my intention. I did not intend to 

exclude the jurisdiction of the State courts in any case where they 

would have jurisdiction, and if the language does that it does not express my intention. I ask the Senator if he now thinks that would be 

the effect of it? 

Jltlr. MORGAN. No, I suppose not; I am indifferent about it. I 

merely wanted to have Senators understand it before vo_ting upon it. 

The PRESIDENT p1·ote-mpm·e. The courts of the United States have 

final jurisdiction of all questions arising under the Constitution and 

ll}ows of the United States. 

Mr. HARRISON. That is true. 

Jltlr. DOLPH. Is the question now before the Senate on the motion 

to amend the amendment? 

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

amendment proposed by the enator from Indiana to the amendment 

of the Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. DOLPH. I wish to occupy but one moment. As I said, the 

amendment which has been adopted does not affect any case where there are conflicting claims between individuals. It only affects a case where 

there is a conflict of title between an individual and the Government, 

and with such lands we have a right to deal as we please. But when we come t-o legislate in regard to a tract of land which is claimed by 

two or more citizens under different laws, we have not a right to do as 

we please. I am not in favor of any amendment which proposes to forestall the action of the Department of the Interior and forestall the 

courts and say that when you come to adjudicate a contested case you 

shall decide in favor of one class of citizens and against one. class of 

claimants. 

I will go as far as any member of the Senate iu favor of a homestead 

and pre-emption claimant1 but what is done in their favor must be done 

in accordance with law and right. If there are two or more claimants 

to a tract or to several tracts of land, they now have a right to go into 

the Department or to go into the courts and have their rights adjudicated. I can not sit here and vote for an amendment which will un- dertake to forestall the action of the courts and say that the courts :md 

the Department must render a given decision right or wrong where 

there is a conflict of claims. 

I do not" care particularly what is done with the pending-amendment, 

but I wish to state my position upon it. I can not vote for any amendment by which we shaV. undertake to settle private rights by act of 

Congress. 

Mr. MORGAN. I was not trying to forestall the action of the courts 

and compel them to decide where the title might be after we got through 

with this very delicate subject; but I was trying to provide that the 

officers of this Government should issue patents w:tllch Congress would 

declare valid to certain persons. The bill provides for the confirmation 

of a patent heretofore issued in favor of a purchaser at a dollar and :t 

quarter an acre, notwithstanding his purchase was invalid at the time 

he made it. .My amendment provides that if there is a homesteader or pre-emptor there he shall have a patent for his land under the adjudication of the Interior Depa,rtment, provided he establishes his claim, 

and that his claim shall be paramount to that of the man who claims 

the land under a previous purchase at a dollar and a quarter an acre. That is the situation exactly. I am not trying to forestall a judicial 

decision about this matter; I am merely trying to secure to homesteaders and pre-emptors upon these lands their rights. They have 

gone in innocence, theyhavegone by invitation of the Government upon 

these public lands, and when they get there they find themselves con- fronted with a patent or certificate issued to a purchaser at a dollar and 

a quarter an acre, who says to the pre-emptorand to the land officer 

and to the courts, '' this :is an invalid arrangement, it carries no title, 

because at the time the certificate was issued the lands were not mar- ketable, they were not subject to sale by the local land o:ffi.cem." A 

provision was offered here, as I understood it, for the purpose of confuming their rights, ·and in cases where there were no conflicts between 

such persons and the prior purchasers for the purpose of confirming the 

rights of the prior purchasers who got the land at a dollar and a quarter an acre. That is the way I undemtood the matter. 

In order to secure to the homesteaders and the pre-emptors an ad judication in their favor in the Interior Department in the case-of conflict-
1568 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 12, 

ing claims, and also a patent upon which they could rest, I have offerred my amendment to the bill, and I :find that it stirs up a great 

deal of strife. It seems to me that I have touched upon a sort of tender 

point about this case, and that after all, while there are great professions here in favor of the homesteaders and the pre-emptors, the real 

object is to protect the logmen and the lumbermen; it is to protect 

that class of men about whom the Senator from :Missouri spoke to-day, 

who he said had gone in there and had inveigled the public office1·s, 

contrary to instructions in some cases, to permit entries to be made at. a dollar and a quarter an acre, they knowing and the purchasers knowing that all they were buying was like a ticket in the Louisiana Lottery; 

it was a mere chance· to drnw a prize. 

I have not brought this subject into this case. The Committee on 

Public Lands did not bring this question into the case. We have been 

considering a bill having reference .only to the modification or repeal of 

the pre-emption laws, the timber-culture laws, and the desert-land 

laws. Now we have switehed off until we have got the main issue be-

. fore the Senate, which has occupied the time of this body for hours and 

hours together, the control of certain lands in the State of Michigan, 

about which there seems to be more interest and to which more attention is drawn than there is to all the rest of the lands in the United 

States, although the bill covers the whole country. 

In the pursuit of this controversy a question has arisen here as to 

whether the titles which we are trying to confirm are titles that are at 

war with the rights of homesteaders and pre-emptors, and also whether 

that title is at war with persons who have bought these lands subsequently and paid for them at two dollars and a half an acre. A goo~ 

deal of debate has gone on about that. I had the honor to offer an amendment which I thought would reconcile everybody about it so that we could get rid of tlus bill and the Senate could proceed with the 

public business. After som-e lapse of time, when the proposition was duly digested an the other side of the Chamber among the Senators 

who are particularly interested in this matter, it obviously turns out 

that the whole intent and purpose of this legislation is to protect the 

men who hold the titles at a dollar and a quarter an acre, which are 

invalid, against everybody, 3oo-ainst the men who p::l.id two dollars and a half an acre for land subsequently, :;\nd against the homesteaders and 

pre-emptors. That is an ob_vious fact; and I am here trying to defend 

those perSo.tlS in their rights acquired urider the laws of the United 

States, while Senators who professed to be their champions and defenders a few hours ago are here warring against them. That is the 

situation. 

I maintain that the Senate of the United States ought not in justice 

and duty to the country to ratify and confirm these void titles, pronounced twelve years ago to l;Je void by the Supreme Court of the United 

States, unless in the mean time it protects those men who have honestly 

gone upon these lands and acquired homesteads there. 

My amendment refers only to bona fide homesteaders and pre-emptors, 

not to men who set up pretended claims. While this controversy has 

been going on and since the decision of the Supreme Court twelve years 

ago, which invalidated the entries at a dollar and a quarter an acre, men have been settling themselves upon these lands in .Michigan, claiming 

under the invitation of the Government of the United States the right 

to go there and to locate their homesteads and pre-emptions; and now it is proposed that we shall ratify and confirm the previous title and 

cut these men out entirely. That is what is meant by the amendment 

put upon the bill on the motion of the Senator from :Michigan. I have 

said ahout it all I intend to say; and I shall let the Senate vote upon the 

amendment I have offered, so fur as I am concerned. 

1\lr. HARRI O~. I ask leave to modify my amendment to the 

amendment. 

The PRESIDEN'J,' p ro tempore. The Senator has a right to modify 

his amendment. 

Mr. HARRISON. Insteadofmakingitread,' and the judicial courts 

of the United States,'' I will modify it so as to read, '' and the proper 

judicial courts." I suppose the final jurisdiction is in the United States 

courts in these cases; but I do not want to exclude the idea that preliminary jurisdiction may be in the State courts. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana modifies 

his amendment to the amendment offered by the Senat.or from Alabama. The amendment to the amendment will M read as modified. 

The SECRETARY. In line·6, after the word '' Interi_or, ''it is proposed 

to insert " and the proper judicial courts;" so as to read: 

And all questions relatin~ to such confticting claims or settlements shall be 

subject to adjurlication and final decision in the Department of the Int~riorand 

the proper judicial courts, &c. 

Mr. CONGER. It is very unfortunate that any Senator on this :floor 

sbould presume to call in question the argument,_ or the reasoning, or 

the conclusions of the Senator from Alabama. One might know beforehand that it would fall into a personal attack upon one who was so presumptuous. 

Now it does not turn out, as the Senator with so much assurance as- ·serts, tbat any Senator on this side of the Chamber, or any Senator from 

Michigan, or any Senator who has advocated the original amendment, 

has forsaken his position; that he has been inconsistent; that he stands 

here as the advocate of men who have accnmmulated vast amounts of 

land for any purpose whatever; and the Senator had no business to make 

such an intimation or such an insinuation. I dismiss it by saying that 

it was unworthy of him and of the place where the assertion was made. 

The amendment which we advocated rela,ted only to claims where 

there was no conflict. In the express language of the amendment offered by my coll~o-ue, it related only to clainls where there was no con- :fiict. To what does the Senator's amendment relate? It refers to all 

such "conflicting claims.'' That is a new subject introduced. It has 

nothing to do with the amendment offered by my colleague. The claims 

referred to in the amendment offered by my collea,.o-ue are claims where 

there is no conflict, and the amendment &'tys so. Why does t.he gentle- man wish to introduce an amendment here about another set of claims, 

the conflicting claims which are not reached in any possible way by the 

mea...cmre which we have been .advocating? 

:Ur. MORGAN. Will the Senator allow me to inquire whether the 

words '' no valid conflicting claims'' do not form a part of the language 

of the amendment as adopted? 

1\Ir. CONGER. Of course valid conflicting claims or conflicting 

claims are excluded. It says where there are no conflicting claims the 

confirmation shall operate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator from Michigan will 

suspend, the Chair will answer the inquiry of the Senator from Alabama. The amendment heretofore agreed to by the Senate, in that 

part of it, reads:-

Without such lands having first been proclaimed by the President and offered at public auction, and where, on the 2;;th day of Janu~ry, 1885, there were no valid confticting claims thereto or settlement thereon. 

Mr. MORGAN. Then the Senator misquotes the amendment. I 

suppose he does it by accident. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I do not do it by accident. I say where there were 

no conflicting claims the amendment makes the title good. That is 

plain enough; and the Senator has retired from it on my assertion, I 

see. 

Notwithstanding the Senator has chided us for introducing into the 

bill new matter, he has introduced a new class of cia~. Whether 

they come in or do not come in, it does not affect the previous provisions where there are no conflicting claims. I think the amendment 

offered by my coll~rrue was a just and a proper one, protecting the 

rights of citizens of the United States against the fault or default of the 

Government of the United States, and that is what we wanted to meet. 

If the Sena.tor wishes to bring in other claims, if he wishes to introduce 

into the bill additional matter, that is his proposition. He is determining beforehand by his amendment that the decision either at the 

local land office or at the Land Department generally shall be final on all these questions. He brings in new matter and a new class of claims 

which are especially excepted out of the previous amendment, and I 

object to it. 

:Mr. VEST. Before the vote is taken on the pending question I should 

like to make an inquiry of the mover of the amendment as to what is 

the meaning of a valid conflicting claim? Wben a cL.'tim is not in con- flict with another, the one that prevails I suppo e is the valid one! 

1\Ir. CONGER. If the Senator will read the provision he will see 

that it &'tys where "there are no valid conflicting claims" then it shall 

take effect. 

1\Ir. VEST. I understand that. I suppose that if it were a conflicting claim that is not valid, it would be a different thing. 

Mr. CONGER. They are an exception. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. As to the meaning of the clause which the Senator from Michigan has been talking about, I think the bill intends to 

saythatasbetween the holder of a valid claim and any other claimant 

the holder of a valid claim shall have preference, whether he be a homesteader or a pre-emptor or whatever his relations to the lands may be. 

It is declared that the men who confessedly have an invalid claim shall 

have their claim made valid against other invalid claims. That is the 

effect of the provision. 

For one I wish to say, and that will end this debate so far as I am concerned-! have not ,taken up much time in it--that in every case where a homesteader, a m3n who goes to make his home upon the land 

ofthe United States-uponareasonableamount of that land-to make a furm and a home, even if he mistakes the law, even if his proceedings to acquire title under the land laws are inefficient and ineffective, so far as I am concerned I always shall be ready to support legislation 

to secure him in that purchase, or attempted purchase, and to resist 

the invasion of others upon the land; but I do hold that where men go 

to buy the pine lands of the United States, or where men undertake to 

buy vast quantities of the grazing lands of the United States, men who 

ought to be advised as to what the laws are, men who have the means 

and the time and the ability to know what the laws are, and purchase 

vast tracts of these lands, and then come to the Government to ask the 

Government to confirm those invalid titles, for one I shall not be willing to do it, certainly not as against any man who wants to use any 

part of those lands as a home. 

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

amendment proposed by the Senator from Indiana to the amendment 

offered by the Senator irom Alabama. 

Mr. MORGAN. I will accept that if I have the right to do it. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1569 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama can not 

accept it, the yeas and nays having been ordered upon his amendment. 

Mr. HOAR (to 1.Ir. MORGAN). Ask unanimous consent. · Mr. 1\IORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I may ac~t the 

amendment of the Senator from Indiana. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from .Alabama asks unan- imous consent that he may a{}Cept the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. h there objection? The Chair hears none, and the 

amendment to the amendment is accepted. The question recurs on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from .Alabama as amended, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. SAWYER. I should like to hear the amendment read. 

The .PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read as amended. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add to section 7: 

And all questions relating to such con.tlicting claims or settlements shall be 

subject to adjudication and final decision in the Department of the Interior and 

the proper judicial courts; and in case there is any actual settlement on any of 

said lands in good faith under the homestead and pre-emption laws of the 

United States made prior to January 25, 1885, the rights of such settlers shall 

pre'o-ail against any previous entry at the price of $1.25 per acre, 

The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The Secretary will call the roll on agreeing to the amendment as amended. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. FRYE (when hisna-tne was called). I am paired with the junior 

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GmsoN]. . Mr. SABIN (when his name was called). I am paired .on this question with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KENNA]. If he we~ 

here, I presume he would vote "yea;" I should vote "nay." 

The roll-call having been concluded, the rffiult was announced-yeas 

28, nays 14; as follows: · 

Aldrich, 

Bayard, 

Blair, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Edmunds, 

Garland, 

'George, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

Harris, 

Harrison, 

Ingalls, 

Jackson, 

Cameron of Wis., Hawley, Conger, Hill, 

Cullom, Lapham, Dolph, Mandereon, 

YEA&-28. 

· Jonas, 

Lamar, 

Maxey, 

Miller of Cal., 

Miller of N.Y., 

Morgan, 

Morrill, 

NAYS-14. 

Mitchell, 

Palmer, 

Pike 

Sawyer, 

ABSENT-34. 

AlUson, Cockrell, .Tones of Florida, 

Beck, Dawes, .Tones of Nevada, 

Bowen, Fair, Kenna, 

Brown, Farley, Logan, Butler, Frye, . McMillan, 

Call, Gibson, McPherson, 

Camden, Gorman, Mahone, 

Cameron of Pa., Hale, Plumb, 

Chace, Hoar, Ransom, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Pendleton, 

Platt, 

Pugh, 

Slater, 

Varice, 

Vest, 

Voorhees. 

VanWyck. 

Wilson. 

Riddleberger, 

Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Sewell, · Sherman, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If no further amendment be proposed the que<3tion is, Shall the amendmenta be engrossed and the bill 

be read a third time? 

The amendmenta were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time. . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the bill pass? 

[Putting the question.] The 1

' noes" appear to have it. 

Mr. DOLPH. What is the questWn? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of. the bill. _ 

Mr. DOLPH. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I was in the cloak-room and the bill passed to ita 

present stage before I was aware of the fact. There was an amendment prepared by me in the first instance, but I think improved by 

the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLmm], which would give the bill, if 

it is to pass, the approval, I think, of a great many Senators who otherwise might not vote for it. In order to enable me to propose the 

amendment I move to reconsider the vote ordering the bill to a third 

reading. 

Mr. HOAR. I hope the Senator from Ohio will have unanimous con"' 

sent to move an amendment at this stage. 

Mr. DOLPH. I think there will be no opposition to that course. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the vote or- d~ring the third reading of the bill will be reconsidered in order to en- able the Senator from Ohio to offer an amendment. Is there objection? 

The Chair hears none. The Senator from Ohio has sent to the desk 

the amendment submitted and printed as intended to be offered by the 

Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLmm]. · 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is the one I prefer. It accomplishes the same purpose and in fewer words. 

The PRESI~~T pro tempore. .The amendment will be read. 

.XVI-99 

The CHIEF CLERK. After section 4 it is proposed to insert aa a new section: 

SEc. 5. That hereafter no public lands of the United States not heretofore offered at public sale, except abandoned military or other reservntions and mineral and other lands, the sale of which at public auction has been authorized by acts of Congress of a special nature having local application, shall be sold at public sale or be subject to private entry. . 

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

amendment. 

Mr. DOLPH. I fear the amendment will provoke discussion, but I 

hope the lastclause, thewords "or be subject toprivate entry,"maybe 

stricken out, because no land is subject to private entry unless it is first 

offered at public sale. Then the amendment will prevent any land being 

offered at public sale, and, of course, any land in the future being subject to private entry. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have shown the amendment to several Senators 

who are more familiar with the land laws than I am, because I am not 

very familiar with them, and it has met with their approval. I think 

those words would do no harm. Entry at private sale means entry for 

money. My purpose is that all lands ~hat may hereafter be offered or ordered to be offered for public sale, or which may be offered under 

special laws limited to particular tracts of land, shall only be open for 

entry under the homffitead system of.the public lands. 

l\:lr. LAPHAM. I ask the Senator to except soldiers' l~d-warrnnta. 

1\Ir: SHERI\IAN. Idonotthinkthatisnecessary. However, I have no objection to adding to the provision that it shall not apply to entries 

under soldiers'· land-warranta. 

Mr. DOLPH. I think, as that would specify some exceptions and . leave out others, the amendment had better remain .as it is. 

1\Ir.: SHERMAN. It had better be left as it is, because the entry of 

land by warrants is not an entry with money. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. · Will the Senator from New York 

state, so that the clerks maytake·it'tiown, the modification which he 

proposes to the amendment? [A pause.] Hn.stheSenatorwithdrawn 

his proposition to amend? .1\Ir. SHERMAN. I withdraw it. I do not think it necessary to 

make that provision, because there are very few such land-warranta out, 

and I do not think they are considered in the Land Office as being private entrie'3. They are piovide<l for by existing law; and the amendment 

I offer will not interfere with entries by land-warrants if there are any 

outs4mding. I did not know that there were any out now. Mr. DOLPH. If the amendment would at all affect lands which are now subject to private entry, then it would be necessary that the 

amendment suggested by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 

:md which was printed and laid on the desks of Senators, should be 

adopted also, so as to allow agricultural-college scrip, bounty-land 

warrants, and all other scrip authorizeu ·under acts of Congress t-o be 

still located. If it is clear that the amendment applies only to public 

lands which have never-been offered at privatesale, and does not affect 

public lands which have been heretofore offered, then it is not neces- sary. . That is the reason why I propose to strike out the words '' or be subject to private entry.'' Every Senator knows that lands are not subject to private entry until they have been offered at public s:Ue. The 

amendment as it would stand after those words were stricken out would 

prevent the offering of lands at public sale, and consequently no additional funds would in the future become subject to private entry. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state to the Senator 

from Oregon that the Senator from Ohio has withdrawn his amendment. 

1\Ir. DOLPH. I do not understand that he has withdrawn his 

amendment. It was the amendment proposed to the amendment that 

he withdrew a.:fter having first agreed to accept it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think that the amendment interferes at 

all with entries upon any existing lands now subject to sale. It does 

not affect the existing law in that rffip.ect. Beside'3, I have excepted 

from the operation of this proposed .law all lands heretofore open for 

private entry. It only applies to lands which may become subject to 

private entry'-."I?-pon the order of the Secretary of t"Qe Interior by offering 

them for public sole. · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understood the Senator 

from Ohio to have withdrawn his amendment. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Oh, no; I only withdraw the amendment to the 

amendment. 

The PRESIDENT pr_o tempore. The Chair apologizes to the Senator 

from Oregon [Mr. DOLPH]. The Chair misunderstood the Senator from 

Ohio. 

M,"r. SHERMAN. An amendment was proposed to the amendment, 

and there was sOme controversy between Senators around m~ in regard 

to the necessity of it, and I preferred to let my amendment stand as it 

was :first offered. As it now reads it has been carefully considered by 

Senators who are familiar with the land -laws. I submitted it also to 

the Senator from Oregon himself, and I supposed it would be satisfactory. 

Mr. DOLPH. In justice to myself I should state that I sngge'3ted 
1570 CONGRESSIONAL R:ECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 12, 

to the Senator that the last clause of the amen~~t sho~ld be stricken 

out. I agree with the Senator that the construction of the amepdment 

will be as he supposes; and now that the matter has been the subject 

of debate so as to show what is intended, and will be some direction to 

the land officers, I shall not insist upon any amendment to the amendment. 

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

amendment of the Senator from Ohio. 

.Mr. MORGAN. As I understand the. amendment of the Senator 

from Ohio it is to cutoff the right of private entry. ~lr. SHERMAN. Yes, that is what is intended, except as to landwarrants, &c. I say nothing about them, because the technical phrase 

"priTate entry," I am told, is confined to the entry of public land 

with money. 

Mr. MORGAN. The chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, 

who is not present at this time, made rather a complete st.'1t6ment on 

the subject in regard to the amount of lands in the United States subject to private entry. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My amendment expressly excepts all lands that 

have heretofore been offered at public sale. It does not affect any of 

the lands that have been in controversy in the Southern States. 

Mr. MORGAN. I ask that the amendment may be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be again read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is propo ed to insert as an additional section 

after section ·4 of the bill: 

SEc. 5. That hereafter no public lands of the United Stat~ not heretofore offered at public sale, except abandoned military or other reserv-ations. and mineral and other lands the sale of which at public auction has been authorized by act of Congress of a special nature having local application, shall be sold at public .sale or be subject to private entry. 

~1r. SHERMAN. The amendment purposely except-8 all lands that 

have heretofore been offered at public sale. 

The PRESIDENT pro t~mpor . The que. tion is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs, Shall the 

amendments be engrossed and the bill be :read a third time? 

The amendment-8 wereordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the bill pass? 

Mr. SLATER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the 

bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpm·e. The Chair assumes, and if there be 

DD objection will take it, that the yeas and nays heretofore ordered on 

the passage of the bill shall stand. as the presen.t order. The Se.cretary 

will call the roll on the passage of the bill. • 

The yeas and nays were taken. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am paired with the Senator from Rhode Island 

[Mr. CHACE]. If he were present, I should vote "nay.' 

Mr. ALDRICH. I am paired with the Senator from Maryland [M.r. 

GORMAN]. 

The result was announce~-nays 26, nays 20; as follows: 

Blair, 

Brown. 

Cameron of Wis., 

Conger, 

Cullo1n, 

Dolph, 

Harrison, 

Bayard, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, Edmunds, Garland, 

l!awley, 

!till 

RoO:.., 

Lapham, 

McMillan, 

1\Iahone, 

l\Iandet on, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

Ilal·ris, 

Jackson, Jonas, 

Aldrich, Chace, 

.Allison, Cockrell, 

Beck., Dawes, 

Bowen, Fair, 

Butler, Farley, Call, Frye, Camd~n , George, Cameron of Pa., Gibson, 

So the bill was passed. 

YEA8-26. 

Miller of Cal., 

1\!iller of N.Y., 

Mitchell,· 1\forrill, 

Palmer, 

Pike, Platt, 

NAY.s-20. 

1\laxey, .1\Iorgan, 

Pendleton, 

Pugh, 

Ransom, 

ABSENT-30. 

Gorman, 

Hale, 

Ingalls. 

Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, Lamar, 

Logan, 

The title was amended so as to read: 

Sa. bin, 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck, Wilson. 

Saulsbury, 

Slater, Vance, 

Vest, 

Voorhees. 

McPherson, 

Plumb. 

Riddleberger, 

Sewell, 

Walker, Williams. 

An act to repeal all laws providing for the pre-emption of the public lands, the 

laws allowing entries for tunber-culture, the laws authorizing the sale of desert 

lands in certain States and Territories, and for other purposes. 

~Ir. DOLPH. Iaskthatthe billjust passed be reprinted as amended. 

It is an important bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon asks that 

the bill just passed about pre-emption laws, &c., be printed as passed. 

That order will be entered if there be no objection. 

fore the Senate the next special order, being Order of BllSiness 336, 

which by unanimous consent was to-day placed at the head of the Calendar of Special Orders. The title will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. "A bill (H. R. 3933) to declare a forfeiture of 

lands granted to the Texas Pacific Railroad Company, and for other purposes.'' . Mr. BLAm. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

the bill (H. R. 2550) to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to ~rform labor in the 

United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia. 

:Mr. VANWYCK. If that bill will take but a short time I sh.a.ll 

consent to taking it up, but I do not wish to do anything to displace 

the special order. · The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Let it be informally laid aside then. 

The PRESIDENT pro t.empore. The Senator from New Hampshire 

mo>es that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House bill 

No. 2550. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 

1\1r. INGALLS. May I make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President? In case the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire should 

be agreed to, will the special order that has ju t been named by the 

Chair be displaced and go upon the Calendar of General Orders? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair it will. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Then I trust it will not be laid aside. 

1\fr. BLAIR. There is no objection on Jl11 part to the special order 

being laid aside informally. I did not suppose it was before the enate. 

:Mr. CAMERON, of Wiscon in. It has been laid before the Senate. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I move tnat the Senate do now adjourn. 

The PRESIDENT prn tempore. The Senator from Nebraska moves 

that the Senate do now adjourn. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I hope we shall be allowed ~o have an executive 

se sion. 

Mr. HARRISO~. A brief executiTe session is necessary. 

M:r. VAN WYCK. ·r have no ohjection to that. 

Mr. HARRI.SO~. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

.Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President--

Mr. HARRISON. I felt under obligation to the Senator from Nebraska, as he yielded for a ·motion to go into executive session, to make 

that motion. · 

The PRESibENT pro tempore. The ques~ion is on the· motion of the 

Senator from Indiana. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After twelve minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 13 minutes 

p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

THURSDAY, February 12, 1885. 

The Honse met at12o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. JoHN 

S. LINDSAY, D. D. . The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was rea.d and approved. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

?tlr. TOWNSHEND. I dema.nd the regular order. . The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The Committee on Enrolled Bills desires to submit a report. 

ENROI::LED BILL SIGNED. 

Mr. YAPLE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the 

following title; when the Speaker pro tempore signed the same: 

A bill (H. R. 7131) to authorize snit-8 for damages where -death re- sults from the wrongful act or neglect of any person or corporation in 

the District of Columbia. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER 11ro tempore. The Chair desires to submit certain executive communications, and asks permission of the House. ·. There was no objection. 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KENTUCKY. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House a letter from the 

Secretary of War, transmitting reports from the Chief of Engineers upon 

the condition of Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky; which was referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, · and ordered to be 

printed. 

CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN. 

TEXAS PACIFIC LAND GRANT. The SPEAKER pro. tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the duty of the Chair to lay be- the ~re~ry of War, transmitting a report from the Chief of Engineem