• 

1512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

SENATE. 

WEDNESDAY, February 11, 1885. 

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m. Pra.yer by the Chaplain, R·ey. 

E. D. HUNTLEY, D. D. . The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE CO:ll:UUXICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting recommendations 

of the Supervising .Architect to extend the limit of cost of the public 

buildings at Hannibal, Mo., and Brooklyn, N. Y.; which, with the ac- companying papets, was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings 

and Grounds, and ordered to be printed. · 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of 

the Interior, transmitting, in compliance with the requirements of the 

act of July 15, 1870, a full and complete inventory of all the property 

belonging to the United States in the buildings, rooms, offices, and 

grounds occupied by the Department of the Interior; which was ordered 

to be printed, and, with the accompanying papers, laid on the t.able. 

HOUSE "BILL REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 6533) for the relief of Dr. Thomas J. Jones, wasread· 

twice by its title, and refened to the Committee on MUitary Affairs. 

. PETITIONS AND l\IE:UORIALS. 

Mr. UA.NDERSON presented a mem01ial of the Legislature of Nebraska; which was read an.d referred to the Committee on Public Lands, 

as follows: 

Memori~l and joint resolution concerning the people of Nebraska and the lands 

known as the Saint Joseph and Den,ver City Railr.oad Company lands, and the 

bill now pending in Congress for the relief of the settlers upon said lands. 

To the honorable Senate and HotMe of Representatives of the United States: 

Whereas there are many sett-lers and purcha ers of the public domain in the 

State of Nebraska who have patents from the United States for said land, the 

title to which is now disputed by an adverse claim derived origiJJallyfrom grants of land by Congress to a. certain railroad company, known as the Saint Joseph 

and Denver City Railroad Company-i.e., Kneevals and l\litchellland claims; 

Whereas such dispute of title is a very great injury and wrong to many per- sons who have spent many of their best years in t{)il, deprivation, and expense 

upon such lands, and has resulted in the confiscation of the homes of many of our best citizens residing upon and owning said lands, and their eviction therefrom; 

'Vhereas a bill is pending in Congress for the relief of the· settlers upon said 

lands, which bill has passed the Senate of the United States, and is now pend- ing in the House of Representatives thereof: Therefore, 

Be u resolved by the senate and hollSe of representatives of the Slate of Nebraska, 

That the pa.ssage of said bill would be but an act of justice to those of our citi- zens who are interested therein. 

Resolved, That we earnestly urge upon Congress and every member thereof, 

regardless of their political affiliations, their immediate attention and favorable 

action upon said--bill. 

Resolved, That the secretary of state be requested to forward to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress a copy oJ this memorial and joint 

resolution. 

Attest: 

Attest: 

Approved February 0, 18S5. 

H. H. SHEDD, 

President of Senate. 

t3HERWOOD BURR, 

Secretar-11 o.f Senate. 

ALLAN W. FIELD, 

Spea1.:er of House of Representatives. 

JAMES F. SED~R. 

Chiff Clerk of Ho-use of R.epresent4tives. 

J~"UES W. DAWES, 

Governor. 

I hereby certify that the within memorial and joint resolution originated in . the senate and passed the Legislature February 5, A. D. 1885. · SHERWOOD BURR, 

Secretary.W" the Senate. 

STATE OF NEBRASKA, 

0./fiee of Seerelary of State. 

1, E . P. Roggen, secretary of state of the SW.te of Nebraska, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing copy of a memorial and joint reso- lution concerning the people of NebrasJra and the lands known as the Saint 

Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company lands, and the bill now pending in 

Congress for the relief of the settlers upon said lands, approved February 6, 

1885, with the original rolls on file in this office, o.nd that the same is a true and 

perfect copy of said memorial and joint resolution. Jn testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal 

of the State of Nebraska. Done at Lincoln this 6th day of February, A. D. 1885, 

of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and ninth, and of 

this State the eighteenth. 

(SEAL.) E. P. ROGGEN, _ Beeretarif of State. 

1\fr. ~IITCHELL presented the petition of Sarah Jane DeCoursey, of 

Philadelphia, and others, praying for the passage of the bill (S. 438) for 

thereliefoftheheirsandlegalrepresentativesofCapt.LambertWickes; 

which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. 

1\fr. GARLAND. I present the petition of a large number of citizens of the city of Hot Springs, Ark., praying for certain legislation in 

reference to the Hot Springs reservation. Accompanying the petition 

is a bill which the petitioners desire me to introduce to carry out the 

views set forth in the petition. At the proper time I shall introduce 

the bill. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SEWELL presented a memorial of the Philadelphia (Pa.) Board 

of Trade and the Philadelphia (Pa.) Maritime Exchange, remonstrating against the passage of the bill {H. R. 7163) to regulate the forms 

of bills of. lading and the duties and liabilities of ship-owners and others; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. BLAIR presented the petition of Charles H. Mendum, James P. 

Boutell, John Sise, G. R. Laighton, W. C. Walton, Andrew P. Preston, 

Joseph W. Peirce, and Andrew J. Penhallow, of Portsmouth, N. H., 

praying for the ratification of the proposed reciprocity treaty with 

Spain; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

REPORTS OF Co:IIMITTEES. 

Ur. ALLISON, from the Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8120) making appropriations for the support of 

the Army for the fiscal yea.r en<4ng June 30, ~886, and for other pur- po~B", reported it wit~ amendments. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Ur. GARLAND (by request) introduced a. bill (S. 2631) to regulate 

the Hot Springs reservation in the State of Arkansas; wh:i,cb was read 

twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

l\Ir. MORGAN introduced a bill (S. 2632) making appropriations for 

the constructon, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 

rivers and harbors, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its 

title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

NORTHERY MONTANA INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 

Mr. DAWES. I ask unanimo\18 consent to call up a bill on the Calendar which I think will cause no debate. The friends of the measure are very anxious ~ get it to the other branch, where they think they can get it through if it is passed by tbe Senate now. Mr. ALLISON. Ifit leads to no debate, I shall consent. 

:Mr. DAWES. If it causes debate, of course I shall withdraw it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (1\Ir. HARRISON in the chair). The ·Senator from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent to have taken up 

at this time the bill (S. 2609) to provide permanent reservations for the 

Ilidians in Northern Monta.na, and for other purposes. Is there objection? 

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

proceeded to consider the bill. 

The bill W!lS reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third re~ng; read the third time, and passed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

:Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to call 

up n. bill that I am quite sure will not lead to any debate. It is House 

bill No. 7496, reported from the Committee on Fin~nce. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio asks unani- mous consent to have taken up for consideration at this time the bill 

(H. R. 7496) for the relief of Wehrle, Werk & Son. Is there objec- tion? · 

lli. HARRIS. With other Senators I have for a week past been urging the Senate to take up Home bills favorably reported upon the Calendar in their order. _ I gave notice-three or four days ago that until 

that ·was done I should object to the taking J.IP of any one House bill on the Calendar other than a regular appropriation bill. I therefore, 

according to the notice, object. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I then move, the Calendar being in order, t.bat 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill. I concur with my 

friend from Tennessee in the view that we ought to take up House bills 

and act· upon them, but now that I have called the bill up and it is a small matter to which the Senator from Tennessee h..'lS hj.mself agreed 

in committee, I ask him that be allow the bill to pass, and I shall 

hereafter join him in taking up the House bills in their order. We shall 

not have time this morning to do what the Senator proposes, or I should 

be willing to pursue that course this morning. · · • Mr. HARRIS. I did not even notice the character of the bill that 

the Senator wishes to have considered. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It is a House bill reported from the Committee on Finance, w llich the Senator himself bas approved. As we can not DOW 

take up under a general order the House bills on the CalenWl.r, I hope 

the Senator from Tennessee will not interfere with this bill. 

Mr. HARRIS. If the S.enate will now consent that we shall, after 

the morning business, proceed with the consideration of House bills 

favorably reported upon the Calendar, we can at least agree to that, it 

will not delay the Senator from Ohio more than a day or two. I do 

not understand that the question of time is important in this particularcase. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is made. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Then I submit a motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio moves that 

the Senate proceed to the consiaeration of the bill notwithstanding the 

objection. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I submit again to the Senator from Tennessee 

thatThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable, 

Mr. GARLAND. Let the bill be read by ita title. 

Mr. PLATT. I rise to a point of order. 
1885. CONGRESSIONA'L RECORD-SENATE. 1513 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connec¥cut will 

state his point of order. 

Mr. PLATT. My point of order is that although Senators have been 

standing very near me and talking very loud, I have been unable to 

hear what has been said. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will resume their seats, and 

the Senate will be in order. The Senator from Ohio moves that the 

Senate proceed to the.consideration of the bill (H. R. 7496) for the relief of Wehrle, 'Verk & Son. 

The motion was not agreed to: · Mr. McPHERSON. · Mr. President-

:Ur. ALLISON. Regular orde)', .Ur. President. lt~. SHERMAN. I insist upon the regular order. 

Mr. INGALLS. The regular order. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I ask the privilege of moving to recommit a bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order. The 

Chair will hear the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I rose for.the purpose of asking unanimous con- sent to recommit a sill now upon the Calendar. 

Mr. SHERJ.IAN. I insist upon the regular order. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. Objection is made. .The Calendar 

under Rule Vill will be laid before the Senate. 

Mr. LAPHAM. I move to take up at this time the joint resolution 

(S. R. 111) referring ·the controversy between the United States and 

Venezuela,., in respect to the awards of the mixed commission, to the 

President. I asked for the consideration of it yesterday--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. LAPHA:u. I ask unanimous consent to make a very brief 

statement. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ne'Y York asks 

unanimous consent to make a statement. Is thete objection? The 

Chair hears none. Mr. LAP.HA:U. I asked for the consideration of the joint resolution 

when I reported it from the Committee on Foreign· Relations yesterday, 

and the Senator from Tennessee [?tlr. HARRIS], under a misapprehension, I think, objected to its consideration. 

The joint resolution refers to the President the distribution of the 

fund now in the State Department under the Venezuelan awaFd. There 

is about half a million dollars lying there belonging to the claimants 

under the award. In 1883 we passed a joint resolution authorizing 

the President to open ~egotiations with Venezuela. He submitted the 

draught of a convention to the representative of that government, who has 

finally rejected it; and Venezuela has taken the strange position that, 

by virtue of that resolution, we vacated · all these awards, and •.th&t 

gove.rnment refuSes ~o pay any more money. There is no alternative 

left to us now but to leave to the President the distribution of what 

money is in our Treasury. 

I hope there will be no objection to the consideration of the joint 

resolution at this time. 

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

motion of the Senator from New York that the Senate now proceed to 

the consideration of the joint resolution indicated by him. 

Mr. HOAR. The motion is now only to take up? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is to take up. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

• DES ::UOL"i"ES' BIVER LANDS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate resume.'3 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 bill is· 

before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the reading of the 

report will be resumed. 

Mr. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the re- port may be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas asks unani- mous consent that the further reading of the report be dispensed with. 

Is there objection? 

Mr. LAPHAM. I can not consent to that this morning, sir. 

The PRESIDENT p ro tempore. Objection is made. The reading 

will proceed. 

The Secretary resumed, at page 23, the reading of the report submitted by 1\:Ir. PLUMB, from the Committee on Public Lands, AprilS, 

1884. 

The reading having proceeded five minutes, 

Mr. PLUMB. I rise to make a suggestion and at the same time a request to the Senator from New York. The reading of the report is 

nnner.essarily, as I think, occupying the time of the Senate. I am not 

myself willing to believe that the Senator from New York desires to 

unnecessarily use up the time of the Se.nate, or that he desires to put 

himself in the attitude of having delay for the sake of delay. I think 

he is a more courageons opponent than that would indicate. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the reading of this report may be dispensed with, that the residue of the report be printed in the RECORD, 

and thatthisbillmaythengo ove.runtil to-morrowatthetimewhen the 

Calendar shall be rea<!hed, giving the Senator all the time he could have 

anyhow by reason of continuing the reading of the report. That is all 

I DOW ask, 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from KaflSaS asks unan- imous consent that the further reading of the report be dispensed with 

and that the residue of the report be printed in the RECORD and that 

this bill be passed over, retaining its place where it now stands on the 

Calendar under Rnle VIII. Is there objection? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I object to that partoftherequestwhichasksthat 

the remainder of the reporL be printed in the RECORD. It wonld be ' 

of no material service to anybody to print a fraction of the report. The 

report itself is a very long one. Did the Senator mean to print in the 

REcoRD the whole of it? 

Mr. PLUMB. I am not particular aboutitsgoingintothe RECORD, 

if there is any point about that. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Senator said the remainder of the report. I 

object to printing the report in the RECORD. 

Mr. HOAR. It is printed in the RECORD now as a matt;er of course unless the Senate_otherwise orders. Every report read at the desk is 

printed in the RECORD as a matter of course. Now, if the reading goes on it will be printed in the RECORD, and both the time of the Senate 

be taken up and the columns of the RECORD be filled with it. Therequest 6f my honorable friend from Kansas is that so much of the regular. order as implies the Senate taking another hour to h~ve it read, when' 

of course it will go into the RECORD, may. be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state tpat he knows 

of no ru1e which requires a reportwhenitisreadtogointOtheRECORD,' 

that the Reporter consulted the Chair about this voluminous report 

already in print when its reading at' the desk first began, _and the Chair 

advised the Reporter that there was no rule which required it to go into 

the RECORD, and thattoputittherewonldbe auselesswasteofpublic 

money. 

Mr. HOAR. May I inquire of the Chair if that has not been hitherto 

the general, I do not know whether, the uniform, rnle that all the proceeding." of the Sen..1.te, including anything read in the Senate, were printed in the REcoRD? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. According to the recollection of the 

Chair tha€ has not been the uniform ru1e. Frequently the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD merely states that ''the report was read.'' It has 

very Qften happened that where a report was brief, it was set out in 

fu1l in the RECORD. 

Mr. HOAR. I think that is the general rule. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. At any rate the Chair took the re- sponsibility of advising the reporter not to reprint this long report in 

the RECO~D as part of the proceedjngs, as it was ·read piecemeal from 

day to day. Whatever responsibility there is about it belongs to the 

Chair and not to the Reporter; he only took the adviceofthe Chair as a matter of economy of space and money. Is there objection to therequest of the Senator from Kansas? 

Mr. LAPHAM. I have no objection to this case standing over until 

to-morrow. I think to-morrow will be a better day to. take it up for 

consideration; but I am unwilling this morning, without any understan.ding, to say anything on the subject of its disposition. If the bill can .stand over until to-morrow without prejudice, I think meantime we can come to some understanding. 

Mr. PLUMB. No; I have had no thought about it. There was no understanding proposed by me. Let the Senator himself be responsible 

for obstructing the business of the Senate . Mr. LAPHAM. I a,m not responsible. This is a very instructive 

and able report, and 1 think the Senate ought to hear it. If, as I un- derstand, it is not to go in the RECORD, it ought certainly to be read. ~ALLISON. Very well; let us have it. 

Mr. PLD..M,'B. Regu1ar order. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading will proceed. 

The Secretary resumed the reading of the report. · 

The reading having been continued for ten minutes, 

ORDER OF BUSThTESS. 

Mr. INGALLS. I ask that the reading of the report may be for a moment suspended while I inquire whether it is the understanding of 

the Senate that after the count of the electoral vote the Senate is to 

return to the Chamber for the purpose of continuing business to-day. ; 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair of course is unable to answer. Mr. INGALLS. I understood that, and I askfortheunderstanding 

of the Senate. 

Mr. SHERMAN, We must return here. 

Mr. G-4-RLAND. How long does the Senator from Kansas suppose 

the count will take ? 

Mr. INGALLS. The proceedings at the last occasion of counting 

the electoral vote consumed an hour and forty minutes. I suppose they can be concluded to-day by 2 o'clock, unless there is some interruption 

not now anticipated. 

I will suggest, in order to bring the :ina.tter to a decision, that there 

be unanimous consent that after the proceedings in the House the Senate return to this Chamber for the purpose of continuing legislative business. 
f514 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senate hears the suggestion of upon the certificates of the electors of the. various Stat~ of their votes 

the Senator from Kansas. The Senate will of courae return to its for those officers were opened by the President of the Senate nnd delivChamber. ered to the tellet-s, and on being examined it appeared that the votes of 

Mr. INGALLS. I understand of course that the Senate will return the several States had been cast in accordance with the list which I 

to this Chamber; but I ask unanimous consent that there may be a de- ·hold in my hand and wili send to the Chair. . cision on which we can act, that at the close ofthe proceedings in the From those votes it appeared that the whole number of electors upHouse, on the return of the Senate to this Chamber, legislative busi- pointed to vote.for President and Vice-President of the United States· ness·for the day shall be resumed. . for the term of office beginning on the 4th of Uarch, 1885, was 401, of 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senate hears the suggestion of which a majority was 201. The state of the vote for President of the 

the Senator from Kansas. · United States appeared to be- : Mr. SHERMAN. The custom heretofore has generally been that the For Grover Cleveland, of the State of New York, 219. 

first man who gets back and can get the attention of the Chair, before For James G. Blaine, of the State of Maine, 182. a quorum has arrived, rises and says, "I move that the Senate ad- The state of the vote for Vice-President of the United States apjourn." peared to be1111'. INGALLS. That I desire to avoid. For Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of Indiana, 219. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If it is understood that the Chair will not put the For John A. Logan, of the State of Illinois, 182. 

question on ~djournment until there is a quorum· present to act on it, I Which result having been delivered by the tellers to the presiding 

think there ·will be no difficulty. . officer, the presiding officer declared that Grover Cleveland, of the State 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is bound to say that un- of New York, had received a majority of the votes of the whole num- der the rules a mQtion: to adjourn is always in order. · ber of electore as they appeared, in the certificates and by the list of the 

Ur. HOAR. The custom of the Senate has been to return to 'ita tellers, and so appeared to have been elected President of the United 

Chamber and to receive the report of the proceedings in joint conven- States for- fow; years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1885; and 

tion, and pass a repolution in regard to those proceedings. Four years that Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of Indiana, appeared to have 

ago that resolution was passe~ in each branch, not as a concurrent res- received a nutjority of the votes of the whole number of electors apolution-the concurrence of the other branch was not asked for-but pointed as they appeared in the certificates read by the· tellers, and so each passed the same resolution, and actual concurrent action became appeared to have been elected Vice-President of the United States for 

unriecessa.ry. Weshall return toourChamber inallhnmanprobability four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1885. 

to-day before 2 o'clock, which is the hour at which the morning busi- The PRESIDENT p1·o te-mpore. The report will be placed on file. ness is concluded and the general business of the day is begun till Jlri-r. HOAR. I offer the following resolution--

within a day or two. There will be plenty_of time to have three or -Mr. CONGER. Before that is offered I should like to have the last 

four hours for useful legislation. clause of the statement as to the declaration and the effect of it read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, it will be The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The Chair will read the declaration 

understood that the Senate is e±pected to proceed with ita regular busi- the President of the Senate made at the meeting of the two Houses, ness on its return from the House of Representatives. The reading of for information: 

the report will proceed. And the President of the Senate makes this declaration, only as a public state- The Seeretary resumed the reading of the report and continued it till ment, in the presence of the two Houses of Congress, of the contents of the 

11-o'clock and 55 minutes a. m. · papers opened and read on this occasion, and not as possessing any authority 

?tfr. LAPHAM:. I suggest to the Senator from Kansas, with a view in law to declare any legal conclusion whatever. 

of saving time in reading the report further, that if the Senate will con- Mr. CONGER. lli. President, the proper mode of presenting my 

sent that the views of the minority may be printed in the RECORD of view upon that question I do not know that I understand; but I desire 

to-morrow morning I will let the reading be suspended and have the here as one of the Senators of this bpdy to say that I entirely disseqt 

bill stand over until to-morrow morning. The minorityviewsare not from the declaration that the President of the Senate has no other 

long. . power in announcing the electoral vote than to merely announce the 

Mr. PLUMB. I have no pride of opinion abOut the majority report, fact.s. I do not know by what authority a question so long in disl>ute, 

but it seems to me that there ought to be a full statement of the case, and perhaps with the views of the Senate and of the people of the United 

and that if. any part of it goes in the RECORD it ought all to go in. States almost equally divided, should be attemp.ted to be settled by 

Mr. LAPHAM~ I haye no objection to the whole of it going in; 1 makingastatementofoneviewofitapartofthedeclatation. I merely 

should rather prefer it. I do want the views of the minority to be in- speak of it, however, to express my dissent from that declaration of the 

corporated in the REcORD; they are not lengthy. presiding officer that he is only to make a statement of the result and 

?tfr. SHERMAN. This involves a very large expense, and it is an has no other power in the case. absolute waste. No man who will take this report and read it in the ?.Ir. SHERMAN. I also wish for myself, as I have recorded my 

ordinary document form will read it in the close print of t~e RECORD; opinion on this question at other times, to assert and put upon the reo- therefore it is a mere wanton waste without cause. Any one can get it ord my statement that the declaration made was the dec1aration of the 

in more convenient form, for he can read it in document form, while gentleman who presided on that occasion expressing his own opinion, 

if it is entombed in the RECORD it will never be seen. and should not be taken as a precedent except so far as it may command 

1t1r. GARLAND. It is now four minutes of 12; and I suggest that the judgment of mankind hereafter. I believe that the President of the 

the Senate take a recess for the execution of the order. · Senate exercised a constitutional power when he presided over the joint 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will receiv.e a message body to-day and counted the vote, -and that his announcement is the 

from the House of Representatives. conclusive end of all argument upon the question, and that doing so he 

MESSAGE FROI'll THE HOUSE. not only gave his own opinion as to the result of certain papers that 

A message from ·the House of Representatives, by ?tfr. CL.titK, its were.presen~d to him, but h~ ~dethe onlyconstitutional.declaration 

Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H R:-6S5S) to pro- tha~ IS provtded for under eXISting law of who shall be President of the 

Tide for the sale of the Sac and Fox Indian reservation in the States of Umtt:d States _after the 4th of March. . . Nebraska and Kansas, and for other purposes; in which it requested the I ~~ply rose to enter my caveat now so that ~his declaration. of the concurrence of the Senate. · , pres~ ding of!ice~ shall not be regar.ded as concluding w ha~ I co~~1der to 

The message also announced that the House had passed a resolution be~ constitutional duty and whichhe has performed W1thabilityand 

directing the Clerk t-o inform the Senate that the House was ready to propnety. . . . receive the Senate at 12 o'clock m. to proceed, under the concurrent lli. HOAR. Mr. Pres1dent, I concetved ~t to be my dutY: as one of 

resolution of the two Houses to count the electoral votes .t1 p · d t the tellers to report to the Senate only so much of the proceedin~ of the 

and Vice President ' · or re~ en two Houses as seemed tometobeofthesubstance ofthe ascerta.mment - · · and declaration of the result. I did not, therefore, in the report which 

COUNT OF ELECTORAL VOTES. I made, communicate the various declarations or statements of the 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The concurrent resolution of the two presiding officer, as I supposed he understood, as has been said by the 

Houses providing for a meeting in the Hall of the House of Represent- Senator from Ohio, that the declaration which has been adverted to 

atives at 12 o'clock will now be executed, and the Senate will proceed was a declaration of his own understanding of the significance of the 

to the Hall of the House of Representati,·es. official act, and in no way entered into it as giving it authority or as . The Senate, headed by the_ President pro tempore and Secretary, and affording any precedent or weight for the future guidance of the reppreceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, thereupon proceeded to the Hall of resentatives of the American people in the two Houses except so far as 

the House of Representatives. the very great and deserved weight which attaches to the opinion of so 

The Senate returned to its Chamber at 1 o'clock and 22 minutes p. m. eminent a constitutional lawyer may make it a precedent hereafter. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senate resumes its sitting. I desire to introduce a resolution-- - Mr. HOAR. lli. President1 the tellers who were appointed on be- Mr. INGALLS. Without entering, Mr. President, upon the discushalf of the Senate, in pursuance of the concurrent resolution of the two sion of a question which is and prohably always must remain an open 

Houses to ascertain the result of the election for President and Vice- one, I ·wislr on this occasion to express my dissent absolutely from the 

President of the United StateS, beg leave to report that the two Houses cone! t:ISions contained in the declaration of the President pm tetnp()re of 

met in joint convention in purs'uanceofthe resolutiQn, and-that there- the Senate, and to say that in my judgment it should not be held in 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-SENATE. 1515 

any way as a precedent governing the action of that officer or of this 

body upon similar occasions hereafter. . Mr. WILSON. llr. President, I merely wish to express my concur- rence in what has been said by the Senator from Kansas. Inmy judgment the duty devolved upon the Vice-President of the United States 

in the matter of counting and announcing the vote for President of the 

United States is a high constitutional duty; and the declaration made 

by the President pro mpore of the Senate to-day in my judgment is 

not in accord with the requirements of the Constitution. 

Mr. LAPHAM. l\Ir. President, I had occasion eight ye:us since to 

examine this question. I find from the journals of the convention 

which framed the Constitution that the clause of the Constitution relative to counting the electoral vote as acted on and adopted read that 

the President of the Senate should then and there open all the certifi- cates and the votes should then and there be counted in the presence 

of the Senate and House of Representatives, making the Senate and 

House of Representatives mere witnesses of an act to be performed by 

the presiding officer of the Senate. · Following that, the first resolution adopted on the subject was a res- olution of the convention in which they recommended among other thing~ that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate for the 

''sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the electoral votes for 

President "-just that language exaetly-and that was done. Following that precedent of the fathers, Vice-President Adams ·counted and 

declared the result, and announced himself to have been elected President of the United States. I believe, sir, that it was the intention of 

the framers of the Constitution that the presiding officer of this body 

should perform the duty of counting the votes as well as of receiving 

and opening the certificates. · 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I do not think it very profitable at this 

stage of .the session to reopen the great debate of eight years ago; but 

I think, as all the suggestions which have been so ~ made upon this 

qu tion have been made upon one side, it is proper to remind the Senate and the country that by a very large majority the Senate of the 

United States expressed eight years ago on the fullest debate its dissent 

from the propositions which have been advanced by the several-Senators who have spoken, in that concurring with some of the greatest 

constitutional authorities we have ever had in this country, including 

John Marshall, Oliver Ellsworth, if my recollection is not at fault, 

Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln. And a late eminent Senator 

from the State of New York stated in my hearing that every member 

of the Senate but eight had in his hearing expressed sentiments which were in conflict with those which ha.ve been expressed by the Senator 

from Ohio and theSenator from New York. At~myrate, whether that 

statement was true or not, a com'putation which I myself made showed 

that all the then Senators of the United States, with eighteen exceptions, a very small minority of the body1 were on record expressly and 

distinctly declaring that the President of the Senate had not the power 

to count the vote under the Constitution in any sense of the term of 

counting the vote, which implies the right to decide what votes should or should not be taken into consideration in ascertaining the constitutional re8ult. 

I myself believe that the President of the Senate derived for the 

count of to-day an authority from the concurrent resolution which the 

· two branches have passed, and that his declaration of the count which 

the two branches witnessed and which was the result of the report of 

the tellers representing _ the two branches, in their presence, without 

their dissent, uttered by the authority of the two-branches a constitutional declaration and proclamation of the result. Our ancestors were jealous of executive power. They were in the habit of continuing the same person in the public service year after year and official term after 

official term, and I believe they would have deemed it-monstrous if 

the supposition had been suggested then that the Vice-President of the 

United States, the constitutional President of the Senate, who as they 

originally established· the Constitution was one of the two leading can- didates for the office of the Presidency (because there was no voting for a Vice-President in those days, as everybody remembers), and who of comse would be in the ordinary course of events one ·of the leading 

candidates at the election the resultofwhich was to be declared, should 

be clothed with the enormous power under the Constitution of determining the question whether he himself were duly elected President, 

and that there should be under the Constitution and laws of the United 

States no possible appeal from his decision. I hold that to be a proposition repugnant utterly to all we know of the opinions, practices, and 

conduct of our ancestors who framed the Constitution. 

It was true in almost every State in the Union, with one or two ex• ceptions, at that time, as it is true in a large number of the States 

since {I think there was but one exception at that time), that the two 

Hou.Ses of the Legislature ascertained the result of the election of the 

Executive. So it was in my own State; so it was in Virginia; so, I 

think, it was in every State but New York. ' 

I do not desire, however, to go into this.interesting question at this 

time, except that as Senators have thought proper to put on record 

their opinion and there has been no dissent from it, I wish to state 

emphatically my dissent. I agree. with the Senator who first spoke, 

and I have no doubt that the occupant of the Chair agrees, that· the 

declaration which he made was no part of the constitutional proceeding, 

any more than his calling the two Houses to order or other statements 

w:aich he was bound to make in the exercise of. his duty; but that it was bis individual expression t>f a judgment as to the scope and extent 

of an official act which he performed. It seems to me it was entirely 

proper for the presiding officer to .Q1ake that declaration, although no part of the constitutional proceedings, because otherwise he might be 

supposed to be undertaking to do what, as he viewed the question, 

would have been an act of usurpation. 

M:r. CONGER. When I called attention first, after the reading of 

the report, to this subject, I did it not with any view of entering into 

any discussion upon· the question one way or the other; and I did not 

sup.Pose without some proposition being made that the discussion would 

be entered into; but I did feel as if it was the right of any Senator 

here to ~sent from any mode of declaration not authorized by law. or by the Constitution as a precedent. It was for that purpose and that 

only, giving all due weight and superior weight to the opinion of the 

presiding officer and his own view of this question, that I desired to 

dissent from that declaration as in my judgment a wrong construction on the power of the office upon a point long disputed and still in dispute in the Senate and House and among the people of the United. States. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The Chair begs leave to state, with 

the- indulgence of the Senate, that the Senate, in the opinion of the 

Chair, is in no way responsible for the declaration that the President of 

the Senate made on the occasion referred to. Neither the Senate of the 

United States nor the Honse of Representatives had conferred any au- thority upon the President of the Senate to make any declination. 

There.is no law, within the knowledge ofthe President of the Senate, 

which provides for any proceeding, except the Constitution. The President of the Senate was of opinion, and still is, that a concurrent resolution is not a law; and if the concurrent resolution providing for this 

occasion had contained any direction to the President of the Sena:te that 

was inconsistent with his views of constitutional duty, he would have 

been bound to disregard it, or preferably, as he certainly would have 

done, he would have resigned his office and allowed the Senate freely 

to elect some gentleman whose opinion coincided with that of the ma~ 

jority. . 

No Senator need feel bound as a precedent by anything the President ·of the Senate said. He was exerting a constitutional duty in opening 

the certificates and superintending the making manifest of what they 

contained; and he stated on his own resPQnsibility, and on that of no- body else the negation of an implication that might have arisen from a different statement of the result; that is all. 

Mr. INGALLS. I ask leave at this time to ofter a resolution. 

l\Ir. HOAR. I had the floor to· offer a resolution, and yielded. · I 

think the Senator from Kansa-s should not interpose other business. 

Mr. INGALLS. It b~rs directly on this subject. 

The PRESIDENT pro te?npMe. The Senator from Kansas asks unan- imous consent to offer a resolution at this time. It will be read. 

Mr. _BAYARD. It will be read for information, I presume. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will bereadforinformation, after 

which the Chair will call for objection. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution of Mr. INGALLS, as follows: 

Resolved, That the Senat.e does not assent to the concluding declaration of the 

President of the Senate in the announcement of the vote for President and 

Vice-President of the United Stat.es made·in the presence of the two Houses of 

Congress this day. -

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the resolution? . · · 

Mr. BAYARD. I ask that it may lie over. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is rriade and the resolution goes over. 

Ml'. HOAR. I offer the fo:p.owing resolution, for which I ask present 

consi4eration: 

Whereas the Senat.e having met the House of Representatives in accordance 

with the fifth section of the act of 1st Marcllrl792, relative to the election of Pres4 

ident and Vice-President of the United· Stat-es, and the electoral votes having been opened by the President of the Senate 1n the presence of the two Houses of Con~ess and counted by the tellers appointed on the part of the two Houses, 

and 1t appealing that the whole number of electors appointed to vote for President and Vice-President o.f the United States is 401, of which a majority is 201; 

and itfurtherappearing·that Grover Cleveland, of New York, had received 219 votes for President of the U nilied States, and that Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, had received 219 votes for Vice-President of the United States, which num- ber is a majority of the votes of the whole number of electors appointed, and the same having been duly decbred by the President of the Senate in the presence of the two Houses: Therefore, 

Resolved by the Senate of the Unit.ed. States, That the Senate is of opinion that the 

Constitution and laws have been duly e:x:ecut.ed, and that no further declaration 

of lhese facts is necessary. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of the resolution? . Mr. CONGER and Mr. INGALLS. I object. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. 

.Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent to say that this resolution is 

in the usual form. It is exactly the resolution adopted four years ago. 

llr. INGALLS. But the declaration is not in the usual form. 

Mr. HOAR. The declaration contained in it is the declaration of 

fom years ago. 
1516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

Tbe PRESIDENT ,pro tempore. Objection is made. The resolution 

will be printed and go over. 

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. t 

The bill (H. R. 6658) to provide for the sale of the Sac and Fox In-· 

dian reservation in the States of Nebraska and Kansas, and for other 

purposes, was read twice by itstitM, and referred to theCommitteeon 

Indian Affairs. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by 1\I:r:. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had concurred.in the report of the 

committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendmE}nts of the Senate to the bfil (H. R. 7131) to authorize 

suits for damages where death results from the wrongful act or neglect 

of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia. 

The message also announced that the House concurred in some and 

non-concurred in other amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 

8039) making appropriations to provide 1or the expenses of the governnment of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending .June 30, 

1886, and for other purposes, asked a conference with the Senate on the 

disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed l\Ir. 

.JOHN F. FOLLETT of Ohio, l\-4'. WALDO HUTCHL.VS of New York, and. 

Mr . .J. G. CANNON of illinois managers at the conference on its part. 

The message further announced that the House had passed the joint 

resolution (S. R. 92) authorizing andrequiring the SecretaryofWarto 

deliver to the Eighth New-York Heavy Artillery Association the regimental colors which belonged to said artillery and which are now in 

the custody ofthe Secretary pfWar, with an amendment in which it 

requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

The message also announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 

7522) for the relief of .Joseph F. Wilson; in which itrequested the concuirence of the Senate. 

PUBLIC LA:ND LAWS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempot·e. The Chair laysbeforetheSenatethe 

unfinished business. of yesterday, which is the bill (H. R. 7004) to re- peal all laws providing for the pre-emption of the public lands, and the 

laws allowing entries for timber-culture. The bill is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the pending question is on agreeing 

to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Oregon [l\It. DoLPH]. 

Mr. DOLPH. I wish to withdraw that amendment. As I said yesterday, I offered it with the understanding that it was agreed to by all 

the members of the Senate Committee on Public Lands. There appears 

to be some difference of opinion in that committee in regard to it, and 

I am not willing to take the responsibility of fathering the amendment 

myself and thus imperiling the bill. I however take occasion to say 

that I do not see any harm in the amendment itself. 

The PRESIDE.NT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon withdraws 

the amendment submitted by him yestenlay·. Mr. DOLPH. I move to add to the 1irst section of the bill the following additional proviso: 

.And provided further, That all outstanding <:,ertificates of deposit on account of surveys heretofore issued under the provisions of sections 2-!01, 2402, and 2403 of 

the Revised Statutes, and acts supplemental the:reto, shall be receivable as ca.sh 

except for. fees and commissions in the disposal of public lands at the land offices at which such certificates are now receivable in commutation of homestead and 

pre-emption rights. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, in the 

chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment .Proposed by 

the Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. DOLPH. I ask thataletterfrom the Commissioner of the General Land Office which I sent to the desk may be read in connection 

with the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The letter will be read. 

The Chief Clerk Yead as follows: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE I:~TERIO,, 

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, 

· . W<Uhingum, D. C., JanuanJ 22, 1885. 

SIR: In reply to your personal inquiry. of this date relative to outstanding cer~ 

tificates of deposit issued on account of surveys, and the effect upon such certifi- cates of H. R. No. 7004, providing for the repeal of the pre-emption and tim herculture laws, &c., as reported with runendments from the Senate Committee on Public Lands, I have the honor to state as follows : · The amount of such certificates now outstanding arising from deposits made 

since July 1,1880, is $J95,441.12. A small runount arising from deposits made 

prior to July 1,1880, also remains outstanding. 

Such certificates are issued under sections 2401 et seq., Revised Statutes, as amended by the acts of March 3, 1879 (20 Statutes, 352), and August 7,1882 (22 Statutes, 327), providing thatsettlersin unsurveyed townships may make deposits for 

the expenses of the survey of such townships. ~ 

The certificates are receivable from the settlers who made the deposit in part 

payment for their lands, and arealsoma~eassignable by indorsement, and when so assigned are receivable in payment for lands entered by settlers under the 

pre-emption and homestead Jaws in the llUld district in which the deposit was made. Certificates issued prior to August 7, 1882, are so receivable in any land 

district. 

· The effect upon these certificates of the repeal of the pre-emption law would 

be to ultimately restrict their use to commuted homestead cases. They would, 

however, meanwhile be usedJn payment of lands to which existing pre-emp- tion clwm.s attach, and under which entries have been or may be made. Such 

entries, present and prospective, cover many millions of acres. The runendment of the homest~ad law, extending the period requisite for 

commutation, would have the effect to defer the present use of the certificates 

in that class of cases. It does not occur to me that there would be any objection to extending the ·usc 

of the certificates so as to make them receivable in payment for public lands 

generally. I think that with such provision the value of outstanding certifi- cates would not be impaired. • I respectfully call your attention to the fact that agricultural-college scrip 

issued under the act of July ~ 1862 (12 St-atutes, 003), is locatable on lands subject to sale at private entry, and under section 2278, ReVIBed Statutes, may be received· in payment of pre-emption claims. By construction such scrip is also received 

in commuted homestead cases. Military bounty-land warrant6 are receivable 

only in like manner. Private land scrip issued under the acts of June 2, 1858 (11 Statutes, 294), and July 22, 1860 (12 Statutes, 85), and the supplemental acts of 

l\Iarch 2,1867 (14 Statutes, 544), June 10, 1872 (17 Statutes, 378), and June 28, 1879 (20 Statutes, 274), can be used only in the same way. · The pending bill makes no special provision for this class of cases. In event you should desire to consider an amendment coverin~ these cases, as well as certificates of deposit, I make the following suggestion m connection with your request that I submit appropriate forms of amendment in the matter of certifi- cates of deposit: · - Add to section 5 the following: 

''Provided, however, That this section shall not~ construed to prevent the location of military bounty-land warrants or of agricultural-college or other scrip 

issued under existing laws upon any unoccupied and unappropriated lands now subject to such location: Ancl providedjt£rther, That all outstanding certificates 

of deposit on a~unt of surve~s heretofore issued under the provisions of sec- tions 2401,2402, and 2103 of the Revised Statutes, and acts supplemental thereto, 

shall be receiv!lble as cash (except for fees and commissions) in the disposal of 

public lands at the land-offices n.t which such certificates are now receivable in 

commutation of homestead and pre-emption rights." 

The reason for the exception of fees and commissions in the above form of 

amendment is because of the small and irregular sums in which fees and com- missions are payable and the trouble which would be involved in adjusting differences. · I return herewith your memorandum of points of inquiry submitted. 

Very rcspectfulJy. 

Hon. J. N. DOLPH, 

_United Slates Senate. 

N. C. 1\IcF.A.RL.AND, 

Commiss-ioner. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Oregon. 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. I do not underst.and fully the purport of this 

letter. I ask whether the effect of the amendment will be to extend 

.the power of the certificates of deposit, by making them good outside of 

the land district in which they were issued? 

l\Ir. DOLPH. I think not, but I was about to make a statement oi 

what the amendment is. 

After this bill had been reported my attention was called to the fact 

that there had been issued under existing laws certificates to parties 

who had advanced money for carrying on the public snrveys. The 

amount of these outstanding certificates is now about $4QO,OOO-a little 

under that sum. They: are receivable in payment for pre~emption 

claims, and, by construction of the Department, are also receivable in 

payment for commuted homesteads, which is but another form of preem,ption. · , 

If by this bill we repeal the pre-emption law, of course we impair 

the value of those outstanding certificates; and if we require, before a homestead entry can be commuted, thirty months' residence instead of 

six months' residence, of course the number of commuted homesteads 

will be 1l}.UCh smaller than at present, and thus we shall almost repudiate these obligations which have been i~ued upon the faith of an act 

of Congress . 

In my judgment only two courses are left for Congress in this matter. One is to authorize the redemption of these certificates at the 

Treasury of the United States when they are presented and pay them 

in cash from the Treasury; the other is the one proposed by the pend- . ing amendment to authorize their receipt in paymenp for other public 

lands sold for cash as a compensation to the holders, if the bill under 

consideration should become a law, for the loss caused by the change, 

which would prevent their being used to the extent at present allowed 

in payment of pre-emption elaims. 

I m~de an inquiry of the Commissioner of the General Land Office 

concerning this matter; and his letter in answer to the inquiry states 

the manner in which the passage of the bill under consideration would 

impair the value of these certificates; and he also states that he sees no objection to allowing these certificates to be used in payment for other 

lands of the United States sold for cash, except as to payment for fees 

of officers, and the only .objection. to that is that it would require a system of book-keeping which he does not desire to enter upon. 

The effect of the amendment will be to allow these certificates to be 

used until they are all redeemed, in payment for .any other class of 

lands where the United States receives cash-mineral, coal, and othe.r 

lands for which payments are made in cash; and I think such a provision would be an equivalent for the restricted use of .them which the 

passage of this bill would cau.se. I am not particular about it, but I 

would not like to have the bill pass the Senate, inasmuch as I reported 

it from the Committee on Public Lands and might be held in some 

sense responsible for its effect, without having the matter brought before-the Senate, with the recommendation of the Commissioner of the 

General Land Office upon the subject. ' 

Mr .. 1ticl\IILLAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment of a very 

important charaeter. It repeals legislation upon the statute-book en- acted but a few years ago. When that legislation_ was be:(ore the Senate 

it occasioned a very interesting and lengthy discussion. If I remember 

the provisions of the la.w aright, parties were authorized by the law to 

proceed and make certain ~urveys of public lands, and they W€re toreceive certificates in compensation for those surveys, which were author-
1885. OONGRESSION1\:L REOORD-SENATE. 1517 

ized to be used in payment of public lands within the land district in rect, it relieves it of my objection. Still I am opposed to making these 

which the land was situated. This amendinent repeals all those sections. certificates receivable in payment of the public lands becau....~ the lands l 

I have not had an opportunity of examining the proposed amendment. surveyed may be in a portion of the country where the lands are not' 

It has not been submitted to the Committee on Public Lands during arable, and the district may extend to and embrace territory where the' 

the consideration of •this bill. agricul tu:rallands are the princi pn.l and prominent lands-in the district:. 

Mr. DOLPH. I will state that after the bill was reported the letter These certificates may be used for the purpose of payment by parties 

wa.s received, and it has been called to theattentionofthe committee. who choose to go and make their surveys voluntarily. 

Then, after the bill was reported, I wa.s auihorized by the committee As I said, the issuing of scrip has been a fruitful source of fraud and 

to offer this amendment. - wrong upon the Government, and it ha.s brought the public service, so. 

Mr. McMILLAN. Was it-fully considered there? far as the land laws are concerned, into great disrepute, and perhaps_is 

Mr. DOLPH. I think so. one of the elements which have led to the demand for l'epeal of the 

Mr. McMILLAN. It is cettainly legislation of an important cha:rac- pre-emption law. I was opposed t() the enactment of the law now on 

ter. Tl'le issuing of scrip subject to location upon the public lands of the statute-book. If these parties have taken certificates under the' 

the Unitedl.3tates has been a fruitful source of corruption and fraud, lawtheyarenotdeprivedofanyrighttowhichtheywereentitled. They 

and so grea.t had these becoine that it was with great hesitation the were advised, of course, of the right of the Government to repeal any, 

Senate enacted the legislation already upon the statute-book. I am law upon the statute-book, and they took these certificates under those 

opposed on principle to creating any scrip or authorizing the issuance circumstances and are not now entitled to plead that they have a right 

of any scrip which shall be assignable and locatable upon the public to use them for any other purposes. 

lands of the United States. If the scrip is to be issued in compensa- Mr. DOLPH. IftheSenatorfromMinnesotawillproposeanamendtion of services of any kind or in the liquidation of any obligation ment for the repeal of the laws under which th~ certificates were isof the Government-- sued, I shall have no objection to its adoption;' but we are confronted 

Mr. DOLPH. :Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a mo- with this difficulty: These -certificates are already issued. They are 

ment? ' outstanding to the amount of about $400,000. They are assignable and 

Mr. McMILLAN. Cerlainly. pass by delivery. They can be used only to pay for commuted home--: 

Mr. DOLPH. The Senator I think isentirelyunderamisapprehen- steads and in payment of pre-emption claims. The question is, what 

sion. This is not scrip. These certificates are already issued; and shall·bedonewiththem? Everyone in thisbodyknowsthatiftheprethey are merely obligations for so much money. 1-'hey do not author- emption law is repealed and no provision made for the payment ofthese 

ize the location of any land;. but a homestead~r .or _Pre:-emption claimant certifica,t.es the holders will come here for relief and Congress will make 

may secure one of these c-ertificates and turn 1t m rn hen oi money when appropriation to pay them in cash, with interest, out of the Treasury. 

he pays for his claim. If we repeal the pre-emption laws we will have The Commissio:p.er of the Genern.l Land Office says he sees no objec-

$400,000 of these certificates outstanding, which represent so much tion to extending their use so that they may be received in payment in 

money paid for the benefit of the Government under astatute of Congress lieu of cash for all lands subject to cash entry. I think that would be 

which provides that these certificates may be used to pay for pre-emp.: the best way to di.~pose of them-to provide a method by which they 

tion claims not only by the parties advancing the money, but they are may be paid in land. By this amendment we create no new right. 

assignable and m~ be used by any pre-emption claimant. These certificates are not scrip. No man can locate land with them. 

The only object of the amendment, which was drawn in the Gepeml If the amendment prevails they could only be used as now within the 

Land Office; is to prevent the repudiation of these certificates, and, as district in which they were issued. 

they will not be redeemed in payment for pre-emption claims hereafter Ur. l\fcMILLAN. If the Government has received funds for the 

owing to the -repeal of the law, and as they are not likely to be in payment of these surveys there would be no hardship in the Governdemand for paying for commuted homesteads, to allow them to be used ment paying the certificates in cash,· because it would be paying for 

~ payment for mineral lands and timber lands on the Pacific coast. service which the Government itself should have performed and which 

Those are, I think, all the caSe'i in which they can be used under the it would in time perform. 

amendment. We supposed that would be a fair compensation for re- Mr. PLUMB. There ought to be no misunderstanding about this 

stricting their use under existing laws in payment for pre-emptions; matter. If this bill should not be passed, the people who hold this 

b.ut they are not scrip; no one can locate land with them. They will scrip can go on and make use of it according to the law as it now stands, 

be simply ml).de an equivalent to so much money receivable in .pay- which provides for its use from time to time in the entry of public 

ment for all public lands, as they are now in pre-emption and commuted lands. In making this repeal the committee have simply thought it 

homestead cases. not wise to take away the right which was conferred by a previous law 

Mr. 1\lcMILL.A,N. These certificates were issued to persons who de- under which this scrip has been acquired. We do not enlarge it at all! 

sired to make surveys of lands for their own benefit. They were issued and I presume all that is now outstanding can be located only in the 

in order to remunerate them for making surveys in ad vance of surveys land district in which the surveys were made. That wa.s the .effect of 

regula.rlymadebythe Government of the United States. Persons were the law of a few years ago; it was so limited; and I think the Senator 

unwilling to wait until the Government surveys were extended to lands from Minnesota would not advqcate the taking away of a right simply 

upon which they wished to enter, and this law was passed for the pur- because we happen to be amending and changing our land system. 

pose of enabling them to go on and survey the lands in ad vance of the The amendment itself a.d,ds nothing at all to the value of what these 

Government, and they were to be compensated for the surveys by the people have, but only preserves their rights as they are; and that I 

issuance of this scrip; and so far as it was authorized to be used it.s use think is very much wiser legislation than it is to attempt to take away 

was limited to the district in which the lands surveyed were lO<'.ated. a right on the theory that perhaps at a future time Congress under 

Mr. DOLPH. This amendment does the same thing. some impulse or other may make a money compensation. 

Mr. McMILLAN. What is the limitation? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

Mr. DOLPH. The same limitation as at present-that is, the certi:fi- offered by the Senator from Oregon. 

cates shall be received at the land office at which such certificates are The amendment was agreed to. _ 

now recei vab!e in commuted homestead and pre--emption entries. They Mr. DOLPH. I now offer an amendment to section 3, which I send 

are receivable in the same way precisely. to the desk to be :read, and then I Will state the necessity for it in a 

Mr. Mc111ILL.AN. Is the limitation that broad? moment. 

Mr. DOLPH. Yes, sir. The Senator will see it in the latter part of The SECRET.AB.Y. It is proposed in section 3 to strike out all after 

the amendment; they have been made assignable by law already. the word " entry," in line 8, to the end of the section, as folio~~: 

Mr. McMILLAN. If that is the construction-- And obtaining a patent therefor, the proofs of actual settlement and cultivaMr. CALL. If the Senator wil) allow me I should like to ask a ques-, tio1_1 thereof to be filed at ~st six months prior and as preliminary t-o the_ applition. I should like to know, if the Senator is advised, who is respon- ~t10n for the P!lten~, and ~n the sam~ manner and to the same e1fec~ as 15 pro- "bl .r. th tn f th d d th la .r. ed v1ded and requued m sectiOn 3 of thlS act as to final proofs and the ISSuance of S1 e ~or e correc ess o e surveys ma e un er e w re~err to. patents. -

How have they ever been ascertained? And to insert in lieu thereof these words· 

Mr. McMILLAN. The Senator from Oregon will answer that. And before the expiration of five years from o~ta.ining a patent therefor from 

:Mr. DOLPH. The money is placed to the credit of the Government the Government as in other cases directed by law, on making proof of settleand expended by the surveyor-general the same as any appropriation ment and cultivation as provided by the laws in force granting pre-emption 

made by Congress for carrying on surveys. The surveys are·carried on rights. 

by the surveyor-general. They are reported by him. They are ap- Mr . . DOLPH. The necessity for this amendment will appear by refproved by the General Land Office. It· is merely an advance to the erence to the statutes. We have stricken out section 3 of the bill as it 

Goveinment representing so much money paid out by the Government. came from the House, which provided a new manner of making proof' 

Mr. CALL. The surveys are carried on under the supervision of the in homestead entries. The latter clause of section 4 of the · original 

surveyor-general? bill which is section 3 of the present bill, referred to the previous seci 

:Mr. DOLPH. Yes, sir. tion, which is stricken out, for the manner of making· proof in comMr. McMILLAN. The money being deposited·by the individual muted homestead cases, but it was overlooked bymyselfand the com~ 

who desires the land surveyed. I have not had an opportunity of ex- mittee in reporting the bill. By this amendment it is proposed to strike 

amining the proposed amendment as carefully as I would desire to do, out the last clause of section 3, which refers to the previous sectioil"i 

but if the construction given to it·by the Senator_ from Oregon i.~ cor-_ which has not been adopted, and to restore the clause ofthe section &<i1 

• 
• 

1518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

it stands in the Revised Statutes, so as to require the proof to be made 

in cases of commuted homesteads in accordance with the pre-emption 

law which has been heretofore in force. It is a mere formal matter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the Sen;1tor from Oregon. . 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1\Ir. INGALLS ot,tained the floor. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. President--

Mr. INGALLS . . I yield to the Senator from 1\Iichigan [Mr. P ALl\IER], 

who d~es to propose an amendment. · 

~Ir. DOLPH. I have one or two more amendments to offer. 

~Ir. INGALLS. Coming from the committee? 

~Ir. DOLPH. They are not from the committee, but they are mere 

foi'1Illll corrections of the several sections. I yield to the Senator from 

:Michigan with th~ understanding that we shall go back and that I may 

hereafter have an opportunity to offer several amendments. 

: Mr. PALMER. I move to add as a new section to the bill the following: · 

; That wherever lands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on.the 

parb of the United Stat~s by reason of gra.nts 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,orwherelandshave been, byoperationoflaw,reduced in price to Sl.25per acre, 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 

certificates or patents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entry, with- out such ands having first been proclaimed by the President and offered at public auction, and where, on the 25th of January, 1885, there at·e no valid con- tlicting claims thereto, all such entries, and the certificates and patents issued 

thereon, are hereby confirmed and declared valid and legal. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan. . · 

~Ir. CALL. The" amendment has not been printed, I think. 

Mr. PALMER. I will state for the information of the Senator from 

Florida that it was printed and put upon the desks of Senators sever-al 

days ago. 

Mr. SLATER. As I understand· the lafio<TUage of the amendment, it 

is broad enough to cover a case that I have in my mind, where some 

six hundred or more persons have settled on land of this description 

under the ho~estead law. There being some question about the land 

being subsequently offered for sale, the e.fiect of it will be to foreclose 

and turn the homesteaders out, if I understand the language of the 

amendment correctly. I refer to the settlers on what is known as the 

Ontonagon and Brule River grant. I think it covers that case. 

Mr. r ALMER. If ihe Senator from Oregon will permit me to make 

a statement, I think I can satisfy him that the amendment does not involve any of those settlers. It provides merely that where lands have 

been wit-hdrawn from market and afterward restored to market by order 

of the Land Office and have not been reoffered at public sale, where 

parties have gone on in good faith and purchased the lands at the reduced price as ordered by the Land Office, their titles shall be validated. It covers I do not kriow how many a-cres in Michigan. For the 

Senator's information and for the information of the Senate, possibly it 

would be well for the Secretary to read the letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, contained in Senate report of committee, No. 1026. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon yield? 

Mr. SLATER. I yield for the reading. 

~Ir. PALMER. Let the $ecretary read what I have marked. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. -The letter from the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office referred to by the Senator from Michigan will 

be read. · The Secretary read as follows: 

DEPARTME!."T OF THE L'ITERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE 

Washington, D. C., January 14, i885. 

Sm: I am in receipt, by your reference, of a letter from Hon. P. B. PLUMB chairman Comm_ittee on Pu,~lic Lands, l;Jnited State~ Senate, transmitting ~ copy of Senate bill No. 25091.... to confirm t1tles t.o lands m certain cases " andrequesting the views of your .uepartment thereon. ' The bill, though general in its nature, applies "particularly to certain lands in 

the Upper Peninsula of 1\Iichignn, which were once offered at public sale and ~rward 'Yithdraw:n from private entry by rea~n of railroad grants, and then 

relieved froiD: the Wlthdrawal,. or were reduced m prit::e by act of Congress, but were not aga.~ o1fe~ o.t pub~c sale at the reduced pnce nor restored to private en~ry by pubhc nottce, but w~~h were nevertheless entered as lands subject to pnvate entry, contrary to declStons of the courts and the decisions and in truc- tions of this Department. I am not informed that this state of facts exists else· 

where than in the locality referred to. Many of such entries in that locality have been pat~nted, and such patents have not been attacked. It is held that 

patented lands have passed beyond the jurisdiction of the laud department. :r.lany otherpriva.tecashorequivalententries upon such lands remain of record some. of whtch have been held for ca.ncellatio~ for illegality, nnd all of which are ha.ble to be so held .when reached for a.cttOn. Tnese unpatented entries 

which are deemed illegai embrace a. probable aggregate of between 100 000 and 

200,000 acres. · ' 

Settlers have gone upon some of these lands with a. view of claiming title there- to under the ho~est~d or Pre-emp~ion la.ws as ;>oon as their entrie may be admitted, and applications to make filings or eutrie8 have been received and are awaiting action in several hundred cases. • The bill confirms titles which have passed by patent, and confirms all un- patented entries where there are no adverse claims. So far as the question is one between the United States and the private-entryman, the United Stat-es by 

this !Jill waives the illegality in the entries and ma.kesllhem valid. So fa.r as any settlement, claim, or other confticting right has accrued up t.o the date of 

the appro';al9fthe act, the entrie~ a.re not validated. The confirnlation proposed is that whtch does not affect the rights or claims ~fthirdparties, and does not 

propose to adjudicate nor make rules for adjudication in cases of confticting 

claims, but leaves the respective claimants in such cases to the operation and 

remedies of existing laws. I perceive no objection to the legislation proposed. The only point which occurs to me as rendering the act open to any doubt in 

res,J?eCt to its construction is the phrase where there are "no conflicting claims," 

in hne 16. While this language seems broad enough to cover all cases of adverse 

rights or claims, its meanin~ might perhaps be rendered more certain if the 

words "settlements or applications" were also added, so that the para~raph 

should read (lines 15 nud 16) "and when, at the date of the approval of ihlS act there are no contlicting claims thereto, or settlements on such lands, or applica: 

tions to enter thesaJDe," &c. 

I return herewith Senator PLUMB'S letter, and copy of Senate bill No. 2JOO. 

Very respectfully, 

Hon. H. l\1. Tll:LLER, 

Secretary of th~ lnJe1-ior. 

N.C. McFARLAND, 

Commiuioner. 

Mr. PALMER. I move to amend the amendlnent, as suggested by 

the Commissioner of the General Land Office, by inserting in line 15, 

after the word '' thereto,'' the words ''or settlements or applications.' 1 

1\Ir. MILLER, of California. I should be glad to have the recommendation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office read again. 

ldonotthinkthatthe amendment comprises ali that the Commissioner 

suggested. I shall be opposed to the amendment nnless it shall so appear. I ask for the reading of the recommendation of the .COmmissioner of the General Land Office again. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER That portion of the recommendation 

of the Commissionet" of the General Land Office, referring to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan, will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: · 

The only point which occurs to me as rendering the act open to any doubt in 

respect t.o its coQstruction is the phrase where there are "no contlicting claims " in line 16. While this language seems ·broad enough to cover all cases of ad- verse rights or claims, its meaning might perhaps be rendered more certain if 

the words "settlements or apRlications" were also added, so that the paragraph 

should read (lines 15 and 16) and when. at the date of the approval of this net there are no conflicting claims thereto, or settlements upon such lands, or aP: plications to enter the same." &c. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. The·amendment of the Senator from 

Michigan does not go quite as far as the Commissioner of the General 

Land Office .recommends. I regard the amendment as very important 

in ~ew of the many conflicting claims in the Western States, a:nd particularly in the State of California, where there are cases in which a 

Spanish or Mexican grant which has been declared invalid has been 

covered by a railroad grant made by act of Congress prior to the final 

settlement of the question in respect to the Spanish or Mexican grant. 

There are cases where settlers have gone· upon land claiming that it 

was G~vernment land, because covered by a Spanish grant at the time 

the railroad gra~t was made, and there are other parties claiming the 

same land under titles derived from the railroad company. UD.less we 

ar~ very careful in legislating upon this subject we shall· confuse these 

questions and make an intense conflict between rival claimants to land, 

which will lead to interminable litigation and difficulty. 

I shall insist on the words which have been suggested by the Commissioner of the General Land Office being inserted in the amendment 

before it is adopted. That I think would save it and leave it to the 

decision of the courts as to which party should have the ],and where 

there are rival claims of settlers, pre-emptioners, homesteaders, and 

every kind of claims that there may be in the land office. We should 

save the rights of all parties. . 

Mr. P AL!tlER. If the Senator from California will permit me to interrupt him, I should like to say that the amendment covers nothing 

except ~ho .. e entries where there are no conflicting claims, settlements,· 

orapplicatio~. . Mr. MILLER, of California. The question might arise as to what 

is a conflicting claim: A great variety of questions might arise. I 

wish to save the rights of all parties and leave it to the courts to decide which is the lawful claimant to the land wbere parties claim under 

different titles and sources of title, such as a Spanish grant or home-

~ title, or a title from a railroad company holding the land under a 

railroad grant. . 

Mr. PALMER. If the Senator from California will permit me, I will 

state that the object is merely to validate the titles procured by innocent parties in good faith where there is no conflict of any character 

whatever. A con.t}.icting claim is a conflicting claim, it makes no odds 

of what character it is. The only parties involvedhere are the United 

States and the holders of the certi:fi.catesor patents who have bought in 

good faith. If there are any third parties projected into the case under 

any of these descriptions, as a matter of course if there is a conflict and 

they are thrown outJ they will have their redress in the courts before 

the proper tribunal. This is merely to make good the action of certain 

United States officers who have sold land and who supposed they were 

doin~ it l~lly, until a recent decision of the Supreme ~urt, which is 

of this character: . · 

All lands which were put in the market at the enhanced double minimum 

price prior to the lst of January, 1861, were by the third section of the act of 

Congress of June 15,1880, reduced in price to $1.25 per acre. They are not, how- ever, subject t.o private entry at th~ reduced price until again offered a·t publio 

sale. 

·Some of these lands were offered at private entry before being reoffered 

a.t public sale, and where there is no conflict it seems to me perfectly 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1519 

right and just and fair that the action of the officers of the United States 

should be validated. 

Mr. DOLPH. I fear the amendment is not fully understood by every 

Senator. ·The facts in the case are that certain lands which bad been 

withdrawn on account of certain ~ilroad grants were put in the mar- ket after the expiration of the time within which the roads· were to be 

constructed 'Under the terms of the act and before the lands were forfeited. Some lands which will probably be affected by this amendment were sold under a wrong construction of the law by the then 

Secretary of the Interior or Commissioner of the General Land Office. 

Other lands were sold by the officers of the local land offices despite 

the instructions of the General Land Office. The amendment will only 

affect lands which have been sold and paid for, and the purchase-money 

for which has gone into the Treasury of the United States. 

While the sales were illegal, because contrary to law, still, in view 

of the vast number of cases of that kind now pending in the Genera.! 

Land Office and in the courts, in cases where, as provided in the amendments, there are no conflicting claims, where no one else is claiming the 

land, and it is merely a matter between the purchaser and the United 

States, I think the best thing to be done is to confirm the title, keep the 

money, and let the parties have the land and thus get rid of this annoyance. 

A large portion of the lands which have been offered at pri,·ate sale, 

sold"and paid for, have been settled upon by pre-emption .and homestead claimants who are pressing their claims before the Committee on 

Public Lands and in the Department and in Congress. The bill does 

not affect such cases, but I think we ought to make haste and prevent 

any further complications of this kind by confirming the title of purchasers, where there are no conflicting claims at the present time, and 

preventing any future contest between such purchasers and-pre-emption and homestead claimants. It is not the object to aftect any case where there is a conflicting claim. However, the amendment is not 

important enough to take up time, and if the Senator from :Michigan 

desires to have it adopted I do not suppose the committee will object. 

But the Committee on Public Lands believed that tiie bill was best as reported. 

Mr. PALMER. At the "Suggestion of the SenatQr from Oregon I will 

withdraw the amendment to the amendment. I did not think at the 

time that I was invading the rights of the Committee on Public Lands. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan withdraws 

the proposed amendment to the amendment. 

Mr. PLUMB. As there are other amendments which it is desired 

to offer to the bill, I should like to have the matter go over for a little 

while, and in the mean time, ifthere are other amendments to be offered, 

let them be offered, in order that this measure may have a little further 

consideration: There are one or two amendments that I should like - myself to suggest to be inserted. . Mr. PALMER. I supposed that we had got to the end of the amendments, and that was the reason I offered mine. 

Mr. SAWYER. We might act upon this amendment, and then the 

Senator from Kansas can -offer his amendments. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. Before the amendment is voted upon, 

I shall move to amend it. I move to insert the words suggested by the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office, because I think they are neces- sary and proper. I think the amendment has a much wider scope than was stated by the Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. DOLPH. I hope the question will be settled without further discussion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Micliigau. 

1t1r. MILLER, of California. I have not the words before me, but I 

wish to move such an amendment to the amendment, and take the sense of the Senate upon it. · 

Mr. CALL. Do I understand the Senator from Michigan to withdraw the amendment recommended by the Secretary of the Interior 

which he proposed to line 15 ofhis amendment?. If that amendment 

is withdrawn, and I am in order, I shall renew it. • The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment would not be in 

order now. The Senator from Califqrnia has proposed an amendment 

to the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan. As soon as the ame~uliD;ent offere.d by the Senator from California is disposed o~ 

the Charr will recogmze the Senator from Florida. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. In line 15 of the amendment of the 

Senator from Michigan, after the word ''thereto,'' I move to insert 

the words "or settlements;" so as to read: 

&c~here ru·e no_valid conflicting claims thereto or settlements, all such entries, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment to the amendment. 

The amendment to the amendment was aareed to. 

1\Ir. CALL. Aftertbeword "settlements~'asinserted bytheamendment of the Senator from California, I move to add the words "or applications to enter such lands." 

.Mr. DOLPH. I call for thereadingoftheamendmentinconnection With the amendment just offered by the Senator from Florida. - The PRESIDING OFFICER. The-Secretary will report the amendment as proposed to be amended. 

The SECRETARY. .After the word ''settlements" it is proposed to 

add "or applications to enter such lands;" so as to make the amendment read if amended: 

That w~erever lanCls have been w~tbdrawn from _s!lte or disposi~on on the part of the Umted States by reason of grants made to atd J.n construct10nofrailroads or other works of internal improvement, and such Withdrawals have been terminated by act of Congress, Ex:ecutive order, or order of the Land Department, or where lands have been, by operation of law, reduced in price to SL25 per acre-, . 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 certifi- cates or patents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entry, without such l~nds having first been proclaimed by the President and offered at public auo- tion, and where, on the 25th day of January, 1885, there are no valid conflicting claims thereto, or settlements, or applications to enter such lands, all such en- tries, and the certifica'es and patelilts issued thereon, are hereby confirmed and 

declared valid and legal. _ 

Mr. DOLPH. I should like tO suggest what might be the possible 

effect of the amendment· of the Senator from Florida. These are landa 

subject to private entry. They have been sold once at private entry 

and the Government has received the money for them. If some person, supposing that the first sale was illegal, has slipped up in anticipation of this act and filed an application to purchase the landa again, 

assuming that they are still public lands, it seems to me that might 

render the bill entirely nugatory as to such lands. 

Mr. CALL. The amendment which I propose is recommended -by 

the Secretary of the Interior, and it could have no ~uch effect as is suggested by the Senator from Oregon. Itsimplysaves the legalrights.of 

a party who has made the application to enter as against the provisions 

of this proposed law. It is true there might be a case m which the 

entry was valid, but certainly being recommended by the Secretary of 

the Interior it is proper that it should go into this measure, for it saves what may be a legal right in the applicant. There can be no harm 

done by its adoption. 

Mr. CONGER.- The object of the amendment offered by my colleague is to save .from applications f<lr entry and from purchaae landa 

which have been sold by the United States and paid for by the purchasers, and patents or certificates given, but over which there is some cloud to the title, because the Land Office failed to reoffer the landa at 

public sale. But for that omissiQn, which perhaps was not in a-ccord- ance with law, these titles would be as perfect as any patent of the 

United States could make them. 

Since that was understood, since the' decision of the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office has been rendered that the lands were not in 

all respects sold a-ccording to law, that they ought first to have been 

reoffered at sale, persons of opinion that they cou,ld take away land 

for which patents bad been given and-payments made have made applications for entry, have made applications for settlement, and they are doing it every day. The object of the amendment is to secure the rights 

of those who in good faith under the offer of the Government have purchased the lands, paid for them, received their patents or certificates 

and have in all other respects a perfect tit~e, only that the Government ·failed to offer them at public auction. 

Now then, with this proposed amendment suggested by the Commissioner of the General Land Office every application for entry that has 

been made since this decision of the Commissioner of the General Land 

Office comes in with a conflicting claim; and wherever such claims 

have been made (and they have been made by hundreds over the coun- try) they conflict with the title of the original purchasers ·and throw 

them out from the benefit of this proposed general amendment. M 

the Senator from Oregon says, if any one has his title still, and nobody 

has att.empted to jump his claim by an application for a settlement or a pre-emption, it will relieve those, but the others will be thrown out 

of the protection of the original amendment. I do not think ·it a wise 

change; I think it defeats the object to a certain extent of the ori!rinaJ 

amendment, and I hope it will not be adopted. · o 

Mr. CALL. On the statement of the Senator from Michigan, I withdraw my amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida withdraws 

his amendment. 

1\fr. PLUMB. I am in sympathy with the purpose the Senator from 

Michigan had in offering this amendment, and the only thing I fear is 

that we shall, without intending it, make it too broad. 

There are cases where, if we undertake to interfere in controversies, we ought not to make an arbitrary legislative decisjon as to rights. As 

I understand this case, the courts have decided that under certain circumstances lands were required to be offered at public sale a second 

time before they could be subject to private entry, and it is designed now to relieve against the effect of that decision, which was that all 

private entries made of lands not thus offered a second ·time were invalid. I think the better way would be, instead of confirming and 

making valid all these entries, to relieve them against the objection that 

the lands have not been oftered a second time, and then let them talce 

their chance as to whatever other rights they may have or as.to wha~ 

ever other points there may be upon them aftecting their legality. I 

will therefore move to insert after the word '' thereto,'' in line 15, these 

words: 

It shall not be esse,ntial to the validity of such purchases or entries that the . lands should have been offered at public sale a second time. • -

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas offers an 
1520 OONGRESSIONAL ~RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, which 

will be reported. 

The SECRETARY. After the word "thereto," in line 15, and before 

the amendment already adopted, it is proposed to insert: 

It shall not be essential t-o the validity of such purchases or entries that the 

lands should have been offered at public sale a second time. . 

Mr. PLUMB. The effect of that will be, in place of declaring all 

these entries valid and legal as against all other objections as well as the one that the land bas not been offered the second time, we relieve them 

from the legal effect of that failure to offer at public sale the second time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] to the amendment of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PAUIER]. 

Mr. P ALMJ~R. I call for the rooding of the am~ndment that I 

offered, as amended by the Senator from CalifQrnia [Mr. MILLER] and 

also the Senator from Kansas (1\Ir. PLUl\IB]. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered: by the Senat.or from Michigan, as proposed to be amended by the Senator from Kansas, will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

That wherever lands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on t.he part 

cf the United States by renso'n of grants made to aid in construction of rai,lroads or other works of internal improvement, and such withdra.,vals have been ter- minated by act of Congress, executive order, or order of the Land Department, or where lands have been, by operation of law, reduced in price to$1.25peracre, 

and said l:m~ have been purchased, in good faith, at said price, or entered with warrants or scrip, and the officers of the Land Department have issued certificates or patents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entry; without such 

lands having first been proclaimed by the President and offerea at public auc- tion, and where, on the 25th day of January, 1885, there were no valid conflicting claims thereto, it shall not be essential to the validity of such purchases or entries that the lands should ha,·e been offered at, public sale a second time. 

:Mr. PALMER. I think that involves it so that it will end by making the amendment very obscure. 

Mr. HALE. The words la.stj>roposed ought to be put ih another 

place. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. Let the clause come in after the word 

"settlement," and the word '·'thereon" should be added to" settlement." I move to make the correction. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California ~sks 

unanimous oonsen t that the word '' thereon '' be added to his proposed 

amendinent after the word "settlement." Is there objection? The 

Chair bears none. , Mr. PLUMB. I suppose it is understood that I desired to strike out 

all after the word'~ thereto'' and insert what Iseut to the desk, and I 

will say that I do not think the word ''purchases'' is necessary there, 

but I find it used in the preceding portion of the amendment. I think 

the word "entries" has a well known significance and is all that is 

necessary. These lands must have been entered at what is called private entry; and that is the character of the entry, no matter whether 

they were paid for iD money or paid for by scrip; but I have used the 

word ''purchases'' in order to accommodate the amendment to what I 

find in line 8 preceding. My motion was designed to be to strike out 

all after the word "thereto" and insert what I have sent to the desk. 

That, I think, makes the amendment exactly what the Sena.tor from 

Michigan desires to have it and prevents it from going further than be 

bas in his mind. . • The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike out all after the word ~!thereto," in line 15 of the amendment, ;15 follows: 

\The settlement thereon, all suc.h entries, and the certificates and patents issued 

thereon are hereby confirmed and declared valid and legal: 

And insert: 

It shall not be essential to the validity of such purchases or entries that the 

lands should have been offered at public sale a. second time. 

l!Ir. SAWYER. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. I think 

the proyision was· in good shape as it was before. It was reported unanimouslyfrom the Committee on Public Lands, recommended by the Com~ 

missioner of the General Land Office, and it is not at all doubtful. It 

applies to lands paid for ten or fifteen years ago, and I do not know w by we should not say, astbeoriginal amendmentprovides, that they were paid ·for and regular entries were made; I prefer the language of the 

original proposition. • .'· Mr. PLUMB. I appeal to the Senator's sense of fairness if it was not said that there was nothing to complain of about these titles until 

the Supreme Court decided that the lands were not subject to entry· for 

the sole reason that they had not been offered at public sale a -second 

tune. If we take away that objection the titles are exactly where the 

parties who held them before supposed they were; and certainly we ~ught not to confer a new right. It is enough if we restore these people 'to what they supposed they had a perfect right to consider were their 

rights before. 

. Mr. SLATER. I call the attention of the Senator from Kansas to 

the prootica.l effect of this proposition, if I understand it correctly. 

That class of cases where citizens settled upon these lands believing -that they were subject to settlement, though not subject to sale, were ,!>rought to the Supreme. Court., and there it was decided that these ~tries were defootive,.,and the parties will be entirely ousted if some. ~medy be not provided. 

.Another point that I wish to call attention to is this: It is true the 

Committee o~ Public Lands upon a particular class of cases approved a bill applying specifically to certain cases. Now it is proposed to make 

this general, not nierely in that particular locality, but throughout the 

United States. It will be a drag-net. We do not know where it will 

reach, or what·rights it will involve. It is dangerous legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr: PLUMB] to the amendment of 

the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PAL1'tiER]. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

'!'be PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the amend- men.t offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PAUIER]. 

Mr. DOLPH. Imovethatthe word'' are,"inline 15 of the amendment, be stricken out and the word "were" inserted. That is made 

necessary by the change of time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the suggestion 

of the Senator from Oregon? The Chair hears none, and the amendment of the Senator from Michigan will.be so modified. The question 

now is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be again read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add as an additional section: 

That wherever lands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on the part 

of the United States by reason of b"l'ants 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, or where lands hn.ve been, by operation oflaw, reduced in price to $1.25 per acre, and said lands have been purchased, in good faith, at said price, or entered with warrants or scrip, and the officers of tho Land Department have issued certifi- cates or patents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entry, without 

such innds having first been proclaimed by the President and offered at public auction, and where, on the 25th day of January, 1885, there were no valid con- flicting ciaitns thereto, or settlements thereon, all such entries and the certifi- cates and po.tents issued the1·eon at·e hereby confirmed and declared valid and 

legal. · 

Mx. MORGAN. I wish to call the. attention of the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Committee on Pnblfc Lands, to this amendment . . The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Michigan. · .Mr.· P A.LMER. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 

28, nays·29; as follows:. 

YEAS-28. 

Allison, Dawes, Jones of Nevada, Blair, Dolph, Lapham, Brown, Frye, 1\:lcMillan, Cameron of Wis., Hale, !anderson, Chace, Hawley, Mitchell, Conger, Hill Morrill, 

Cullom, Hoa~, Palmer, 

NAY8-29. 

Bayard, Fair, Jonas, Beck, Garland. .Jones of Florida, Butler, George, Kenna, Call Groome, Maxey, Ca,n:;den, Harris, Miller of Cal., Cockrell, Harrison, Morgan, Coke, Ingalls, · Pendleton, Edmunds, Jackson, Pugh, 

ABSENT-19. 

Aldrich, Gibson, McPherson, 

Bowen, Gorman, :Mahone, 

Cameron ofPa., Hampton, l\Iiller ofN. Y., 

Colquitt., Lamar, Pike, 

Farley, Logan, Ransom, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

Sabin, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

Wilson. 

Saulsbury, 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Voorhees, 

Williams. 

Riddle berger, VanWyck, 

Vest, 

Walker. 

l!Ir. DOLPH: I think that section 1 may be made clearer and less 

involved by transposing some words in it. I therefore move to insert 

after the word "that," in line 3, the· words "section 2299 and," and to . •Strike out from lines 8 Jlnd 9 the words "and section 2299." It is 

simply a transposition of words to make the sense clearer. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Oregon. 

.Mr. COCKRELL. I should like to understand it. 

.Mr. DOLPH. It makes no change whatever. It is only a transposition of words to make the meaning clearer, so that one of the sections 

repealed shall not come in conflict with one of the sections excepted. 

The sentence is a little involved as it stands in the bill, and the amendment is only to make it clear. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. DOLPH. I offer the amendmentwhich I send to the desk, and 

ask to have the report of the committee upon the bill from'whicb it~ 

taken read for information. It is as short a statement as can be made 

in regard to it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon offers an amendment, which will be read. 

The C1nEF CLERK. It is proposed to insert as an additional section 

the fqllowing: 

SEC. 8. That section 2347 of the Revised Statutes be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows: •• SEC. 2347. Every }lerson above the age of twenty-one years, who is a citizen 

of the United States, .or who has declared his intention to become such, or any 
. 

1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1521 

association of persons severally qualified as above, shall, upon application to the register of the proper land office, have the right to enter, by legal subdivisions, any quantity of vacant coal lands of the United States not otherwise ap- propriated or reserved by competent authority, not exceeding one hundred and 

sixty acres to such individual person, or three hundred and twenty acres to such 

n.ssociation, upon payment to the receiver of not less than 85 per acre for such 

lands where the same shall be situated more than fifteen miles from any com- pleted railroad, and not less than $10 per acre for such lands as shall be within 

:fifteen miles of such road." 

Mr. DOLPH. I call for the reading of the report connected with the 

bill from which the amendment was taken. 

The Secretary read the following report, submitted by Mr. DOLPH 

January 9, 1885: 

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred ihe bill (S. 2483) en- titled "A bill to amend section2347 of the Revised Statutes, relating to the entry 

of coal lands," have carefully examined the same, and report it back to the Sen- ate with the recommendation that it do pass. The only change in the existing la.w proposed by the bill is to reduce the price 

of coal lands from $10 to $5 per acre where the same are situated more than fif- teen miles from any. completed railroad, and from $20 to $10 per acre where the same are situated within fifteen miles of such completed road. 

Under the present law coal lnnd is sold for ~10 minimum and f'..O maximum per acre, while the most ''alliAble of mineral lands of all other classes are sold at Si> per acre. · So far as your committee can ascertain, there is no good reason for the differ- ence in price which now exists between coal lands and other mineral lands. 

Coal is a. necessary article of general and every-day use, and the interest of the consumers of coal, who constitute a. very large proportion of our entire popu- lation, demands·tha.t the laws for the disposal of coal lands by the Government 

should be so framed as to induce the sale of the lands and the opening and development of the mines. At present prices the land can not be purchased by any but capitalists. . In the opinion of your com.mittee, should the price be reduced as provided in 

this bill, the sale of coal lands would be largely increased, the opening and de- vel~ent of coal mines greatly stimulat-ed, and the receipts of the Govern- ment from the sale of this class of lands instead of being diminished would be 

considerably increased. 

Mr. DOLPH. I will makeastatementinregard tothisamendmenb, 

and then if there is any serious objection to it let it be made to appear. 

I introduced a bill, which. went to the Committee on Public Lands 

and was reported favorably unanimously from that committee, to change 

the price of coal lands from $10 and $20 per acre, the present price, to 

$5 and $10. I find that there were only fifty entries of coal lands in 

the United States last year, although there were several thousand applications to _purchase. As was said in the report of the committee, we think there will be much more coal land sold at the reduced price 

than at the present price, and the lands will be brought within the 

reach of the poorer classes, whereas they can now be purchased only by capit~ and speculators, so that the Government would receive more money, the coal lands would be developed, ·and coal would be cheaper. 

The proposition is simply to reduce the price of coal lands. In sev- eral of the States coal lands are now subject to entry as agricultural 

lands; in many of theStates there are mineral lands which are sold at 

$2.50 an acre, or are subject to private entry; and there is no other 

class of mineral lands that costs more than $5 an acre. Gold mines, 

silver mines, iron mines, and every other class ofminerallands in the 

United States are sold at not exceeding $5 an acre. This amendment does not reduce the price of coal lands to that ex- tent, but reduces the price of coal lands within fifteen miles of a railroad to $10 an acre and without those limits to $5 an acre. It requces~ 

the present price one-half. It is a question every Senator can understand upon the statement of it. I have seen nothing but favorable 

comments on the proposed bill from the public press and from every 

quarter where it has been noticed. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. When this bill was called up those of us who had 

not the honor and the privilege of being members of the Committee on Public Lands of the Senate understood that it was a measure to repeal 

the pre-emption and timber-culture clauses of the public lands acts, 

and to reserve the domain of the United-States for homestead entries. 

That was a proposition general in its character and which every Senator could readily understand, and to which most of us had already given our assent. 

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator from Indiana willallow me to say that 

that was the understanding also of the Committee on Public Lands, and 

I did not apprehend that there would be legislatio~ proposed here over the entire public domain when this bill was called up. 

Mr. HARRISON. I am glad to have that said by the Senator from 

Alabama. Now we are asked, by amendments which have been proposed and are being proposed, to enter on the business of revising the 

land laws of the United States. For one, I desire to say to the Senator 

in charge of this bill that if we are to have amendments propOsed here 

to which the attention of the Senate has not been directed, to which 

possibly in p-art the attention of the Department has not been directed, 

as to which we have no reports, and as to which the attention of the· Senate has not been invited in advance, and of which we can have no information, except the reading of amendments at the Secretary's desk, 

for one I shall oppose the whole bill. 

I do not think it is :t:'\ir to the Senate to be loading down this bill, 

which had one single object, an obvious and well understood one, when 

it was brought before the Senate, by amendments the scope of which we can not understand as they are proposed here. A few moments ago I 

voted against an amendment. It may be right in itself; it may be 

proper legislation; but it was new to me, and I could not in the time 

XVI-96 

aJ.lowed here acquire that information which was necessary to an intelligent vote, and so I voted "no." I hope this bill may be brought back 

to its origin~ plan and idea., a bill for the repeal of the timber-culture 

and pre-emption laws of the United States, and be allowed to pass in 

that shape. 

Mr. :MORGAN. I concur with the Senator from Indiana that we are covering entirely too much ground in this bill. I voted against 

the amendment of the Senator from l\!ichigan for the very same reason that the Senator from Indiana has stated. I did not have time to con- sider that amendment as I thought it ought to be considered, and therefore I was unwilling to act upon an amendment that was so radical in 

its character, and might have such very strong effects on titles alr"eady 

granted. The amendment ought to go to the Committee on Public 

Lands, and "Qe considered there before it is put on here, and so ought 

this amendment of the Senator from Oregon, and I hope that the Senator from Oregon will content himself with allowing the Senate to take a vote upon the two propositions that were inYolved iri the bill originally. 

_ l'.Ir. DOLPH. I wish to say to the Senator from Alabama that the 

status of this measure is this: The proposition was introduced by me as a separate bill, and it went to the Committee on Public Lands. I 

understood the Senator from Alabama to favor it in committee. There was a unanimous report upon it at all events. The amendment was printed and laid upon the desks of Senators a week ago. Therefore 

the measure has the unanimous sanction of the committee, and furthermore I understood that the agreement was that the committee 

would endeavor to put some of these important matters of legislation 

relating to the public lands on this bill, it being a House bill, in order 

to secure action upon them, and I so stated publicly when I proposed 

to call up--the bill. I have offered the amendment. It is an easy matter to vote it down if there is any objection to it. 

Then I have submitted and had printed another amendment which I 

intended to propose, being also ·ameasure reported favorably from that 

committee, amending the timber and stone act, but out of deference to 

the opinions which have been expressed I will not offer it. As to the 

a.meiJdment before the Senate, let it be voted on. If there are any objections to it, let it be voted down. I can not see any; I have heard none. It has, I repeat, the unanimous sanction of the Committee on Public Lands in a report which has been read, and it has been printed as a proposed amendment to this bill, and has been on the desks of 

Senators for a week. 

:Mr. PLU~ffi. I say now, as I said to the Senator from Oregon privately, that I thought it was unwise to offer these amendments to this 

bill. I foresaw I thought exactly what we see now, that Senators wQuld 

not be willing to enlarge the scope of the bill to include matters about 

which there had been no public discussion and about which there was no immediate emergency for action, ~t all events as compared with that 

which is -.elieved to exist in regard to the main questions covered by 

this bill. I think now that it would be the wiSe thing to accept the 

suggestion made here on the Sena.te floor, more particularly because 

these matters about which the Senator from Oregon is specially con- cerned in regard to his own locality, the coal lands, &c., areQfakind 

which can be permitted to wait, however just and meritorious they 

may be, without in any m:mner inconveniencing anybody or being in 

opposition to the interest of the Government. I think, therefore, the 

best way is not only for the purpose of the passage of the bill here, but 

as a matter of propriety for the Tegularity of proceedings in our busi- ness here as well as elsewhere, because we have to have the concurrence of the House, that the bill should be kept as free as possible from ex- traneous matter. 

1\Ir. PALMER. 1\Ir. President, while. concurring on general principles with the Senator from Kansas in regard to attaching extra legislation to this bill, I would say that the amendment offered by me and 

which by implication he said was not very pressing is really very pressing. lt'is to cure a supposed defect in the titles to a great portion of 

the northern part of the Stab3 of Michigan. M:en have clea.red farms 

and developed land, made it valuable, and now they are snhject to' 

conflict of title, because the United States officers did not comply with; 

the law in the matter of advertising that the land should be offered at 

public sale before being restored lo pfivate entry. 

That is the whole auimus of my amendment, and it seems to me that 

all conflicts are provided for, that no injustice can be done to any one, 1 

because it only provides for those cases where the United States is one party and the present holders of the -patents are the other. If there is 

a conflicting claim, it is thrown out; it does nob come within the scope 

of the amendment. The object of appending an extra section to the, 

bill was to enable the House to act on it, this being a House bill, as ' 

there is no probability of getting consideration for the proposition of1 the amendment in the House as a separate bill at this late period of the 

session. 

Mr. HARRISON. I ask the Senator from Michigan whether the. proposition be made in his amendment has been favorably reported in 

the Senate from the Committee on Public Lands as a separate measure? 

1tir. PALMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARRISON. At this session? 
1522 C.ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir; I think.thatisso,andioffered the amendment to this bill for the purpose of getting legislation. It is also rec- ommended by the Coiiliil.issioner of the General Land Offi~. 

Mr. DAWES. When this bill came before the Senate I hailed it as a very beneficent measure, one that I thought was demanded more than 

almost any pending in this body. I very much fear that it is going to 

be defeated. There are two ways of killing a ·bill; one is by overloading it, and another is by voting against it. One is just about as efficacious as the other. Next to crowding all the legislation you can think ·of into an appropriation bill because you can not otherwise get it through 

another body very well, is the attempt to put all sorts of legislation on one bill; and in a body that does. not have any rule which requires 

amendments to be germane to the main body of the bill, it is a great 

temptation. In the existing state of things, having as proper a regard 

for the rules of other bodies as parliamentary law permits us. to have, we might just as well become a committee of consolidation and put all we want in one bill-there is no rule against it-and put that on an appropriation bill and send it to the other branch, and then we may 

have accomplished something. · Now the amendment which the Senator from Oregon proposes is doubtless a very good measure. What makes me think it is is because the 

Senator from Oregon advocates it. I do not know anything further 

about it. Bu~ this is quite certain: if every good measure that our friend from Oregon advocates is to be put upon this bill we are down 

at once. Here is a plain proposition for Congress to say whether the 

publi.c lands shall be reserved hereafter for homestead settlers, and we have beenatworkuponthat. My friendfromOhio [Mr. SHEBMA.N] says we have stricken that out of the bill. P.ray, then, what is ill the bill? 

If this bill so loaded does not carry even that proposition, then we are· in the position of seeking and inviting all those who can employ men for three or four months to go and settle down upon the public lands 

in the name of a pre-emptor or a. homesteader to gather in the public 

lands by the thousands and thousands of acres, those lands which we have proclaimedareto beforthesettler, until all ourpublic lands shall 

become to be what tJ:rree-fourths of them are now, held by large cor- porations that never die and never have any heirs to whom they can be 

distribrrted after death, and they will be held in all coming time by 

counties, by States, by tracts too large to make anything but a great 

Western State. 

My friend from Oregon seems to have lost sight of that great feat- ure of the bill and the only feature ofit originally, in thedesire to get 

those good and beneficent measures which he has considered himself 

all. together in one bill, so that when." be it enacted " shall become 

efficacious and a law, little else will be required for us to do here save perhaps to look after the one bill which came from the other body to 

prevent the further appropriation of tbe pubHc lands in vast quantities by foreign holders and by corporate bodies. Every measure my 

friend from Oregon has brought here has so commended iWelf. to me that I have voted for it blindly; but now I ask him to let us have the 

privilege of taking his bills seriatim and try them one at a time. I give 

him my woid that I shall alter my own judgment and course if I fail 

to follow him step by step if he will allow me tha~ privilege. But let us have the question decided here by yeas and nays whether the busi- ness of appropriating public lands in these vast quantities under false 

pretenses and false affidavits shall continue till the last piece of our domain is gone. 

Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, I am very much obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts for his expression of confidence in myself, but 

I wish to say that I think I have proved myself diligent in attempting 

to put this measure in proper shape, and pressing it on theattentionof 

the Senate, and this is-the first amendment to theHouse bill proposing new legislation I have offered. This amendment is I think germane to 

the bill. The bill under consideration is a bill to amend the land laws 

of the United States. The amep.dment is intended for the same purpose 

it was introduCed some time since in the Senate; it has had the consideration not only of myself but of the Committee on Public Lands; it was reported favorably and it was presented, printed., and laid upon the desks 

of Senators as an amendment for their exami.nation. I do no.t think 

that it would be either improper or contrary to the rules of the Senate 

to a.ttaeh it to this bill, but I dclrerto the judgment of Senators who say 

the measure ought not to be attached to this bill for fear of jeopardizing 

its passage, and withdraw the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon withdraws 

his amendment. 

~Ir. SLATER. I desire to make a few remarks in relation to the 

general bill as it came from the House. 

The amendments that have been attaehed to the bill in the main 

received my approbation in the Committee on Public Lands. AB separate measures, standing upon their own bottom and by themselves, I 

should have voted for them; but no provision can be attached to the 

original bill that can secure my support. 

The senator from Massachusetts speaks of the blindness of men. Why, sirt there is none so blind as the Senator from Massachusetts 

himself. Of all the monstrosities that have been proposed in this Congress or in any other Congress since I have been here, the proposition 

to repeal the pre-emption laws to my mind is the most monstrous. 

Reflect a moment, sir. This country has grown to its present strength, more homes have been a-cquired under your pre-emption laws than un- der any other land laws you have passed; more of the West has been 

settled, greater prosperity has come to it under the influence and operations of your pre-emption laws than under any other, not excepting 

your boasted homestead law, valuable as that is. 

Sir, if I were goin?. to put a. title to this bill that would delineate ita 

effect, I should say, 'An act to facilitate the sale of lands to corporations,'' because that will be the effect of the bill and its legitimate scope 

and opernti.on in the far West, and I am surprised that the people's 

House, coming up from the people as they do, the people who .understand these laws, ::;hould have been entrapped into the passage of' such a bill as this. It is true there have been great frauds, numerous frauds 

perpetrated under these laws; but as great as they have been, as nu- merous as they have been, the evils that come from that source can not 

exceed the evils that will come 'to the people from their repeal. From my boyhood to the present time I have always lived in sections 

of the United States where these laws were of daily application, where 

people were settling upon the lands of the United States and acquiring 

homes under them. The past season I mingled with the people. They 

asked me whether it was probable that the pre-emption law would be 

repealed. I told them that I feared it would be. ~iany of them said 

that they hoped not; that although they had been long in the West, 

they had not yet been able to avail themselves of its provisions and 

wished to do so. Now, sir, what is the effect? Within the past twenty-five or thirty 

years you have covered the great body of the West with your landgrant railroads. No longer in the State of Illinois, the State of :Wwa, 

and many other of the Western States can either a homestead or a preemption be procured, while the land-grant railroads have plenty of 

lands for sale. The people want to acquire lands on the public domain, and in proportion as you restrict their right to acquire laads, just 

in that proportion you facilitate the sale ~Y land-grant corporations of 

the lands they are now holding and are seeking to sell. 

There is-another consideration to be remembered, that the lands you 

have yet remaining for settlement are not the rich and alluvial lands 

of the West as a general thing. Here and there you will find a little 

valley that settlers would like to have, as valuable as the lands of the 

Mississippi Va.Iley; but the larger proportion, probably nine-tenths of 

the pubJic land remaining, is fit only for pasturage and grazing, in 

which in perhaps not one quarter section in a hundred can you get a place large enough to have a field of forty acres under the plow. It is 

said that one hundred and sixty acres is large enough for a farm. Indeed, sir, it ·is enottgh if you can get such lands as there are in Iowa, 

illinois, Minnesota, and many other States; but when you go to the 

great plains of the West it requires much moreland for a mantoeettle 

down upon and make a home. Under the operations ofyourpre-emption law and your homestead law together, a man could go beyond the 

settlements and in the course of two or three years he could avail himself of both statutes and acquire title to three hundred and twenty acres, 

and even then he would not be able to make as good a living as he could 

upon even forty acres of better lands in the West. 

Mr. DAWES. I ask my friend from Oregon if he would not need a tree-culture law and also a desert-land law to carry it out in full? 

Mr. SLATER .. I have seen the operation of the tree-culture law, 

and I do not believe, as a rule, that it has been of any benefit. I think 

of all the laws that have been a. subterfuge to cover up fraudulent en- tries, that has been the most vicious of a.g. That law I would be willing to vote to repeal, and I have been disposed to vote for the repeal of 

the desert act, and yet I am very doubtful whether it would be a wise 

provision, for the largest area of your lands now remaining for sale is 

of a. desert character, upon which you must take water before you can expect anything to grow in the nature of cereal crops or vegetables of 

any description. One man, even if he gets water for one hundred and 

sixty acres, will not perhaps have one-quarter of that land fit for the 

plow. Then I say of the land you have left, a man needs from three 

hundred and twenty acres to a whole section ofland to be able toeven 

have the amount of stock that many a farmer in Illinois will keep and 

maintain well on eighty acres of land. · . And yet the cry has gone up and the House has been entrapped into 

repealing this, one of the most beneficent laws ever put upon your 

statute-book, a law which has bUilt more hoJDes, has created greater 

wealth, and is more important to-day than it ever has been so far as it 

applies to the sections yet to be settled. But I suppose the men who 

represent the States that have grown np under this law have come into 

being since the generation that settled there. Their States under the 

operation of this law have grown to be wealthy. They listen to these 

stories, more or less true, that come from the Department, of frauds; 

and there are frauds, many of them, but we should meet them in a 

different way. They should be ferreted out and the men who perpetrate them should be punished and sent to the penitentiary. Do not 

repeal your law: Amend your law so as to punish those who commit 

frauds, andsave to themen who need homes oneoftheadyantagesand 

opportunities of acquiring a home on the few.public lands that re~ 

to the United States. 

I hope that the bill will be most emphatically defeated. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

1\l:r. INGALLS. Mr. President,this bill if enaeted will effect an entire revolution in the present public land system of the United States; 

and many of my constituents and others int-erested in the homestead 

and pre-emption system have written me stating that arrangements 

have been partially completed by which they expect to go o~ the public domain, and suggestion has been made that perhaps eqmty would 

require that in a matter as important as this the time when it is to go 

into effect should be a little postponed. If it would not be disagreeabletotheSenatorfrom Oregon who bas chargeofthe bill [1\Ir. DoLPH], 

I would like to move as an amendment that the bill, if it becomes a law, 

shall take effect at some time in the near future, say on the 1st of June or July, 1885. · Mr. DOLPH. I can not speak for the committee; but as far as I am concerned I have no personal objection to that proposition. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. I will then move in line 21 of section 1 to strike 

out the words "passage of this act " aft.er the word " the," and inser:fi 

the words "1st day of July, 1885." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported. 

The SECRETARY. In section 1, line 21, after the word "the," it is 

proposed to strike out ''passage of this act'' and insert '' 1st day of 

July, 1885;" so that the clause will read: 

Provided, hm.utWel', That this repeal shall not affect any valid rights heretofore 

8(!(lrued or accruing under said laws, but all bonafide cla.ims lawfully initiated 

before the 1st day of .July, 1885, may be perfecteQ., upon due compliance with 

law, &c. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas [1\Ir. IN~ALLS]. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. INGALLS. In line 7 of section 2, aft.er the word ' ' the,' ' I move to strike out the words '' passage of this act '' and insert as in the for- mer amendment, "1st day of July1 1885." · The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. INGALLS. In seetion4, line 7, I move to strikeout the words 

''passage of this act'' and insert, as in the previous amendment, the 

words " 1st day of July, 1885. " Th~ amendment was agreed to. . The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the 

amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. PLUl!IB. I should like to reserve for a separate vote that part 

of the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole striking out the 

latter clause of section 3 of the bill. I wish simply to have the question divided so that the vote on striking out the last clause of the sec- tion may be taken separately. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kansas refer to 

the clause commencing in line 17? · .Air. PLU.A!B. I refer to the clause commencing in line 17, which 

reads: 

And an act entitled "An act to provide additional regulations for homestead 

and pre-emption entries on public lands," approved March 3,1879, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment will be reserved. 

How shall the vote be taken on concurring in the other amendments 

made as in Committee ofthe Whole? ["In gross:"] The question 

will be taken upon concurring in the amendments in gross if there be no objection. 

.Air. SHERMAN. ~t some stage of the bill I should like to have it 

read as it stands since it has beeu amended. 

Mr. ALLISON. · That had better be done now. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it had better. be so read now, because it 

strikes me that the bill has been stripped of all its favorable features 

but one, and I do not know what amendments have· been put upon it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The_ bill as amended will be read. 

The Secretary read the bill as amended. 

Mr. ALLISON. I notice in the reading of the first section of the bill 

that ~n amendment has been inserted requiring the land offices to re- ceive everywhere certificates issued for surveys of public lands. I 

should like to have that clause read again. 

The PRESIIiENT pro tempore. That part of the bill will be again 

read. . The Secretary read as follows: 

.And prO'Ilidedfurther, That all outstanding certmcates of deposit ou account of 

surveys heretofore issued under the provisions of sections 2401, 2402, and 2403 of 

the Revised Statutes, and acta sup.J?lemental thereto, shall be receivable as cash. 

(except for fees and commissions) in the disposal of public lands at the land 

offices at which such certificates are now receivable in commutation of homestead and pre-emption rights. 

Mr. ALLISON. I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon what 

those sections of the Revised Statutes are. !1r. DOLPH. I think the Senator from Iowa was not in when this 

matter was discussed. Those are sections which authorize any person 

to furnish the necessary money to extend the public surveys. The 

money is pla<led at the disposal of the surveyor-general of the district. 

The surveys are made in accordance with the laws of the United. States 

and under the supervision of the surveyor-general, and returned to the 

Department and approved as the other cases. For these moneys certificates have been issued. Tllere are now outstanding, as I am informed 

~ 

by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in a letter which wasl 

just read at the desk, about $400,000 in amount of these certificates.i 

They are made assignable and maybe used topayforpre-emptionclaims; 

and commuted homesteads in the district where the money was paidj 

for the surveys. 

The proviso does not extend the limit to which they may be used;' 

but as a compensation for the repea1. of the pre-emption law, and inj 

order that the certificates may be disposed of for public lands, it ex- tends them to the entry of other public lands where cash entries are made. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. In the district where the surveys are made? 

:Mr. DOLPH. In the district. 

.Air. ALLISON. I happen· to know that there were great frands in! 

the surveys of public lands in the arid regions of our country and these 

certificates were spread over those portions of the country where 1ands; were valuable. Some years ago we provided that the certificates should: 

only be receivable in the surveying district where the survey was made,~ 

so, that if people were engaged in surveying arid lands which nobodJi 

wanted for .sCttlement they should apply the certificates to payment; 

for such land. and not be allowed to transfer them to the rich regions.' 

of Oregon, Dakota, and Minnesota. 

l!Ir. DOLPH. This retains that provision of existing law. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. I am very glad to know that I was mistaken in. 

listening to a casual reading of the provision. As I understand the. Senator from Oregon now, it does not enlarge the scope of the certifi-, 

cates in any degree. 

Mr. DOLPH. Not as to the place where they may be used. . 

Mr. ALLISON. Not as to the place where they may be used. :,\ 

Mr. DOLPH. The amendment was drawn in the Land Office. ·-' \ 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in:. the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole, except that whick was reserved for a separate vote, the clause commencing in line 17, and! 

embracing lines 18, 19, and 20 of section 3. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on concurring 

in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole, striking out: the clause beginning in line 17 of section 3, which will be read. 

The SecretarY read as follows: 

And an act entitled "An act to provide additional regulations for homestead 

and pre-emption entries on public lands," approved 1\Iarch 3,1879, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. 

Mr. PLUMB: he ad of 1879 required the publication by a homesteader or pre-emptioner of a notice in a newspaper for a certain number1 

of .weeks before his entry could be perfected, thus imposing a cost ofj 

from $4 to $6 upon each one of them. The- bill as it came from the: Honse repealed that act. The third section was stricken out by the 

Senate committee, I consenting in company with other members ofthe1 

committee, without observing at the time that the section as stricken! 

out contained that provision. I think the law of 1879 ought to be re- pealed, and I therefore should be glad to have the Senate reject the: amendment made :LS in Committee of the Whole, and repeal that pro-i 

vision oflaw. I do not think the provision has operated as it was designed it should operate, to prevent frauds; aiid inasmuch as we now· limit the entries on public lands to one form, and that a h{)meste3<}, I 

and as no title can be acquired under any circumstances without an OC-1 

cupaucy of at least thirty months, there would not seem to be any 

necessity for the publication which is now required, and which was! 

designed primarily to apply to homestead and pre-emption entries; 

which could be made after an occupancy of six months. 

Mr. SHERltfAN. The Senator from Kansas made a statement which: 

strikes me with surprise. If it is true I should be much more in favor 

of the bill than I have been. Do I. understand that if the bill is passed' no land can be entered except under the homestead law? 

Mr. PLUMB. Only under the homestead law. 

1\lr. SHERMAN. On the contrary, as I understand it, every particle of public land can be bought with money after the passage of the 

bill just as readily and upon the same terms as it may be bought now. Mr. PLUMB. No, sir. . Mr. SHERMAN. lfthe Senator fri>m Kansas could convince me of 

that, it would give me great satisfaction. As I understand, the Senatorj 

from Oregon acquiescing in the motion of the Senator from 1\Iissouri, 

the Senate struck out all the provisions of the bill which affected in any I 

way whatever the entry of public lands for money, and under the bill as it now stands any corporation in this country or any other, or anyl 

citizen of this counbry may enter :my land for money which is now subject to entry in that way. ~ 

Mr. PLUI\IB. I made my statement too broad. I will qualify it;1 but still it does not touch the point that is under consideration. The 

committee inserted a provision which was designed to reach, and which! 

only did reach lands in. Southern States, because only in those Statesj 

(except perhaps as to a. small tract of land in Washington 'l'erritory) i 

is there any land subject to private entry without settlement. 

Mr. SHERMAN. For money? 

Mr.PLUI\IB. Yes; for money withouf settlement. We designed 

to put all the lands in the SouthemStateswhicharenowsubjectto pri- 1 

vate entry (and they are chiefly timber lands, I believe) under the opera-, 
1524 CONGRESSIO~AL· REOORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY ll;" 

tion of the homestead law. The Senate failed to agree to the amendment of the committee in that regard; but in all the Northwest, and 

in all the other States of the Union, under the bill no land can be 

acquired except by occupancy for at'least thirty months. 

Mr. SHER?!IAN. Ca.n not that be under the existing law? Is there no land now in the Northern States subject to private entry without 

settlement? • · Mr. PLUMB. As I said, there may be possibly a handful of land in 

Washington Territory. ·with that exception I think there is not an acre in any Northern or Northwestern State or Territory which Can. .be 

purchased under what is known as private entry by the payment of a dollar and a quarter an acre irrespective of settlement. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That statement surprises me. Mr. PLUMB. I was going to add that the provision of 1879 was enacted in order to throw some safeguard around the execution of the 

pre-emption law by requiring a publication by the pre-emptioncr and 

also by the homesteader, because· it embraces them both; but it was designed especially for the pre-emption claimant, requiring him to give 

notice of the time when he would make application to complete his 

entry under the pre-emption law. That was ·deemed best because of 

the frauds that were being committed under the pre-emption law and 

by reason of the belief tha.t such a publication would to some extent 

prevent them. 

Now we have repealed the pre-emption law; it is no longer operative, and ne> one can acquire title to land, except in Southern States 

where lands are open to private entry, unless by a settlement·which 

shall not be for less than thirty months in duration. That, I believe, 

is a sufficient notice to all the world of the intention 'ofthe party, and 

will give ample opportunity for the protection of the Government 

without imposing upon the homesteader the necessity of paying from 

four to six dollars to a newspaper to publish his intention to enter the 

land. . 

Mr. DAWES. Will the Senator from Kansas explain the :fifth section of the bill as reported by the committee? 

Mr. PLUMB. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, failed to 

insertsection5ofthe bill, reported by the Committeeon PublicLands, as an amendment. That proposed section was in these words: 

That after the passage of this act no public lands of the Unitt;d States, except abandoned military o1· other reservations and mineral and other lands the sale 

of which at public auction has been authorized by acts of Congress of a special na.ture having local application, sh.all be sold at public auction or be subject to pnvate entry; and all offered publ1c lands are hereby withdrawn from market 

and shall be. disposed of as unoffered public lands. · ' 

That was designed to prevent the entry for money of the lands now subjecttoprivateentry, of which there are none except, as! said, a very 

small quantity besides those in the Southern States, chiefly in the States 

of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. 

Mr. DAWES. Does the Senator from Kansas say that the statement 

of the Senator from Ohio has no application except in those States? 

Mr. PLUl\IB. No, sir. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. The SenatOr from Oregon [Mr. DOL];>H] shows me 

a statement be made yesterday, and he says there are 500 000 acres in 

Northern Michigan and 1\Iinnesota. ' 

Mr. PLUMB. As I said, there may possibly be some lands heretofore offered for publi? sale, but they are within very limited areas, and 

the law as to those 18 not enlarged. I was not aware of the existence 

of any such land up there, but it must be Yery small in extent. 

I think myself that the provision as reported from the committee 

ought to have been adopted. I believe it is wiser for the State of 1\Iissonri, which is especially under consideration here, and all of the South- ern·States, that every single acre of land in those States shall be subject to acquisition only on condition of settlement, but the Senate 

thought otherwise, and therefore those lands are not covered by the 

bill, but are left, exactly as the bill found them. · 

The PRES~DENT ·pro tempor(3. The question is on agreeing to the 

recommendatwn ofthe Senate made as in Committee of the Whole to 

strike out The clause which has been read. ' 

The amendment was not concurred in. 

Mr. PLUMB.~ · In order to take the provision out of its anomalous. pOsition in the bill, I move that it be inserted at the close of the bill as a separate section. 

The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The Senator from Kansas asks 

unanimous consent that the clause which by a vote of the Senate has 

been retained in the bill be transposed to the end of the bill as a separate section. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. :M.r. PL U.MB. I suggest that the clause be amended by striking out 

the :first word, the word "and," and substituting "that " so as to 

read: "That an act e:ptitled," &c. ' 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. That modification will be made by 

unanimous consent, if there be no objection. . 

Mr. P ALUER. I move to add as an additional section to the bill 

the following: 

SEc.-. That wh~rever l!'nds have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on th~ part of tlle Umted States by reason of grants-made to aid in construction of 

railroads or other works of internal improvement, and such withdraw~;~.ls have 

been terminated by Mt of Congress, executive order, or order of the Land De- partment, or where l!l'nds have been, by operation !lf law, reduced in price to' 11.25 per acre, and s1ud lands have been purchased, m good faith, at said price, 

or entered with wa.rrantsorscrip,and t•officersofthe Land Department have 

issued certificates or patents thereon in accordance with such purchase or entry without such lands having first been proclaimed by the President and offered at P.ublic a~c~ion, GJ?d where, on the 25th day of January, 1885, there were no valid con1hctmg cl8.1IDS thereto, or settlements thereon, all such entries and the 

certificates and patents issued thereon, are hereby confirmed and declal·ed valid 

and legal. 

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

amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan. 

~Ir. HARRISON. As I had occasion to say a few moments ago, thls 

proposition comes to me and, I think from what has been said, to other 

Senators in the nature of a surprise. I inquired a little while ·ago 

whether as an independent bill it bad ever received the favorable re- port of the Committee on Public Lands, and was ad vised by some mem- bers of the committee that it bad, and by others tba.t it bad not. I 

think, however, inquiry shows that perhaps not in the exact form but 

in something like. its present form, it was reported favombly td the 

Senate by the Committee on Public Lands, but unaccompanied by any 

report. - Mr. PALMER. If the Senator will permit me I will state that this was a distinct bill originally, being Senate bill No. 2509. It was re- ported by the Committee on. Public Lands with certain amendments 

and it is now offered as an amendment to the bill before the Senate~ a better means of securing legislation on the subject than in any other 

way. , 

Mr. HARRISON. So I understood; but the point I make is that it was unaccompanied by any report from the Committee on Public Lands; 

Mr. DOLPH. There were two bills containing a recital of the same 

provision, reported from tue Committee on Public Lands. There was a report made on one of them, I am not able to say on which just now. The subject is covered, however, by a communication from the Com~ 

missioner of the General Land Office. 

Mr. HARRISON. The inaccuracy, if there be an inaccuracy in the 

statement which I have been making, grows out of the fact that I did 

not succeed in getting de.finite)nformation on inquiry from members 

of the Comm~ttee on Public Lands of the Senate. I was advised by one member of that committee that no report 'had accompanied the 

measure, and by another that the bill had notMr. COCKRELL. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr. HARRISON. Certainly. 

:M:r. COCKRELL. If a report has been made, can we not; find it? 

Have we not got the record? 

Mr. HARRISON. I understana that the report is here, it having 

been presented to me now by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PALMER]: 

I se:pt for and have before me now, but have not had time to examine 

it-as the book has been placed on my desk since I ros&-the case of 

Eldred vs. Sexton, in 19Wallace, 169. I will send the book totheSenatorfromAlabama [Mr. ?rioRGAN] who is upon the Committee on Public 

L~n~. ~e may examine t~e case and see what its bearing upon the 

question 18. It seems that m 1880 an act was passed which is found 

in the twenty-first Statutes at Large, page 237, and the third section of 

that act is as follows: 

That the pr.ice of lands .now subject to entry which were raised to ~:50 per acre, and put m market prior to January, 1861, by reason of the grant of alternate 

sections for railroad purposes, is hereby reduced to ~1.25 per acre. • 

I do not understand whether the trouble here is thattheselandswere 

sold at the reduced or minimum rate of $1.25 an acre, having at one time been withdrawn from public entry, and were entered at that rate ' 

and that the law bas since been declared that they were not subjectt~ sale at a dollar and a quarter an acre, but should have been put upon 

the market at the double minimum price, as it is called, of $2.50 an acre. My impression is that they could not have been sold at private 

sale for a dolfu:r and a quarter an ac~e, beca~e they had not again been 

offered at public sale. I may be entirely mistaken about the difficulty 1 

and I am seeking information. Do I understand-the Senator fro~ Michigan· can advise ~~wbeth.er th~ lands ar.e subject to entry by per- sons at double the mlD.liD.um pnce without bemg offered. again at public auction, and whether the question is simply one of a dollar and a quarter an acre or whether it is one which afi'"ects the title altogether? 

Mr. PALMER. If the Senator from Indiana will permit me, I think 

the text of the amen5lment will inform him. The language is: 

And such withdrawals ha~e been terminated by act of Congress, executive 

order, or order of the Land Department, or where lands have been by opera-- tion of. law, reduced in price tQ $1.25 per acre, and said lands have'bcen pur- chased, &c. . 

The whole diffi<:ulty intended -to be remedied is where parties have 

bought in good faith lands. that have been restored by act of Congress' 

or the order of the Land Office to market at $1.25 an acre, and the Su:.. 

preme Court bas since decided that those lands, should have been reoffered at public sale before being submitted to private entry. 

Mr. HARRISON. 'Eefore being submitted to private entry at $1..~ 

an acre, but not before being sold at $2.50 an acre, so that the difficulty, 

I judge, must be that they were put upon the market and sold at $1.25 an acre before the President had proclaimed them as subject to entry 

and before they had been offered again at public sale; and the trouble 

is not one affecting the title, but is the question between $2.50 and 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL:-RECORD-SEN:A.TE. 1525 

$1.~5 an ncre. I may be altogether wrong; lam simply attempting to 

gatheT the state of the case, which, as I said, has come to me as a sur- prise, because my attention had not been attracted to it, it being a bill 

that had not yet been reached and no notice had been giv~n that its 

consideration would be pressed. I want to get at what the facls are. ?tlr. ?tUJJLER, of California. The question is whether those who 

paid a dollar and a quarter 3Jl acre have a good title. 

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly. 

M1'. HALE. The withdrawal from sale may have been terminated 

and the lands restored by a proclamation of the President. 

:Mr. HARRISO~. I say to the Senator from Maine that the proclamation does not have to precede the sale at $2.50 an acre. The lands 

may be sold at the double minimum price without any proclamation, ' 

and without being offe_red at public sale as I understand; but before 

they can be sold at the minimmn price, $1.25 an acre, there must be a proclamation restoring them, and they must be once offered at public. 

sale. 

Mr. CONGER. If the Senator will allow me, under the $2.50 act 

they must then· be offered at public sale before they C3Jl be ent'ered at 

$2.50, but bylaw they have been withdrawn from that class at $2.50, or the double minimum, and may be entered at $1. 25. In either case, 

if they had not been offered at public sale at $2.50, tuy must be so offered before sale, or else the claimant must seek a suit in court to perfect his title. Having by law been reduced to $1.25 they must then be 

offered at public sale. So the Supreme Court have decided. It is not a. question whether the Government shall receive $2.50 an acre or $1.25 an acre, but it is whether the mere neglect to offer the land at public 

sale shall be cured by a statute. It is a cloud on the title which it is 

designed to remove. Mr. HARRISON. The Senator from Michigan may be right. The 

impression I had was that where·the lands were offered at the double 

minimum price it was not a condition precedent to a private entry that 

they shonld have been offered at public sale. Perhaps the Senator is 

right in saying that it was. I think we ought to h:ive from the_ cllair- ma.n of the Committee on Public Lands or the Senator from Alabama 

[Mr. MoRGAN], who is a member of that committee,_ some clear statement of just what the trouble is, how mnch land .is involved in the 

proposed legislation, what the attitude of the Department with :refer- ence to the question is, and then I think we shall be in a condition. to 

vote upon the amendment. I voted against it before upon the impression derived from some members of the committee that it was unneces- sarily broad for the particular purpose mentioned, and especially in its 

concluding words which undertake to confirm absolutely certain ~hings. 

Instead of simply saying that the lands shall stand as if they bad been 

offered at public sale and let everything else be as it is now, theamendmentas I understand it goes further, and not simply relieves these people from this condition, but it assumeS to confirm cert.ain titles. 

It seems to me that if such is the purpose of the provision it should 

simply say that in cases where sales have been made the fact of previous failure to offer the lands at public sale should not be held to invalidate the title, but that such cases should be beard and determined 

by the General Land Office precisely as if the lands had ·been offered at 

pu.b~c sale. That would leave everything else nna:ffected. It would 

leave the man who had complied with the land laws in every other particular but this one in a conditio~ to perfect his title, and would not 

put us in danger of going further by assuming to confirm titles by act 

of Congress which should stand, after we have removed this. defect, 

upon tbeil' own merits and upon the papers which have been filed. 

Mr. PALMER. I will sta.te for the information .of the Senator from 

Indiana, as be has not probably read the communication from the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office, that that officer says under 

date of January 4, 1885, thatThe confirmation proposed is that which does not affect the rights or claims 

of third parties, and does not propose to adjudicate nor make rules for adjudica- tion in cases of conflicting cl&ims, but leaves the respective claimants in such cases to the operation and remedies of existing laws. 

It applies merely to cases where the United States may remedy the 

laches or derelictions of its officers. 

Mr. HARRISON. I ask the Senator from Michigan whether that 

communication is not addressed to the Senate bill and not to his 

amendment, and whether the terms of that bill do not differ in some respects from the amendment? 

Mr. PALMER. There has been a very slight change for the protection of the settlers. The amendments that were made were of a. character to include a larger number of conflicts, if possible-that is, to 

make the measure of conflict more extensive. In the original bill it was applied to cases where there were no conflicting claims. In the proposition as amended as inCommitteeoftheWhole it was put in as ''valid 

conflicting claims or settlements thereon.'' · 

:Mr. llllTCHELL. I wish to say just one word in relation to the 

pending amendment. I have had a number of letters from constitu~ 

ents of mine who say to me that they have paid their money for lands 

to which' they have not a perfect title, and that this measure will en- able them to perfect their title. So far as they are concerned, unquestionably they are innocent purchasers, and they ought, I think, to have a good title. Therefore I shall favor the amendment. 

CIVIL-SERVICE COMl\IISSION :REPORT. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will lay before the Sen~ 

ate a message from the President of the United States. 

The Secretary read _as follows: 

To the Senate and House of Representatives: 

In compliance with the act of Congress approved January 16, 1883, entitled 

"An act to regulate and improve the civil-service of the United States," the 

Civil-Service Commission has made to the President its second annual report. That report is herewith transmitted. 

The commission is in the second year of its existence. The President con- gratulates the country upon the success of its labors, commends the subject to the favorable consideration of Congress, and asks for an appropriation to con- tinue the work. 

CHESTER A.. ARTHUR. EXECUTI:VE 1\IANSION, 

Wllllh.ington, Febru.ary 11,1885. · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo?·e. The message will be printed and 

with the accompanying document referred totbe Committee on Printing. EIGHTH NEW YORK HEAVY ARTILLERY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The Chair lays before the Senate a message from the HouseofRepres_entativevetnrningSenatejointresolution No. 92 With an amendment, which Will be read. 

The secretary read as folJows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

February 10, 1885. 

Resolved, That the joint resolution from the Senate (No. 92) entitled" Joint 

resolut-ion authorizing and requiring the Secretary of War to deliver tn the 

Eignth New York Heavy Artillery Association the regimenta.lcolorswliich belonged to said artillery, and which are now in the custody of the Secretary of 

War," do pass with the following amendment: 

In line 4 -of the bill strike out the word·" Beam" and insert the word "Ream;" so as to read: "And which were captured by confederate forces at Ream Station. on fJ:ae Weldon Railroad, August 25, 1864." 

Mr. HARRISON. I suppose that is simply a.n error in nomenclature. I move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House. 

The amendment was concurred_in. 

DISTRICT APPROPRIATION -BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the action of the 

House of Representatives on the amendments of the Senate to the bill • (H. R. 8039) making appropriations to provide for the expenses or the 

government of the District of Columbia. for the :fiscal year ending June 

30, 1886, and for other purposes. 

M:r. PLUMB. rmove that the Senate insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House and agree to the request of the House for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. 

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. PLUMB, Mr. 

DAWES, and Mr. COCKRELJ.- were appointed. 

RECOM::\!ITIIE~T OF A PETITION. 

:Mr. McPHERSON. I ask unanimous consent to recommit a petition to the Committee on Pensions. I have the consent of the mem- ber of the committee who made the report in the case. It is the. petition of Martha .A. F. Terrett, widow of Colville'I:errett, late a. lieutenant 

in_the. United States Navy, praying f<>r an increase of pension: The 

petition was reported adversely ·by the Senator from Iowa (Mr. WILsoN] on the 16th of January, 1885, and was ordered to lie on the table. 

I desire to have it recommitted to the Committee on Pensions. . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The SenatoT from New Jersey asks 

unanimous consent that the vote of the Senate heretofore taken, laying 

on the table the petition referred to by him, be reconsidered, and that 

the petition be recommitted to the Committee on Pensions. Is there 

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

OLIVER S. FLORENCE. 

:Mr. COLQUITT submitted the following resolution; which was re- ferred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses 

of the Senate: 

Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate ·the sum of --dollars to Oliver S. Florence, of the Capitol police, for extra services in 

gu11.rding the room in which the electoral votes were kept from December 4. 

1884, to February 11,1'385. 

BILLS IKTRODUCED. 

Mr. MANDERSON introduced a bill (S. 2633) to amend the act en- titled "An act to provide for furnishing trusses to disabled soldiers," 

approved Match 3, 1879; which·was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. ALDRICH introduced a bill (S. 2634) granting an increase of 

pension to Grace F. Edes; which was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Pensions. · 

BINDING OF GLOBES. 

Mr. ].!ANDERSON submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Printing: 

Resolved, ThS:t the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized to hnve bound at the Government Print-ing Offices 650 volumes of the Congres- sional Globe furnished to the Senate Library under the joint resolution approved May 16, 1884. 
1526 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 11, 

Al\IEh'DMENTS TO A BILL. 

Ur. BLAIR and Mr. VOORHEES submitted amendments intended to 

b~ pro~sed by them respectively to th~ river and harbor appropriation 

bill; which were referred to the Coinmlttee on Commerce, and ordered 

to be printed. PUBLIC LAND LAWS. 

The Senate res~ed the consideratio~ of the bill (H. R. 7004) to re- peal all laws proVIdmg for the pre-empt10n of tQ.e public lands and the 

laws allo-yving entries for timber culture. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed _by the Senator from Uichigan [Mr. PALl\IER]. 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Michio-an declares 

that. he ~esires this ~en~ent put upon the bill for th~ purpose of 

getting It through this sessiOn of Congress, and he puts it on a House 

bill in order that he may have a better opportunity of passing it. I do 

not know that I should be opposed to the amendment of the Senator 

cons~dered ~a ~epara~ proposition, bu~ I think ~tis hardly proper u; 

put It on this ?ill· It IS a.s~parate subJect oflegiSlation entirely; has 

reference to a different condition of public lands from that which is presented in the bill sent over from the House and amended and reported 

back to the Senate~ and TIMe than that it appears to be a sort of special 

and local measure involving particular grants in particular States. 

I am apprehensive that if we declare forfeitures of some of these railroad grants, as ·we have been doing and are expected to do, if we put 

this measl?'e throu~h t~;te Senate now 'Ye shal.l find it in the way {)f some particular legislation that we desrre to put upon those special 

land-grant forfeiture bills. The measure in itself appears to be a just 

one, but I would prefer very much to have the r-oads named t.o which 

it is to be made applicable . . It clearly applies only to cases where railroad grants have been made, roads have been located, and afterward 

~he locations changed, and thereafter, without any new order of offermg the lands for sale, they have · been eqtered at private entry in the 

land office. 

Mr. SAWYER. TheSenatorisalittlemistaken. Itisbroaderthan 

that. 

111r. :MORGAN. Yes, it is very broad. ~Ir. SAWYER. It will affect more lands than the Senator suppo&>S. 

Mr. MORGAN. Inoticeintheamendmento:ffered bytheSenatorfrom 

Michioo-an t~t he insists upon the words "valid conftictino- claims"-

''there are no valid conflicting claims thereto''-and tb~ wordS ''on 

settlements" come in at some point, I do not know precisely where. 

Mr. P AL¥ER. . If ~he Senator from Alab~a will permit me, I will 

say that I did not IDSlSt ~m that. I put that m at the suggestion of 

other Senators. The object was to confirm all these titles not only 

where there was no conflict, but where a conflict bad been had and had 

been determined in favor of the party. I thonuht it was a little su- perfluous, but I put it in at the suggeition of others. 

Mr. MORGAN .. There is no reason that I can conceive of why, 

where a party has m good faith by .the consent of the local land officers 

paid his money and got a certificate for entry of lands that were not 

withdrawn and afterward became virtually but not legally lands that 

were offered for sale, he s~ould ~ot have ¥a certificate, and why the 

Government should not relieve him unless m the mean time some con- flicting claim has arisen in favor of some other person; but I am apprehensh.·e that this very sweeping legislation will include such cases as that, and that we shall be legislating here to give effect to certain titles 

which otherwise would not be of any validity as againstother individuals who are making honest, bonafide claims to the land; as for instance 

giving effect to a title where a person has entered it at ~dollar and~ quarter ail acre, and another person has bought the same land at tWo 

dollars and a half an acre. The case of Eldred vs. Sexton, 19 W a.llace, 

which has been referred. t? by the Se~tor fr~m Indiana, seems to lay 

down the law very explicitly upon tblS question just as it was stated 

by the Senator from Oregon. I will read the syllabus: 

Th~ fundamen~l principle established by the aet of Congress of Apri124, 1820, and smce go':ernmg t~e matter of sales of the public lands, that private entries are no~ perffi.ltte~ until after the lands have been exposed to public auction at the prtce for which they are afterward sold, held to be applicable to a. case- that of the grant by Con~ess, .Tune 3, 1856, of alternate sections desio-nated by odd numbers, to the State of Wisconsin for the aid of the Ohieago and North- western Railway. 

The point in the decision wni~h is applicable to the pre ent case is as follows: · 

. The:e, afte~ the line of the railroad was located and the price of sections within stx: miles designated by even numbers do~bled-that is t-o. say, fixed at $2.50 per· acre-and after these were offered at publtc sale at that priCe and remained un- sold, so ~t thenceforth they became o~e!l t-o private entry at $2.50, but not at ~~~.the line.oft~ero.ad.was clu~nged by JOmt resolution of Congress, leaving out- st.d~ of the siX-mile limll:s ~rtam of these even sections; the joint resolution pro- vtdmg that the even sect10ns·of public lands reserred to the United States by th~ act of June 3,1856 (t~e original grant), along the originally located route of railroad, and along whteh no railroad has been constructed, shall hereafter be sold at $1.25 per a<Jre. 

It wasHeld, notwithstanding this provision, that the "fundamental plinciple" abeve s~k~n of "":as of so_p0;rvading a character that although these sectiOns, while Within the sLX-mile.limit, had been offered at public sale at $2.50 and refused, they were not open to pr1vateentry now that bythechano-eoflocation they were with- out that limit, until they had been offered for public sale at $1.2-5 per acre and had been left unsold. ' 

So it is established by this decision that the ~revailing practice of 

the Government shall obtain, as a. rule of construction of the public land 

Ia.ws, t~t lands ~ust be reoffered by the f'...ove~ment before they are the subJect of pnvate entry. Where the price has been reduced .from $~.50 to $1.25 they mu t be reo:ffered, although they were once offered 

at a dollar .and a quarter an acre. . That is a formality that must be gone 

through w1th by the Department before the lands can be said to be subject to private entry. That is a decision against which now the Senator 

from Michigan is asking relief, and in a proper case I concede that he 

is entitled to relief. The only difficulty I have about the matter is that 

it is provided here ·that there shall be no other valid conflicting claims. 

Now, it may be that some persons have come in and offered to buy these 

lands or actually bought them ancl paid 2.50 an acre·for them while 

other persons have come in and bought lands at a dollar and a quarter an acre-different prices according to the construction placed on these 

acts by the local land officers. · 

The question arises in my mind if we pass this amendment we are legislating to decide upon private titles between private individuals, 

and that is the point of the case about which I have apprehension. I 

would very much prefer, therefore, that the particular facts in the particular case against which we are to relieve should be brought forward. 

If there is a particular railway grant in Michigan where the line of the 

road has been changed, and in consequence of that certain lands have 

been thrown out of the limits that were included for a time and therefore withdrawn from market, let a bill be brought. here for the purpose 

of remedying that particular case. We can understand then the whole 

~ubj~ct;, but because such a misc~ef as that may have been wrought m M1ch1gan, .to make that the- bas1s of general legislation to affect aU. 

classes of clammnts throughout the United States it seems to me is' 

rather a hazardous business. 

11ft. HARRISON. I wiRh to ask the Senator from Alabama--

M:r. :MORGAN. I yield. 

Mr. HARRISON. I aak how be understands this amendment. It 

read3 " that wherever lands have been withdrawn from settlement " 

&c. Does the Senator understand that to apply only to a case wb~re that has already been done, or should we be ;uaking a provision of law 

that would attach whenever other lands are withdrawn from sale? It 

strikes me that the phraseology is not very clear if it is intended to apply only to existing cases. . Mr. MORG~. I think the language of the act is broad enough to 

mclude all cases m the retrospect as well as in the future. 

Mr. HARRISON. Then certainly that is an additional objection, 

and we are attempting to provide a remedy for a particular case and are establishing a law that is to apply to the future cases that may occur hereafter. 

Mr. PAL~fER. It seems to me that both the Senator from Alabama 

and the Senator from Indiana are at fault in their interpretation of this 

language. I do not see how such phraseology as this ca.n refer to anything in the future: 

That wnerever lands have been withdrawn from sale or disposition on the part of the United States, &c., • • • and such withdrawals have been tenni- na.ted by act of Congress, executive order, &c.-

And- -

where lands have been, by operation of law, reduced in pl"ice, &c., • • * said lands have been purchased, &c. 

I do not see how tha.t can apply to the future. 

Mr. MORGAN. Suppose that ten years after this date an officer of 

the Government· reading this act should conclude that it was of cou.- tinuons application, and that if its words had reference to the past they 

would refer to that period of time between now and ten years to come. SW that is an easy matter to correct by putting in the word "heretofore.'' There is no trouble about getting at the meaning of the Senator's amendment, no trouble in making it entirely explicit. That I 

understand him to state is the meaning of the amendment. 

Mr. PALMER. I would suggest that the Senator from Alabama 

just insert that. I will accept that; or say "where that has hitherto 

been done." 

Mr. MORGAN. Now, I would ask who is to decide on the v~lidity of these conflicting claims? Are we not sowing a crop of litigation here 

by changing the law so as to relate ba{:k to titles that have already been 

acquired? What forum is to decide on the validity of these conflicting clainlS so as to determine whether this act validates a grant which was hitherto invalid, under the decision in Eldred vs. Sexton? I am apprehensive that we are creating quite a broad field of litigation by 

this form of legislation, and unless I knew the particular facts of the case to which this amendment would be applicable I should feel unwilling to sustain it. I might be willing to vote for a bill that was 

apparently just, as just a.s this, where the only question in the case 

was between the Government of the United Stat-es and the person who 

claimed title. Here is a man who holds a certificate of entry, we will 

say, for one hundred and sixty acres of land, or any other amount, paid 

for at a dollar-and a quarter an acre. Mr. PALMER. Will the Senator permit me? 

Mr. MORGAN. In a moment. Ifhe has paid for his land at $1.25 an acre and holds his certificate, the Supreme Court of the United States 

has declared that the title is invalid because that land had not been a 

second time offered in market. As between the Government of the 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1527 

United States and the holder of that certificate! am willing to confirm 

the title. But suppose that in the mean time some person has come in 

and acquired a. title to this same tract of land under the laws of the 

United States, as they are construed by the Supreme Court. I do not 

wish now by legislation to -go ba-ck and interfere with that title, to 

change tha law so that it will have some ~etrospective effect upon that 

title. That would not be a. proper thing for Congress to do. We had 

better take up the certificates by refunding the money; and in fact 

there is a general law which authorizes and requires the 1·efunding of 

money·in cases of this kind where entries have been improyidently 

. made; or if persons have gone on and made improvements on the land it 

is better for Congress to pay for the improvements and to do justice fully 

in this particular than it is to interpose its authority and the weight of 

its opinion in behalf of one claimant of the land against another, both 

claiming under the Government, one claiming 'under the law and the 

other contrary to law. · l\1r. PAL.UER. Will the Senator from Alabama permit me? 

Ur. MORGAN. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. He will see by the phraseology of the amendment 

that this only applies to cases where the United States is one party and 

the purchaser the oth.er party, that where there· are any conflicting 

claims they are not included, nor is the title cured or affeeted in any 

way by· this measure. Mr. MORGAN. That is correct as the bill was originally reported 

where there is any conflicting claim, but we Iiave now the word "valid," or rather "any valid conflicting claims," and that requires some court 

to decide it; that requires some authority on the part of the Government or somebody else to decide on the validity of that conflicting 

claim. If the Senator should limit the question entirely between the 

purchaser from the Government and. the Government so that the con- ~oversy that might arise in respect of it between two private citizens 

would not get into the case possibly, then I should be satisfied 'Ylth it. 

I am willing, if a man has made an entry at a dollar and a quarter 

an acre, and that is now the price of the land; that .he should have his 

certificate or hould have his patent, provided some person else in the mean time has not come in and acquired a right to the land; and if the 

amendment should be limited entirely to cases between the Government 

of. the United States and a claimant, I am willing that this should be 

considered asavalid title as aga.insttheGovemment. Bt;ttwherethere 

is any person else who is interested at all, I should object to having the 

matter settled in that way. 

I do not wish now to legislate so as to give to a man a title that was invalid at the time he got it. I am willing to pay him for the land; I 

am willing to compensate hinl for all the damage he has sustained, 

but not to take the title from some person else and transfer it to him. 

That is my difficulty about the amendment, and I think it will be 

'much better for the Senator to allow this matter to be considered on a separate bill, and let us have the facts- of the particular case to which 

the bill is to be applied. I .should like to have the railroad company 

named, to have all the facts and circumstances of the particular case stated to Congress in order that we might know precisely what we were doing. Here is a proposition that covers the whole territory of the 

United States, and I think it will be found very inconvenient in re- spect to some of the legislation we have already enacted and some that 

it is proposed to enact. 

:M:r. VEST. I think if this matter is laid over until to-morrow I can make some valuable contributions in the wayofinformation upon 

the subject. I have some papers in regard to it which I received some tinle ago, and I laid them away, in reference to this question coming 

up in the Senate; but I have them not now in the Chamber. I will move for an executive session. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from 1\Iissouri moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive bru;iness. · 1\Ir. ALLISON. I hope before that is done--

Mr. VEST. I withdrawthe motion. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask the Senator to withdraw the motion uri til we have all order to print this bill as far as it has been agreed to, so that 

in some way we may know a. little more as to the scope of it than we can by a hasty reading at the desk. 

Mr: VEST. I think that is right. . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa. moves that 

the bill as it now stands with the amendments agreed to--

M:r. ALLISON. And proposed. . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. And proposed, be printed. That 

order will be entered if there be rio objection. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Before the order is made, I desire to move a substitute for section 5, so that it n;my be printed also. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio submits an a~endment intended to be offered by him as section 5, which will be 

prmted. 

Mr. PLU~IB. The old section 5 was stricken out of the bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know. 

Mr. PLUMB. But there is another section 5. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know it. 

Mr. PLUMB. I offer an additional section to the bill which I ask 

may be printed. . ' 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas sends an 

Amendment to the Chair-intended to be proposed. as an additional seo- tion to the bill. That also will be. printed. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

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

Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; in 

which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

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

Iowa; and 

A bill (H. R. 851) for the relief of the heirs of :Mary Jane Veazie, 

deceased . The message also announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 

1705) to provide for the issue of duplicate checks. 

The message further announced that the House had passed the following concurrent resolution: 

Resolved by the HrJ'U.I/e o.f Rep1·esentatives (tltc Senate concuning), That a commit- tee of three members of the House of Representatives be appointed by the House, and two members of the Senate be appointed by that body, to wait on Grover Cleveland, of the State ofNew York, and to notify him that he has been duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th of March, 1885; and also to notify Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of· Indiana, that he has been dul;y: elected Vice-President of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4Lh day of 1\Iarch, 1.8~. 

ARl\IY APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. ALLISON. Now, I ask to have printed a statement to accom- pany the Army appropriation bill in the nature of a report from the 

Committee on Appropriations. 

The PRESIDENT pm tempore. The Senator from Iowa, from the 

Committee on Appropriations, submits a . statement to accompany the 

report of the Army appropriation bill, and asks that it be printed. 

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

EXECUTIVE SESSION. 

:Mr. VEST. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

executive business. 

The motion was agreed. to; and the Senate proceeded to the consider- . 

ation of executive business. After twenty-three minutes spent in ex- ecutive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 23 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESE~TTATIVES. 

"\VEDNESD.AY, Feb·r'llary 11, 1885. 

The House met at 11 O:cloe!t a. m.. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. · The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was 1·ead and approved. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I rise to offer a privileged motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentle- man from Illinois in a moment. ".rhe gentleman from VeTmont [Mr. 

POLAND] is recognized. 

· SUITS FOR DAMAGES IN THE DISTRICT. 

Mr. POLAND. I rise to present a privileged report;- I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the bill H. R. 7131. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill of the House No. 7131, "to authorize suits for damages where death re uJts from the wrongful act or neglect of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia," having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recomQlend and.do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: -That the House recede from its disagreement t-o tlie amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with the following amendments thereto: In the first sectio~of said Senate amendment, and next before the proviso to said section, insert the following words: "and such damages shall be assessed with reference to the injury resulting from such act, neglect, or·default, causing such death, to the widow and next of kin of such deceased person." And also by adding to said first. section, after the proviso, the following words: "Andpro- videdfu1·ther, That no action shall be maintained under this act in any case where the party injured by such wrongful act, neglect, or default has recovered dam- ages therefor during the life of such party." And also by amending the said Senate amendment by striking out of the second section thereof the word "two years " and inserting" one year." And the Senate agree to the said amendments to the Senate amendment to said bill. LUKE P. POI,Al-.'1>, 

J. R. TUCKER, 

Wl\1. DORSHElMER, 

Nanogers on the part of the Hot!se. 

ISHA11I G. HARRIS, • JOKN J. INGALLS, H. H. RU>DLEBERGER, Mana gel"s on the part of the Senate. . 

Mr. POLAND. I will not take any time to make any explanation' 

of this report unless some gentleman on the floor should desue it. 

The report of the committee of conference was agreed to. 

Mr. POLAND moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of 

the committee was .agreed to; and also moved that the mol"i.W::: to :reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to.