Washington sentinel., 1854-02-24
House Of Representatives.
MISSOURI COMPROMISES.

Mr.. WHEELER presented communication
which he had received, enclosing the proceedings
of a public meeting of mechanics, held in New
York, on Saturday, in relation to the Missouri
compromise
The CLERK commenced the eading of the reso-
lutions when
Mr.. CLINGMAN objected He said he be-
lieved the old rule was that gentleman present.
ing paper should briefly state its contents before
moving its reference
Mr.. WHEELER remarked that the resolutions
were in opposition to a repeal of the compromise,
and moved that the papers be referred
Mr.. TAYLOR, of Ohio, could see no propriety
I'm referring the proceedings of public meetings,
which were now being held all over the country
and he therefore objected
Several reports We're made from standing com
mittees.
NEW LAND OFFICE.
Mr.. STEVENS, of Michigan from the Com
mttee on Public Lands, reported bill to estab-
lish land Office in the lower peninsula of Mchi-
gan which was read a third time and passed &
LANDS FOR RAILROADS.
Mr.. DISNEY, from the same committee, report
ed back the Senate bill granting portion Of the
public lands to the State Of Wisconsin, for the con-
struction of two railroads therein, with an amend
ment He briefly argued in favor of the passage
OF the bill, showing that the government will be a,
great gamer by such grants as other lands will
be thus brought into market at enhanced rates.
He quoted the views of Mr.. Calhoun on the con-
stitutiona power in relation to this subject, but
there no such power here involved. 1t was
a practical question. The bill proposed to grant
two millions and half of acres to Wisconsin.
Mr.. LETCHER inquired why all those bills
granting lands for railroad purposes could not be
reported at the same time, so that the House might
have opportunity TO examine into the attendant
facts connected with this subject.
Mr. DISNEY replied that that was utterly inn
possible, because those kind of bills continue to
come in.
Mr.. LETCHER said he wanted to know whether
there was public land enough to answer all the
applications for grants, amounting to so many
millions of acres.
MIR. SMITH, of Virginia, remarked that the
House had not had time to inform themselves on
this subject, and were not therefore, prepared 10
act ntelligently; and moved TO refer the bill TO the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union.
Mr.. DOWDELL wished the subject TO be in
vestigated and said that ifthe bill should be forced
TO its passage, he should vote against it,
Mr. COBB SAID that ifthe bill should be sent to
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, it would never be resurrected. He would
not only vote for this bill, but others of similar
character.
Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee could see no inn
propriety of now putting the bill on its passage as
its principles were well understood. Much time
would be lost by referring il to the Committee Of
the Whole on the state of the Union.
MIR. DISNEY said that the terms and provisions
ofthis bill were framed on model which the Com
mttee on Public Lands had resolved to apply 10
every similar BILL and that the Committee on Pub
lie Lands of the Senate had acquiesced in this ar
rangemcnt.
Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee, was in favor of re-
ferring the bill 10 the Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union II involved principles too
momentous't TO be passed without due considera-
tion and without an opportunity TO offer amend
ments. This was the continuation of the policy
which kept the House from all other business ex-
cept railroad grants, for, he believed, six months of
the first session of the last Congress; and if it is
TO be adopted again at this session, he knew not
how many land and railroad bills will be brought
forward by the Committee on Public Lands, 10 be
pressed through perhaps under the operation Of
the previous question.
Mr.. SHELTON stated his objections TO the bill
II proposed 10 give lands for internal improve
ments, which were more valuable than money,
because money can be recovered, but the lands
cannot. He considered the proposed policy 10 be-
if anything, more unjust 10 the new States where
the lands located than 10 the old. lie oo-
jected too the increase in the price OF the pub
lie lands which will retard their settlement by the
tong millions; and 10 the government thus buid.
ing up corporations more odious than the old
United States Bank He looked on the scheme as
unconstitutional and unwise, and as bringing the
government in competition with private enter
prise In conclusion, he advocated The reference
of the bill 10 the Committee of the Whole on the
stnte of the Union.
Mr.. BISSELL obtained the floor, but gave way
to
Mr. DEAN, who moved that the House resolve