Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-03-07

Of the Secretary Of War, was taken up. This
bill appropriates $32 900 for two roads, which
enter Santa Fe from different directi0ns one
from Donna Anna, and the other from Taos.
Mr.. Phillips, Of Alabama, explained and nd
vooated this bill.
Mr.. Letcher commended that the House was
not in possession Of sufficient information on
the subject When roads are begun, they
should be finished and it is important to
know whether still further appropriations are
to be asked
Mr.. Phillips said 1t was not railroad, and
the expectations of the gentleman were unreal
sonable. He read letter from Col Sumner
who recommends the measure and whose res
idence there had enabled him to form correct
opinions upon the subject.
The bill was laid aside with recommends
ton to the House that it pass
A bill for aiding the Territory of Minnesota
TO construct railroads, and for other purposes,
and for granting alternate sections OF land for
that purpose, was also considered. In the
course of the discussion upon it. an exciting de-
bate arose, which was participated in by
Messrs. Washburn Of illinois, Bissell, Lane Of
Indiana, and Rice.
Mr.. Lane intimated, in very significant
manner, that parties in Washington, and men
in the House Of Representatives had purchased
lands at the terminus of the contemplated
road. He was pressed by the gentlemen
named to indicate the persons, but refused to
do 80, except when asked in proper manner
in private.
Mr.. Bissell said the gentleman had chosen
his own place and time to open the subject; ;
that when the bill shall have been defeated
will probably be bis chosen time for such reye-
lation. Mr. B. denounced the innuendo as I'M
statesmanlike and illiberal; yet; he affirmed
the purchase Of the land named (which has
never been in market and could not be pnr-
chasod) would afford no good ground for re-
fusing aid in the construction Of the road.
Mr.. Lane replied that he was the best judge
Of the time, manner and place, Of performing
his duty to his constituents.
Mr.. Taylor of Ohio, said the bill should not
be prejudiced by an innuendo. He called upon
Mr.. Lane to answer whether the title Of the
United States could be parted with, and whether
any other party could possess title to the land
in question. Mr.. Taylor regarded such i'm.
provements as that now proposed as of national
Importance, and begged the Committee not to
be influenced by an irresponsible rumor
Mr.. Gerrit Smith opposed the bill. He had
no objection to the location Of the proposed
road, to the proprietorship Of the lands adjacent
to any part of it nor to any other minor point
involved He was opposed to giving the lands
or money Of the General Government FOR such
purpose. He understood no difference in
principle between giving lands and giving
money. The lands, he said, belonged to the
General Government and their only proper
appropriation could be in becoming the homes
Of the landless, or In being sold to defray the
necessary expenses of Government. They were
the rightful heritage Of the landless portion Of
the human family, irrespective Of origin or
complexion.
In the course Of his remarks, Mr.. Smith was
called to order by Mr.. Richardson, on the al
legged ground of irrelevancy
The Chairman decided that Mr.. Smith was
in order.
Mr.. Smith said he asked for no latitude. 1t
was not in accordance with his usage to wan
der from the leading thought in view. He
would speak to the point and would not SO far
forget the rights of others as to protract his
remarks to great length. He especially de-
sired to be understood as asking no Indulgence.
He continued, and dwelt with earnestness
upon the error of paying too great regard to
the influence Of precedents. Time honored
errors were still errors and in this age Of pro-
gress their antiquity should not be regarded
as hallowing them.
Mr.. Campbell, Of Ohio, followed in support
of the bill.