The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1860-12-29

represents tlGn-to-Wlt: whether the cOun-
ties should each be entitled. irrespective of
their population, to one or two delegates, OF
whether they should be represented accor-
ding to their population-the convention
divided: divided, as I understand, about
equally. One convention formed its pro-
gramnle, and the seeding portion formed q
different programme. But the difference
existing between the two programmes was
simply this: that one convention demand
ed that the roads should be put in this bill,
which the committee on Public Lands had
previously, upon argument and cOnsidera
ton, rejected-reiected for the reason that
they would be in excass of the lands due 20
the Territory under the presidents in land
grants for This purpose. The other con-
vention Endorsed this BILL
state now, Mr.. Speaker, as matter that
ought to weigh with members in consider
ing this question, that no protest against
this bill has been placed in my hands, no
memorial has been forwarded to me and
state further. that considering generally
the interests of the people, considering the.
great advantage which the present passage
of this bill would afford 10 them, deem it
to be just to the whole interests of the Ter
ritory that the bill in its present shape
should pass, rather than this session should
close without the passage of any bill what
ever. :.
In regard to the argument submitted TO
the House by my friend ST. Joseph. with
his characteristic gal and feryor for St.
Joseph. l have only this to say: that rival
points on the Missouri River in Kansas,
pressing for the Eastern terminus of rail
road. were unable to agree. The commit
tee could not decide between Atchison and
Elwood. They offered TO give 10 each of these
places branch both branches TO unite in
a trunk and then pursue their way harmo-
niously to the Western terminus. With
that sort of selfish feeling-aDd I do not say
it in any offensive sense-which character
ICES rival towns, they mutually declined the
proposition, and then the committee, for the
purpose OF settling this point of rivalry be
tween these TWO towns. determined to refer
the question to the Kansas Legislature,
where, in my judgement. it righllully be-
longs 1t is true that Missouri has built
railroads to her Western border but it is
likewise true that she built them with no in
tention to benefit the people of The Territory.
They have been built there because it was
the interest of Missouri that they should be
built there. They were built or projected
long before the Territory was organized
long before the routes of trade and travel in
the Territory had been marked out; and
simply on the consideration that it was for
the advantage and interest Of the State of
Missouri so to build it..
Mr.. Montgomery desire To ask the
gentleman from Kansas question.
Mr.. Parrot Il yield for that purpose.
Mr.. Montgomery-I desire the gentleman
IL. l.,
west of St. Joseph ?
Mr.. Parrott-I am not able to answer
that question. 1 do rot own any property
in 81. Joseph or Atheism.
Mr.. Monlgomery--Isn not Atchison about
fifteen miles west of ST. Joseph, in straig ht
line?
Mr.. Parrott-I cannot answer the qHes-
ton do not know.
Mr.. Mnnrgomery-W-iI, is not A,chison
west of ST. Joseph I? s,fI
Mr.. Parrout-It is further west.
Nj. Montgomery-Well is there not rail
road from St. Joseph to Alchison
Mr.. Parrott-There is.
Mr.. Montgomery-Then, tia House may
Il ~ z-si6 rs right.
Mr.. Parrott--I deem it a fair proposition
to all parties concerned. that the State for
which You are carving out lines of railroads
should, on all disputed questions s. where its
citizens or representatives in Washing on
cannot gree on which is just and fair be- |
tween all portions of the Territory. have ref |
erence to the Legislature as the final arbiter.
The disputed question should be referred to
the highest representative body of the peo-
ple-the Legislature of the future State
That proposition seems to me to be a fair |
one. Il seems to be The only one by which |
t i question can be fairly aud equitabiy |
adjusted for am certain that ifthe House |
ri Representatives. with its Limited knowl- |
edge OF the subject. should undertake to
amend this bill SO as to satisfy the demands |
of conflicting local interests. they would |
never be able TO perfect any bill. They I
would be lost in the perplexed and contra
diclory statements Of those on this floor |
who are urging the demands of. local inter- |
psts, | Try to separate myself as far as pos
sble fr0mYany local interestI nave, / am, /
for one, in the situation of man who ought
to be entirely impartial; owning nothing in
any OF the points in controversy. try to /
speak for all the people. 9ts tz
Mr., Montgomery-Dees9 not the gentle
man own corner lots in Leavenworth 4
Mr. Parrott--I decline to yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. say that
this bill makes fair and equitable location
Of the through route in the Territory. One
thing more. The policy of granting lands
to aid in the construction of railroads is now,
think. about twenty years old. Almost
every new State in the Union has been thus
benefited in the outset of its career as
State. The development of the country is
thus secured. And besides. 1t must be un-
lerstood. Mr. Speaker. that the Govern
ment does moi give these lands to States or
Territories as gravity. There are two
sonsid erations in the matter One of them
is the fact that the Government Iequites
double lie amouat % be paid faI the alter
nate sections. 50 that it receives as much
for half the land as il would otherwise have /
received for the whole. The second consid-
Grafton is. that Congress requires the State
receiving these grants to rtlinquish her
power oftaxation over the public lands. ] !
admit that this is doubtful power; on
nowadays, when he decision of the Dred
Scott case is considered as good authority
r 4 =