The weekly Butte record., 1867-06-22

Lands of this House. do lot know by what au-
thority be comes here and reveals waat occurred
in that committee without the license of the COM
Rittee- s-= ~ ss- ,,.s-.- a. - ...---, ~ .s p
Mr. McRaer. I have not alluded 70 anything
that occurred in the committee.
I Mr.. Julian. The gentleman denies that he has
alladed TO anything that occurred in the Commit
tee Public Lands He knows that the paper he
has read was presented in the committee, and he
has therefore made revelations here unwarranted
by parliamentary usage. Now. let me state, since
he has broached the subject, some further facts.
majority of the committee voted to adopt the
amendment which We have reported TO this BILL
I The gentleman from California lMr. Nc Raerl NOV
ed afterwarG 70 reconsider the for the parpoSe
OF striking out that amendment. The committee
/ deliberately voted him down. second time. and
I at a subsequent meeting OF the committee, he re :
newed his motion 70 strike out the amendment
from the bill. and the committee second time re-
I fused to strike it out: and private paper which
4 some gentleman on the committee had signed. IN
der the persistent opportunities of the gentleman
from California ought not TO have been introduced
here, and does no credit to the gentleman who ex-
poses the facts and could not have been desired by
I my colleagues on the committee. Bat what state
is that the committee deliberately adopted this
amendment and deliberately refused, on two occa-
sions. strike out the amendment from the bill as
I reportad-
I Mr. Bidwell. 1 desire to ask the gentleman
whether what he calls the committee did not con-
sis OF five members. three voting in the affirmative
and two in the negative. and whether he did not
refuse, at the request of six members out OF the
to entertain a motion to reconsider and omit the
amendment.
Mr. Julian l will answer the gentleman. When
the amendment was adopted in the Committee on
Public Lands, was not present. being necessarily
absent on business. How many members were
present do not know. And in answer to the Sc
cond part of the gentleman question, will state
that chairman of the committee never refused
10 entertain motion when made In order by any
member, TO reconsider the adoption OF that amend
ment, but put the vote twice, and the committee
refused 10 take that action.
Mr. McRuer. | would ask the chairman of the
committee it he did not refuse TO entertain mo-
ton to reconsider the amendment after had shown
him this paper signed by six members OF the com
mittee!
Mr.. Julian. | will answer that question l had
entertained motion to reconsider and strike out
this amendment twice, as already stated, and the
committee had twice voted down the notion
refused any longer to put an unpariamentary mo-
lion, and the gentleman knows that when he made
his motion it not in order. There must be
some limit to motions to reconsider or no business
can ever be completed. l hope the gentleman Is
answered.
Mr. Higby Do understand the gentleman to
say that what is stated upon III 1t paper signed by
six membcrs ot the committee did not tr"n-pire IN
the committee!
Mr. Julian. | have said nothing abonf it further
California [Mr. McRuer]
Mr. Higby WELL is it fact? Ny colleague
(Mr. McRuerl asserted that he had SAID nothing oil
what done in the committee Ihe chairman
OF the committee. in reply, told MIN that ne hhe"
ii took place in the committee.
Mr.. Julian. | reiterate what have already sta
ted He does know that the paper in question was
presented in com mnl ttee
Mr. Highly. That is what wanted to know.
MrJullan The gentlemans colleague will not
DENY it.
Mr. Highly. Then that was the action OF the
committee
Mr.. Julian. The paper was presented in the
committee and that statement OF what occurred
there comes here in violation OF parliamentary
usage through the gentleman's colleague. | give
the rentlem IN the benefit of the revelation in CON
nection with what have said OF the refusal OF the
committee to reconsider its action, as have prop
erly reported it to this House.
Mr.. Highly. Will the gentleman allow me to ask
him another question?
Mr. Julian. The gentleman desires vote on the
amendment. but If he consumes all my time by
asking questions. | shall have II extend my time
Mr. Highv Does the gentleman from Indiana
MIR Julianl say that what was done III committee
cannot be brought before the House:
Mr.. Julian. The gentleman understands what
say thatthe particular facts transpirIng in COM
mittee are not proper to be stated TO the House.
But the gentleman is welcome TO all the inorma-
ton he has obtained through the methods employ
ed by his colleague --.-. 49,.
The gentleman from California mfr. McRuerl
saws that this ma tier has been agreed upon by the
California delegation. And IN answer t. the qnes-
ton of my friend from New York, lMr. Hale
whether this question concerned anybody but the
California delegation and the people OF California,
he expressly replied that it did not. New, have
something to say that point, and II viii be TO re-
terate some facts which presented mere more at
length the other day.
In the wear 1862 under the decision OF the Su-
preme Court of the United States this Vallejo Span
ish grant was pronounced void and from that time
this ranch Of ninety thousand acres became puoiic
unappropriated lands of the G,vernment. Alter
that decision scores of preemptors. as they had a
right to do. went upon this public land. bnt their
cabins. made their fences, and asserted their rights
uuder the law.
Mr. Davis want to make an inquiry of the
gentleman for my own information.
MIR. Julian. Very well.
Mr.. Davis. | want to inquire whether these per
sons Of whom he now speaks as preemptors were
not purchasers under the grantees of the Mexican
Government.
MrJdlan. I will answer the gentleman. The
persons speak of were not generally grantees un-
der the Vallejo title. Some of the Vallejo claim
ants accepted the terms of the preemption law.
and acquired rights under it. But the preemptors
generally OF whom l now speak. claimed under the
preemption laws of the United States. irrespective
of any title under the Vallejo grant. They entered
upoa these lands as preemptors. and upon the con-
fct which arose between them aud the Vallejo
claimants, appeal was made To Congress To pass
a law allowing the Vallejo claimants IN purchase
the land at 81 - per acre. to the extent to which
they had reduced their lands to possession That
law was passed. procured as | proved the other
day. by false and fraudulent representation OF the
facts; statements from California speculators who
came here and represented that these Vallejo claim
ants were some three four thousand small land
holders who had built their fences. erected their
houses. and planted their orchards, and desired
only to purchase their little possessions at the rate
of 81 IS per Iproved here the other day that
lar from that being true, one of these small
an6hede rs, owned twenty seven hundred acres.
and re>id ed in South America, never having lived
upon the land. proved here from the records Of
the Land Office that another one of these small
claimant owned i've thousand acres OF land. Ger
tainly these men who never resided upon the land,
aud instead of boing small holders were large
land owners. had no rights settlers and pre-
emptors under the law of 1868.
Mr.. Davis. would ask the gentleman whether
the persons who did not reside this land were
not the grantees under the Vallejo title?
Mr.. Julian. | have already stated that they were
all grantees under the Vallejo title. And l also
stated that the law of Congress which they pre-
cured to be passed here was passed upon the false
ard fraudulent representation that they were all
small holders and occupants of the soil, claiming
simply the right to preempt and purchase their
small possessions TO the extent to which they had
reduced them to actual possession.
Mr.. Bidwell. | would ask the gentleman who
made the representation that there were three or
four thousand small audhoderS.
Mr.. Julian. That statement was made TO the