Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1885-02-20
4Sth Congress- Second Session.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10.

SENATE.-The Senate took up the
Texas land grant TO fixture bill. Mr.. Nor
gan moved as an amendment additional Sec
lions RELOCATING the decision of the question
of title to these lands to the United States
Circuit court of the northern district of Tex
as and making it the duty of the United
States attorney to bring suits for the adjudi-
cation of the same He announced that he
would vote for this bill, whether the Senate
adopted this amendment or not. He be-
to be forfeited and was quite
sure the Texas Pacific railroad company had
not earned foot of the land embraced in the
grant He further believed the attempted
transfer of the grant to the Southern Pacific
was SO far il violation of the law of the
United States and of public policy that it
could not become a valid transfer without
the sanction of Congress. Whilst holding
these views, however, he contended on gene
raj principles that all these questions of title
to public lands should be decided by the
courts and not by an act of Congress, and he
instanced the protracted debate on the Des
Moines river lands as an illustration of the
evil that followed from failure to pursue
this case.
Mr. Blair argued in favor of the validity
of the transfer of the land grant from the
Texas Pacific to the Southern Pacific railroad
and would oppose the passage of the bill, de-
claring the grant forfeited unless the quail
flying amendment of the Senator from Ala
bama should be attached thereto.
Mr. Lapham also favored the adoption of
Mr.. Morgan's amendment.
Mr.. Slater also asserted that to tack the
amendment on to the bill was certain de-
feat
An animated running debate followed.
Mr. Van Wyck made characteristic speech
in favor of the absolute forfeiture of the
grant, making frequent references to the tes-
timony before committees of Congress and
Io1,no IF Mr. Hr1,4i -
the Southern Pacific to show that the claim
by that company to these lands was simply
impudence. Mr.. Blair Interrupted Mr. Van
Wyck with numerous questions and counter
statements.
Mr.. Harrison said as it was clear from the
statement of the Committee on Public Lands
that legislation would follow the progress of
| this bill he was in favor of the United States
assuming the onus of that litigation and not
| leaving it to be borne by the homesteaders
| He therefore should favor Mr.. Morgan's
amendment.
Mr. Sherman concurred in the Justice of
views of the Senator from Indiana (Mr Har-
rison). The only objection he had to voting
| for the amendment was that it would proba-
! bly, defeat the bill. The better plan would
| be to pass the bill with an amendment hold
| ing back the land from homestead settlement
| until some general law could be passed to
| cover this question.
Mr.. Edmunds stated that several years ago
he thought when Judge Thurman was chair
man of the Committee Judiciary that
committee reported bill providing for the
| forfeiture of every unearned grant and max
| ing it the duty of the Attorney General to
| institute suits to declare this forfeiture so as
| to protect from all future litigation the title
| of persons acquiring these lands from the
United States. It did not comport with the
| convenience of the Senate to consider that
| bill, which he very much regretted because
| tod
! these poor settlers by compelling them to
| fight these great corporations.
Mr.. Morgan's amendment was voted down.
"A to 81.
Mr.. Sherman then offered an amendment
| to carry out the suggestion previously made
by him, moving that the land declared for
feited should not be opened for homestead
settlement for the space of two years. The
consideration of this amendment gave rise to
| an exciting and most unexpected personal
scene between Senators Beck, of Kentucky.
! and Morgan, of Alabama. It commenced
by Mr.. Beck stating that when
Congress in 1878 passed the Thurman bill
he (Mr. Beck hoped they were at last going
to do something to control these great roads,
but whenever the House sent up a bill for
this purpose it was killed by counter propo-
| sition. It was evident this bill was to be
killed in this manner just as the Reagan
inter State commerce bill had been killed by
| a counter proposition. He was going to op-
pose even good amendments rather than
have the bill killed between the two houses,
Mr.. Morgan very red in the face, but
speaking in calm and measured tones) said
the effort of the Senator from Kentucky to
impeach his (Ar. Morgan's) Democracy be-
cause he did not support the Reagan bill
should not deter him from pursuing the
course he deemed right. ''I was in the Dem
ocratic party" he said, ''befors the Senator
from Kentucky enjoyed the privileges of
| citizenshiD and it does NOT rest with 6;,,, r.
impeach my Democracy by such filings a,
that"
Mr.. Beck quite red in tho face as Mr.
Morgan was and equally deliberate in tone
rose to reply. He said: ct made no allusior
to the Senator from Alabama or any Other
Senator. He was not in my mind He is
not as important in my estimation in regard
Mr.. Beck then explained that the Senate,
from Ohio (Mr Sherman) had offered ar
amendment which he thought might DELAY
the settlement of this question two years an6
it was towards that amendment his remark,
were directed. Mr.. Beck continued: ST die
not happen to be born in this country
but was not consulted about it, I hay,
That is a good while ago. The Senator ma,
} have been very important public man a
that date, but doubt whether he was.
have endeavored to perform my duty as
public man to the best of my ability sine
that time. If the Senator from Aiabam
thinks it adds to his dignity or detracts from
my standing that was born in Scotland b
is welcome of all that he can make out o
that fling"
Inc controversy was carried on still furthe
Mr.. Morgan remarking that no Scotchmal
4 worthy OF the name would regard remar
as to his country reflection on him.
, MIR: Beck retorted that the remarks mad
h. H.