The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-20
PReCEEDIiGS II CONGRESS-.
The Senate Considers the Bill For
feiting the Texas and Pacific
Land Grant.
The Report IN the Iowa Contested
Election Case Submitted to
the House-The Naval
Bill.
FORrY.EIGHfH CONGRESS.
Tha ennato.

WASHINGTON, FEB. lt-dr. Mitchell pre-
scented memorial from the Board OF Trade
oi Erie, Pa, urging acquisition by the United
States Of Portage Lake and Lake Superior
Ship Canal Referred.
Dir. Plumb, from the Committee on Ap-
populations. reported the Postoflice Aporo-
priation bill
Mr. Allison, from the same committee. re-
portsda joint resolution approprlating - 800
to dsirsy the expenses Ct the inaugural Ger
emoniee. Passed.
Mr.. McPhergon introduced the following
IS an amendment % the Pacific Railroad
sixty Year Funding bill
Provided. That all bonds stooFs aud other Sc
eurites nov owned ~ the said Railroad Com-
snail be deposited with the Secretary OF the Treas.
ufy ~ part security for the PAYMENT Of the pin.
cipal aud interest o. the bonds authorized and al
fteled IN section OF this act.
The DosiMoinsa River Lands bill was then
placed before the Senate. aud Mr. haphhn
resumed his remarks. A motion to inde6.
nlteiy postpone II was lost-yeas - nays . ,
The bill was then laid aside and the biil
l0rieltng the Texas and Paoho land grant
taken up.
Mr. Morgan explained tho circumstance
surrounding this special grant 70 the Texas
Pacific Company, he said which had n Gov
efnmeut grant, had made no transfer, or at'
~
- ihe Southern Peoihc Railway Company
and Evarts and other influential LAWYERS had
maintained that the Southern Pacific Com
patty had a perfect right to transfer that
land, whether BY mortgage or sale.
Mr.. Van Wyok asked whether Mr.. Morgan
uudeutood there was MORTGAGE on the
lands.
Mr Morgan sald u had been 30 argued by
counsel
Mr. Van WICK said that was mistake.
ar. Morgan fald that the contention aud
claim made tho company. as he understood
H. was that there was a mortgage Affected ou
all the lands. lie was not presenting his
own view but merely what was claimed, aud
II 10 were olsreputable 10 present such n
claim 10 the Senate saoh men as Eyarls aud
Judge DILLON.
Mr. Blair supported Mr.. Morgans amend.
ment.
Me- Lapham proceeded at length 10 argue
the legal aspects oil the oasa.
Mr.. Van Wyck said the lands had never
been mortgaged by any company.
Mr.. Lapham said u was claimed the lands
were not mortgaged aud that the bondhold
ers claim the bonds OF the company are lien
on the lands.
Considerable discussion enausd between
Van Wyck snd Blair as 10 the progress of
the construction of the road At given dates
Mr. sherman asked Mr.. Van WICK II IL
was true that the Southern Pacific had built
the road 10 the Texas border for assignment
OF land grants.
Mr. Van Wyck said US
Mr.. sherman asked whether at that time
the Texas Pacific had earned an acre OF the
land grant.
Mr.. Van Wyck replied no.
Mr. Harrison thought Mr.. Morgan's
amendment desirable.
Mr.. Sherman said the bill should be passed
At once without the Morgan amendment
Mr. Edmunds taking the floor said about
Il HIa.4as Of
the judiciary COMMITTEES, the matter OF
these forieilures was referred 10 that con-.
mittee and the committee reported To the
Senate a bill which provided at one stroke
for TIE forfeiture Of every unaarned land
grant, everywhere, and which provided
10 should be the duty OF the Attorney
General 60 institute suits 10 declare
iorieitures. 90 as 10 protect from future liti-
CATION the titles of all settlers who should
come In under tho United States IL did
not at that time comport with the pleasure
and convenience OF tie senate ia the pres.
sure OF rs buginess. 10 consider the blll-a
circumstance that Edmunds regretted, a.,
bad that bill been passed. ali questions no y
under discussion would have been disposed
OF without the poor settlers as Ia the case Of
the Des Moines people, being groand TO
death IN contests with the great corpora
TONS
Mr. Morgan's amendment wos rejected
yeas p Days 81.
Mr.. sherman offered al amendment with
holding the lands from settlement for two
years. Rejected.
The bill having been perfected 10 Commit.
tee OF the Whole 10 was reported 80 the SEN
ate, wnereupon Mr. Morgan reoli8fet hil
amendment which was again voted down
yeas. 70; nays 2o
The bin was then resd the third time and
passed-yeas, 90; nays, ,.
The vote in detail Is a3 follows:
a A Uaw
ard. Brown. Batter, cal. Cam
eron, Cockrell, Coke, Conger,
Cullum Dawes, DOlph, Edmunds. George,
Gibson, German, Groome. Hale. Hampton,
Hsrris, Harrison, Hswley, Hill, Hoar, Ia.
gals, Jackson, Jones of Florida, Lamar, Nc
MILAN. Mcpherson, Malone. Manderson.
Maxey, Miller OF California. Miller OF New
York, Mitchell, Morgan, Pendleton, Pike,
Platt, Plumb, Pugh. Ransom. Sabine Saulis-
bury. Sawyer Sswell, Sherman, Slater, Van
Wick, Vest, Walker, Williams and Wilson.
Nays-Bl2ir and Bowen.
In the course of come remarks on the BILL
during the debate, Mr. Beck said he had
supposed in 1878. when the Thurman bill
was passed, Congress had secured some prac-
ticsl control OF the Pacific Roads, but he had
been mistaken. Now, this House bill was
met by q counter proposition, and the Rse-
gan bill had been met by a counter propo.
sition, and q number OF other measures had
been up. but hsd been fought to the end.
That was what the railroads wanted. He
would vote against the Sherman amendment
and Others because he thought il bet er to
hsve imperfect legislation than none at all.
Mr.. Moran said the effort OF Mr.. Beck 20
impeach the Democrats who had opposed
the Raglan bill, snd hsd adopted "a inds-
PENDENT course on this bill, would not dster
him Morgan from doing his duty. BE had
been in the Democratic party before the
Sc stor from Kentucky Beck enjoyed the
privileges Of citizenship IN this country. RE
Morgan had been a true and faithful Dem
acfsl, and il did not rest with the Senator
from Kentucky to impeach his Democracy
- such hings as that conveyed by his last
remarks