The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-20
THE HOUSE.
Discussion About BridGes-Disagreement on
Repeal of Land Laws.
adjourned,

Discussion About acknowledgements on
Repeal of Land Laws.
WASHINGTON, July Immediately after
the reading of the journal the House resumed
consideration of the Notifications appropriation
bill, the pending amendment being that offered
by Mr.. Randall, of Pennsylvania, reducing
from $500, 900 to 100000 the appropriation for
the armament of sea-coast defenses. The bill
was then passed
The next business was the consideration Of
the Senate resolution for the printing of &C. 900
copies of the third annual report of the
Civilservice Commission. Agreed to-yeas 49,
nays 46.
Mr. Morrison, of Illinois, from the committee
on rules reported resolution ordering a ses-
sion for tomorrow night, to be devoted to
action on bills authorizing the construction of
bridges. This gave rise to much discussion.
the resolution came from gentlemen who did
not desire the construction Of a certain bridge
referring to the proposed new bridge at st:
Louis
Mr. Henderson, of Iowa, said that he did not
object to the building of another bridge at st.
Louis but he represented thousands of people In
the Mississippi valley who were opposed to the
construction of low bridge which would inter
fere with navigation. He had no objection to
giving St Louis another bridge, or two,
if necessary, but he did object to jeopardzing
the interests of the Mississippi valley for the
benefit of the few who wanted to build cheap
bridge at St Louis.
Mr.. Clardy. of Missouri. suggested that the
gentleman. when he said he was opposed to a
low and in favor of high bridge was opposed
to any bridge at all. 1t was proposed to build
bridge either high or low which, in the opinion
of the Secretary of War; would not interfere
with the navigation of the river 1t was pro-
posed to build bridge which would be practi-
cally free bridge, for the bill authorizing its
construction provided that no higher ratio should
be charged over the bridge than over the roads
leading to the bridge There some gentle
men who lived in the district represented by the
gentleman Mr.. HENDERSON who had hundreds of
acres OF land on which they paid an annual
rental, and who were interested in getting these
lands for cheap rents If this bridge bill were
passed, the value of those lands would be en-
HANGED and instead of renting land by the acre,
these men would be compelled to buy it by the
foot, or move their lumber-yards The people
of st. Louis, OF Missouri ard of Illinois
more interested in securing cheap transportation
than in maintaining cheap rents for these men,
who had already made their millions OF dollars
The resolution was then adopted
Mr.. Cobb of Indiana, from the conference
committee on the bill repeating the presumption.
timber-culture and desert-land laws, reported
complete disagreement
4
difference between the two houses, and was
severe in his condemnation of the Senate amend
ment which provides that after a final proof of
claimant. under the homestead or presumption
laws and the issuance of duplicate receivers
certificates, if it shall be proved to
the satisfaction of the Commissioner
that fraud has entered into the title
so acquired by the claimant, unless it shall APP
pear that the land has been sold or conveyed to
bona fde purchaser for valuable considera-
ton, the Commissioner shall suspend the issuing
of the patent for the same. This provision he
regarded incentive to fraud, as 1t required
the Commissioner to issue a patent ii the land
had been sold to bona fde purchaser even
though the original title had been acquired by
fraud. He hoped that the House would, by
unanimous vote, insist upon its disagreement TO
this amendment. The workingmen of the coun.
try had petitioned for the bread to be found in
the House bill. The Senate gave them a stone
in bill which validated the frauds which were
a stencil in the nostrils of every man who exam
ined them
Mr. Stone, of Missouri, also announced his OPP
position to the amendment, which, he said,
spread its protecting wings over the most
hardened land sharks on the continent Such
legislation would be unwise and lmprovident
and would furnish an inducement to the COM
mission of fraud He could not regard it other
wise than as outrageous and scandalous. 1t
should be Indignantly rejected by the House.
Mr.. Perkins and Dir. Peters, of Kansas,
favored the Senate amendment, taking the
ground that while the House bill punished the
innocent with the guilty, the Senate amendment
protected the bona fide purchaser only. and pun
ished the land sharks and spectators.
Mr.. Clifford, of Dakota charged that in the
management Of the Land Bureau there was an