The times., 1897-04-24

So an acre 1t is proposed TO give away
this land, not because 1T was right, but
because il was a liked governmental POL
icy. Such lolicy had already resulted III
the barrin Q of the people out of their conl-
mon heritage ia favor Of gamblers anu
SPECTATORS. Was not that the history of
the coal mines and the coal harons, VINO
met every September To tax the people
as they pleased? Mr.. Mcguire agreed with
MIR. Bailey that one solution OF the diff
Guilty would he to give the lands to the
State of Utah for disposition, but not TO
individuals ny the Federal Government
Mr. Bartholdt predicted that if the lands
were opened the price of asphalt would
fall SO ton He cited case in which
the opening of mine had reduced the
previous price 125 per cent.
Mr.. Savers desired To know if the price
would fail SO ton, did it not mean that
there were enormous quantities of ASPHALT
MI BarJholdt admitted the fact and went
on to say that there was no gigantic scheme
in it, The Barber Asphalt Company, n
great monopoly, he said, was fighting the
amendment; and speculatois We're also
opposing il for their own purposes,
Mr.. Mcguire pointed out that the plan
gigantic asphalt monopoly.
Mr.. Bariholdt replied that the BarthoIdt
monopoly was obtained from England and
not from this country
Mir. Jett. of Georgia, opposed the amend
ment, because it was flagfant example
of a legislative rider, which could not have
been pvt on in the House. he quoted
records to show that the Government had
nRs n saftlnnlpnt
until arter the aIlotments had been made to
the Indians; and he said that he was III
formed by the Indian Commissioner that
such allotments had not been made. The ln-
dians had still an unextine1ished title to
lands proposed to he sold He opposed the
amendment for the further reason of the
danger of the creation of m oRopolles
possible by the Senate legislation. he
thought there was a Job" IN the amend
ment; because the very moment the bill was
! signed. spectators Will rush into the
mineral lands and seize them. The public
would practically have no return lie
| Offered an amendment that the opening of
the asphalt lands should only take place
six months after the passage of the bill
He also advocated a 81 royalty per ton
! for the asphalt.
MI hlnE, Oh OldIi lllhtlG oiuthNA s'i ~
ment to show that the Indians hadno title
! to the lands-a position held by eX-Secrc-
! tary of the Interior aud other authorities.
! But, assuming that they have title, they
! don't want the lands, as they are valueiess
to them, as shown 10y the special commis-
| sion. They have, in fact, abandoned the
! lands.
Mr.. Dincley said thatit was agreed that
| the deposits were very valuable, and that
! at a royalty of $3.50 there would be Il
revenue to the Government of 3o.oo0,0oO-
| lie advocated following the policy Of Eng
land instead of applying the general min
! eral laws of the United States. He favored
the scheme OF leasing the asphalt lands,
which, he said, would secnre benefit to
! the people and a royaltyto the Government.
| He thought the Senate amendment looked
to an eventual monopoly.
Mr. Bailey offered an amendment grant
| ing the lands to the State Of Utah for edu-
cational purposes. Lost-72 to 40.
A motion to non-conCur was carried.
Mr.. Lacey moved that the committee
recommend TO the House to instruct the
| Conferees 10 insist on plan Of leasing the
lands
Amendments requiring only verbal
changes were conCurred III.
The amendment relating to the restora-
ton Of the lease between the Seneca In
| dians and the Seneca Oil Company was
taken up.
Mr. Stone OF PENNSYLVANIA argued that
1 the Senate amendment ought not to be
| considered by the House, inasmuCh as The
contention between the Indian council
and the Iessees was now in the court ana
that it was desired to make the House d
jury.
MI Stone referred the committee to the
Senate debate, which described the man
ner in which the lease was obtained from
the Indian council He confessed that the
matter was gone through without consid-
Grafton by the proper committee.
Mr. Hand observed that if that Were so
an investigation was in order.
MI stone argued that the United States
had nothing whatever TO do with the
Senecas. He argued that the agreemen,
between the OH company and the Seneca
nation could only be made by treaty
as provided by the Constitution Of the
United States.
Mr Sherman denied that there was
any case in the courts OF New York
He also read statements to show that The
| Indian councillors were sober when they
made the lease to the Seneca Oil Com
pany.
aMr Richardson asked why this lease
should be ratified.
Mr Sherman replied that it was the
practice that the Government should
ratify such contracts. lie maintained
that to vote to concur in the Senate
amendment was to help the STANDARD
OIL Company He advocated non-concur
renee. as the lease had BEEN recommend
ed by the House.
Mr.. Stone asserted that Mr Jewell
the United states agent, stated on Jan
uary 90 that the matter was in the courts
OF Cattaraugus county.
Mr RichardsOn-Wha does the pres
ent Committee on Indian Affairs recon-
mend as to this difficulty? daughter
and applauseD
The Republicans got very much tangled
up in their statements Mr.. Sherman
moved to close debate, which was closed
and on his motion the amendment WA
non-con CURED in.
The senate amendment relating to tht
rights Of children OF white men and Indian
women was non-conCurred in.
on the question of reporting the actor
of the committee to the House, the question
OF no quorum was made, Mr.. Reed helt
quorum to be present, and a demand
for the yeas and nays was not sustained
Mr.. Sherman moved that a committee
OF conference be appointed. Carried