« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
in favor of it; but I move its reference to the Committee on Naval Affairs.
The motion was agreed to.
COLONIZATION OF AFRICANS.
Mr. MORRILL submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:
same regulations and restrictions as other ports of delivery in the United States, and there shall be appointed a surveyor of customs to reside at said port, who shall, in addition to his own duties, perform the duties and receive the salary and emoluments of surveyor prescribed by the act of Congress approved on the 2d of March, 1831, providing for the payment of duties on imported goods at certain ports therein mentioned, entitled "An act allowing the duties on foreign merchandise imported into Pittsburg, Wheeling. Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Nashville, and Natchez, to be secured and paid at those places:" and the said city of Portland and the said port of delivery be, and is hereby, annexed to and made a part of the collection district of the State of Oregon, and all the facilities and privileges afforded by the said act of Congress of the 2d of March, 1831, be, and are hereby, extended to the said port of Portland.
Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate the transactions of the executive government under the several acts of Congress of April 10, 1862, May 12, 1862, and July 17, 1862, for the transportation, colonization, and settlement of such persons of the African race as are mentioned in those acts respectively, and especially what colonization measures have been adopted, if any, the number of persons colonized, with expenses incurred. WOMEN'S HOSPITAL.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 167) to incorporate the Women's Hospital Association of the District of Columbia.
The first amendment of the House of Representatives was in section one, line three, after the first word "that" to insert the following among the names of the corporators: "Abram D. Gillette, Byron Sunderland, William B. Matchett, Henry D. Cooke, William W. Corcoran, Charles Knap, J. H. Thompson, Moses Kelly, Ansel St. John."
Mr. MORRILL. I move that the Senate concur in that amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
The Secretary read the second amendment of the House of Representatives, which was in the first section, line three, after the name "Adelaide J. Brown" to strike out all the names to and including that of "Mary K. Lewis" in line seven, except that of "Mary W. Kelly," and to insert "Elmira W. Knap, Mary C. Havermer, Mary Ellen Norment, Jane Thompson, Maria L. Harkness, Isabella Margaret Washington, and Mary F. Smith."
Mr. MORRILL. I should like to have the names proposed to be stricken out read.
The SECRETARY. The names proposed to be stricken out are "Mrs. Jane L. Smith, Mrs. Harriet B. Blanchard, Mrs. Maria M. Carter, Mrs. Jane Farnham, Mrs. Ann J. Gillette, Mrs. Kathleen Carlisle, Mrs. Sarah C. Jones, Mrs. Mary K. Lewis.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not know anything about the circumstances, and I move that the bill and amendments lie on the table for the present.
The motion was agreed to.
PORTS OF DELIVERY.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the Senate take up for consideration the bill (S. No. 196) to extend the port of entry of the collection district of the State of Oregon.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause in the following words
That the port of entry of the collection district of the State of Oregon be extended so as to embrace the city of Portland, and that vessels and ships be allowed to load and unload at said city, and that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to build or rent the necessary bonded warehouses at said city
And to insert in lieu thereof the following: That Council Bluffs, in the State of Iowa, shall be, and is hereby, constituted a port of delivery, and shall be subject to the same regulations and restrictions as other ports of delivery in the United States; and there shall be appointed a surveyor of customs to reside at said port, who shall, in addition to his own duties, perform the duties and receive the salary and emoluments of surveyor prescribed by the act of Congress approved on the 2d of March, 1831, providing for the payment of duties on imported goods at certain ports therein mentioned, entitled An act allowing the duties on foreign merchandise imported into Pittsburg, Wheeling, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Nashville, and Natchez, to be secured and paid at those places;" and the said town of Council Bluffs and the said port of delivery be, and is hereby, annexed to and made a part of the collection district of New Orleans, and all the facilities and privileges afforded by the said act of Congress of the 2d of March, 1831, be, and are hereby, extended to the said port of Council Bluffs.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That Portland, in the State of Oregon, shall be, and is hereby, constituted a port of delivery, and shall be subject to the
Mr. TRUMBULL. If I heard the bill correctly, it is a bill to establish a port of delivery for foreign goods away up near the source of the Missouri river. I do not know that there is a probability of there being any importations from Europe at that point. I should like to hear some explanation of the bill from the Senator from Maine, [Mr. MORRILL,] who I believe reported it, to know why it is necessary to establish a port of delivery at that point. It may be all right, but I did not suppose that foreign goods were landed there.
Mr. HENDERSON. That does not follow because it is a port of delivery.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I can assure the Senator that it is necessary so far as the city of Portland is concerned. This bill is reported from the Committee on Commerce as an amend ment to a bill that I introduced. I have no interest in making the city of Council Bluffs a port of delivery, but I am interested, and it is not difficult to show, that the city of Portland, in Oregon, ought to be a port of delivery, as large quantities of foreign goods are brought there and delivered in that city.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That may be true in regard to the city of Portland, but I should like to know of the Senator from Oregon if he thinks that is true in regard to Council Bluffs.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I know nothing about Council Bluffs. I introduced a bill to make Portland, in Oregon, a port of delivery. That bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and they reported back the bill, with an amendment striking out what I introduced, and inserting this proposition, which includes Council Bluffs as a port of delivery.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope we shall have some explanation of the necessity of a port of delivery at Council Bluffs.
Mr. MORRILL. In reply to the Senator from Illinois, as he appealed to me, I will say that I had no special charge of this bill, and did not report it. I have only a general recollection that this amendment was drawn at the Treasury Department and said to be necessary to prevent smuggling in that region of the country. That is all I can say of it now.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know how any smuggling is to be carried on at that point. Perhaps my friend from Iowa [Mr. KIRKWOOD] can tell us.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. tor from Illinois is in locating Council Missouri river.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is pretty far up. Mr. KIRKWOOD. It is much nearer the mouth of that river than the sources of it. It is almost due west from the residence of my colleague, on the Mississippi, Burlington, at which place there is a port of entry or delivery; I do not know which. It is not nearly as far north as Dubuque, in the State of Iowa, at which place there is, I think, a port of entry and a custom-house. Dubuque is on the Mississippi river. Council Bluffs is immediately opposite the eastern terminus of one branch of the Pacific railroad, at Omaha, in Nebraska Territory. I am not familiar enough with the country to say whether a port of delivery be needed there or not; but I can say this, that if one be needed at Galena, in the State of Illinois, at Burlington, in the State of Iowa, and if a port of entry and a custom-house be needed at Dubuqne, I can very well conceive
how and why a port of delivery may be needed at Council Bluffs. That is all I can say on the subject. We have a custom-house at Dubuque and a port of entry there, and I am satisfied that there is as much necessity for one and the other at Council Bluffs as there is at Dubuque.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We have had various ports of entry or delivery in the West, and I believe that some of them have merely given places for officers. I know I looked into this matter some years ago and ascertained that there were throughout the United States-I had at that time the tables before me-various points where we had ports of delivery where the salary amounted to more than all the duties which the officer collected. I do not know that that would be the case at Council Bluffs. I was inquiring rather for information. I think there are one or two in my own State that have been discontinued recently. We had them all along the Mississippi, and at one time there was a disposition to build custom-houses all over the country. The fact that a port of delivery has been established improperly at some place where it was not needed, is not a sufficient reason for establishing another. However, as I am not informed about this matter and the Senator from Maine thinks there was some reason for it at the Treasury Department, I suggest that the bill had better go over until we are better informed.
The honorable Senasomewhat misinformed Bluffs so far up on the
Mr. MORRILL. I was going to make that suggestion. I do not wish it to pass on my
Mr. TRUMBULL. If there is a reason for it, I have no objection; but I do not see why it should be.
Mr. GRIMES. I simply desire to say that I concur in what my colleague has said, that the same necessity exists, I think, for the establishment of a custom-house at Council Bluffs that existed for the establishment of one at Keokuk, or at Burlington, where I reside, or at Dubuque. I am not aware that there is any reason additional to those that exist as to the office in this place. The truth is, Mr. President, that the offices in that State of this de scription, as well as offices everywhere else of this character, ought to be abolished, and I am ready to vote to abolish them, and am not prepared to vote to establish any others. I was not aware that there was any such proposition as this here until I heard it read in the bill at the Secretary's desk. Burlington, where I reside, has been a port of delivery a great many years, long before I was a member of this body, and I think that there was one delivery of for eign goods there; I think there was once some railroad iron brought there which was delivered in bond. That is the only business of that description, so far as I know or have been informed, ever done there. During the war this office of surveyor of the port became of some value to the Government.
Mr. KIRKWOOD. Will my colleague allow me one moment? May it not be that this is asked for on account of the delivery of the iron at Council Bluffs or Omaha for the Pacific railroad?
Mr. GRIMES. I was going to state that. During the war these officers became of a good deal of value. To them was intrusted the business of looking after contraband articles that were being run over the railroads and taken down into Missouri and there furnished to guer rillas; and I have no doubt that all the expense the Government was put to in establishing and maintaining them was amply compensated. The Senator from Maine states that this proposition, as I understand, came from the Treas ury Department.
Mr. MORRILL. I so understood, though I
was not sure.
Mr. GRIMES. It may be possible, and quite probable, indeed, if that be so, that there is some substantial reason why the recommen dation was made; and therefore I hope that the bill will be permitted to lie over until to morrow, when we can ascertain something further about it. It may be, as has been suggested by my colleague, that in consequence of the
question is on that motion of the Senator from Kansas.
The motion was not agreed to.
prosecution of the Pacific railroad, which ends on the other side of the river from Council Bluffs, it may be desirable that such an office should be established.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am very confident, if this bill was prepared in the Treasury Department, that it is necessary to make Council Bluffs a port of delivery, because I know that I have addressed that Department on these subjects, and I find that they are very reluctant to extend any privileges involving expense unless there is an absolute necessity for it. So far as the city of Portland is concerned, there are immense quantities of foreign goods brought to that city. The trade of eastern Oregon, of a portion of Washington Territory, and of Idaho Territory, with British Columbia, is through the city of Portland, and there is a great necessity for making that place a port of delivery. It would be a great advantage to the persons concerned in that trade. I do not wish to have that proposition which I introduced loaded down with and defeated by a proposition of this kind, about which gentlemen seem to have question, when there can be no sort of question as to the correctness of the proposition which I submitted. But if it is deemed desirable the bill can lie over until to-morrow. I am sure that on inquiry it will be found, in the judgment of the Treasury Department, that this measure is necessary.
Mr. WILSON. Is this measure to go over? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No motion to postpone it has been made.
Mr. POMEROY. I move to postpone the present and all prior orders and take up the bill (S. No. 285) granting lands to the State of Kansas to aid in the construction of the Kansas and Neosho Valley railroad and its extension to Red river. This is a bill which was called up by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] the other day, but it then went over. I think we have time to consider it this morning during the morning hour.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am opposed to considering that bill at this time. There is only half an hour left of the morning hose, What it
will be discussed as a matter of course.
I desire to say on the bill I should like to say at the time we dispose of it. To make an examination of the bill this morning, and then let it go over to another morning, and then to discuss it and have it postponed again, is no way to have the discussion fully understood. I do not want very much of the time of the Senate when I speak upon it, but I want what remarks I make to be made at the time the vote is taken by the Senate; it is impossible to do so this morning.
Mr. WILSON. I hope the Senator from Kansas will withdraw his motion and let us finish the West Point bill we had up yesterday morning. I think we can get through with it in a few minutes.
Mr. POMEROY. Several efforts have been made to get up the bill to which I call the attention of the Senate. It is entirely with the Senate to say whether they will consider it now or at some other time. I know that all the bills from the Committee on Public Lands which have yet to pass the House of Representatives will have a very poor show there unless we pass them here before the Committee on Public Lands of that House is called for reports. It has not yet been called; and that is the only point there is in reference to this matter.
Mr. WILSON. I shall be much obliged to the Senator if he will not call up that biH this morning, but will allow me to have the West Point bill taken up and disposed of.
Mr. POMEROY. I would rather have a vote upon the question. If the pleasure of the Senate is to postpone the bill, I shall be entirely satisfied.
Mr. WILSON. Imove, then, to take up The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is already a motion pending to postpone the present and all prior orders and proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 285. The
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 223) to revive and extend the provisions of an act granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the States of Arkansas and Missouri, to aid in the the Mississippi, opposite the mouth of the Ohio of a railroad from a point upon river, via Little Rock, to the Texas boundary, near Fulton, in Arkansas, with branches to Fort Smith and the Mississippi river, approved February 9, 1853, and for other purposes.
It proposes to revive and extend the act mentioned in its title, with all the provisions therein made, for the term of ten years, and all the lands therein granted, which reverted to the United States under the provisions of that act, are restored to the same custody, control, and condition, and made subject to the uses and trusts in all respects as they were before and at the time such reversion took effect.
There is also hereby granted, added to, and made part of the former donation of lands, and to be held and disposed of in the same manner as if included in the original grant, all the alternate sections and parts of sections, designated by odd numbers, lying along the outer line of lands heretofore selected, and within ten miles on each side thereof, excepting lands reserved or otherwise appropriated by law, or to which the right of preemption has attached; but this additional quantity of lands when added to the lands heretofore granted is not to exceed, in the aggregate, sufficient to amount to ten sections for each mile of railroad.
ment was in section two, line ten, after the word "preemption" to insert "or homestead settlement;" so that the clause will read:
Excepting lands reserved or otherwise appropriated by law, or to which the right of preemption or homestead settlement is attached.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to add at the end of section two the following proviso:
And provided further, That said additional quantity of lands shall be disposed of only as follows: whenever proof shall be furnished, satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, that twenty consecutive miles of said railroad have been constructed, in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, then all of said additional lands lying along and opposite to said completed portion may be sold, and so on unti the work is completed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was in section three, line four, to strike out the word "from" and to insert the word "for;" and also to strike out the following proviso at the end of the section:
Provided, That no person who has held any office or appointment under the government of the so-called confederate States," or who has borne arms against the United States, shall be a director in any railroad company receiving the benefit of this grant. The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] has an amendment that I should like to have reported to this bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is still open to amendment.
Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I should like to have an opportunity of examining this bill and three others affecting the same section of country, which are pending before the Senate, and I will ask the chairman of the committee to let this bill lie over for the present, and I will agree with him at an early day to take them all up.
Mr. POMEROY, My colleague may not be aware that this is simply a revival of an old grant. In 1853 a grant of land was made to the State of Arkansas for a railroad. That grant lapsed in 1863, during the war. They built a little portion of the road, and abandoned it during the war. The State of Arkansas never had but one grant. I thought, and the committee thought, that that grant ought to be revived, so that the State may ultimately have an opportunity, within the next ten years, of building this road. This bill simply revives and enlarges the grant to ten sections per milethe original grant was only six sections-and extends the time within which to complete the road for ten years.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the committee reporting this bill if any portion of the route is through the Indian country, or through lands belonging to the Indians.
Mr. POMEROY. Not any portion of it, as I understand.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I should like to call his attention to the third section of the bill, which provides
That all the lands mentioned in this act, and hereby granted, are reserved from entry, preemption, or appropriation to any other purpose than herein contemplated, for the said termof ten years from the passage of this act.
I submit to the Senate whether it is proper to tie up the public lands in that way. I am a member of the Indian Committee at the pres ent session of Congress, and although not very familiar with Indian affairs, I find that in the making of treaties with the Indian tribes we are very much embarrassed by these grants of lands for railroad purposes. It is insisted that these grants take the lands, notwithstanding they have been reserved for the Indians, and that the United States, by passing a law of this character granting the public lands on each side of a railroad, obligates itself to remove the Indians so that the grant may take effect through their country. We shall have to appropriate several hundred thousand and probably millions of dollars at this session of Congress in consequence of railroad grants through Indian country.
Mr. POMEROY. There is no Indian country here.
man. It is upon his application that the time is now extended. The Senator knows that the financial trouble of 1857, and then the war coming on, prevented the construction of many railroads. This was one of the roads not constructed within the time limited by the act of Congress; but bonds have been issued and stock subscribed, and the committee thought it was but fair to allow a reasonable time for the completion of this road, as we have done in almost every other State where the companies have been unable to finish the road within the time fixed. The grants are made upon the condition that the roads shall be constructed within ten years. That has been the character of all the grants since the first grant made to the State of Illinois for the great Central road. The condition is that the road must be finished within ten years, else the lands granted shall revert to the Government. Now, the Senator knows that in 1857 a very severe financial crisis came upon the country and stopped almost all work upon railroads. It affected enterprises in Iowa, Wisconsin, and in other States; and during the last and the present session of Congress we have extended in some cases for five years, and in some cases, I believe, for eight years, the time within which the roads might be completed, giving a reasonable time for the completion of the roads. Now, if the Senator thinks that ten years is too long, let him propose an amendment; but certainly he will not defeat the investment of money already made, mainly by men from the northern States, in this particular road, upon the technical proposition that the time limited has expired.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand there is not in this bill; but we are notified by the other Senator from Kansas, [Mr. LANE,] that this is one of four bills, and a good many of the Kansas roads run through Indian country. I looked cursorily into the statutes and the treaties, and I was rather of the opinion that these grants of land through the Indian country which had been reserved to the Indians by treaty were nugatory; that they did not carry anything with the grant; that it was inconsistent with the treaty obligation of the Government. But it is replied to that that good faith requires the Government of the United States to make these grants good, that they have held out to capitalists that they shall have every alternate section of land for ten miles on each side of the road, and that they are bound to get the Indians out of the way.
I make these remarks not in reference to this special bill, which I trust will go over and be looked into, for it seems to me that this third section is objectionable. I do not believe in tying up the public lands of the country for ten years from settlement in this way.
Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from Illinois by reading the section carefully will see that it is only the alternate odd sections that are reserved for ten years. It is not the public lands.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I would not reserve them for ten years.
Mr. POMEROY. No railroad bill ever passed Congress that did not reserve for a limited period the odd-numbered sections, and the company were to get them as fast as they built the road. That is the provision in every bill. We do not reserve all the country from settlement. The even sections can be entered at any time all along the line of this road. This section simply reserves from settlement and preemption the odd-numbered sections for a distance of ten miles on each side of the road.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him if it has ever been the policy of the Government to reserve for such a lengthy period the lands from settlement?
Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I think we had better change that policy and allow the country to be settled.
Mr. POMEROY. These very lands, acre for acre, were reserved for ten years, from 1853 to 1863.
Mr. TRUMBULL. And now you propose to reserve them for twenty years.
Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir; to give another ten years with which to build this road.
Mr. TRUMBULL. They have built no road, and yet you propose to keep this land out of market for twenty years.
Mr. POMEROY. They have built a part of the road.
Mr. CONNESS obtained the floor.
Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator from California will allow me, I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois one question. I feel the force of what he says, but I want to know of him how Congress can make a grant to a State to enable that State to build a railroad without taking the lands out of market. The grant is to the State of certain described lands. How is that grant to be made without taking the lands out of market? Will he make a grant to a State for a particular purpose, and yet allow from day to day the lands thus granted to be sold? Mr. TRUMBULL. My objection was to the length of time they were reserved. These lands have been reserved for ten years already, and no road is built, and now you propose to reserve them ten years more.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am not very particular about the number of years. This is a grant that was made more than ten years ago to aid in the construction of a road in Missouri and Arkansas. The Senator's own constituency have large interests in this very road; more, a great deal, as I understand, than the people of Arkansas. I think the president of the company is a citizen of Illinois, Mr. Bray
Mr. CONNESS. This provision had attracted my own attention, and I was about to speak of it when the Senator from Illinois rose. I find it, at least in its objectionable form to my mind, in the first section, in the revival and extension 'for the term of ten years from the passage of this act." I wish to say that I am in favor of continuing rights to this company or to any company who will build a road through the new territory; but I do not think that this is the right form of condition, nor that it is the usual form of condition; but if it be, I join the Senator from Illinois in saying that it is time to change it.
The fair terms upon which a grant of the public lands may be given to a company should be distinctly stated. This may be considered as a new grant; but in reviving it, it should be continued to the same parties, in my opinion. But it has lapsed, and they have no rights in it; and it is, to all intents and purposes, a new grant to be made to them. Then I think the conditions that should accompany it should require that they begin the road within a given time, say two years, as provided in all the bills I have introduced asking for grants to railroad companies, and then require that they shall construct a certain number of miles each year thereafter, and that they shall construct the whole extent of the road within a given time, and that they shall be entitled to land conterminous with the road as fast as they construct it. These are conditions which leave the title of the land in the United States in case the road shall not be built, and conditions also of the strongest kind, as I think, to induce the building of the road; but this seems to be a very loose and general provision, "that the above recited act," referring to an act that is not before us, "with all the provisions therein made, be and the same is hereby revived and extended for the term of ten years from the passage of this act." I am in favor of the bill; but I suggest that it ought to have another form. I think this is a very objectionable form. Grant lands, I say, for the construction of those great improvements which bring settlement and civilization into the far West, but require the parties to commence within a given time not distant, and to go steadily forward with the improvements, and then let their title accrue as they carry on the work. I think that these bills ought to have that shape and form.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In reply to the Senator
from Indiana, I wish to say that he did not answer at all the suggestion which I made. I was not objecting to a land grant, nor to reserving from sale a portion of the public lands in aid of such a grant. I did not object to the bill upon that ground, and propose to require that the Government should go on and sell the lands from day to day; but it seemed to me that the length of time here proposed, ten years, was an unreasonable time to tie up these lands. I quite agree with what the Senator from California has said, that where parties had rights which were interrupted by the rebellion, it is no more than proper that they should be continued; but the fact that people in the State of Illinois are interested in it, or that a gentleman from that State is president of the road, does not alter the propriety of making the grant, nor would it alter my course in ref erence to the bill. It seems to me that this third section ties up the land quite too long.
The other suggestions which I made in regard to these land grants generally were not appli cable to this particular bill, because I understand this road does not go through the Indian country. I made those suggestions because I understood that there were other bills, as was stated by the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. LANE,] for roads which might probably go through the Indian country; and I had found in my action upon the Committee on Indian Affairs, that we were very much embarrassed in providing for the Indians, and the Government was put to expense in consequence of these land grants; and I think that when we make the grants they ought to be made in a way not to complicate our difficulties with the Indian tribes.
Mr. HENDERSON. I offer this amendment to come in as a proviso at the end of the third section of the bill:
Provided, That all lands heretofore given to the State of Missouri for the construction of the Cairo and Fulton railroad, or for the use of said road, lying in the State of Missouri, and all lands proposed to be granted by this act for the use or in aid of the said road herein named, and lying in the State of Missouri, shall be granted and patented to the said State State, which lands may be held by the State of Miswhenever the road shall be completed through said
souri and used for paying the State for the amount of bonds heretofore issued by it to aid said company, and all interest accruing or to accrue thereon.
In 1853 a grant of land was made by Congress to the State of Missouri for the use and benefit of this road, or to aid in its construction; and the State granted the lands to the company. There was a company organized called the Cairo and Fulton Railroad Company. There was a magnificent grant of lands, as I understand, given also to the State of Arkansas for the same purpose. A company was organized about the year 1854, 1855, or 1856, who obtained, in addition to the lands that were granted by Congress, a grant of some $700,000 in bonds from our State; and they used those bonds, built some twenty-five or thirty miles of road with the proceeds of the bonds they sold, and the State of Missouri has been compelled ever since that time to pay the interest on the bonds. The company has never paid a dollar of interest since the issue of the bonds, I believe. I really do not know the condition of the lands, because I am not now so familiar as I was in 1856, 1857, or 1858 with the history and condition of this company; nor am I so well acquainted with the condition of these lands as respects the right of my State to them. Whatever lands of this grant are unsold now in the State of Missouri-and I do not know what quantity of lands there are unsold by the company-of course will be regranted under this bill. I desire that the State of Mis souri shall hold a lien upon those lands and that Congress shall not revive this grant so as to pass the title out of the State of Missouri, but I desire that the State shall hold a lien on these lands or any lands that may be granted in this bill within the borders of that State in order to pay back to the State of Missouri the amount that she has already issued in aid of this road.
The company have not built road enough, as
report or some further explanation on the subject.
Mr. McDOUGALL. I think I understand the question pending. A grant of lands was made originally to the State of Missouri and conceded by the State to this company, and the bonds of the State were issued upon the company promising to pay the interest upon the bonds. It is a fact, I think, understood by persons who have been conversant at all with the subject, that the company has paid no interest. The concession to the company was based on its obligation to pay interest. In making the regrant it is undoubtedly just that the State of Missouri should be protected, the concession having been to her in the first instance, and from her to the company, with the understanding that the interest would be assumed and paid
by the company. That is understood, I believe, by every person who knows anything about railroading in the State of Missouri and the West. It is a simple statement of what we have done heretofore, and it is due to the State of Missouri that she should be protected.
Mr. GRIMES. I have examined this amendment since I addressed the Chair, and I think there does not seem to be the objection to it which I apprehended at the time I spoke.
Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Has not the State of Missouri entered upon and sold this railroad?
I understand, to have properly and legitimately consumed the amount of bonds issued by the State of Missouri. In other words, I mean to say that with a most magnificent grant of lands they have never built any more road than they could build out of the State grant. We gave them the lands, and in addition to that gave them $700,000 of bonds; and they have not used any money according to my impression, not, perhaps, one cent of money, except what the State of Missouri gave to them; and having used those bonds they have failed to pay back one dollar of interest; they have not reimbursed the State for the grant.
I make no opposition to the passage of the bill. It may be passed; I desire to see these railroad improvements put forward as rapidly as it can be done. I have no objection to it
whatever. I do not look upon these railroad grants as damaging to the public, for the reason that we charge double price for the reserved sections of land, and I believe that the double price is more readily paid than the single price without the construction of the roads. I make no objection to it; but I do desire that my State shall be reimbursed now while I have an opportunity of doing it. I hope no objection whatever will be made to the amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. I think there is no objection to the amendment. The facts of which the Senator speaks were not before the committee; if they had been no doubt the committee would have reported such an amendment.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator from Missouri himself confesses that he is not familiar with the facts in this case, and has not been since 1856, 1857, or 1858.
Mr. HENDERSON. Let me correct the Senator from Iowa. What I stated was that I am not now as familiar as I once was with the exact condition of the lands lying in my State. This road only runs thirty-seven or thirty-eight miles in my State. I do not now remember whether the State granted the lands to the company in fee and permitted the company to sell them. I do not know what amount of lands remain unappropriated or unsold under the old grant of 1853. I do not wish the Senator to understand that I am at all ignorant of the fact that the company have $700,000 of the bonds of the State of Missouri, and that the State of Missouri originally owned these lands. Now, as I understand, the object of this bill is to revive the land grant which is now dead. I want this revival to inure to the benefit of the State of Missouri, so that we can hold a lien upon these lands. We did once hold a lien, and if the act is revived I want the benefit of that lien still. What I meant to say was that I am not exactly familiar with the title to the land; that is all. I do not like to state that I am fully acquainted with a fact when I am not.
Mr. GRIMES. It is quite evident that there is a conflict of interest between the State represented by the Senator from Missouri and some railroad company.
Mr. HENDERSON. I want them to pay us back.
Mr. GRIMES. And this is the method which the Senator proposes to adopt to collect the money from the railroad company. I understand that to be his purpose, to make them pay. Now, I suggest whether we had not better let that railroad company be heard before our Committee on Public Lands.
Mr. POMEROY. I will state to the Senator that the president of this road was before the committee. These facts were not presented at the time, but he has since written to me, and virtually drew this amendment himself. The Senator from Missouri has changed the phraseology, but the president of the road said that what the Senator from Missouri desired was just and right.
Mr. GRIMES. But it is not known what interest we are going to conflict with by this sort of legislation. I do not know anything about it. In fact I do not comprehend fully the statement that has been made by the Senator from Missouri. I should like to have some
Mr. HENDERSON. I understand not. I believe it is advertised to be sold some time in June, but it has not yet been sold.
Mr. POMEROY. They could not sell public lands. This is a question of reviving a public land grant.
Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly. The State of Missouri holds a lien on the road and lands, too; and I do not want this act to operate to take that lien away from the State of Missouri. That is all I am aiming at. I do not want the effect of this act to be to deprive the State of its present lien on the lands. The State not only has a lien on the lands legitimately and properly, but a lien on the railroad itself; that
is, on the bed of the road. Now, I believe that the State is proceeding to sell the road. I suppose, however, that if this grant is revived the company will get credit enough to go on with the road. I apprehend they will, and perhaps will pay off the State the amount of the bonds; but I do not want to put it in the power of the company to neglect to pay. I want a lien on the lands, and in all probability, then, Governor Fletcher will stop proceedings under the advertisement to sell. We hold that we have a lien, a legal lien, for the payment of our bonds upon the road. He perhaps will suffer them to proceed, having, perhaps, credit enough to put their own lands in the market, and raise the money to pay off the State bonds. If they do, of course we are satisfied, and the lands will then go to the company under my amendment, because the State only holds a lien upon them to satisfy this debt.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. POMEROY. To meet the suggestion, which was a very good one, of the Senator from California, I move to amend the bill by striking out, in the third line of the first section, the words, "the above recited act," and to insert the whole title of the original act.
Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I hope the bill will be passed by for the present.
Mr. POMEROY. Îf the special order is now to be taken up, I have no objection to that. Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I desire time to examine the bill.
Mr. POMEROY. I should like to have this amendment adopted, first.
Mr. HENDERSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. WILSON. I hope the Senator will withdraw that motion for a moment, to enable me to make a motion in reference to the committee provided for yesterday.
Mr. HENDERSON. I withdraw the motion.
DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL BANKS. Mr. WILSON. I move that the select com
mittee ordered yesterday to inquire into the condition of the national banks with respect to deposits of Government funds, consist of five members, and that the committee be appointed by the Chair.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. No. 294) for the relief of John Gordon.
The motion was agreed to; and the bill was read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It will be an authorization to the Postmaster General to pay to John Gordon, messenger in that Department, for extra services performed out of office hours during the administration of Postmaster Gen
eral Campbell, any sum that he may, in his opinion, believe him to be entitled to, at the rate of $250 per annum.
Mr. HENDERSON. Has this bill received the sanction of a committee?
chairman of the committee [Mr. INGERSOLL] to promise me that I should have an opportu nity to offer it in the House.
LAND GRANT TO MICHIGAN. Mr. DRIGGS. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to report back from the Committee on Public Lands bill of the Senate No. 219, granting certain lands to the State of Michigan to aid in the construction of a shipcanal to connect the waters of Lake Superior with the lake known as Lac La Belle in that State.
Mr. SPALDING. I object, and call for the regular order of business.
Mr. DEFREES, by unanimous consent, presented the memorial of the trustees of the Indiana Agricultural College; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.
Mr. WRIGHT. I desire to state that I voted in the affirmative on the passage of the bankrupt bill, and that my vote is not recorded.
CANAL AND SEWERAGE COMPANY.
SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act contained shall be held or deemed, in any manner or way, to injure or impair any public or private rights or interests, or in any manner to affect the same beyond the mere transfer of the rights of the United States to said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, as I desire a vote on this bill to-day, I have concluded to occupy but ten minutes' time in explaining the bill. Then I shall yield ten minutes to be used entirely by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS,] or to be divided between him and my colleague on the committee, [Mr. MCCULLOUGH,] as they may see proper; and then I shall take ten minutes to close the argument, and shall then ask a vote on the bill.
Mr. F. THOMAS. Lest it should be inferred from my silence that such an arrangement would be agreeable to me, I have simply to say that it would be utterly impossible for me in ten minutes to explain the position I occupy in relation to this measure. I shall hope, therefore, that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] will allow the usual latitude of discussion, or, if he does not, that the House will grant it. It is a matter of vast importance to my congressional district, as I will explain to the House if the opportunity be offered.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I am as anxious to accommodate the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] as any one can be; but I am anxious to dispose of this bill, in order that we may report other bills from the committee which are of importance to this District, and I do not propose to devote any more time to the consideration of this bill than is necessary for a full and fair understanding of its provisions. Mr. McCULLOUGH. I have an amendment which I wish to offer to this bill. I wish to ask if I can offer it now.
The SPEAKER. It will be in order if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] will yield for that purpose.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield for that purpose now.
Mr. McCULLOUGH. I offered this amend ment in the committee, and I understood the
Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, I will give the gentleman an opportunity to offer his amend
Mr. McCULLOUGH. That is all I want. Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman state his amendment now?
Mr. McCULLOUGH. I desire to have the bill amended in the second section by striking out the words, "so as the manner of making the connection shall not injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer where the connection shall be made."
Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, I believe I would prefer to have that amendment considered and disposed of now rather than at any other time. Mr. McCULLOUGH. I offer the amendment, and if it is in order I would like to say a few words in explanation of it.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I will yield two minutes for that purpose.
Mr. McCULLOUGH. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as it passed the Senate and is reported to this House, gives to this corporation a power and control over the sewerage system of the city of Washington which every member of this House should be opposed to, in my opinion, who is desirous of seeing the health and prosperity of this city promoted. It will not be denied, I presume, that the free and untrammeled use of this canal is absolutely necessary to a proper sewerage of the city. In fact, without this it will be impossible to preserve the health and cleanliness of the city. Now, sir, if the provision which I ask to have stricken out remains this corporation has such control over this important matter as will greatly, if not entirely, prevent the authorities of Washington from using this canal as a deposit for the filth of the city. The provision which I ask to be taken out says that "the manner of making the connection shall not injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer where the connection shall be made." This provision, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, gives to this corporation the power to stop the city authorities from making such connection, when in the opinion of said corporation it will "injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer. It certainly will give them the power to object and say that such connection will injure the canal, and will lead to a conflict of rights. In a great city such as this should be, such an important matter as its health and cleanliness should not be under the control of a private corporation; and for these and other reasons which will suggest themselves to members I move to strike out this provision.
Mr. INGERSOLL. In order to fully understand the effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. McCULLOUGH] I will read a portion of the section:
That the said company is hereby authorized and empowered to survey, locate, and lay out and construct a canal and sewer between the Anacostia river, commonly known as the Eastern branch, from a point thereon near its junction with the Potomac river, to a point on the old canal near Virginia avenue, which through Washington; thence in, along, and through said old canal, to the western corporate limits of said city of Washington; and thence to the Chesapeake and Ohio canal at its terminus at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia. The said canal and sewer, when constructed, shall constitute and reman a depository and duct for the sewerage from the city of Washington, and from the property of the United States therein; and the proper corporate authorities of the city of Washington shall always have unrestricted and full power to determine where the sewers of said city shall connect with the said canal and sewer, and the manner in which said connection shall be made, so as the manner of making the connection shall not injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer where the connection shall be made.
Now, the words proposed to be stricken out simply throw some protection around this canal and sewer by providing that
The manner of making the connection shall not injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer where the connection shall be made.
lateral sewers with this main sewer in such a manner as to destroy the banks of the canal, because the connection can be made in such a way as not to interfere with the canal in the least. The bill, as it stands, simply provides that the city shall have the unrestricted use of the canal for sewer purposes, making connec tions when and where it pleases, but in such manner as not to injure or destroy the banks of the canal. This restriction upon the manner of making the connection the gentleman from Maryland desires to strike out. I object to such an amendment, and I hope it will not be adopted. I ask the previous question on the amendment.
Now, it seems to me that it is but just to the corporation that the city of Washington shall not be allowed to make the connection of its
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
On agreeing to the amendment, there were -ayes 26, noes 28; no quorum voting.
The SPEAKER, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. INGERSOLL and MCCULLOUGH.
The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 41, noes 56.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, aware that this bill does not command any general interest, because it is local in its application, and members who are not upon the Committee for the District of Columbia may, perhaps, take no interest in it; but I trust gentlemen will give sufficient attention to the explanation I desire to make as will enable them to give an intelligent vote upon the question.
This bill proposes to incorporate into a bodypolitic certain gentlemen named in the first section, with power to construct a canal along the line of this old ditch which has been a dis grace to the city for over sixty years. It is proposed to dig the canal ten feet below low tide, so that there shall be ten feet of living, pure water in the canal at all times. It is proposed that it shall be a commercial canal, and connect with the Chesapeake and Ohio canal at Rock creek, in Georgetown; thence proceeding by the line of this old canal, upon it as near as can be, to deep water on the Anacostia creek, or Eastern branch, as it is sometimes called. The bill proposes to convey to this corporation whatever interest the United States has, if it has any, in this old canal. It is yet to be settled whether the United States has any interest in this old canal or not. The corporate authorities of Washington clain that they have an interest in it. The committee think that the United States has an interest of some kind, but an interest of no particular value, and of no value at all in the present condition of the canal. We propose that, if the United States has any interest in this canal, we shall get rid of it, and give it to this cor poration that proposes to construct a good commercial canal. It proposes that this old canal, now exhaling malaria and disseminating disease, shall be flooded with water within thirty days after the passage of this bill, so that the canal may conduce to the health of the city.
This bill originated in the Senate. It received a thorough examination at the hands of the Senate committee, and was reported by the chairman of that committee. After some discussion it was passed in the Senate without a dissenting voice, if my recollection is correct, though I may be mistaken about that. The Committee for the District of Columbia of the House have investigated this matter, and have concluded that this bill presents the only feasi ble plan for making this old "ditch" a useful structure for the benefit of the city of Washington.
In the year 1802 Congress chartered the first company for the construction of this canal, with a capital of $80,000, on the condition that unless it should be completed within a certain period of time all rights and grants by virtue of the charter should cease and become void. That company became extinct. Another organization was incorporated in 1809 with similar restrictions and conditions. Thus