« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
tion of 1
town, the city of Washington, and the levy court of in reference to an agricultural product. I do all know, and in whose intelligence we all the county of Washington, District of Columbia, bo,
not know any good reason why there should be have confidence. If he were here he could and they are hereby, authorized to levy and collect a special tax on the taxable property within their
an appropriation by the General Government give the statistics, which would, I am sure, respective jurisdictions, for the erection of school for the purpose of carrying on a mere experi- satisfy the Senate of the propriety of this. Í houses and the support of public schools, not exceed ment of this sort. ing fifty cents on each $100 for any one year, to be
only know in general terins that it would be a assessed and collected as other taxes.
Mr. ANTHONY, I will correct myself; it great benefit to the country to make this one Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. To what does
was the Committee on Agriculture. I thought of our annual products, and I trust the approthat apply?
it was the Committee on Manufactures. The priation will be made.
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is Mr. ANTHONY. I will ask to have a letter Mr. HÅRLAN. It increases the maximum amount of tax that may be assessed and col- betr. COLE. Then, as to the merits of the
read from the Comuissioner of Agriculture
on this subject, and I will say that I think my lected by the proper authorities, in pursuance of the suggestion of the Senator from Ver.
measure, I understand the Senator from Rhode friend from California does not show his usual mont. In the District outside the cities the
Island to say that his particular part of the generosity, after we have been voting all sorts maximum is now twenty-five cents on the $100
Union is very well adapted to this product. It of things for his section of country, to object of assessable property.
seems to me, if that is the case, it should be to this little appropriation of an unexpended
carried on without any appropriation from the balance we have saved out of previous approMr. MORRILL, of Maine. To be consist
General Government. I do not see that it has ent, I suppose lought to suggest that this does
priations. any more merit than any other proposition for Mr. COLE. There is no telling where this not seem to be exactly germane to this bill.
a mere experiment. I do not think, indeed, it will end. If we make this appropriation it Mr. HARLAN. I hope the Senator will not
has half as much merit as an experiment as make that objection. I am very anxious that
may result in putting upon us the necessity this provision should go through, and I think
some propositions that have been offered to of sending this madder-root all over the United
States. I do not know where it is to end. If
Mr. CAMERON. Perhaps I can make an it were to end with this appropriation it might might fail in any other form.
explanation that will meet the views of the probably be less obnoxious. The amendment was agreed to.
Senator from California. Some years ago Mr. ANTHONY. It is an unexpended Mr. ANTHONY. I offer in behalf of my
there was an appropriation made of $20,000 | appropriation, which has lapsed into the colleague, [Mr. SPRAGUE, ) who has been called
to make experiments in the culture of linen | Treasury, that was made for experiments in
flax, and experiments upon machinery for flax two or three years ago. This is only to away by pressing business, an amendment using flax so as to make it more easily manu apply the balance of it. which has the sanction of the Committee on factured, to make it more easily produced into Mr. COLE. It is a balance of an appropriaCommerce, and which the Committee on Ap cloth, as cotton is. Experiments were made tion which was made for another and very propriations, I believe, have agreed to, io until they expended $9,500 of the $20,000, and
distinct purpose. come in on page 9, after line one hundred and the balance is, or ought to be, in the Treasury. Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly. eighty-nine:
There is an unexpended balance of $10,500 of Mr. COLE. I do not see why it is different For a life-boat to be stationed at the south end of that appropriation; and now it is proposed, from an appropriation out and out from the Narragansett beach, Rhode Island, $2,000.
and I think very wisely, that the balance of Treasury. The money has gone into the Treas. It is important for the safety of human life. that appropriation shall be used, so far as it ury, and it seems to me it is just like voting a Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Committee
may be necessary, to bring the madder-root new appropriation of $10,500. on Commerce recommend it? into proper cultivation in this country.
Mr. CAMERON. Agriculture in this country Mr. ANTHONY, Yes, sir.
Madder is a production of India. For long has been an experiment from the first settleThe amendinent was agreed to.
years it was brought entirely from India into ment of the country, and is still an experiment. Mr. ANTHONY. I am also requested by
France, into Holland, and into England. It is We are every year going on to improve. I my colleague to offer an amendment of which used, as everybody knows, very largely as a suppose all the men who are past forty years he gave notice to the Committee on Appropria
dye-stuff in this country. In Holland it is pro of age remember that sixty years ago the red tions, and which has the sanction, I believe,
duced upon the dykes and other waste lands. clover was not in this country until it was of the Committee on Manufactures. Some time In France, down upon the Rhone, the river | brought from abroad, and nothing has given ago I had the honor to offer a proposition, which
which empties into the Mediterranean at Mar. so much benefit to the agriculture of the counwas accepted by the Senate, raising a com seilles, all the swamp lands are now occupied try as the introduction of the red clover. Tim. mission to make some experiments in regard
in the production of the madder-root; and so othy, which makes the great amount of the to the cultivation and cottonization of tax.
valuable has it been to that country that a inay of all the northern States, was brought The result of those experiments, although they
monument costing hundreds of thousands of into this country not more than seventy years did not lead to any process by which flax could
dollars has been erected to the laboring man ago. be manufactured upon cotton machinery, has
who first introduced it into that country. On Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask my friend if they been exceedingly satisfactory. Flax has been the dykes of Holland, where they can produce were brought here by an appropriation made used for a great many purposes for which it nothing else, they produce the madder-root. out of the Treasury by the General Governo was not used before. It is used for admixture It is believed that in our southern country
ment? with wool in place of cotton to very great
hiere, with a climate as favorable as the valley Mr. CAMERON. That is hardly a fair advantage, making a better fabric and a better of the Rhone, and a soil part of it as useless question. Certainly they were not, because mixture and better colors. The appropria and yet as productive as the dykes of Holland, seventy years ago the Government's whole rev: tion for that purpose, which was $20,000, was this root can be produced in any quantity. id enue was not more than five or six millions a not exhausted. Only $9,500 were used, and the am not able to give the proper statistics, but year, and its expenditures were certainly not balance has lapsed into the Treasury under the some millions of dollars, tive or six millions, I more than that; but we have become stronger general law. The amendment which I now
think, are expended annually in bringing this and abler to protect interests which have beneoffer provides that the balance of that appro.
dye-stuff to our country. If we can, by an fited the country every year since then. I do priation, $10,500, may be expended under the expenditure of five or ten million dollars in not think the Senator from Maine will vote direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture to
experiments, make this one of the products of against this appropriation when we have been test the cultivation and preparation of madder our own country, we shall be doing a benefit to doing so much for his fisheries and forests up root in this country. We have the climate, we
the country. It has been well said that who there. have the soil, we bave every facility for the
ever causes two blades of grass to grow where Mr. FESSENDEN. I only wanted to know preparation of this important commodity, which only one grew before is a public benefactor. whether private interests had not done some now takes a great deal of money out of the
Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Will the Sen of these things ? country, except that labor is too high liere, and
ator allow me to ask him what this experiment Mr. CAMERON. Private enterprise in the we only require some labor-saving invention, ) contemplates ; whether it is an experiment State of Maine was very much stimulated by such as American ingenuity has applied to under the personal supervision of the Com appropriations of the General Government in almost every other process of manufacture, and
missioner of Agriculture, and on the public favor of the fisheries, and so I could tell you it will enable us to save a large amount of grounds?
of other things. money that we now lose. The amendment is Mr. CAMERON. No; the expenditure is The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The letter to add to the appropriations in the bill:
to be under the direction of the Commissioner called for by the Senator froin Rhode Island For experiments in the cultivation and preparation of Agriculture in the country.
will be read. of the madder-root, $10,500, to be expended under the
Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. What particular The Chief Clerk read as follows: direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture. section of the country is supposed to be adapted
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Mr, COLE. I would like to know, in the to this?
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1968. first place, if this has the indorsement of any Mr. CAMERON, All the southern States; Sir: In answer to yours of the 23d instant relative committee; and if so, what committee. Virginia and Maryland, and especially North
to the unexpended appropriation for cottonizing Mr. ANTHONY. The sanction of the Com Carolina. It is believed that with their climate
and to the feasibility of madder production, I
have the honor to observe that the unexpended balmittee on Manufactures, and has been before on their soil madder can be raised without any ance, after the committee's investigations, was the Committee on Appropriations. difficulty; but some money must be expended
$10,500, which has been corered in the Treasury, and Mr. COLE. I bappen to be a member of so as to induce people to go into the cultiva
therefore cannot be reached except by an appropria
tion for the specific purpose. the Committee on Mannfactures, and there tion. The suggestion is made by the Senator I would respectfully suggest the importance of a has been no meeting of that committee this from Rhode Island, not now present, [Mr.
practical experiment, conducted under Government session. This is a proposition to experiment | SPRAGUE, ) who is a large manufacturer as we
auspices, for the discovery of labor-saving processes of culture, and more economical modes of prepara
tion of the root for market, points in which aro pre Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I desire to Mr. ANTHONY. Will my friend allow me sinted the only difficulties which confront the busi
ask the chairman of the Committee on Printing to remind him that he assented to an amendness in this country. Such test is not likely to be undertaken voluntarily by individuals, and can be
a question, and that is whether the Superintend- ment to which this is precisely germane ? This accomplished by the Government at a sligbt expense. ent of Public Printing has not informed him is only a continuation of the same amendment. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HORACE CAPRON,
that since the passage of the eight-hour law he Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I then made the Commissioner.
will be compelled to ask for twenty per cent. remark with a loud voice, in the hearing and Hon. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, United States Senate. additional appropriation unless this measure presence of the honorable Senator from Rhode The amendment was agreed to. shall pass ?
Island, that I thought it was not germane and Mr. ANTHONY. I have an amendment to
Mr. ANTHONY. I suppose he will have | ought not to be insisted upon; but I had not offer now which does not take any money out
to ask for an additional appropriation anyhow, the slightest idea that he was going to make of the Treasury. Tam instructed by the Com
because even after this proposition passes he that a precedent for an application of this kind. mittee on Printing to offer this amendment as
is compelled, under the law of Congress, to I do not know that I am going to object, for I an additional section:
pay for eight hours' work the same that other bave not the slightest idea that it would be of And be it further enacted, That all laws and parts people pay for ten hours' work.
any use; but I think hereafter I shall make a of laws that regulate the price of labor in the Govern
Mr. BESSENDEN. The Senator must be most stout resistance, if I bave the honor to ment Printing Olüce be, and the same are hereby, mistaken about that, because it was demon present another appropriation bill, to everyrepcaled; and it shall be the duty of the Congressional Printer to contract with the persons in that
strated the other day by Senators that they thing of this description. employment at such prices as are for the interest of
would do more work in eight hours than they Mr. ANTHONY. I will join the Senator the Government, and are just to those employed. possibly could do in ten, and have time for great in that,
There are several laws and regulations that intellectual improvement besides. [Laughter.] Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. With that pledge
Relations to offer this amendment as a new repeals those laws, and allows him to make The amendment was agreed to.
section : contracts just the same as all other heads of Mr. ANTHONY. There was an amend. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of Departments do with persons who do work for
ment offered by the Senator from New Hamp. l executing the fourth article of the treaty of Washthem. shire [Mr. Cragix] requiring that any altera lington, concluded on the 9th day of August, 1842, the
Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and Mr. WILLIAMS. Does this repeal the eight tions in the Capitol should be done under the directed to pay to the State of Maine for ninety-ono hour law? direction of the architect of the Capitol exten
thousand one hundred and twenty-five acres of land Mr. ANTHONY. No; it does not affect sion. I have made two or three attempts since
assigned by said State to settlers under said article,
a suin equal to $1 25 per acre; and to the Commonthat.
I have been here to save those beautiful works wealth of Massachusetts for twenty-six thousand one fr. FESSENDEN. Do those laws do any
of art, the bronze doors, among the most
hundred and fifty acres of land a sum equal to $1 25 more than provide that he shall pay the same tiful things of the kind in existence. Those
per acre: Provided. Before said sums are paid the States of Maine and Massachusetts shall agree
with price that is paid for the same kind of work
doors are now placed in the very position that the United States that the settlers upon their public outside? would have been selected if the object had been
lands in the late disputed territory in Maine entitled Mr. ANTHONY. There is a law compel
to be quieted in their possessions, as ascertained by to place them where they could be least seen,
commissions heretofore instituted by said States, ling the Congressional Printer to pay the same least appreciated, most injured, and to the shall have been or shall be quieted by a release of prices that are paid for similar work in this greatest inconvenience of passers-by. They are
the title of the said States. city. There is a Typographical Society here, in a narrow passage. They face inward instead Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I must ask the composed exclusively of those who are em: of the valves being turned outward, as they Senator from New Hampshire where that ployed, not the employers, and they regulate should be, so as to be exhibited. They collect comes from? the price, and a majority of the members of a crowd around there which impedes the pas.
Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. It tbis society are employed in the Government sage from one House to the other; and the fine is not a new subject before the Senate. The Printing Office. The employment of printers points of the bronze are continually abraded by amendment is reported from the Committee by the Government is so large that they make
persons passing through with umbrellas and on Foreign Relations. I presume that answers a majority of all the printers in this city. This canes; and a number of sipall pieces, such as the question of the Senator from Maine. society, of which they form a majority, meets swords and caps and things that are not very
Mr. SHERMAN. I think this is an "old and regulates the price, and that becomes the tightly fastened, have been taken off and carried stager," and my friend from New Hampshire price which private employers pay; and then
away. It may be said that these doors belong ought to tell us a little about it. I examined ibey carry to the Superintendent a certified
to that part of the Capitol which is under the this claim some years ago, if it is the same copy of the resolution they have passed, and charge of the House of Representatives, but that I suppose it to be. It is not specially my he has to pay the same price under the law, the Speaker of the House desires that what I || duty to object, nor am I sufficiently aware of the result of which is that frequently he has to propose shall be done; and I did at the last the facts to make any opposition; but I think pay twenty thirty per cevt. more than is
session have the approbation of the chairman the Senate ought to understand that this inpaid elsewhere. And not only that, but he of the Committee on Public Buildings to it; 1 volves between one and two hundred thousand has to submit to the dictation of this society but a simple resolution passed by one House | dollars, I do not know precisely how much. as to how many apprentices he shall have. The can hardly be passed by the other; but if the
Mr. 'PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. result is to place the whole Government Print amendment which I now offer be adopted on One hundred and forty-six thousand dollars. ing Office under the control of that society, a this bill I think it will save these doors.
Mr. SHERMAN. I am not now sufliciently majority of which is composed of those who Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I beg the Sen familiar with the history of the case to resist are working in the Government Printing Office. ator not to put it on this bill.
the appropriation, but I know it has been often Mr. SHERMAN. I inquire whether, since Mr. ANTHONY. Allow the amendment to considered heretofore and been rejected. the eight-hour law has passed, they have not be read. It is perfectly germane to an amend
Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. worked under that law and yet received the ment that has already been adopted. In fact, This is not precisely the same question which same wages that they did for ten hours labor ?
this amendment is to come in after that. has been before the Senate on former occa. Mr. ANTHONY. That will be so, of course. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amend
sions. The bills which have been introduced Mr. SHERMAN. Is it not so now? ment will be read.
into the Senate heretofore involved four claims: Mr. ANTHONY. I did not know that that The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which | first, a claim for lands assigned to settlers bill bad become a law yet; but whenever it was to insert after the amendment adopted on under the fourth article of the treaty of Wash. becomes a law of course they will receive the the motion of Mr. CRAGIN
ington; second, a claim for the loss of timber same wages for working eight hours that other And the architect of the Capitol extension, under upon the territory of Maine during the sus. printers receive for working ten hours. But, the direction of the Committee on Public Buildings pension of State jurisdiction between 1832 and Mr. President, this does not interfere with the
and Grounds of the two Houses of Congress, is hereby || 1839; third, a claim for the correction of an
authorized and directed to remove the bronze doors eight-hour law. I would not have the temerity in the southern wing of the Capitol temporarily to error made at the Treasury in computing the to stand up against the just principles of polit some position where they will be safe from injury. interest on the expenditures made by the State ical economy that regulate the hours of labor Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I had hoped of Maine in defending her territory; and, between employers and employed. I should after the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] || fourth, a claim for interest upon advances be afraid of my friend from Indiana (Mr. HEND- this morning withdrew his general proposition | made by Massachusetts in the war of 1812–15. RICKS) if I did. But I think the prices may for a funding system as an amendment to this This amendment drops all these claims except bu lett to the parties hiring and the parties || bill, the Senate would take notice of that fact, the first. hired. I desire that all those employed in the and would not think it proper to make this an Under the fourth article of the treaty of Government Printing Office in this city should omnibus bill for all sorts of legislation. It Washington it was provided that those parties have the highest wages that are paid for simi- must be an omnibus bill to some extent for all who had come in from the province of New lar services anywhere; but when you pay them sorts of appropriations; but I submit that Brunswick and settled upon the territory of higher wages than are paid elsewhere the result neither now, nor at any time hereafter, ought | Maine, either by grants from the Government is ubat it becomes a favor to get into the Gove it to be regarded as a favorable opportunity to of New Brunswick or without any grant simply ernment Printing Office, and political influence put on every species of legislation that can be came in and squatted upon the territory, should is constantly used to put in political men io. conceived of from all the committees, to be be quieted in their possession, and this by the stead of good printers. precipitated upon the other House.
appropriate virtue of the treaty-making power,
but the fee-simple of the territory was in Maine supreme law it overrode a title derived from reports lsy committees of Congress, four in the and Massachusetts. Maine and Massachusetts the State, and that the tenant could hold his Senate and three in the House of Representanow come forward and simply claim that the land under the fourth article of said treaty. tives, all favorable, all saying that it was prop. United States Government, which took from The court closes its decision in these words: erty taken from Maine for the benefit of the those two States their territory and gave it to "The demandant must seek compensation for Government of the United States, which the these private parties, shall pay them for the the loss of his lands from the justice of his United States should pay for. That is the land thus taken from them; and the Congress country.''
simple case. of the United States has already adjudicated And Mr. Little came here and was paid for Mr. SHERMAN. I raise an objection to upon this question. There have been, I will that land. Now, it seems to me a perfectly this amendment, on the ground that it provides say, seven favorable reports made to the House clear case; it seems to me that Congress has for a private claim within the meaning of the of Representatives and the Senate on this sub foreclosed this case; that it has already adju. || thirtieth rule. It is the same point ibat has ject. One I remember was made by the present | dicated this claim.
been made before, and on which, according to President of the Senate; one by the Senator Mr. WILLIAMS, I ask for information ; my recollection, this claim has been previously from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER;] one by what did Maine and Massachusetts do? excluded. The latter clause of the thirtieth the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.) Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. | rule says:
Mr. SUMNER. I would remind my friend | They lost the land which was taken from them "No amendment shall be received whose object is that the report of the Senator from Wisconsin by parties who came over from New Brunswick to provide for a private clain unless it be to carry was a very elaborate document, going into the under a grant from the government of New
out the provisions of an existing law or treaty stip
ulation.' whole subject.
Brunswick, or came over and squatted without Mr. PÄTTERSON, of New Hampshire. any grant whatever upon lands that belonged
There are two answers that have been hereThere was also one from Mr. Clark, my pre to Maine and Massachusetts during the time
tofore made to this point: Grst, that a claim decessor. All these reports were favorable. I this question was in controversy.
by a State is not a private claim; but that has had this matter uuder consideration in the Mr. WILLIAMS. And by treaty that land
never been held. It has been held in many House of Representatives, investigated it thorwas ceded.
cases that a claim by a State as well as by an ouglıly, and am entirely convinced that it is an Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire.
individual, is a private claim. A private honest claim and should be allowed. By force of the treaty it went to the parties
claim is where money is claimed to be due to Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wish to ask who were upon the land.
an individual or a State or a corporation, for the Senator whether it was not provided by Mr. FESSENDEN. I can explain the
past services or for past debts. The second that treaty that Massachusetts and Maine should whole matter just as it stands in a very few
answer has been that it is to carry out a treaty receive $300,000? What was that for? words. This was a disputed line. We were
stipulation; but it cannot be saved under that Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I in constant collision ou the border there with
clause, because the fourth article of the treaty will say to the Senator from New Jersey that Great Britain as to where the true line was. The referred to expressly, on its face, shows that the fourth article of the treaty was not in the fact as to where the line was was finally pretty
there was no stipulation for the payment of first draft of the treaty. It was put in at the well understood between the parties. Great
the money. The Chair will have to look at suggestion of the commissioners of Massachita Britain, however, desired to get a portion of
the treaty in order to determine the question. selts and Maine ; but the $300,000 clause was the territory, and her great object was to have
There was no stipulation in the treaty to pay in the filih article of the treaty before the facilities for making a railroad between her
any sum of money for these lands, or anything fourth article of the treaty was inserted, and
of the kind, provinces. She sent over a minister plenipoit was simply to pay Massachusetts and Maine tentiary to settle the question. The contract
The general question arising on the Ashburfor three million acres of land which they losting powers agreed finally, or tried to agree, ton treaty I suppose is known. We made a by the treaty, and which went to New Bruns. that a particular line should be adopted, which
new boundary line, settled a long dispute in , wick. I will say, furthermore, that the United was confessedly within the limits of the State
which it is claimed that the Government of the States did not lose that amount of $300,000, of Maine. That was done. A treaty was
United States surrendered up a large amount for New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, made with Great Britain called the treaty of
of land to New Brunswick, but we got com: all three, received large additions to their ter Washington. The result of that treaty was to
pensation in other parts of the country. At rilory by this treaty. The United States also cut off about three million acres belonging | disputed boundary line, Great Britain claiming
any rate it was a settlement by the nation of a received over four million acres of mineral to the State of Maine. It also embraced the territory between Lake Superior and the Lake | running of a new line, or rather au agreement
for New Brunswick considerably more than we of the Woods-between Legion river on the that the line claimed by New Hampshire, Ver
surrendered, according to my recollection ; north and Fond du Lac and St. Louis river on mont, and New York, as their northern bound
but I cannot speak positively on that point. the south--a tract of land vastly more valuable ary, which had always been disputed by Great
The question now is whether this is a claim than all that Maine lost; so that the United Britain, should be conceded to be the true
provided for by a treaty. I say it is not, and States was a gainer, though it paid Maine and line. By that means the Government got an
therefore it does not come within the rule. Massachusetts $300,000 for assenting to the important military position in New York,
The fourth article of the treaty referred to
Rouse's Point, which was unquestionably on I will say, also, that in 1843, the year after British territory; and a little strip of territory,
"All grants of land made by either party, within this treaty was ratified, Maine and Massachu which was also in dispute, was added to New
the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls
within the dominions of the other party, shall be setts appointed commissioners to make a sur Hampshire and Vermont. On the other hand held valid, ratified, and confirmed, to the persons in vey of the lands possessed by these parties who Great Britain got from Maine about three mil
possession under such grants, to the saine extent as had come in from New Bruoswick, and they
if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the
dominions of the party by whom such grants wero came to the United States Treasury and asked specified I think in the fifth article.
made.” that those commissioners should be paid for Mr. CONNESS. That is as much as the It seems the State of Maine had granted their services, and they were so paid out of the Indians get for their lands.
land beyond the prescribed boundary to its citTreasury of the United States, and thereby Mr. FESSENDEN. We do not trouble || izens in New Brunswick, and those grants in the United States Government acknowledged ourselves about the price, that was settled ; New Brunswick were confirmed by Great Brit: the right of Maine and Massachusetts to this but another article was that by which it was ain, while Great Britain had granted lands indemnity.
agreed between the high contracting parties, within the conceded boundary which Maine Furthermore, there were two grants of Great Britain and the United States, that the also confirmed. The two parties confirmed the townships, the grant of Eaton and the grant settlers on the public lands in the State of grants made by each other; and the article of Plymouth. The rties who held those Maine should be quieted in their titles. Lands further provided : grants came to Congress and asked that Con had been settled by parties from New Bruus "And all equitable possessory claims, arising from gress should pay them for the land which indi wick. The result was to take a very consider a possession and iinprovement of any lot or parcel viduals had taken under the fourth article of able number of acres in addition-I suppose
of land by the person actually in possession, or by the treaty of Washington, and Congress allowed it is correctly specified in the amendment
those under whom such person claims, for more than
six years before the date of this treaty, shall, in like over forty thousand dollars to the holders of out of the lands belonging to the State of manner, be deemed valid, and be confirmed aed those grants of Eaton and Plymouth. Maine; and they were very fine lands, too,
quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto, Again, on the 2d of February, 1802, the up there in that section of country, perhaps | as best to include the improvements made thereon
of he title to such lot or parcel of land so described, agents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts some of the richest lands in Maine, and trans and in all other respects
the two contracting parties conveyed to the trustees of Williams College a fer them to these settlers, who had no title
agree to deal upon the most libcral principles of township of land lying on the conventional line whatever under anybody. They were taken
equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the
territory falling to them, respectively, which has established by the treaty of Washington as the by the agreement between the parties, and our heretofore been in dispute between them." boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.
supreme court held that that being a treaty It is manifest that upon this language no In 1832 tbe agent of the trustees of the college was properly binding upon us. As that was
claim could be made by any one. If grants conveyed the land to one Little. On the 12ih taken from Maine by the Government of the had been made in the State of Maine by Great of August, 1841, George Watson obtained a United States, the claim is that it shall be paid Britain, and the settlers had actually taken grant of a portion of this land from the prov for at the rate of $1 25 an acre, which is the
possession of the lands granted and occupied ince of New Brunswick, and was in possession rate paid for public lands. Lands have been them for six years, the grants were approved, of the premises at the time the treaty was rat sold in that region within a very short period ratified, and confirmed, and the Government ified. Little brought a suit in the supreme for from two to eight dollars an acre, never
of the United States guarantied to treat those court of Maine for the recovery of his land. less than two dollars. Upon this claim of the The court decided that as a treaty was the State of Maine there have been seven distinct ll it would citizens of the State of Maine ; and
settlers under British grants in good faith as
so vice versa grants had been made by the State Now, we bring ourselves within the first boundary of Quebec. There was no dispute of Maine in New Brunswick, citizens of Maine branch of the rule; we have the recommenda as to the boundary until after the war of 1812, had settled in New Brunswick, and Great tion of the Committee on Foreign Relations when England found it necessary to push ber Britain guarantied and recognized and made which has settled this question, I believe, three troops up from Halifax to Quebec. English valid their possessory rights if they had been times, and to which it was referred at this statesmen saw then the advantage of a military in possession six years; but no claim, either very session. It has always gone to the Com-road over this line, which belonged to the State by ihe State of Maine or by the State of Mas mittee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and of Maine, and when our commissioners were sachusetts, or by any individual, could be to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the negotiating the treaty of Ghent the British Gov. made against the Government of the United House of Representatives. It was deemned ernment made an application to those commisStates under this article. Consequently this proper to go to that committee because it was sioners for the purchase of this territory; that claim of $146,600 does not arise out of the under the provisions of a treaty, and all the is, for sí such a variation of the line of frontier execution of a treaty.
There is no treaty reports have been made from the Committee as may secure a direct cominunication between stipulation in this article that the United States on Foreign Affairs in the House and the Com Quebec and Halifax.'' The commissioners shall pay either to Great Britain or to the mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. | replied “that they have no authority to cede State of Maine, or to the settlers upon these Now, shall it be said that this is not to carry any part of the State of Massachusetts even for lands, or to anybody else, any sum of money, out the provisions of a treaty simply because what the British Government might consider a or make any compensation to them directly or the treaty does not say in so many words that fair equivalent." indirectly. I am not sufficiently acquainted this land shall be paid for, and merely says
So the matter went on. In all the negotiwith the equity of this claim to know much that it shall be taken and appropriated? That ations it was assumed by the officers of the about it, but I know very well that it is a claim is hanging on a very slender thread and mak United States Government, as well as by the dip. which has been here many years. I have a ing a point so nice that nobody, it seems to me, lomats of Great Britain, that neither party had distinct recollection of it myself since 1860. I except my very astute friend from Ohio could the right to consummate a treaty without the think it ought to be sent to the Court of Claims, possibly see it. I am perfectly willing to leave assent of Massachusetts and Maine; and Mr. or to the Committee on Claims, and if they the question to the Senate, and I hope they will Webster was the first man who ever intimated shall report in favor of it I shall not have the not get rid of the equity of the claim by ruling that the United States Government by the slightest objection to providing for it in the it out on a point of order. If they say we are treaty-making power could cede away any porregular way; but it seems to me it is not right not to be paid for the land thus taken it is tion of the territory of a State without the to put a disputed private claim on an appro another question.
assent of that State; and even he thought it so priation bill.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Ohio, as doubtful a case that he asked to have comThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is a I understood his argument, did not make any missioners appointed by Massachusetts and question of a good deal of importance, and serious objection to the equity of this case. 1 Maine in order to secure their assent to the the Chair will submit the decision of it to the understood him to found bis objection, so far treaty; and it was only after those commissionSenate,
as he ventured upon any, upon a technicality, ers had given their assent to the treaty that the Mr. FESSENDEN. The point taken is upon a mere point of form. He says that the treaty was consummated. rather a narrow one; and a similar amendo proposition as now moved is not in order. Very There were seven million acres of land at ment has been decided several times by the well; the Senator from Maine who has just issue between Great Britain and the United Chair to be in order. It was repeatedly so taken his seat has answered himn completely on States. The State of Maine lost three million decided in regard to the claiın that was made one point. He has shown that this is a case acres, which were given over to New Brunsby individuals under the same clause of the arising under a treaty. Who can doubt it? wick, which she did not possess before, so that treaty. There is no specific provision in the You cannot adopt the contrary conclusion with if people from Maine had gone over and settreaty itself that these lands shall be paid for out going into a technicality which it seems to tled on that territory New Brunswick did not by the Government; but the language of the me is entirely out of place on this occasion. lose anything, but she gained three million rule is general, “ to carry out a treaty stipula Clearly this case does arise under a treaty. But acres of land, and settlers, too. Ou the other tion." The treaty stipulation provides for for the treaty it never would arise ; but for the band, the State of Maine lost the land which taking lands by the Government of the United treaty it could not have occurred; but for the these squatters from New Brunswick had taken States belonging to the State of Maine, and treaty it could not find a place before Con away from the States of Maine and Massachu. conveying them to somebody else without the gress. It therefore is ultra technical to say that setts without one cent of remuneration. So assent of the State of Maine, and valuable it does not arise under the provisions of a treaty the cases are not parallel at all. lands. That is done by treaty. The United simply because the terms of that treaty have not Furthermore, the commissioners from MasStates take them and convey them to others. in so many words specifically anticipated this sachusetts and Maine, who were the leading Now, is it to be understood that when that was precise case. I say that it does arise under men of that day in those two States, never the treaty stipulation, the Government meant
would give their assent to the treaty unul this to take lands to which they had no title them But then there is another objection of the fourth article had been put into the treaty; selves from the owners and transfer those lands Senator from Obio which I wish to meet. The and I can give you their opinion as to whether to somebody else without paying for them? be Senator from Ohio treats this as a private Massachusetts and Maine should be indemnified cause that is the idea of the Senator. Because claim. I object to that point. It is the claim
for this lost land. First, I will give you the it is not specifically said in this article of the of a State, and I insist that the claim of a State opinion of Governor Kent, one of the leading treaty that these lands shall be paid for by the cannot be treated as a private claim. Why, men of Maine. United States, he argues that
sir, according to the most familiar usage of In reference to the stipulation in the fifth article sumed that they were not to be paid for, but this body resolutions from the Legislature of a
for the payment to Maine and Massachusetts of tho
sum of $300,000, I say, as one of the commissioners of were to be taken by the United States without State are treated very differently from those of a Maine, that I considered that sum as paid for the the assent of the owners and transferred to public body or from the pretition of individuals, surrender on the part of the two States of their claim somebody else. however important or eminent the individuals
to the land which, by the treaty, fell within the
British doininion; and I never regarded it or thought As I stated, it has been repeatedly ruled by may be. A State in this Chamber has a dis
of it as being compensation for the land, the titlo the Chair that this did specifically come within tinctive character; a State is part of the Gov to which was to be confirmed or granted under the the provision of the rule, the language " to
fourth article." ernment of this Republic; and the claim of a
"I feel impelled to say that I thought at the time. carry out a treaty stipulation ;'' and it has been State cannot be excluded from an appropria and still think, tbat Maine is entitled to great conalso so ruled by the Senate within my recol. tion bill on any mere technicality as a private
sideration on the part of the Union and her sister lection. Once it was ruled the other way, and
States for her readiness to sacrifice so much of what claim. It is not a private claim; it is the
she rightly deemed her own for the sake of settling i I think properly ruled the other way on the claim of a State, to be recognized as such, long-rexed question. It is difficult for any one who reason given for it; and that was that it was having a distinctive character, and entitled was not familiar with the controversy, and with the brought up after twelve o'clock at night and always to respect in this Chamber. I object,
sensitive and outraged feelings of her citizens, and
the deep convictious of their rights, to appreciate the offered on an appropriation bill on the last therefore, to the point of the Senator from extent of those sacrifices of feelings and property, but night of the session, when no explanation what Ohio. I say that this, in the first place, is not
having determined to yield that assent, she has faith
fully and promptly performed her part of the conever could be given of it and there was no time a private claim; and in the next place, assum
tract, and assisied the United States to fulfillitsoblifor debate. That was the point made, and on ing that it is a private claim, I say that it gations. that occasion the Senate refused to hear it on comes under the provisions of a treaty; and
" It will be observed that the fourth article does not
provide that these grants and confirmations shall be the point of order made. Congress never has here I stop. I will not go into the equity
inade by the States of Maine and Massachusetts, but decided this claim, but it has decided the prin Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. simply that the United States shall cause them to be ciple in two other specific cases,
In the case
land would belong to Maine under the general law of Mr. Little, where I presented the petition Government quieted the titles of those who had
of eminent domain, or to Maine and Massachusetts myself, and in the case of the owners of the gone over from Maine and settled in the ter
under their special compact. If it had been underEaton and Plymouth grants, so called, Con ritory of New Brunswick, and that the United stood that these States were to make the grants at
their own expense, and without any claim for remungress gave indeninity to individuals for land States agreed to quiet the claims of those wbo eration, it would have been so expressed: and the taken precisely in the same way. Then comes had come over from New Brunswick and settled assent which was given by the commissioners of the the question whether they will inake the same upon the territory of Maine. That is not quite two States would have bound them to such a distinct
provision. indemnity to the State, being the owners of correct. It will be remembered by Senators
* Again, the States named could at any time grant the land, that they made to the individual; 1) that the boundary between Maine and New or confirm titles to this land without consulting the and it stands precisely upon the same principle. Brunswick and Canada was the old boundary United States. Why, then, was such a provision inThere is not the slightest difference in the
serted in the treaty, so far as the States were conof Quebec settled in 1763. Alter the revolu
no obligation was assumed by the United world.
tionary war we simply affirmed in 1783 thell States? They could have made tho sacritice of all
is to be pre
this land if they bad thought fit without compensa to be decided upon the test of whether it arises she has executed releases according to the
the ser tion, without any treaty stipulation."
under a treaty or not. That was quite contrary terms of the treaty. The stipulation of the And Mr. Abbott Lawrence, who is well to my remembrance of the rule, and I have treaty is directly that a release shall be giren. known to members of the Senate, our former referred to it. I have it here, and I beg to call
Who is to give it? Of necessity the owners
tional minister to the Court of St. James, also gave the attention of Senators to the fact that if it give it, and the United States must oblige the his assent to this opinion of Governor Kent. does arise under a treaty, that clothes it with owners or prevail on the owners to do it. The In 1844 the Legislature of Maine authorized no admissibility under this rule, as I conceive: amendment is therefore to carry out a treaty its Governor, only two years after the treaty “And no amendment shall be received whose objeet stipulation directly and properly, and for 10 was consummated, to come here and claim is to provide for a private claim, unless it be to carry other purpose, and that brings it directly indemnity for this land, and the Legislature of
out the provisions of an existing law or a treaty within the exception of the rule. Maine in 1845 passed this resolve: stipulation."
Mr. CONKLİNG. It is very difficult even *. Resolved, That Maine has a just and equitable
I take it there is no doubt in the minds of a for the Senator from Maine, with his skill in claim upon the Government of the United States for majority of the Senate that this is a private discussion, to discuss this point of order withfull remuneration for her proportion of all ands set claim. I do not understand the honorable out referring to the merits of the proposition, off to claimants under the provisions of article four of the treaty of Washington, and the Governor is
Senator from Maine to deny that. I do not and it is difficult to meet what he suggests hereby authorized and requested to present the same think it can be denied legally, although I | without referring to the merits of the proposito the General Government for adju tment and allow understood the Senator from Massachusetts in tion, which I did not mean to do; but I beg to ance,"
a certain sense to make a distinction between Mr. TESSENDEN. I wisk to say simply
suggest to him my view of the point which he this and a claim due to an individual. The that in this same fourth article there is a pro.
now presents. The treaty stipulations were question, then, is whether it is to carry out the between the Government of the United States vision that releases shall be given. The United provisions of a treaty stipulation. I should and the Government of Great Britain. The . States Government stipulates in this fourth like to know what treaty stipulation there is to provision was that releases should be executed article that releases shall be given for these be carried out by this appropriation. The quieting these titles, as the Senator says. Now lands. The Government of the United States could not do it; the only persons who could
argument is that the Government of the United il admit, if you please, for the sake of the argu
Siates having made a treaty with Great Britain execute releases were the owners.
ment, that nobody could do that except the The State settling boundaries and other considerations, State of Maine, though that is a question which of Maine is the owner, and she wishes remun one effect of that treaty was to divest the State will be debated when we come to the merits eration before executing the release. Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire.
of Maine, or constructively divest it, of its title of this proposition. It has been debated by
to certain lands, and that therefore, upon con those who have made minority reports on And let me say that there are over a thousand siderations ethical, upon considerations dehors | the subject, one of which I hold in any hand. persons to-day waiting for these releases. They the treaty, in a certain sense a claim arises But admitting that the State of Maine was the cannot sell those lands because they have no over against the Government of the United good title.
proper grantor in these quit claims to be given, States by the State of Maine. That presup I ask the Senator where is the provision in Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to ask the Sen
poses at once that it is not to carry out a treaty ator from New Hampshire how this claim stipulation. The very essence and gravamen
this treaty that the Government of the United
States should pay to the State of Maine the comes to be before the Committee on Foreign of it is that in carrying out a treaty certain sums which are now proposed? Relations; whether it was referred to the com hardship is occurred to the State of Maine for The Senator may say that if Maine was to mittee by the Senate ?
which that State asks recompense of the GenMr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire.
release this land she ought to have a remedy over eral Government. If there was any treaty stip- agninst the General Government. Granted; Yes, sir ; referred to that committee in the ulation on this subject, certainly no legislation Senate and House of Representatives both.
but the treaty is silent on that point, and Mr. of this sort would be necessary. Therefore I It is under a treaty; the treaty of Washington. || humbly submit that although it arises under a
Orth, and three otber gentlemen concurring Mr. HENDRICKS. In what form was it treaty, manifestly it is not to carry out the
with him in the minority report which I hold
in my hand find, as I should fear if I were a referred? How did it come to be referred at provisions of an existing law or a treaty stipthis session of Congress ?
friend of the proposition the Senate would finil, ulation,''
that article five of the Ashburton treaty gavo Mr. FESSENDEN. At this session of Con Mr. SHERMAN. If my friend from New to the State of Maine her recompense, that a gress it was not referred; it was taken before York will allow me, I will state that my recol. specific $300,000 was intended, as these four the comunitiee at my request, having been re lection was that this claim has been heretofore gentlemen tind, to pay and liquidate this very ferred there before.
excluded from the appropriation bills upon a Jr. HENDRICKS. This is a private claim, point of order; and I am informed now by the
equity now asserter. I do not mean to go into and should bave been considered with a view || Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY] that that
that, however. Suffice it to say, for the sake to a separate bill, if it has merits, by the Com.
of my point, that the treaty stipulation is that is the case.
I have not been able to find it in mittee on Claims. I do not think the Com
these parties shall be quitted in their titles. the Journal, but my
That was done in 1842. Now, I ask, where is jurisdiction over a particular amendment to a
the treaty stipulation pursuant to which $1 25 sas stated to me that while he occupied the bill because it is a committee taking charge of
per acre is to be paid by the General Govern. chair last year he did exclude this very claim ment to the State of Maine for this debatable a piece of business not referred to it specially, on the point now made. and it is out of its jurisdiction and offering ati
territory. I do not see any such provision as
Mr. FESSENDEN. One word in reply. that, and I do not think the argument of the amendment to a bill where it is not at all ger The language of this clause will satisfy every Senator goes to the purpose.
body that the amendment is to carry out a Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the Sen
Mr. PATTERSON,' of New Hampshire. treaty stipulation in so many words. What ator that the Committee on Foreign Relations
Allow me to ask a question. There is a some. does the Government of the United States is the only committee in the House of Repre; agree to do?
wbuit parallel case to this which has lately
come up in the House. We made a treaty sentatives and the Senate who ever have had
"And all equitable posgessory claims arising from with Russia last year by which we agreed to charge of wis claim, They have always had
a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel pay $7,200,000 for Alaska. The question charge of it by reason of its arising under a of land by the person actually in possession or by treaty. Here is a report made by Mr. Doo those under whom such person claims, for more thin
came up in the House whether an appropriasix years before the date of this treaty, shall in like LITTLE in the Thirty-Seventh Congress : manner be deemed valid and be confirmed and tion bill or not.
The Committee on Appro"The Committee on Foreign Relations having been
quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto," instructed by the Senate to inquire what further
priations claimed that it belonged properly on
The Government of the United States stipulegislation, if any, is required to carry into effect the
that bill. I believe the Committee on Toreign fourth article of the treaty with Great Britain of late that there shall be a quieting of title by a Affairs contested that, because they wanted to August 9, 1842, submitted the following report.' release. That is the treaty stipulation. manipulate the $7,200,000, thinking the ap
He submitted a report with a much larger Mr. CONKLING. That has been done. propriation might not get through if it went to bill than this. It has been always before that Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir ; that has not the Committee on Appropriations ; but the committee, and none other.
been done, because there is nobody that can Committee on Appropriations claimed that it Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I grant the release but the State of Maine, the belonged to them under the rule, and that it have one by Senator Wade, one by Senator owner of the land ; and the State of Maine comes should go on the appropriation bill. I want Clark, one by Mr. Rice, of the touse of here and says, “ Pay us the value of this land, to know if that is not a parallel case to this? Representatives, and one by myself, all from which is estimated at $1 25 an acre, and we Mr. CONKLING. If my honorable friend the Comunittee on Foreign Affairs.
will grant these releases," and they cannot be will allow me now to turn his illustration upon Mr. CONKLING. The question before the granted without. The treaty cannot be carried
him, it seems to me it points the precise moral Senate, as I understand, is a point of order, out, this stipulation cannot be performed, which I seek to enforce here. There was a which is about to be decided by Senators, very unless the State of Maine--the owner of the stipulation between the Government of the few of whom, I judge, have read for themselves land-executes these releases. They have United States and the emperor of Rassia that the rule. I supposed I remembered generally never been executed, and, as my friend from & specified sum of money should be paid by the rule until I heard the argument of the New Hampshire suggests, to this day these the one to the other for a particular purpose. honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and men cannot sell their lands for anything like a That was of the very essence of the treaty then I supposed that it must be quite different good price, because this is a cloud upon their stipulation ; and when the House Committee from my recoilection in order to bear out the
title. This very amendment says that so much on Appropriations said that it belonged to argument which he based upon it. I under: money shall be paid to the State of Maine for them they laid their hands upon a rule which stood him to reason this question as if it were these lands, but that it shall not be paid until declared that a sum of money to be paid under
mittee on Foreign Relations can ex officio take them to UON KUING.recome senator from Kan