town, the city of Washington, and the levy court of the county of Washington, District of Columbia, be, and they are hereby, authorized to levy and collect a special tax on the taxable property within their respective jurisdictions, for the erection of schoolhouses and the support of public schools, not exceeding fifty cents on each $100 for any one year, to be assessed and collected as other taxes.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. To what does that apply?

Mr. HARLAN. It increases the maximum amount of tax that may be assessed and collected by the proper authorities, in pursuance of the suggestion of the Senator from Vermont. In the District outside the cities the maximum is now twenty-five cents on the $100 of assessable property.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. To be consistent, I suppose l ought to suggest that this does not seem to be exactly germane to this bill.

Mr. HARLAN. I hope the Senator will not make that objection. I am very anxious that this provision should go through, and I think it is important for the welfare of the citizens of the District that it should be passed. It might fail in any other form.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. I offer in behalf of my colleague, [Mr. SPRAGUE,] who has been called away by pressing business, an amendment which has the sanction of the Committee on Commerce, and which the Committee on Appropriations, I believe, have agreed to, to come in on page 9, after line one hundred and eighty-nine:

For a life-boat to be stationed at the south end of Narragansett beach, Rhode Island, $2,000.

It is important for the safety of human life. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Committee on Commerce recommend it?

Mr. ANTHONY. Yes, sir. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ANTHONY. I am also requested by my colleague to offer an amendment of which he gave notice to the Committee on Appropriations, and which has the sanction, I believe, of the Committee on Manufactures. Some time ago I had the honor to offer a proposition, which was accepted by the Senate, raising a commission to make some experiments in regard to the cultivation and cottonization of flax. The result of those experiments, although they did not lead to any process by which flax could be manufactured upon cotton machinery, has been exceedingly satisfactory. Flax has been used for a great many purposes for which it was not used before. It is used for admixture with wool in place of cotton to very great advantage, making a better fabric and a better mixture and better colors. The appropriation for that purpose, which was $20,000, was not exhausted. Only $9,500 were used, and the balance has lapsed into the Treasury under the general law. The amendment which I now offer provides that the balance of that appropriation, $10,500, may be expended under the direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture to test the cultivation and preparation of madderroot in this country. We have the climate, we have the soil, we have every facility for the preparation of this important commodity, which now takes a great deal of money out of the country, except that labor is too high here, and we only require some labor-saving invention, such as American ingenuity has applied to almost every other process of manufacture, and it will enable us to save a large amount of money that we now lose. The amendment is to add to the appropriations in the bill:

For experiments in the cultivation and preparation of the madder-root, $10,500, to be expended under the direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Mr. COLE. I would like to know, in the first place, if this has the indorsement of any committee; and if so, what committee.

Mr. ANTHONY. The sanction of the Committee on Manufactures, and has been before the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. COLE. I happen to be a member of the Committee on Manufactures, and there has been no meeting of that committee this session. This is a proposition to experiment

in reference to an agricultural product. I do not know any good reason why there should be an appropriation by the General Government for the purpose of carrying on a mere experiment of this sort.

Mr. ANTHONY. I will correct myself; it was the Committee on Agriculture. I thought it was the Committee on Manufactures. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is here.

Mr. COLE. Then, as to the merits of the measure, I understand the Senator from Rhode Island to say that his particular part of the Union is very well adapted to this product. It seems to me, if that is the case, it should be carried on without any appropriation from the General Government. I do not see that it has any more merit than any other proposition for a mere experiment. I do not think, indeed, it has half as much merit as an experiment as some propositions that have been offered to this bill and have not been received.

Mr. CAMERON. Perhaps I can make an explanation that will meet the views of the Senator from California. Some years ago there was an appropriation made of $20,000 to make experiments in the culture of linen flax, and experiments upon machinery for using flax so as to make it more easily manufactured, to make it more easily produced into cloth, as cotton is. Experiments were made until they expended $9,500 of the $20,000, and the balance is, or ought to be, in the Treasury. There is an unexpended balance of $10,500 of that appropriation; and now it is proposed, and I think very wisely, that the balance of that appropriation shall be used, so far as it may be necessary, to bring the madder-root into proper cultivation in this country.

Madder is a production of India. For long years it was brought entirely from India into France, into Holland, and into England. It is used, as everybody knows, very largely as a dye-stuff in this country. In Holland it is produced upon the dykes and other waste lands. In France, down upon the Rhone, the river which empties into the Mediterranean at Marseilles, all the swamp lands are now occupied in the production of the madder-root; and so valuable has it been to that country that a monument costing hundreds of thousands of dollars has been erected to the laboring man who first introduced it into that country. On the dykes of Holland, where they can produce nothing else, they produce the madder-root. It is believed that in our southern country here, with a climate as favorable as the valley of the Rhone, and a soil part of it as useless and yet as productive as the dykes of Holland, this root can be produced in any quantity. Í am not able to give the proper statistics, but some millions of dollars, five or six millions, I think, are expended annually in bringing this dye-stuff to our country. If we can, by an expenditure of five or ten million dollars in experiments, make this one of the products of our own country, we shall be doing a benefit to the country. It has been well said that whoever causes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before is a public benefactor.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Will the Senator allow me to ask him what this experiment contemplates; whether it is an experiment under the personal supervision of the Commissioner of Agriculture, and on the public grounds?

Mr. CAMERON. No; the expenditure is to be under the direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture in the country.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. What particular section of the country is supposed to be adapted to this?

Mr. CAMERON, All the southern States; Virginia and Maryland, and especially North Carolina. It is believed that with their climate on their soil madder can be raised without any difficulty; but some money must be expended so as to induce people to go into the cultiva tion. The suggestion is made by the Senator from Rhode Island, not now present, [Mr. SPRAGUE,] who is a large manufacturer as we

all know, and in whose intelligence we all have confidence. If he were here he could give the statistics, which would, I am sure, satisfy the Senate of the propriety of this. I only know in general terms that it would be a great benefit to the country to make this one of our annual products, and I trust the appropriation will be made.

Mr. ANTHONY. I will ask to have a letter read from the Commissioner of Agriculture on this subject, and I will say that I think my friend from California does not show his usual generosity, after we have been voting all sorts of things for his section of country, to object to this little appropriation of an unexpended balance we have saved out of previous appropriations.

Mr. COLE. There is no telling where this will end. If we make this appropriation it may result in putting upon us the necessity of sending this madder-root all over the United States. I do not know where it is to end. If it were to end with this appropriation it might probably be less obnoxious.

Mr. ANTHONY. It is an unexpended appropriation, which has lapsed into the Treasury, that was made for experiments in flax two or three years ago. This is only to apply the balance of it.

Mr. COLE. It is a balance of an appropriation which was made for another and very distinct purpose.

Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly.

Mr. COLE. I do not see why it is different from an appropriation out and out from the Treasury. The money has gone into the Treasury, and it seems to me it is just like voting a new appropriation of $10,500.

Mr. CAMERON. Agriculture in this country has been an experiment from the first settlement of the country, and is still an experiment. We are every year going on to improve. I suppose all the men who are past forty years of age remember that sixty years ago the red clover was not in this country until it was brought from abroad, and nothing has given so much benefit to the agriculture of the country as the introduction of the red clover. Timothy, which makes the great amount of the hay of all the northern States, was brought into this country not more than seventy years ago.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask my friend if they were brought here by an appropriation made out of the Treasury by the General Government?

Mr. CAMERON. That is hardly a fair question. Certainly they were not, because seventy years ago the Government's whole revenue was not more than five or six millions a year, and its expenditures were certainly not more than that; but we have become stronger and abler to protect interests which have benefited the country every year since then. I do not think the Senator from Maine will vote against this appropriation when we have been doing so much for his fisheries and forests up there.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I only wanted to know whether private interests had not done some of these things?

Mr. CAMERON. Private enterprise in the State of Maine was very much stimulated by appropriations of the General Government in favor of the fisheries, and so I could tell you of other things.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The letter called for by the Senator from Rhode Island will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, June 24, 1868. SIR: In answer to yours of the 23d instant relative flax, and to the feasibility of madder production, I to the unexpended appropriation for cottonizing

have the honor to observe that the unexpended balance, after the committee's investigations, was $10,500, which has been covered in the Treasury, and therefore cannot be reached except by an appropriation for the specific purpose.

I would respectfully suggest the importance of a practical experiment, conducted under Government 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 are presented the only difficulties which confront the business in this country. Such test is not likely to be undertaken voluntarily by individuals, and can be accomplished by the Government at a slight expense. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HORACE CAPRON, Commissioner.

Hon. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, United States Senate.
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. I have an amendment to offer now which does not take any money out of the Treasury. I am instructed by the Committee on Printing to offer this amendment as an additional section:

And be it further enacted. That all laws and parts of laws that regulate the price of labor in the Government Printing Office be, and the same are hereby, repealed; and it shall be the duty of the Congressional Printer to contract with the persons in that employment at such prices as are for the interest of the Government, and are just to those employed.

There are several laws and regulations that have been inserted from time to time in appropriation bills which regulate the price of labor in the Government Printing Office and create a great deal of embarrassment to the Superintendent in carrying it on. This amendment repeals those laws, and allows him to make contracts just the same as all other heads of Departments do with persons who do work for

them.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Does this repeal the eighthour law?

Mr. ANTHONY. No; it does not affect that.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Do those laws do any more than provide that he shall pay the same price that is paid for the same kind of work outside?

Mr. ANTHONY. There is a law compelling the Congressional Printer to pay the same prices that are paid for similar work in this city. There is a Typographical Society here, composed exclusively of those who are em ployed, not the employers, and they regulate the price, and a majority of the members of this society are employed in the Government Printing Office. The employment of printers by the Government is so large that they make a majority of all the printers in this city. This society, of which they form a majority, meets and regulates the price, and that becomes the price which private employers pay; and then they carry to the Superintendent a certified copy of the resolution they have passed, and he has to pay the same price under the law, the result of which is that frequently he has to pay twenty or thirty per cent. more than is paid elsewhere. And not only that, but he has to submit to the dictation of this society as to how many apprentices he shall have. The result is to place the whole Government Printing Office under the control of that society, a majority of which is composed of those who are working in the Government Printing Office.

Mr. SHERMAN. I inquire whether, since the eight-hour law has passed, they have not worked under that law and yet received the same wages that they did for ten hours labor?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on Printing

a question, and that is whether the Superintendent of Public Printing has not informed him that since the passage of the eight-hour law he will be compelled to ask for twenty per cent. additional appropriation unless this measure shall pass?

Mr. ANTHONY. I suppose he will have to ask for an additional appropriation anyhow, because even after this proposition passes he is compelled, under the law of Congress, to pay for eight hours' work the same that other people pay for ten hours' work.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator must be mistaken about that, because it was demonstrated the other day by Senators that they would do more work in eight hours than they possibly could do in ten, and have time for great intellectual improvement besides. [Laughter.]

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I understand that the Commissioner of Agriculture, who has contracts for labor, will be compelled to ask for an addition of twenty per cent. to his appropri

ations.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. There was an amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CRAGIN] requiring that any alterations in the Capitol should be done under the direction of the architect of the Capitol extension. I have made two or three attempts since I have been here to save those beautiful works of art, the bronze doors, among the most beautiful things of the kind in existence. Those doors are now placed in the very position that would have been selected if the object had been to place them where they could be least seen, least appreciated, most injured, and to the greatest inconvenience of passers-by. They are in a narrow passage. They face inward instead of the valves being turned outward, as they should be, so as to be exhibited. They collect a crowd around there which impedes the passage from one House to the other; and the fine points of the bronze are continually abraded by persons passing through with umbrellas and canes; and a number of sinall pieces, such as swords and caps and things that are not very tightly fastened, have been taken off and carried away. It may be said that these doors belong to that part of the Capitol which is under the charge of the House of Representatives, but the Speaker of the House desires that what I propose shall be done; and I did at the last session have the approbation of the chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings to it; but a simple resolution passed by one House can hardly be passed by the other; but if the amendment which I now offer be adopted on this bill I think it will save these doors.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I beg the Senator not to put it on this bill.

Mr. ANTHONY. Allow the amendment to be read. It is perfectly germane to an amendment that has already been adopted. In fact, this amendment is to come in after that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amend ment will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to insert after the amendment adopted on the motion of Mr. CRAGIN

And the architect of the Capitol extension, under the direction of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the two Houses of Congress, is hereby authorized and directed to remove the bronze doors in the southern wing of the Capitol temporarily to some position where they will be safe from injury.

Mr. ANTHONY. That will be so, of course. Mr. SHERMAN. Is it not so now? Mr. ANTHONY. I did not know that that bill had become a law yet; but whenever it becomes a law of course they will receive the same wages for working eight hours that other printers receive for working ten hours. But, Mr. President, this does not interfere with the eight-hour law. I would not have the temerity to stand up against the just principles of political economy that regulate the hours of labor between employers and employed. I should be afraid of my friend from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] if I did. But I think the prices may be left to the parties hiring and the parties hired. I desire that all those employed in the Government Printing Office in this city should have the highest wages that are paid for similar services anywhere; but when you pay them higher wages than are paid elsewhere the result is that it becomes a favor to get into the Gov-it to be regarded as a favorable opportunity to ernment Printing Office, and political influence is constantly used to put in political men instead of good printers.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I had hoped after the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] this morning withdrew his general proposition for a funding system as an amendment to this bill, the Senate would take notice of that fact, and would not think it proper to make this an omnibus bill for all sorts of legislation. It must be an omnibus bill to some extent for all sorts of appropriations; but I submit that neither now, nor at any time hereafter, ought

put on every species of legislation that can be conceived of from all the committees, to be precipitated upon the other House.

Mr. ANTHONY. Will my friend allow me to remind him that he assented to an amendment to which this is precisely germane? This is only a continuation of the same amendment.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I then made the remark with a loud voice, in the hearing and presence of the honorable Senator from Rhode Island, that I thought it was not germane and ought not to be insisted upon; but I had not the slightest idea that he was going to make that a precedent for an application of this kind. I do not know that I am going to object, for I have not the slightest idea that it would be of any use; but I think hereafter I shall make a most stout resistance, if I have the honor to present another appropriation bill, to everything of this description.

Mr. ANTHONY. I will join the Senator in that.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. With that pledge I will sit down.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I am authorized by the Committee on Foreign Relations to offer this amendment as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of executing the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, concluded on the 9th day of August, 1842, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Maine for ninety-one thousand one hundred and twenty-five acres of land assigned by said State to settlers under said article, a sum equal to $1 25 per acre; and to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for twenty-six thousand one hundred and fifty acres of land a sum equal to $1 25 per acre: Provided, Before said sums are paid the States of Maine and Massachusetts shall agree with the United States that the settlers upon their public lands in the late disputed territory in Maine entitled to be quieted in their possessions, as ascertained by commissions heretofore instituted by said States, shall have been or shall be quieted by a release of the title of the said States.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I must ask the Senator from New Hampshire where that comes from?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. It is not a new subject before the Senate. The amendment is reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations. I presume that answers the question of the Senator from Maine.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think this is an "old stager," and my friend from New Hampshire ought to tell us a little about it. I examined this claim some years ago, if it is the same that I suppose it to be. It is not specially my duty to object, nor am I sufficiently aware of the facts to make any opposition; but I think the Senate ought to understand that this involves between one and two hundred thousand

dollars, I do not know precisely how much.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. One hundred and forty-six thousand dollars.

Mr. SHERMAN. Iam not now sufficiently familiar with the history of the case to resist the appropriation, but I know it has been often considered heretofore and been rejected.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. This is not precisely the same question which has been before the Senate on former occasions. The bills which have been introduced into the Senate heretofore involved four claims: first, a claim for lands assigned to settlers under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington; second, a claim for the loss of timber upon the territory of Maine during the suspension of State jurisdiction between 1832 and 1839; third, a claim for the correction of an error made at the Treasury in computing the interest on the expenditures made by the State of Maine in defending her territory; and, fourth, a claim for interest upon advances made by Massachusetts in the war of 1812-15. This amendment drops all these claims except the first.

Under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington it was provided that those parties who had come in from the province of New Brunswick and settled upon the territory of Maine, either by grants from the Government of New Brunswick or without any grant simply came in and squatted upon the territory, should be quieted in their possession, and this by the appropriate virtue of the treaty-making power,

but the fee-simple of the territory was in Maine and Massachusetts. Maine and Massachusetts now come forward and simply claim that the United States Government, which took from those two States their territory and gave it to these private parties, shall pay them for the land thus taken from them; and the Congress of the United States has already adjudicated upon this question. There have been, I will say, seven favorable reports made to the House of Representatives and the Senate on this subject. One I remember was made by the present President of the Senate; one by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER;] One by the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.]

Mr. SUMNER. I would remind my friend that the report of the Senator from Wisconsin was a very elaborate document, going into the whole subject.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. There was also one from Mr. Clark, my predecessor. All these reports were favorable. I had this matter under consideration in the House of Representatives, investigated it thoroughly, and am entirely convinced that it is an honest claim and should be allowed.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wish to ask the Senator whether it was not provided by that treaty that Massachusetts and Maine should receive $300,000? What was that for?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I will say to the Senator from New Jersey that the fourth article of the treaty was not in the first draft of the treaty. It was put in at the suggestion of the commissioners of Massachu setts and Maine; but the $300,000 clause was in the fifth article of the treaty before the fourth article of the treaty was inserted, and it was simply to pay Massachusetts and Maine for three million acres of land which they lost by the treaty, and which went to New Bruns wick. I will say, furthermore, that the United States did not lose that amount of $300,000, for New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, all three, received large additions to their territory by this treaty. The United States also received over four million acres of mineral territory between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods-between Pegion river on the north and Fond du Lac and St. Louis river on the south-a tract of land vastly more valuable than all that Maine lost; so that the United States was a gainer, though it paid Maine and Massachusetts $300,000 for assenting to the treaty.

I will say, also, that in 1843, the year after this treaty was ratified, Maine and Massachusetts appointed commissioners to make a survey of the lands possessed by these parties who had come in from New Brunswick, and they came to the United States Treasury and asked that those commissioners should be paid for their services, and they were so paid out of the Treasury of the United States, and thereby the United States Government acknowledged the right of Maine and Massachusetts to this indemnity.

Furthermore, there were two grants of townships, the grant of Eaton and the grant of Plymouth. The parties who held those grants came to Congress and asked that Congress should pay them for the land which individuals had taken under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, and Congress allowed over forty thousand dollars to the holders of those grants of Eaton and Plymouth.

Again, on the 2d of February, 1802, the agents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts conveyed to the trustees of Williams College a township of land lying on the conventional line established by the treaty of Washington as the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. In 1832 the agent of the trustees of the college conveyed the land to one Little. On the 12th of August, 1841, George Watson obtained a grant of a portion of this land from the province of New Brunswick, and was in possession of the premises at the time the treaty was ratified. Little brought a suit in the supreme court of Maine for the recovery of his land. The court decided that as a treaty was the

supreme law it overrode a title derived from the State, and that the tenant could hold his land under the fourth article of said treaty. The court closes its decision in these words: "The demandant must seek compensation for the loss of his lands from the justice of his country.'

And Mr. Little came here and was paid for that land. Now, it seems to me a perfectly clear case; it seems to me that Congress has foreclosed this case; that it has already adjudicated this claim.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for information; what did Maine and Massachusetts do?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. They lost the land which was taken from them by parties who came over from New Brunswick under a grant from the government of New Brunswick, or came over and squatted without any graut whatever upon lands that belonged to Maine and Massachusetts during the time this question was in controversy.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And by treaty that land was ceded.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. By force of the treaty it went to the parties who were upon the land.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I can explain the whole matter just as it stands in a very few words. This was a disputed line. We were in constant collision ou the border there with Great Britain as to where the true line was. The fact as to where the line was was finally pretty well understood between the parties. Great Britain, however, desired to get a portion of the territory, and her great object was to have facilities for making a railroad between her provinces. She sent over a minister plenipotentiary to settle the question. The contracting powers agreed finally, or tried to agree, that a particular line should be adopted, which was confessedly within the limits of the State of Maine. That was done. A treaty was made with Great Britain called the treaty of Washington. The result of that treaty was to cut off about three million acres belonging

to the State of Maine. It also embraced the running of a new line, or rather an agreement that the line claimed by New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, as their northern bound

ary, which had always been disputed by Great

Britain, should be conceded to be the true line. By that means the Government got an important military position in New York, Rouse's Point, which was unquestionably on British territory; and a little strip of territory, which was also in dispute, was added to New Hampshire and Vermont. On the other hand Great Britain got from Maine about three million acres. For that we received $300,000, specified I think in the fifth article.

ME. CONNESS. That is as much as the Indians get for their lands.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We do not trouble ourselves about the price, that was settled; but another article was that by which it was agreed between the high contracting parties, Great Britain and the United States, that the settlers on the public lands in the State of Maine should be quieted in their titles. Lands had been settled by parties from New Brunswick. The result was to take a very considerable number of acres in addition-I suppose it is correctly specified in the amendmentout of the lands belonging to the State of Maine; and they were very fine lands, too, up there in that section of country, perhaps some of the richest lands in Maine, and transfer them to these settlers, who had no title whatever under anybody. They were taken by the agreement between the parties, and our supreme court held that that being a treaty was properly binding upon us. As that was taken from Maine by the Government of the United States, the claim is that it shall be paid for at the rate of $1 25 an acre, which is the rate paid for public lands. Lands have been sold in that region within a very short period for from two to eight dollars an acre, never less than two dollars. Upon this claim of the State of Maine there have been seven distinct

reports by committees of Congress, four in the Senate and three in the House of Representatives, all favorable, all saying that it was property taken from Maine for the benefit of the Government of the United States, which the United States should pay for. That is the simple case.

Mr. SHERMAN. I raise an objection to this amendment, on the ground that it provides for a private claim within the meaning of the thirtieth rule. It is the same point that has been made before, and on which, according to my recollection, this claim has been previously excluded. The latter clause of the thirtieth rule says:

"No amendment shall be received whose object is to provide for a private claim unless it be to carry out the provisions of an existing law or treaty stipulation."

There are two answers that have been heretofore made to this point: first, that a claim by a State is not a private claim; but that has never been held. It has been held in many cases that a claim by a State as well as by an individual, is a private claim. A private claim is where money is claimed to be due to an individual or a State or a corporation, for past services or for past debts. The second answer has been that it is to carry out a treaty stipulation; but it cannot be saved under that clause, because the fourth article of the treaty referred to expressly, on its face, shows that there was no stipulation for the payment of the money. The Chair will have to look at the treaty in order to determine the question. There was no stipulation in the treaty to pay any sum of money for these lands, or anything of the kind.

At

The general question arising on the Ashburton treaty I suppose is known. We made a new boundary line, settled a long dispute in, which it is claimed that the Government of the United States surrendered up a large amount of land to New Brunswick, but we got compensation in other parts of the country. disputed boundary line, Great Britain claiming any rate it was a settlement by the nation of a for New Brunswick considerably more than we surrendered, according to my recollection; but I cannot speak positively on that point. provided for by a treaty. I say it is not, and The question now is whether this is a claim

therefore it does not come within the rule. The fourth article of the treaty referred to reads:

"All grants of land made by either party, within the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified, and confirmed, to the persons in possession under such grants, to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made."

It seems the State of Maine had granted land beyond the prescribed boundary to its citizens in New Brunswick, and those grants in New Brunswick were confirmed by Great Britain, while Great Britain had granted lands within the conceded boundary which Maine also confirmed. The two parties confirmed the grants made by each other; and the article further provided:

"And all equitable possessory claims, arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed valid, and be confirmed and

quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto, of the title to such lot or parcel of land so described, as best to include the improvements made thereon: and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been in dispute between them."

It is manifest that upon this language no claim could be made by any one. If grants had been made in the State of Maine by Great Britain, and the settlers had actually taken possession of the lands granted and occupied them for six years, the grants were approved, ratified, and confirmed, and the Government of the United States guarantied to treat those settlers under British grants in good faith as it would citizens of the State of Maine; and

so vice versa grants had been made by the State of Maine in New Brunswick, citizens of Maine had settled in New Brunswick, and Great Britain guarantied and recognized and made valid their possessory rights if they had been in possession six years; but no claim, either by the State of Maine or by the State of Massachusetts, or by any individual, could be made against the Government of the United States under this article. Consequently this claim of $146,600 does not arise out of the execution of a treaty. There is no treaty stipulation in this article that the United States shall pay either to Great Britain or to the State of Maine, or to the settlers upon these lands, or to anybody else, any sum of money, or make any compensation to them directly or indirectly. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the equity of this claim to know much about it, but I know very well that it is a claim which has been here many years. I have a distinct recollection of it myself since 1860. I think it ought to be sent to the Court of Claims, or to the Committee on Claims, and if they shall report in favor of it I shall not have the slightest objection to providing for it in the regular way; but it seems to me it is not right to put a disputed private claim on an appropriation bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is a question of a good deal of importance, and the Chair will submit the decision of it to the Senate.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The point taken is rather a narrow one; and a similar amendment has been decided several times by the Chair to be in order. It was repeatedly so decided in regard to the claim that was made by individuals under the same clause of the treaty. There is no specific provision in the treaty itself that these lands shall be paid for by the Government; but the language of the rule is general, "to carry out a treaty stipula tion." The treaty stipulation provides for taking lands by the Government of the United States belonging to the State of Maine, and conveying them to somebody else without the assent of the State of Maine, and valuable lands. That is done by treaty. The United States take them and convey them to others. Now, is it to be understood that when that was the treaty stipulation, the Government meant to take lands to which they had no title themselves from the owners and transfer those lands to somebody else without paying for them? because that is the idea of the Senator. Because it is not specifically said in this article of the treaty that these lands shall be paid for by the United States, he argues that it is to be presumed that they were not to be paid for, but were to be taken by the United States without the assent of the owners and transferred to somebody else.

to

As I stated, it has been repeatedly ruled by the Chair that this did specifically come within the provision of the rule, the language carry out a treaty stipulation;" and it has been also so ruled by the Senate within my recollection. Once it was ruled the other way, and I think properly ruled the other way on the reason given for it; and that was that it was brought up after twelve o'clock at night and offered on an appropriation bill on the last night of the session, when no explanation what ever could be given of it and there was no time for debate. That was the point made, and on that occasion the Senate refused to hear it on the point of order made. Congress never has decided this claim, but it has decided the principle in two other specific cases. In the case of Mr. Little, where I presented the petition myself, and in the case of the owners of the Eaton and Plymouth grants, so called, Congress gave indemnity to individuals for land taken precisely in the same way. Then comes the question whether they will inake the same indemnity to the State, being the owners of the land, that they made to the individual; and it stands precisely upon the same principle. There is not the slightest difference in the world.

Now, we bring ourselves within the first branch of the rule; we have the recommenda tion of the Committee on Foreign Relations which has settled this question, I believe, three times, and to which it was referred at this very session. It has always gone to the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives. It was deemed proper to go to that committee because it was under the provisions of a treaty, and all the reports have been made from the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Now, shall it be said that this is not to carry out the provisions of a treaty simply because the treaty does not say in so many words that this land shall be paid for, and merely says that it shall be taken and appropriated? That is hanging on a very slender thread and making a point so nice that nobody, it seems to me, except my very astute friend from Ohio could possibly see it. I am perfectly willing to leave the question to the Senate, and I hope they will not get rid of the equity of the claim by ruling it out on a point of order. If they say we are not to be paid for the land thus taken it is another question.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Ohio, as I understood his argument, did not make any serious objection to the equity of this case. I understood him to found his objection, so far as he ventured upon any, upon a technicality, upon a mere point of form. He says that the proposition as now moved is not in order. Very well; the Senator from Maine who has just taken his seat has answered him completely on one point. He has shown that this is a case arising under a treaty. Who can doubt it? You cannot adopt the contrary conclusion without going into a technicality which it seems to me is entirely out of place on this occasion. Clearly this case does arise under a treaty. But for the treaty it never would arise; but for the treaty it could not have occurred; but for the treaty it could not find a place before Congress. It therefore is ultra technical to say that it does not arise under the provisions of a treaty simply because the terms of that treaty have not in so many words specifically anticipated this precise case. I say that it does arise under the provision of a treaty.

But then there is another objection of the Senator from Ohio which I wish to meet. The Senator from Ohio treats this as a private claim. I object to that point. It is the claim of a State, and I insist that the claim of a State cannot be treated as a private claim. Why, sir, according to the most familiar usage of this body resolutions from the Legislature of a State are treated very differently from those of a public body or from the petition of individuals, however important or eminent the individuals may be. A State in this Chamber has a distinctive character; a State is part of the Government of this Republic; and the claim of a State cannot be excluded from an appropriation bill on any mere technicality as a private claim. It is not a private claim; it is the claim of a State, to be recognized as such, having a distinctive character, and entitled always to respect in this Chamber. I object, therefore, to the point of the Senator from Ohio. I say that this, in the first place, is not a private claim; and in the next place, assuming that it is a private claim, I say that it comes under the provisions of a treaty; and here I stop. I will not go into the equity. Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. The Senator from Ohio says that the British Government quieted the titles of those who had gone over from Maine and settled in the territory of New Brunswick, and that the United States agreed to quiet the claims of those who had come over from New Brunswick and settled upon the territory of Maine. That is not quite correct. It will be remembered by Senators that the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick and Canada was the old boundary of Quebec settled in 1763. After the revolutionary war we simply affirmed in 1783 the

boundary of Quebec. There was no dispute as to the boundary until after the war of 1812, when England found it necessary to push her troops up from Halifax to Quebec. English statesmen saw then the advantage of a military road over this line, which belonged to the State of Maine, and when our commissioners were negotiating the treaty of Ghent the British Government made an application to those commis sioners for the purchase of this territory; that is, for "such a variation of the line of frontier as may secure a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax." The commissioners replied that they have no authority to cede any part of the State of Massachusetts even for what the British Government might consider a fair equivalent."

So the matter went on. In all the negotiations it was assumed by the officers of the United States Government, as well as by the diplomats of Great Britain, that neither party had the right to consummate a treaty without the assent of Massachusetts and Maine; and Mr. Webster was the first man who ever intimated that the United States Government by the treaty-making power could cede away any portion of the territory of a State without the assent of that State; and even he thought it so doubtful a case that he asked to have commissioners appointed by Massachusetts and Maine in order to secure their assent to the treaty; and it was only after those commissioners had given their assent to the treaty that the treaty was consummated.

There were seven million acres of land at issue between Great Britain and the United States. The State of Maine lost three million acres, which were given over to New Brunswick, which she did not possess before, so that if people from Maine had gone over and settled on that territory New Brunswick did not lose anything, but she gained three million acres of land, and settlers, too. On the other hand, the State of Maine lost the land which these squatters from New Brunswick had taken away from the States of Maine and Massachusetts without one cent of remuneration. So the cases are not parallel at all.

Furthermore, the commissioners from Massachusetts and Maine, who were the leading men of that day in those two States, never would give their assent to the treaty until this fourth article had been put into the treaty; and I can give you their opinion as to whether Massachusetts and Maine should be indemnified for this lost land. First, I will give you the opinion of Governor Kent, one of the leading men of Maine. He says:

"In reference to the stipulation in the fifth article for the payment to Maine and Massachusetts of the sum of $300,000, I say, as one of the commissioners of Maine, that I considered that sum as paid for the surrender on the part of the two States of their claim to the land which, by the treaty, fell within the British dominion; and I never regarded it or thought of it as being a compensation for the land, the title to which was to be confirmed or granted under the fourth article."

**

"I feel impelled to say that I thought at the time. and still think, that Maine is entitled to great consideration on the part of the Union and her sister

States for her readiness to sacrifice so much of what she rightly deemed her own for the sake of settling a long-vexed question. It is difficult for any one who was not familiar with the controversy, and with the sensitive and outraged feelings of her citizens, and the deep convictions of their rights, to appreciate the extent of those sacrifices of feelings and property, but having determined to yield that assent, she has faithfully and promptly performed her part of the contract, and assisted the United States to fulfill its obligations.

"It will be observed that the fourth article does not provide that these grants and confirmations shall be inade by the States of Maine and Massachusetts, but simply that the United States shall cause them to be confirmed, &c. Now, it was well known that all the land would belong to Maine under the general law of eminent domain, or to Maine and Massachusetts under their special compact. If it had been understood that these States were to make the grants at their own expense, and without any claim for remuneration, it would have been so expressed; and the assent which was given by the commissioners of the two States would have bound them to such a distinct provision.

"Again, the States named could at any time grant or confirm titles to this land without consulting the

United States. Why, then, was such a provision inserted in the treaty, so far as the States were concerned, if no obligation was assumed by the United States? They could have made the sacrifice of all

this land if they had thought fit without compensation, without any treaty stipulation."

And Mr. Abbott Lawrence, who is well known to members of the Senate, our former minister to the Court of St. James, also gave his assent to this opinion of Governor Kent. In 1844 the Legislature of Maine authorized its Governor, only two years after the treaty was consummated, to come here and claim indemnity for this land, and the Legislature of Maine in 1845 passed this resolve:

Resolved, That Maine has a just and equitable claim upon the Government of the United States for full remuneration for her proportion of all lands set off to claimants under the provisions of article four of the treaty of Washington, and the Governor is hereby authorized and requested to present the same to the General Government for adjustment and allow

ance.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wisk to say simply that in this same fourth article there is a provision that releases shall be given. The United States Government stipulates in this fourth article that releases shall be given for these lauds. The Government of the United States could not do it; the only persons who could execute releases were the owners. The State of Maine is the owner, and she wishes remuneration before executing the release.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. And let me say that there are over a thousand persons to-day waiting for these releases. They cannot sell those lands because they have no good title.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to ask the Senator from New Hampshire how this claim comes to be before the Committee on Foreign Relations; whether it was referred to the committee by the Senate?

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Yes, sir; referred to that committee in the Senate and House of Representatives both. It is under a treaty; the treaty of Washington.

Mr. HENDRICKS. In what form was it referred? How did it come to be referred at this session of Congress?

Mr. FESSENDEN. At this session of Congress it was not referred; it was taken before the committee at my request, having been referred there before.

Mr. HENDRICKS. This is a private claim, and should have been considered with a view to a separate bill, if it has merits, by the Committee on Claims. I do not think the Committee on Foreign Relations can ex officio take jurisdiction over a particular amendment to a bill because it is a committee taking charge of a piece of business not referred to it specially, and it is out of its jurisdiction and offering an amendment to a bill where it is not at all ger

mane.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the Senator that the Committee on Foreign Relations is the only committee in the House of Representatives and the Senate who ever have had charge of this claim. They have always had charge of it by reason of its arising under a treaty. Here is a report made by Mr. DooLITTLE in the Thirty-Seventh Congress:

"The Committee on Foreign Relations having been instructed by the Senate to inquire what further legislation, if any, is required to carry into effect the fourth article of the treaty with Great Britain of August 9, 1842, submitted the following report.'

He submitted a report with a much larger bill than this. It has been always before that committee, and none other.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I have one by Senator WADE, one by Senator Clark, one by Mr. Rice, of the House of Representatives, and one by myself, all from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. CONKLING. The question before the Senate, as I understand, is a point of order, which is about to be decided by Senators, very few of whom, I judge, have read for themselves the rule. I supposed I remembered generally the rule until I heard the argument of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and then I supposed that it must be quite different from my recoilection in order to bear out the argument which he based upon it. I understood him to reason this question as if it were

to be decided upon the test of whether it arises under a treaty or not. That was quite contrary to my remembrance of the rule, and I have referred to it. I have it here, and I beg to call the attention of Senators to the fact that if it does arise under a treaty, that clothes it with no admissibility under this rule, as I conceive:

"And no amendment shall be received whose object

is to provide for a private claim, unless it be to carry out the provisions of an existing law or a treaty stipulation."

I take it there is no doubt in the minds of a majority of the Senate that this is a private claim. I do not understand the honorable Senator from Maine to deny that. I do not think it can be denied legally, although I understood the Senator from Massachusetts in a certain sense to make a distinction between this and a claim due to an individual. The question, then, is whether it is to carry out the provisions of a treaty stipulation. I should like to know what treaty stipulation there is to be carried out by this appropriation. The argument is that the Government of the United States having made a treaty with Great Britain settling boundaries and other considerations, one effect of that treaty was to divest the State of Maine, or constructively divest it, of its title to certain lands, and that therefore, upon considerations ethical, upon considerations dehors the treaty, in a certain sense a claim arises over against the Government of the United States by the State of Maine. That presupposes at once that it is not to carry out a treaty stipulation. The very essence and gravamen of it is that in carrying out a treaty certain hardship is occurred to the State of Maine for which that State asks recompense of the Gen. eral Government. If there was any treaty stipulation on this subject, certainly no legislation of this sort would be necessary. Therefore I humbly submit that although it arises under a treaty, manifestly it is not "to carry out the provisions of an existing law or a treaty stip

ulation."

Mr. SHERMAN. If my friend from New York will allow me, I will state that my recollection was that this claim has been heretofore excluded from the appropriation bills upon a point of order; and I am informed now by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY] that that is the case. I have not been able to find it in the Journal, but my recollection is so.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator from Kansas stated to me that while he occupied the chair last year he did exclude this very claim on the point now made.

Mr. FESSENDEN. One word in reply. The language of this clause will satisfy everybody that the amendment is to carry out a treaty stipulation in so many words. What does the Government of the United States agree to do?

"And all equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall in like manner be deemed valid and be confirmed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto."

The Government of the United States stipulate that there shall be a quieting of title by a release. That is the treaty stipulation.

Mr. CONKLING. That has been done. Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; that has not been done, because there is nobody that can grant the release but the State of Maine, the owner of the land; and the State of Maine comes here and says, "Pay us the value of this land, which is estimated at $1 25 an acre, and we will grant these releases," and they cannot be granted without. The treaty cannot be carried out, this stipulation cannot be performed, unless the State of Maine-the owner of the land-executes these releases. They have never been executed, and, as my friend from New Hampshire suggests, to this day these men cannot sell their lands for anything like a good price, because this is a cloud upon their title. This very amendment says that so much money shall be paid to the State of Maine for these lands, but that it shall not be paid until

she has executed releases according to the terms of the treaty. The stipulation of the treaty is directly that a release shall be given. Who is to give it? Of necessity the owners give it, and the United States must oblige the owners or prevail on the owners to do it. The amendment is therefore to carry out a treaty stipulation directly and properly, and for no other purpose, and that brings it directly within the exception of the rule.

Mr. CONKLING. It is very difficult even for the Senator from Maine, with his skill in discussion, to discuss this point of order without referring to the merits of the proposition, and it is difficult to meet what he suggests without referring to the merits of the proposition, which I did not mean to do; but I beg to suggest to him my view of the point which he now presents. The treaty stipulations were between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain. The provision was that releases should be executed quieting these titles, as the Senator says. Now admit, if you please, for the sake of the argument, that nobody could do that except the State of Maine, though that is a question which will be debated when we come to the merits of this proposition. It has been debated by those who have made minority reports on the subject, one of which I hold in my hand. But admitting that the State of Maine was the proper grantor in these quit claims to be given, I ask the Senator where is the provision in this treaty that the Government of the United States should pay to the State of Maine the sums which are now proposed?

The Senator may say that if Maine was to release this land she ought to have a remedy over against the General Government. Granted; but the treaty is silent on that point, and Mr. ORTH, and three other gentlemen concurring with him in the minority report which I hold in my hand find, as I should fear if I were a friend of the proposition the Senate would find, that article five of the Ashburton treaty gave to the State of Maine her recompense, that a specific $300,000 was intended, as these four gentlemen find, to pay and liquidate this very equity now asserted. I do not mean to go into that, however. Suffice it to say, for the sake of my point, that the treaty stipulation is that these parties shall be quitted in their titles. That was done in 1842. Now, I ask, where is the treaty stipulation pursuant to which $1 25 per acre is to be paid by the General Government to the State of Maine for this debatable territory. I do not see any such provision as that, and I do not think the argument of the Senator goes to the purpose.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. Allow me to ask a question. There is a somewhat parallel case to this which has lately come up in the House. We made a treaty with Russia last year by which we agreed to pay $7,200,000 for Alaska. The question came up in the House whether an appropriation for that should be put upon an appropriation bill or not. The Committee on Appropriations claimed that it belonged properly on that bill. I believe the Committee on Foreign Affairs contested that, because they wanted to manipulate the $7,200,000, thinking the appropriation might not get through if it went to the Committee on Appropriations; but the Committee on Appropriations claimed that it belonged to them under the rule, and that it should go on the appropriation bill. I want to know if that is not a parallel case to this?

Mr. CONKLING. If my honorable friend will allow me now to turn his illustration upon him, it seems to me it points the precise moral which I seek to enforce here. There was a stipulation between the Government of the United States and the emperor of Russia that a specified sum of money should be paid by the one to the other for a particular purpose. That was of the very essence of the treaty stipulation; and when the House Committee on Appropriations said that it belonged to them they laid their hands upon a rule which declared that a sum of money to be paid under