Mexico in flagrant violation of the express articles of the treaty of 1831.

The committee did not pretend to ascertain the amount of his claim. They referred the ascertainment of its amount to the Treasury officers. They merely decided, in each case, that he had a just claim for some amount against Mexico, which the United States, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and by the reservation of $3,250,000, was responsible to pay to the extent of that $3,250,000 so far as it had not been appropriated; and they merely reported a bill to have it settled upon proper principles, and I think with the guards thrown about the present bill it ought unquestionably to pass.

Mr. CONKLING. Trusting in the sense of justice of the Senate, I move that we now adjourn.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I had not yielded the floor, and I want to make a single remark before I do. The Senator from Missouri asked me to yield to him for a moment, and I did so, and then I yielded to the Senator from Ken tucky. I wish merely to say.

Mr. CONKLING. I think a Senator who becomes so prodigal with the floor, and squanders it as the Senator from Indiana has, should not be allowed to retain it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. appeal of that sort.

I cannot resist an

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that when a Senator yields the floor he yields it for good.

Mr. HENDRICKS. At this time of night that is a good rule; but I want to make a personal remark before the Senator from New York submits his motion.

Mr. CONKLING. Very well.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I stated in response to the Senator from Vermont that I thought this $3,250,000 was reserved, under the terms of the treaty, from the ten or fifteen millions that were to be paid. I think I was mistaken in that. I must have had my memory impressed with the reading of some other treaty. I find that this obligation of the Government of the United States to our own citizens to the extent of $3,250,000 was in addition to the $15,000,000.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, Mr. President, the Senator having apologized for his position in this matter, I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, July 1, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON.

On motion of Mr. ORTH, by unanimous consent, the reading of yesterday's Journal was dispensed with.

CLERKS' EXTRA COMPENSATION. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I present the petition of fifteen hundred and fifty-six clerks for extra compensation for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Cannot that be referred under the rules?

The SPEAKER. It can.

Committee of Elections to report the following resolution :

Resolved, That Charles M. Hamilton is entitled to a seat in this House as a Representative from the State of Florida.

The committee finds his credentials are in due form, and we have a certificate that the State has adopted the fourteenth constitutional amendment.

Mr. MAYNARD. Has there been any ques

tion of his personal fitness and qualification? Mr. SCOFIELD. None. It is all right. The resolution was adopted.

Mr. SCOFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, ETC. Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I call for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the consideration of House bill No. 1131, regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, for the protection of officers and agents of the Government, and for the better defense of the Treasury against unlawful claims, reported back yesterday from the Committee on the Judiciary by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] with amendments.

First amendment of the committee: Add to the second section the following proviso: Provided, That this section shall not be construed so as to deprive aliens who are citizens or subjects of any Government which accords to citizens of the United States the right to prosecute claims against such Government in its courts, of the privilege of prosecuting claims against the United States in the Court of Claims as now provided by law.

The amendment was agreed to.
Second and third amendments:

Insert after the word "allegation," in sections two and three, the words "if the fact be sustained by the proof."

The amendments were severally agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ADVERSE REPORTS.

Mr. BLAINE. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be directed to inquire into the expediency of reporting, without unnecessary delay, a funding bill providing for the consolidation of all the bonded indebtedness of the United States into five per cent, bonds, payable at the option of the Government after ten years; or four and a half per cent., payable at the option of the Government after thirty years; or into four per cent, bonds, in the form of interminable annuities, the holders of outstanding bonds to have their choice of these three forms of securities. Mr. POMEROY. I object.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I am directed by the

title to a tract of land in Burlington, Iowa, with a recommendation that it do pass.

The bill provides that the title of the United States to a certain tract of land in the city of Burlington, Iowa, which was reserved from sale by the United States and dedicated to public burial purposes, be confirmed and vested in the independent school district of said city, to be forever dedicated and used for public school purposes, and for no other use or purpose whatever.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. ORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

PUEBLO OF SANTA ANNA.

Mr. ORTH, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1343) to confirm the title to certain land to the pueblo of Santa Anna, in the Territory of New Mexico; which was read a first and second time.

The bill confirms the title of certain lands

lying upon the Jernez or Santa Anna rivers, not exceeding four square leagues in extent, provided that the confirmation shall only be construed as a relinquishment on the part of the United States, and shall not affect any adverse right, should any such exist.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. ORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. ORTH, the report of the committee accompanying the above bill was ordered to be printed.

SWEARING IN OF A MEMBER.

CHARLES M. HAMILTON, a member-elect from the State of Florida, appeared and was duly qualified as a member of the House of Representatives by taking the oath prescribed by law.

LAND CLAIMS IN NEW MEXICO.

Mr. ORTH, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1344) to confirm certain private land claims in the Territory of New Mexico; which was read a first and second time.

The bill confirms the claim to certain private lands, numbered 41, 42, 44, 46, and 47, in the Territory of New Mexico, provided that such confirmation shall only be construed as a quitclaim or relinquishment of all title or claim on the part of the United States to the same, and shall not affect the adverse rights of any person or persons to the same, or any part or parcel thereof. Sections two and three provide for the survey of the lands and the issue of patents therefor.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. ORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

CHARLES MAY.

Mr. BAILEY, from the same committee, reported back the bill (H. R. No. 1109) for the relief of Charles May, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, accompanied by the following resolu tion:

Resolved, That the Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred House bill No. 1109, for the relief of Charles May, and the memorial accompanying the same, may defer their report thereon until the next session of this Congress, and in the mean time that the said bill and memorial be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, with directions to ascertain the facts upon which the claim of said May is based, and any other facts properly connected therewith, and that he report the same at the next session of said Congress.

The resolution was adopted.

The bill was then recommitted to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

LAND CLAIM IN MISSOURI.

Mr. BAILEY, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 166) for the relief of the owners of the land within United States survey No. 3217, in the State of Missouri.

The bill was read. By its terms the United States release, grant, relinquish, convey, and confirm in fee-simple and in full property to the legal representatives of Ann O. Camp and Antoine Reihle all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to all of the land within United States survey No. 3217, in townships forty-four and forty-five, north of the base line in ranges six and seven, east of the principal meridian line in the State of Mis

souri, being the same land that was surveyed by the United States for Madame Camp and Antoine Reihle's representatives, containing two thousands nine hundred and five arpents, fifty-six perches and forty feet, which is equal to two thousand four hundred and seventy-one acres and seventy-six hundredths of an acre; provided that nothing in the bill shall abridge, divest, impair, injure, or prejudice any adverse right, title, or interest of any person or persons in or to any portion or part of the land.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. BAILEY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ANN D. DURDING.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 910) for the relief of the grantees of Ann D. Durding.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed..

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE moved to reconsider

the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

LAND CLAIMS IN NEW MEXICO. Mr. LOUGHRIDGE, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1343) to confirm certain private land claims in the Territory of New Mexico; which was read a first and second time.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

WILLIAM A. DUNN.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1346) for the relief of William A. Dunn, of Virginia which was read a first and second time, and referred to the, Committee of Claims.

LUCINDA PANGLE.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1347) for the relief of Lucinda Pangle; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

COLONEL S. K. N. PATTON.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1348) for the relief of S. K. N. Patton, late colonel of the eighth Tennessee cavalry; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

GABRIEL CERRE AND SOPHIA BOLAYE. Mr. LOUGHRIDGE, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported back, with a recommendation that the same do pass, House bill No. 1204, to confirm certain private land claims in the State of Missouri.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The bill, which was read, provides that the claims of the legal representatives of Gabriel Cerre and Sophia Bolaye, falling within the exterior boundaries of the commons of Carondelet, the former entered as No. 60 for four hundred arpents, and the latter as No. 279 for one hundred and fifty arpents, in the first class of decisions of the board of land commissioners under the acts of Congress of 9th July, 1832, and 2d March, 1833, for the adjustment of private land claims in Missouri, which claims were confirmed by act of Congress July 4, 1836, subject to location elsewhere than in place in case of conflict, are hereby confirmed in place subject to any valid adverse rights, if such

exist, and patents for said claims shall be issued accordingly.

Mr. NEWCOMB. This bill involves the title to land in the State of Missouri to the value of several hundred thousand dollars. It was introduced and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims without my knowledge, and I was not aware that any such bill was before the House until the committee was prepared to report upon it. I am not prepared to say, however, that the passage of this bill would work any wrong or injury to any party. But inasmuch as this land lies in my district and is very valuable, and the title is in dispute and has been for a great many years, I would ask that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until the first Tuesday in December next, after the morning hour, so that we may have an opportunity to examine the facts in the case and be able to act more intelligently than we can now.

Mr. PILE. I desire to state only that this bill was brought to me by General Bent during the morning hour call for bills and joint resolutions. Not seeing in his seat my colleague who represents that district, [Mr. NEWCOMB,] I introduced the bill and had it referred. I have no knowledge of the facts in the case. I omitted, as I ought not to have done, to inform my colleague of the nature of the bill. I hope it will be postponed at his request until it can be examined.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. The Committee on Private Land Claims examined this bill very carefully, and were satisfied that it was correct; but if the gentleman who introduced it here desires it to be postponed, of course the committee will not object.

Mr. NEWCOMB. I move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until the first Tuesday in December next, after the morning hour.

The motion to postpone was agreed to.

PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS IN CALIFORNIA.

Mr. STONE, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported back, with a substitute, House bill No. 1206, to restore to certain parties their rights under the laws and treaties of the United States.

The substitute, which was read, provides that each and every person claiming land in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican authorities, and whose claim has not been adjudicated by the commission created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1851, and record evidence of which claim is found in the Spanish or Mexican ar chives now in the custody of the United States surveyor general for the State of California, shall within one year after the date of this act present his petition in writing for the same to the United States district court for the district in which the land claimed is situated, with such documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses as the said claimant relies upon in support of such claim; and thereupon the same proceedings shall be had in said district court, in relation to the hearing and decision of said claim in all respects, as though it had been presented to and decided adversely to said claim by the commission created by the act of March 3, 1851, except that no transcript of the report or proceedings of said commission shall be presented to the said district court, and the survey of any grant which may be confirmed under this act shall be subject to the provisions of the act of June 14, 1860; provided, however, that from the decision therein, both on the title and on the survey and location, appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States within six months after such decision has been rendered, and that the same proceedings for the hearing and decision thereof shall be had, and the judgment of the district court shall have the same affect as is provided by the act hereinbefore referred to; and provided further that such confirmation shall not affect the rights of third parties, but shall establish simply the title of the claimant as between him and the United States.

Mr. STONE. I ask that the report accompanying the bill be read.

The Clerk read the report, as follows:

Your committee, to whom was referred House bill No. 1206, have had the same under consideration, and find the facts to be these:

That the United States solemnly promised by their treaty with Mexico to protect the rights of private property; that no man's land should be taken from him if he had a title which the Mexican laws held to be good.

This provision of the treaty merely embodied in the form of an express stipulation what had always been recognized as international law.

In 1851, a commission was created by act of Congress to investigate these Mexican land titles, with power to confirm the genuine and reject the spurious claims, and reserving both to the claimant and to the Government the right to appeal, first to the district court, and thence to the Supreme Court of the United States. All claims were to be presented within two years after the date of the act; and by subsequent acts this time was extended two years more.

This law operated with some severity upon the owners of sound and honest titles, but it was made necessary by the enormous number of false and fraudulent claims which were set up to the most valuable lands in California.

When the cominission began their labors the reeords of the former Government were not known to exist in any completeness, had not been collected or examined, and were not resorted to or relied upon as evidence. Whoever could produce a title-paper. and prove its proper execution by parole vidence, had his claim confirmed. Record evidence was not required.

This rule opened wide the door to forgery and perjury. Title-papers were antedated or forged, and men found to swear them genuine,

At length the Attorney General, alarmed at the number of alleged frauds, caused the archives of the former Government to be collected and carefully examined, and, to the surprise of everybody, these were found to be entire and reliable. The means of testing the validity of any claim was now at hand, and from that day to this the courts have subjected all claims coming before them to this test.

As late as 1864 the Supreme Court said: "It has been held by this court, in a long and unbroken line dence, and its absence is unaccounted for, and there of adjudications, that where there is no archive evihas been no such possession as raises an equity in behalf of the party" "the claim

must be rejected. We feel no disposition to relax the rule."

Such is now the law. But all this was settled after the time had gone by when claims could be presented or heard, and after meritorious and just claims had been rejected or withdrawn on account of the enforcement of the title-paper rule.

The limitation clause of the statute cut these claimants off and denied them a hearing under the new and true rule of evidence established by the Supreme Court consequent upon the discovery of the archives. This bill extends the limitation-clause of the statute one year, and gives claimants who have archive evidence of title a hearing; and it is all that it gives them. This they ask; and it is all they ask.

The facts in a single case will make this whole matter plain.

In 1837, Juan Miranda, a Mexican soldier, accepted a provisional grant of a then outlying ranch in California, and on this ranch lived with his large family until 1845, when he died. The year before his death he perfected his title to the ranch, and all the papers were duly recorded in the archives of the Mexican Government, and there they are to-day. His title to the land was as good as the laws of that country could give to any man.

His family continued to live upon the ranch_till after the conquest of the country. Meanwhile Miranda's title-paper was lost.

A certain Ortega, son-in-law of Miranda, aware of this loss, procured title-papers to this same ranch in his own name, and dated them back to 1840.

The heirs of Miranda sold their title to Valentine; Ortega sold his to White: and the purchasers presented their respective claims to the land commission for confirmation.

The Ortega title was confirmed, for it had the titlepaper, while the other had none.

In fact, so complete was the fraud that the adverse claimant himself was deceived, and withdrew his claim. The district court was also deceived, and confirmed the decree of the land commission in favor of Oitega.

Meanwhile new facts came to light, through the efforts of the Attorney General, and the case was carried up to the Supreme Court.

There it was broadly challenged as a cheat and a aside, and the record remitted for further proceedforgery. The judgment of the court below was set

ings in the district court.

Judge Hoffman took up the ease ab initio, patiently examined all the facts, and, in an opinion of great ability, exposed the utter fraud of the Ortega title. In 1864 the case came again to the Supreme Court, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. Thus, after twelve years of hot litigation, was this spurious title swept away.

The United States never pretended to have any title to this ranch. The Supreme Court distinctly said: "It is clear from the evidence in this case that, as against the United States, either Ortega or Miranda has a just claim to a confirmation of his title to the tract in dispute. But whether Ortega was landlord and Miranda his tenant, or which of the claimants has attempted to overreach the oth r. are questions in which the Government has no interest." And, again, in the same opinion the court

said: "The Government surely has no right to claim that the land shall be considered as part of the public domain." So it is seen that the Ortega title was a cheat, and that the United States did not even pretend to have any title. The title to this ranch was clearly in Miranda. No one will now stand up to deny it. If, therefore, Valentine, who holds it, be not protected in his possession, the default will not only shock all sense of natural justice, but break the faith pledged by our treaty with Mexico and violate the public law of the world. Your committee think, therefore, that the relief asked for by this bill should be granted.

It is the interest of all parties that these few outstanding claims should be disposed of, and not left to cloud the possessions of those who may have settled upon any portion of the lands, If these claims, or any of them, are good, the faith of the nation is pledged by treaty to confirm them; if they are bad. it will be so shown on the hearing, and they will be rejected. The time has gone by when any but meritorious titles can be confirmed by the courts. But so long as these outstanding claims exist there is no security that legislative relief will not be given sooner or later, and a feeling of doubt and uncertainty must continue.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. STONE] to yield to me.

Mr. STONE. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from California, [Mr. JOHNSON.] Mr. JOHNSON. I desire to offer an amendment.

Mr. STONE. I yield to allow the amendment to be read.

Mr. JOHNSON. The amendment which I desire to offer is to add the following proviso:

Provided, That all persons who, previous to the passage of this act, have acquired any valid right or title to any of the lands embraced within the provisions of his act, under the preemption or homestead laws or otherwise, shall be protected in their right.

Mr. Speaker, I had no idea that this bill was coming up to-day; otherwise, I should have been prepared to discuss it. But even if I had come before the House much better prepared than I am, it would not have availed me, because I am limited to five minutes' time. I admit, Mr. Speaker; that those owning Mexican land claims in California who did not present their claims to the land commissioners should be protected in their claims, because we agreed in our treaty with Mexico that we would protect such claims. But, Mr. Speaker, while I admit the justice of allowing these gentlemen to prove their claims, I also recog mize the rights of the settlers upon these lands in the State of California, which seven or eight years ago became vacant and were declared public lands by this Government, and were taken up by actual settlers, the Government of the United States extending the public surveys over these lands. Every acre or nearly every acre covered by every one of these grants has been taken up by preemptors and settlers. Nine tenths of all the land covered by these grants have been entered by settlers, and patents have been issued by the Goverment of the United States. I say that these settlers have equities as well as the grant holders. And let me say right here that if Congress intends to hold out false inducements to the hard-fisted yeomanry of this country to go upon the public domain and open up farms, and then by legislation turn them out and give their homes to speculators, this Congress had better be disbanded. I say that the passage of such an act as this would be an outrage upon the rights of the people in the State of California. There are, perhaps, fifteen thousand farmers who would be turned out of house and home by the passage of this act unless my amendment is allowed to prevail. I hope that this House will never commit such an outrage upon the rights of settlers.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that if we were creating a new claim here the settler could not be interfered with, and that this amendment would be useless. But we are reëstablishing an old claim, one that existed long prior to the entry and patent of these lands. I hope that the House will allow this amendment to be adopted. It is proper and just; and it is law, if there is any virtue in acts of Congress heretofore passed. Seven or eight different congressional enactments have been made to induce settlers to go upon those lands. By, I believe, eight different acts of Congress these lands have been declared

to be public lands; and, in addition to this, the act of 1862 required the actual settlers to pay for the survey. The settlers whom this bill is to turn out of house and home have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in surveying the public lands covered by these grants. Is it right, after charging a man twenty-five, thirty, forty, or fifty dollars, or may be one hundred dollars, for the survey of the land because it happened to be covered by an old grant which had run out of date, is it right to make him pay this and then $1 25 per acre, and after he has got his patent and spent some twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars-I have known cases where men have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in beautifying their places is it right, after all this, to turn him out of house and home; after, as I said before, the Government of the United States publishing that this was public land and could be taken up by actual settlers?

I appeal to the House to let the amendment be adopted for the protection of the actual settlers. While I do this, I admit the equity of this class of grant holders in the bill. If, because of the laches of parties in not presenting their claim according to the law they have lost their claims, then they should ask the liberty of taking other public land elsewhere instead of this. That would be just and proper; but it would not be just and proper, on the contrary, to turn all these settlers adrift after they have expended thirty or forty million dollars in improving their ranches.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. MULLINS. I ask for a minute. Mr. STONE. I yield to the gentleman for one minute.

Mr. MULLINS. I rise for the purpose of opposing this amendment. Taking the ground advocated by the gentleman who urges the amendment, taking his argument yesterday that treaties were solemn-and he maintained that doctrine urgently and defiantly almost, holding it over us in terrorem-the gentleman's position is untenable. Here is a treaty between the United States and Mexico, solemnly ratified, which guaranties the rights of these parties who have these grants from the Mexican Government. Now the gentleman comes in and says that because we have the power these claimants shall be denied all the rights they were guarantied under the treaty.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's one minute has expired.

Mr. JOHNSON. I only want half a minute. Mr. HIGBY. I yield half a minute to my colleague.

Mr. JOHNSON. In regard to the treaties the gentleman speaks about I know he speaks of them because he has no knowledge of the meaning of those treaties. We agreed to protect these individuals in their rights, whatever they may be; but they are inchoate. There is a grant of land of three leagues within an exterior limit of thirty leagues; it is to be located; it is nothing; it is an inchoate title; it is an inchoate equity, to be protected and brought about by the legislation of this Government. This Government said, "Present your claim within five years, and you shall have your rights; after that, if you do not, you shall have none.

Mr. MULLINS. The report is against you. Mr. JOHNSON. It is based upon a false state of facts.

Mr. STONE. I yield now to the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. HIGBY.]

Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Speaker, as early as 1863, in the Legislature of the State of California, this question came up; Congress was taking action on the subject; the Legislature memorialized Congress to take no further action; there was an investigation there, and it turned out between Ortega and Miranda there was supposed to be a title, but by some management between them they did not procure a title,|| and the statute of limitation expired before Ortega, if he had any, perfected his title. I know all about this transaction. In some of

the cases there were stipulations. Some of the parties on the land are not only under the title of the United States but of one of these parties by a deed. I verify what my colleague has said. There are settlements of the finest character upon these lands, which are of the best quality. There is a town of two or three thousand inhabitants upon them, a well built, substantial town; there is property to the value of millions upon this tract, the title to which this act proposes to revive in one individual. I do not speak for my constituency, for I have no constituents where this land lies, but I speak on previous knowledge of this subject. Pass this bill, and it steps in with this title of one individual and deprives men of title which they have from the United States. This is the simple state of the fact.

Mr. STONE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ORTH. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California in the shape of a proviso to this bill. That proviso seems to recognize rights acquired under the homestead or preemption laws of the United States upon the lands embraced within this Miranda grant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I understand this matter, it is exceedingly plain and simple, not only so far as the treaty rights of the Miranda claim are concerned, but so far as the adjudication of these rights are concurred in by the Supreme Court of the United States. By the treaty under which we acquired California we solemnly agreed with that republic to protect her citizens in the enjoyment of all rights of property which they had under the republic of Mexico. Prior to that treaty Miranda, a citizen of the republic of Mexico, in 1887 accepted a grant under the land laws of Mexico, filed his petition, had a survey made, and was placed in possession of the lands. Thus matters stood at the time of the acquisition of California by this Government. After the acquisition of California, I think in 1855, the United States Congress passed a law providing for a commission to examine all titles in California arising under that treaty. A Mr. Ortega, who, I believe, was a son-in-law of Miranda, the latter having died in the meantime, got up a forged title to the claim to this property. While Miranda's claim was pending before this commission, and before the court in California, Ortega came in as a coun ter claimant, and so specious was the fraud which he had perpetrated upon the interest of Miranda, that even the commission and the court were deceived, and it was not till afterward, by the vigilance of the Attorney General of the United States, the fraud was discovered, and Ortega was driven out of court with his fraudulent claim. In the mean time, however, the statute of limitations provided for in the act of 1855 expired, and Miranda was left without any right to prosecute his claim under the provisions of said act; and the claim now rests upon its original right under the treaty.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and the bill goes over till to-morrow in the morning hour.

DEPUTY COLLECTORS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, suggesting an amendment to the pending appropriation bill allowing deputy collectors to receive pay for actual service performed; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

EXPENDITURES OF PEACE COMMISSIONS.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in compliance with House resolution of the 22d ultimo, vouchers on file relative to the expenditures made by the peace commission acting under the act of July 20, 1867, relative to certain hostile Indians.

On motion of Mr. COBB, the communication was referred to the Committee of Claims.

NIOBRARA TOWNSHIP, The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting an estimate of appropriations to pay demands sustained by settlers in Niobrara township, Nebraska, by reason of locating Santee Sioux Indians on their lands in 1866; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence for one week was granted to Messrs. NICHOLSON, BOYER, and ARCHER; and indefinite leave of absence to Messrs. CARY, KETCHAM, and FERRISS.

TARIFF BILL.

Mr. BANKS. Before moving to go into the Committee of the Whole, I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MOORHEAD, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Ways and Means a bill (H. R. No. 1345) to increase the revenue from duties on imports and tending to equalize exports and imports; which was read a first and second time, and ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I move that it be made the special order for Friday next after the morning hour, and from day to day until disposed of.

The SPEAKER. That motion requires unanimous consent.

Mr. MARSHALL. I object.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I then give notice that after the Alaska matter is disposed of I shall move to lay aside all other business in order to reach this bill.

Mr. KOONTZ. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will withdraw his objection.

Mr. MARSHALL. No, sir; I cannot.

BRIDGE IN BOSTON HARBOR.

Mr. BANKS. I yield for a moment to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Cook.]

Mr. COOK, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported a joint resolution (H. R. No. 321) in relation to the erection of a bridge in Boston harbor; which was read a first and second time.

The joint resolution provides that the Secretary of the Navy shall detail two competent and impartial officers of the Navy, and the Secretary of War shall detail a competent and impartial officer of the engineer corps, who shall compose a commission whose duty it shall be to make a careful examination of the harbor of Boston and shall report to Congress at its next session in what manner the commerce of said harbor and the interests of the United States in the navy-yard at Charlestown will be affected by the construction of a bridge over the water between the main land in the city of Boston and East Boston, in the manner provided in an act of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts entitled "An act to incorporate the Maverick Bridge Company," and no bridge is to be erected by the said company across the said water until the assent of Congress shall be given thereto.

Mr. COOK. I will explain the resolution in a minute or two.

Mr. BANKS. I reserve the right to claim the floor if the debate goes too far.

Mr. COOK. A bill giving the assent of Congress to the erection of a bridge across Bos. ton harbor under the charter granted to the Mav. erick Bridge Company by the Legislature of Massachusetts was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals. On examining the question, the committee found that in the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, the chief of the engineer corps, and the officers attached to the Coast Survey connected with the harbor of Boston, this bridge would be a very great injury to the commerce of the harbor, and also would injure the interests of the United States in the navy-yard at Charlestown. Under that charter granted by the Legislature of Massachusetts the committee believe that this bridge may be erected, unless Congress shall interfere,

and the Secretary of the Navy has addressed a communication to the committee asking for this action.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. COOK moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. BANKS, by unanimous consent, pre sented resolutions of citizens of Charlestown, Massachusetts, protesting against the erection of the bridge; which were referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and ordered to be printed.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. NEWCOMB asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-day.

THE SUTRO TUNNEL.

Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada, by unanimous consent, presented communications from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior concerning the bill (H. R. No. 1153) asking aid for the construction of the Sutro tunnel; which were ordered to be printed with the report of the Committee on Mines and Mining accompanying the bill.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to give notice that to-morrow, if the Alaska bill shall not be disposed of, I shall move to postpone it for the purpose of taking up the appropriation bills.

Mr. BANKS. Till what time?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Until next week.

Mr. BLAINE. I understand that the chair

man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. BANKS] does not object to that.

Mr. BANKS.

With the understanding that it shall preserve its place as a special order I will not object; but I would like to have the consent of the House that the vote on the bill shall be taken on Thursday of next week, after the reading of the Journal, without debate. be the understanding. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let that

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. Do I understand that when the bill comes up to be voted on the resolutions reported by the minority of the committee will first be voted on?

The SPEAKER. That is a question for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and not for the Speaker. Mr. BANKS. There will be no objection to voting on any proposition that properly belongs to the subject.

Mr. BLAINE. Is it understood that tothe Whole on the deficiency bill? morrow the House will go into Committee of

Mr. BANKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. On the deficiency bill, and the amendments of the Senate to the legislative appropriation bill.

The SPEAKER. The understanding is that the vote will be taken on the Alaska bill and amendments in Committee of the Whole on Thursday of next week, after the morning hour. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope it will be the general understanding that if there are any members who desire to speak to night

the Committee of the Whole shall be authorized to take a recess from half past four to half past seven this evening, the session of to-night to be for debate only on the Alaska bill. No objection was made.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. VAN TRUMP asked and obtained leave of absence for six days.

Mr. TABER asked and obtained leave of absence from Thursday of this week until Tuesday evening of next week.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state to the House that so many members have obtained indefinite leave of absence that unless

some of them return it may be difficult to obtain a working quorum after the Fourth of July.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I give notice that for the present I will object to any more indefinite leaves of absence being granted. FREEDMEN'S AFFAIRS.

Mr. ARNELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and adopted:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, directed to communicate to this House the reports of Major General Carlin for the past six months relative to the condition of freedmen's affairs in the States of Tennessee and Kentucky.

PURCHASE OF ALASKA.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I now insist upon the regular order.

Mr. BANKS. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

The rules were accordingly suspended; and the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. GARFIELD in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being House bill No. 1096, making an appropriation of money to carry into effect the treaty with Russia of March 30, 1867.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. MAYNARD. It will be recollected that when the committee rose last night I had the floor. My purpose was to address the committee on the same side upon which two gentlemen had previously addressed the committee. I prefer, however, that the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. WASHBURN,] who represents the views of the minority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] shall first address the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. By unanimous consent the House on yesterday ordered that when the consideration of this subject was resumed by the Committee of the Whole to-day the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] should be entitled to the floor.

Mr. PRICE. And unanimous consent was also given that I should take the floor at the conclusion of the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MAYNARD. I understand that I hold the floor from last night, and I do not know that it can be taken from me without my consent.

The CHAIRMAN. The House by unanimous consent yesterday ordered that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] should be entitled to the floor this morning, and the Chair will be compelled to carry out that order, notwithstanding the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] had the floor when the committee rose last night.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin, then addressed the Committee of the Whole for two hours. [See Appendix.]

At the expiration of the second hour,

The CHAIRMAN said: The second hour of the time allowed to the gentleman has expired.

Mr. ORTH. I understood the extension of

time to the gentleman to be indefinite.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair construes the extension of time, under repeated decis ions of the House, to be for one hour unless a

shorter time is named.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I have been speaking with the understanding that my time was extended indefinitely. There are certain points in the speech of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] that I must

answer.

The CHAIRMAN. The rule explicitly states that an indefinite extension of time shall be construed to mean not more than one hour.

Mr. RAUM. I move that the gentleman's time be extended thirty minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. That requires unani

mous consent.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I think somebody else ought to have a chance to talk ten minutes. I object to any further extension of time.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is made. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. MYERS. I ask that the gentleman's time be extended fifteen minutes.

Mr. HIGBY. I object. The result of this practice of extending the time of gentlemen is to crowd out many others who desire to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is made, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] will proceed.

Mr. CULLOM. Could not the gentleman from Iowa yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin a few minutes.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I only want ten minutes.

Mr. PRICE. I have already agreed to yield portions of my time to three or four gentlemen.

Mr. HIGBY. I will withdraw my objection so far as to allow the gentleman to speak ten minutes longer.

Mr. MALLORY. I renew the objection. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is made to granting any more time to the gentleman from Wisconsin. The gentleman from Iowa wili accordingly proceed or surrender the floor.

Mr. PRICE. I yield to my colleague [Mr. LOUGHRIDGE] to move an amendment to this bill.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I move to amend this bill by inserting before the section it now contains the following preamble and section:

Whereas the President of the United States, on the 30th of March, 1867, entered into a treaty with the Emperor of Russia, by the terms of which it was stipulated that in consideration of the cession by the Emperor of Russia to the United States of certain territory therein described the United States should pay to the Emperor of Russia the sum of $7,200,000 in coin; and whereas it was further stipulated in said treaty that the United States shall accept of such cession, and that certain inhabitants of said territory shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States; and whereas the subjects thus embraced in the stipulations of said treaty are among the subjects which by the Constitution of the United States are submitted to the power of Congress, and over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction; and it being for such reason necessary that the consent of Congress should be given to the said treaty before the same can have full force and effect, having taken into consideration the said treaty, and approving of the stipulations therein, to the end that the same may be carried into effect: Therefore,

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the assent of Congress is hereby given

to the stipulations of said treaty.

Mr PRICE. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] to offer an amendment.

Mr. ELIOT. I move to amend this bill by adding to it the following:

Provided, That no purchase in behalf of the United States of foreign territory shall be hereafter made until after provision by law for its payment. And it is hereby declared that all powers vested by the Constitution in the President and Senate to enter into treaties with foreign Governments do not include the power to complete the purchase of foreign territory before the necessary appropriations shall be made therefor by act of Congress.

Mr. BANKS. I rise to a point of order. Mr. ELIOT. I hope the gentleman will not object to this provision being incorporated in the bill as reported by the committee.

Mr. BANKS. I must object to the amend ment of my colleague, [Mr. ELIOT.] It is not germane to the bill. The bill before the committee is to carry into effect a treaty, while the proposition of my colleague is general legisla. tion, as is also the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. LoUGHRIDGE.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order. The treaty is not interfered with, so far as the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] is concerned. That amendment is in the nature of a declaration of opinion by this House in regard to the subjects of treaties. If it went so far as to make it conditional that the treaty

should not be carried out unless something else was done, then the Chair would consider it out of order.

Mr. PRICE. If there be no objection, I will now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] for five minutes; but I do not want it to come out of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. That requires unani

mous consent.

Mr. MALLORY. I object.

Mr. PRICE. I now yield a few minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. MUNGEN.]

Mr. MUNGEN. In order to relieve the apprehensions of the gentleman from Wiscon sin, [Mr. WASHBURN,] as well as others who may honestly, perhaps, think as he does on the subject of this appropriation, I am authorized by gentlemen abundantly able to fulfill it, to make the following proposition, provided such an arrangement can be legally effected, of which I have but little, if any, doubt. The proposal is :

That a company of gentlemen will, within twenty days from and after the date when Congress assents to the proposition, pay into the Treasury of the United States the sum of $10,000,000 in gold for the territory of Alaska; these gentlemen taking the fee simple therefor and leaving the right of eminent domain in the Government of the United States.

Gentlemen cannot, on pecuniary grounds, object to this proposition, for it leaves a clear net profit of $2,800,000 in gold in the Treasury of the United States, growing out of and the direct result of this treaty. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] says in proof of the worthlessness, sterility, barrenness, and humidity of Alaska, that he brings "official reports to sustain him. Does the gentleman claim that Campbell's poem, "The Pleasures of Hope," written, beautiful as it is, by an Englishman, who never saw Alaska, nor, so far as I know, even the continent of America, except to visit the little village of Wyoming, in Pennsylvania, a poem clearly and evidently the mere creature of his imagination, is an official report? He quoted largely from that some time since against this bill. Many more of his authorities and references are of a character entitled to no more credit in a scientific or geographic point of view than is "The Pleasures of Hope;" yet he says he relies on official reports. If I am not mistaken, the same authority in the same poem speaks of tigers and other tropical animals infesting the shores of Lake Erie.

Without stopping to discuss the treaty-making power from a constitutional point of view, it is enough to say that by the Constitution the treaty-making power was vested in the Execu tive by and with the advice and consent of the and balances recognized in our system of gov Senate. Under the beautiful principle of checks ernment, where each department exists independent of the other, so far as its peculiar functions are concerned, yet all are so blended as to work in perfect harmony and accord, the treaty-making power was, by the wisdom of our forefathers, placed where it is. As one sworn to support that Constitution I recognize the right of the Senate and the Executive to make treaties with foreign Powers on all proper subjects. This Alaska matter is one of the subjects intrusted entirely by the Constitution to the Executive and the Senate as I understand the subject; as much so as the appointment of a minister or a consul to a foreign port or country. As well might we propose to withhold pay of our minister to the Court of St. Petersburg or St. James, who was appointed and sent there by the Executive and the Senate, as to withhold an appropriation to carry out a treaty so important as this one.

But my proposition completely answers nine tenths of the objections to this treaty made by the opponents of the measure.

How was it with California when our Government obtained it from Mexico? We were told by men who, like the gentleman referred to by the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr.

WASHBURN,] went up the coast last spring; they stopped in the little bays and inlets, looked at the hills and shores, and never touched land in each hundred miles of their voyage; they then said of California that it was worthless; no arable land; could not sustain a population, and all other objections similar to those now urged by the gentleman from Wisconsin against Alaska. Why, Mr. Chairman, when a vessel engaged in the Coast Survey, the Active, was in Humboldt bay in 1852, or about that time, the officers could not get to see the sun suthciently to take an observation for two weeks. This can be proved from the records of the Coast Survey, and by the testimony of gentlemen now in this Capitol. We were told that the whole of California was worthless, barren, sterile, rocky, humid, and utterly useless, just what gentlemen now say about Alaska; and more than this, these gentlemen now use the very arguments then used by those who were opposed to California.

By accepting this treaty we cage the British lion on the Pacific coast; we cripple that great and grasping monopoly, the Hudson's Bay Company, who, as long as we have been a Government and a nation, have monopolized almost exclusively the fur trade of North Amer. ica, enriching themselves and the British Government at the expense of what ought, and justly does, belong to the American people.

But it is said there are no fish in the seas off the Alaska coast. The man who makes that statement hazards a great deal as it regards his credibility. If that were so, why would New Bedford and other Atlantic towns and cities send out their whaling expeditions?

California sends out her millions of treasure in "bright and shining gold" each year; her exports of wool are enough annually to clothe her inhabitants five times. When the Active was engaged in the Coast Survey potatoes cost from fifty cents to a dollar and a half per pound; the flour was all brought from Chili, and everything else upon which men subsist was very costly. Now that same California feeds a large portion of the population of the Pacific coast and islands. The same is true of Oregon and Washington Territory, although their resources are not nearly so fully developed. So it will be with Alaska.

Some gentlemen are extremely economical on everything except negro bureaus and military despotisms over the southern States. They can establish free schools for the juvenile Africans of the South to the exclusion of the poor starving white orphans. They build a college here to educate the colored cuss from Africa," but they cannot give a few dollars for the territory which, with its gigantic forests, its rich mineral resources, its inexhaustible fisheries, and beds of hard (not soft, as claimed by the opponents of this bill,) coal will furnish homes and occupation, competence and wealth for millions of our people for ages to come.

The climate of Great Britain is as humid as that of Alaska. In California, at times, they do not see the sun for days, yet vegetation keeps up, the cattle are fat, the grape yields its juice, the mine yields its gold or silver or quicksilver, the forest its treasures, and the coast, the rivers and lakes their finny contributions. So it will be with Alaska under the rule of the hardy and energetic people who, from our own more densely populated States, will seek its shores and valleys and make them their homes.

The Russian diplomats are far-seeing and shrewd. They know, as does every man who is a close observer of history, that the muscles of the British lion are weakening, his growl or roar is not so terrific as formerly; that the Government of that country is on the wane. Russia would be our firm ally to-day in a war with England. It cost England an immense sacrifice to retain her foothold in India, even against the Sikhs unaided by any foreign Power. What would have been the result bad the Russian bear stepped in and laid his paw on India at that time? Answer is unnecessary. Eng. land's star has passed its zenith. Russia will one