quoted to-day in our currency at so high a figure as it was before the commencement of the war. And now a word in reference to the question propounded by the gentleman from Iowa a while ago as to the value of these lands. Sir, those who know anything of the condition of the interior of Illinois at the time this work was commenced know that these lands were comparatively valueless, and those who are honest and willing to do justice must admit that their increased value is due to the building of this great central thoroughfare, by means of which those lands could be brought into cultivation and their products conveyed to market.

Again, sir, what did the Government lose by this grant of lands? Not a dollar, for the price of every alternate section was doubled, and the Government got all the money that it could possibly have got if it had sold all the lands at the Government rate of $1 25 an acre and had not granted any to the Central railroad.

I repeat that when this grant was made no man contemplated the state of things that we have had for the last four years. The fact that the President and the Secretary of War have seen fit to give to the Central Railroad Company something for their immense outlay of money in procuring laborers and stock to facilitate their military operations, is but an evidence that they were not inclined to do what my colleague [Mr. WASHBURNE] and the gentleman from lowa [Mr. WILSON] would do, play the Jew and exact the last pound of flesh from this company. It is unjust, it is unreasonable; and the effect of the passage of this amendment would be totally to break down this Central Railroad Company. The Government would have to take the road and run it themselves, and run it at a much greater expense than the company can run it for, considering the prices they now receive for the transportation of troops and munitions of war. During the last four years of civil war there has not been a day upon which the Government has not been transporting troops or munitions of war over this road, and it is unreasonable that the company should be compelled to do it without some sort of compensation.

interests. Not only shall my constituents, but the people of the whole State, find in me a mouth-piece to defend them against oppression, regardless of consequences to myself. In view of the management of this road since the breaking out of the rebellion, it is now only known by its oppressions and extortions upon the people along the line of it. It has raised its rate of fare enormously, five, six, and even seven cents per mile for passengers. I myself have, within two months, paid within a fraction of seven cents per mile fare on this road. And freight, too, has been raised in nearly the same proportion, adding a most burdensome, odious, and intolerable tax upon all my constituents who have to use the road, and it runs through the entire length of my district. I charge that the rate of freight and fare on this road, which was built by the magnificent bounty of the Government, and which the honest and industrious farmers of the State have chiefly to bear, is utterly outrageous, and ought not to be tolerated if it can be helped. I speak for the people of the State, and not from any personal grievance, for I have none.

The

But to the point of amendment before us. act of Congress granting the land to build this road had in it the express condition, as has been shown so unanswerably by the gentleman from lowa, [Mr. WILSON,] that all Government property, arms, munitions of war, &c., should be carried by the company receiving the grant free from all toll and charge. In the last Congress this precise question was up. It was reported that this Illinois Central Railroad Company had been charging and receiving money from the Government for doing the business which it was bound to do without pay. The question was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary-a committee distinguished for its ability, and having in it not only the best legal talent of the House, but of the country. That committee did not gloss over the important question presented to them with a hurried and imperfect examination. They gave it a full and thorough examination, and Mr. Porter, of Indiana, one of the very ablest lawyers in the House, made an elaborate report from the committee, and pronounced its conclusion by the resolution at the close of the report, and which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] read. That resolution de

pro

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am a little surprised at the observations on this subject which have just fallen from my colleague, [Mr. J. C. ALLEN.] He evaded the issue raised by the viso we are discussing, and proceeded to a defense of the Illinois Central railroad, a corporation of gigantic proportions, and which is grinding to the earth the people of our State. I think it the defense he has just interposed in behalf of this railroad had been known before the election he would not have obtained quite as many votes as he did on the line of the road for Congressman at large, and I believe he only came within thirtytwo thousand votes of being elected.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. I believe I got as many votes along the line of the railroad as my competitor did.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not know that. I know his competitor beat my colleague by thirty-two thousand majority.

But I propose, Mr. Chairman, to address myself to the committee for a moment on the subject of the amendment of my friend from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON.] I am aware it touches a matter in my own State, and it may be thought that an Illinois man should not array himself against a great interest there. But, sir, I do not propose to have my lips sealed on a question of this character, however local those interests may be to my State, but I shall speak incidentally of the character and the management of this corporation. I know the power and influence of this mammoth railroad company, running through the entire length of the State; but while I represent that constituency that has so long honored me with its confidence and support, I will stand up here and defend their

ment for carrying its property, troops, &c. The report was adopted unanimously by the House; not a single member dissented from its doctrines. It was the opinion of the House deliberately declared that this railroad company had no right to

make this claim.

It appears, however, Mr. Chairman, that very large amounts of money have been paid to this road, notwithstanding the House has repeatedly declared that nothing ought to be paid, and requesting that if anything had been paid it should be recovered back. At the last session the House reaffirmed the judgment of the previous Congress, that nothing was due by the Government to the road for this service, and requesting the Department not to pay anything more. There had already been paid more than three hundred thousand dollars for this service. And yet, regardless of that resolution, I know not on what grounds, and of course I will not attempt to speak in regard to it, instead of paying no more to this company, instead of taking measures to get back the money already paid to the Illinois Central Railroad Company, a further sum of $552,000, more than half a million dollars, has since been paid to that company. A gentleman near me suggests that the Secretary of War in his letter says it was paid by order of the President. If the company had not the right to this money by law, the President had no more right to order its payment than I have. I believe it is a constitutional provision that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury without warrant of law. I do not know the reasons that induced the President to order this payment. I have no doubt the reasons were satisfactory to him, and perhaps they would be satisfactory to me if I knew them. I know that the President is governed by the highest and purest motives, and that he would do nothing but what he believed to be right. But I think it very likely that he and I should differ in opinion on this subject, and there is certainly no man on earth more tolerant of a difference of opinion than the President.

But my colleague [Mr.J. C. ALLEN] has spoken

of the benefits of this railroad to the State. That is not the question we are discussing. The question is whether the law shall be obeyed and this company held to its bargain with the Government. This company has one of the most stupendous franchises and by far the most valuable franchise that has ever been obtained in this country. I wish I had the figures here, as shown us by its reports, as to the almost incredible value of the property of the company, of its lands, and of its road. And yet it comes before the Government and claims and receives, in defiance of the judgments and order of this House, nearly a million dollars of the people's money, which my colleague's constituents and the constituents of us all must pay. And by whom is this road owned, and where is our money going? Sir, it is not owned by American citizens, but it is mostly owned by British bond-holders, men living in a country that is the hereditary enemy of the United States, exhibiting to us its deadly hostility in every way. Who can tell whether or not a part of this vast sum of money paid to this company by our Government has not been paid to British bond-holders and invested in pirate ships to drive our commerce from the ocean-the commerce of the great city of New York, represented in part by the gentleman [Mr. BROOKS] who has spoken in mitigation of this transaction?

I have spoken of the property of this company; of the vast amounts of land owned by the company. This land is now held at such high prices as to prevent to a very considerable degree that immigration which would have come to our noble State had they put down their land to reasonable figures. Does my colleague uphold this company in thus putting up their land, and its generally oppressive management? Does my colleague wish to keep immigrants from coming into our State by justifying this company in putting up the land to such high prices to the settler? Does not my colleague know that this corporation has already been arraigned this very winter before the Legislature of our State for alleged frauds upon the law? Does he not know that this whole subject is there undergoing investigation, and that the Legislature, acting in behalf of the oppressed people, is groping round in search of some remedy or redress? What claim, I ask, has this road upon the votes or the sympathies of the Representatives of the State of Illinois in this House? I have seen that the Legislature has arraigned this road for its dealings with the State, and let me tell my colleague that unless it shall reform its accommodations and management, and lower its rates, it will be arraigned at the bar of an enlightened and inexorable public opinion in that State. Why, sir, I have right here before me a paper published in the city in which I reside, which shows how my own immediate constitu ents are treated by this mammoth monopoly, and the losses which the people in my own city and county are suffering by the management of this company. This paper says that there are at Galena seven hundred car loads of oats, and twenty-five car loads of pork awaiting shipment to Cairo for Government use. It says further:

"There are also three hundred car loads of miscellaneous freight here for Chicago, making in all over one thousand car loads of freight ready to be shipped as soon as cars can be had. Estimating that an average of ten car loads per day could be sent off, it would take nearly three and a half months to clear out this vast amount of freight, to say nothing of what would accumulate in the mean time.

"At Dumleith there is an immense winrow of oats, in sacks, piled up out of doors, extending all the way from the dry bridge, below the old packet oflice, up to the elevator. The company has no place to store them, and if a heavy rain should come, there would be nothing to do but to let them soak."

That is the way in which the people are treated by this road, not only in my own town, but I believe at nearly every depot upon the line of the road in my district. The company have failed to use the means in their power to accommodate the people; and when the people complain, they are told,"Help yourselves if you can; build a rival road if you are not satisfied with what we do." And the president of the road told me in this very Hall, not more than three weeks ago, that " if the Illinois members of Congress sat here silent when their road was being interfered with they would charge forty cents a mile for passengers." Sir, they may charge me forty cents per mile passage." I shall not only not be silent, but will

always raise my voice as long as the rights of the people of Illinois demand a vindication at my hands.

I trust that the committee will adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, and prevent any further payments from being made to this company; and I trust that further legislation will be adopted which will recover from that road what it has obtained from the Treasury, as I think, unlawfully.

Let me, before concluding, reply to one remark of my colleague on the other side, [Mr. J. C. ALLEN.] He said that if we did not pay this company, in violation of law, (I say "in violation of law," because every man about here has said so, and the House has said so time and again;) the company cannot run the road, and the Government will have to take it in its own hands. Sir, I am tired of that kind of talk. It would have been well if the Government had taken possession of the road long ago. The Government could have run the road vastly better than this company have run it. I hope that the committee will not be influenced by such suggestions. The Government is abundantly able to run the road, and run it in such a manner as not only to indemnify itself, but give satisfaction to the people of the State. But it is all idle for the company to talk about turning over the road to the Government. It never intends to do it. All such talk might be regarded as intending to influence in the matter before us.

was believed by the Secretary of War, it was believed by the President of the United States, that it was never contemplated, and that it would be the grossest injustice to compel these roads to furnish and work the rolling stock.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask the gentleman from Iowa whether the grant made to this company was in the same terms as that to the Illinois Central railroad. Were the Illinois and Iowa railroad grants made in the same terms?

Mr. GRINNELL. I think that the wording was the same, or nearly the same, for all the roads. This is the point I make: it is not my idea of political economy in a time of great civil war to take advantage of these useful and necessary railroad corporations. I do not believe in that kind of economy. I regard it rather as injustice-a wrong to those who have been and are now in the service of the country as public carriers. We have an interpretation of the law by the Secretary of War, and we have an interpretation by the President of the United States, and I am willing to stand by that until we have an authorized decision to the contrary.

asking this appropriation of public money in violation of that condition after Congress made the grant upon the condition that the companies should perform that service free of toll or charge.

Mr. GRINNELL. I was opposed to that condition, and I stand by the vote I then gave. I do not believe the interpretation which has been put upon the condition is right, and if it is a right interpretation I believe the enforcement of it now would be wrong.

Mr. WILSON. Did not the gentleman vote for the bill to which he refers?

Mr. GRINNELL. 1 voted for it, but I want a fair interpretation of it.

Mr. WILSON. Has not that construction been placed upon it by the House, and acted upon by the Secretary of War?

Mr. GRINNELL. It has not been placed upon it by the Senate; and I propose to leave the law there to take its course.

Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman tell me what the construction of the law is?

Mr. GRINNELL. My construction is this: that under its provisions the land-grant roads are

nished, and if the Government wants to transport troops and munitions of war, there are the roads, and let it use them. The companies do not be

and operate it to such an extent as would lead to their bankruptcy.

Mr. WILSON. If my colleague will allow me to interrupt him, I would like him to state how much money was paid to the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company up to the time when this report was made by the Secretary of War.

Mr. GRINNELL. I know that it was a very small amount.

Mr. WILSON. Forty dollars and sixty-six

cents.

Mr. GRINNELL. But since that time they have done work for the Government to the amount of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars, and will be called on for much more.

Mr. WILSON. Has the Government paid anything to that company, in addition to that sum, since the House acted upon the subject?

Mr. GRINNELL. I do not know how that is, but I know that if the Government has not it ought to have done so. It is but just and right that it should have done so.

Mr. WILSON. Then I wish my colleague to state whether he desires the officers of the Government to obey the law.

Mr. GRINNELL. Mr. Chairman, I desire that the Secretary of War shall follow the construction of the law as made known to him by his constitutional law advisers.

Mr. WILSON. I suggest to my colleague that even the company does not question this construction of the law, that their road is to be used free of charge or of toll for this transportation. The only point they make, and the only one which was made to the Committee on the Judiciary, is that while they have furnished the road the Government should furnish the rolling stock.

Mr. GRINNELL. Hon. John A. Dix is the president of the road, and I am informed that he made a proposition to the Government in regard to the carrying of troops and munitions of war. "Yes, gentlemen, here is the road; go and use it -use it as much as you please." Then another question arose, whether the Government should furnish the rolling stock and the men to operate it. There was the question. It was believed by those whose duty it was to interpret the law, it

commends itself to every fair man. He deserves much at our hands. His friendship was early and has been lasting, firm as the hills, and I am not willing, connected as he is with this road, to strike at him and his friends unheard.

Mr. WILSON. There is one point I fear that my colleague will forget, and I desire to call his attention to it; that is, that during the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress he voted for several bills, one at least-the road upon the line of which he lives-conferring additional grants of land, upon the express condition contained in the Illinois Central Railroad grant; and that after the House had taken this action, after this construction had been placed upon it, and after the House had directed that this money should be recovered by the Secretary of War from those companies.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

The committee then informally rose.

A message was received from the Senate by Mr. HICKEY, its Chief Clerk, notifying the House that that body had passed a bill (S. No. 411) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company of the District of Columbia," in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House; that it had concurred in the following resolution of the House:

Resolved, (the Senate concurring.) That the Committee on Commerce on the part of the Senate be joined to the Committee on Commerce on the part of the House in the investigations in which said Committee on Commerce on the part of the House are now engaged, under resolutions of the House of January 20, 1865, and January 25, 1865, in regard to trade with the States in rebellion, to constitute a joint committee for the purpose of completing said investigations, and that the said joint committee have the same powers as the Committee on Commerce of the House now has on the subject of said investigation;

and that it had appointed Mr. TRUMBULL teller, on its part, to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL-AGAIN.
The committee resumed its session.

Mr. WILSON. I was remarking that my colleague voted for those land grants containing precisely the same conditions that were contained in other grants. I.also voted for this grant, and I intend, while that remains the law, to require those companies to live up to the conditions of the grant to which they assented, and I shall not stand here

Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman will allow me a little further, I desire to ask him whether the language of the proviso which has been referred to does not in express terms require them to carry for the Government troops and munitions of war free of toll; and whether the word "carry," or any equivalent word will be answered by what he now suggests as a substitute for it, to wit, that they shall give the Government the privilege of carrying?

Mr. GRINNELL. I will read the fourth section of the act:

And be it further enacted, That said lands hereby granted to said State shall be subject to the disposal of the Legisla ture thereof for the purposes aforesaid, and no other; and the said railroad and branches shall be and remain a public highway for the use of the Government of the United States, free from tolls or other charges upon the transportation of any property or troops of the United States.

"Free from charges or free from tolls." Run your trains every hour, and no tolls can be collected, none would be asked.

Mr. THAYER. Is the company willing that the Government should take possession?

Mr. GRINNELL. Whether willing or not, the Government can do it. But I can answer the gentleman in behalf of the Illinois Central Railroad Company. So far as this, I am told, they are willing that the Government should take possession of their road, rather than do all the Government work without pay and trust to a generous and future action for their reward.

Mr. THAYER. I would like to ask the gentleman how, in his opinion, the conditions of the grant are to be performed by the company; how, in other words, the United States is to get the consideration for the grant of the land. Now, I suppose he will concede that those were not idle words; that the Government of the United States never intended to transfer those large and valuable bodies of lands to these companies, and ro couple that transfer with a condition requiring them to perform a certain service, and that they did that without attaching any meaning to it. I would like the gentleman to state frankly how he proposes that these companies shall perform their contracts which they entered into with the Government of the United States when they received these lands.

Mr. GRINNELL. I will answer the gentleman in all frankness. He asks how the Government received a consideration for the grants. I answer, by receiving double price upon each alternate section of land. The Government really gave nothing, while the country got much.

Mr. THAYER. The gentleman misapprehends my question. How does he propose that the condition shall be executed by the companies, the condition being that they shall carry Government troops and munitions of war free of charge?

Mr. GRINNELL. The gentleman mistakes the language of the section. That is not the condition; it was that all Government transportation over their roads shall be free.

Mr. THAYER. Does the gentleman propose to surrender the roads to the United States in order that they may transport the freights themselves?

Mr. GRINNELL. It has been proposed by the railroad companies from the beginning to surrender their roads to the Government.

Mr. THAYER. Then that is a different proposition entirely.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to ask the gentleman from Iowa a question.

Mr. GRINNELL. In one moment; I wish to answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania first. There is this further consideration. In addition to putting a double price on the alternate sections, in the case of the Illinois Central railroad, seven per cent. of the gross earnings of the corporation go to the State of Illinois; and has not every portion of the United States an interest in building up a State so that we may tax it, so that there may be population to bear the burdens of government in peace and in war?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to ask my friend if he speaks for the Illinois Central railroad here?

Mr. GRINNELL. I think if the gentleman was a young member I should say he ought not to ask me that question. [Laughter.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is a question which is respectful to my friend from lowa and respectful to the House. I mean it in no offensive sense, as a matter of course.

Mr. GRINNELL. I know but one person connected with the Illinois Central railroad. I do not know that anybody engaged the gentleman to speak against the company, and I have as good a right to ask him if he is employed to speak against it.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I did not ask if the gentleman was employed to speak for or against it. The gentleman from Iowa undertook to say that the Illinois Central railroad would do so and so. I wanted to know from him whether he was authorized to say that.

Mr. GRINNELL. I say that I have heard it from the lips of an officer and one of high standing in the road, that they would rather surrender the road.

more.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. One word The gentleman has spoken of the consideration to the State of Illinois, the State receiving seven per cent. of the gross earnings of the road in lieu of taxation. That is what the gentleman undertook to say. The gentleman probably does not know another thing, that the railroad company is already arraigned before the Illinois Legislature for its attempts to defraud the State of its just revenue by taxation; this charge, which I see is made by a distinguished member of the State senate, Mr. McConnell, the representative of Morgan and Sangamore counties, is that the company have retained the title of lands which they have sold to settlers in their own name, giving a bond for a deed, thus depriving the State of the power of taxing those lands.

Mr. PRUYN. What has that to do with the merits of this question?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Does the gentleman desire to know?

Mr. PRUYN. I desire to know if it has any pertinency to the question that we are consider ing.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I suppose it has just as much pertinency on the one side as upon the other.

Mr. PRUYN. If that is the only reason my question is answered.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Iowa first mentioned it, and I explained it.

Mr. GRINNELL. This seven per cent. of the gross earnings of the road is given to the State in consideration of the taxation of the lands which they give up. That meets the case exactly. Why, sir, seven per cent. of the gross earnings of that great corporation amounts to millions of dollars a year, and the State receives that in lieu of a tax upon lands that are fifty miles from a stick of timber and that never would have been occupied in this generation but for the railroad.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Iowa. I would like to ask my colleague as to the quantity of land granted to the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company, whether those lands are not worth from one

to two million dollars; and whether, therefore, that railroad company cannot well afford to do all the transportation that it is called upon to do for the Government in consideration of its grant.

Mr. GRINNELL. I will answer my colleague's question.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman from Iowa yield to me?

Mr. GRINNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, the State of Illinois receives seven per cent. of the gross earnings of the road in lieu of a tax on the road itself, not in lieu of a tax on the land. These lands, of course, are subject to taxation as soon as they are sold. Every settler who obtains a title to land is at once taxed by the State, as every other proprietor of land in the State of Illinois is taxed. Of course the tax of seven per cent. amounts to a very large sum. I desire to ask a question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER,] who seems to insist that that provision of the statute requiring the road to remain a public highway, and to be subject to the transportation of Government troops and supplies, free of charge, should be enforced. I understood him to claim that these words also apply to the rolling stock, engines, engineers, the men necessary to load and unload the cars, and all that sort of thing. Suppose the railroad company has not got the rolling stock to perform all the work required by the Government, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] understand the section to require that the company shall go to work and build an additional number of cars and employ an additional number of hands?

Mr. GRINNELL. That is just the question which I was going to ask.

Mr. THAYER. I will answer the question very candidly. I suppose no lawyer can mistake the meaning of the section for one moment. It means that, to the extent of the ability of the company, to the extent of their car accommodations, to the extent of their engine power, and of their ordinary running ability, the company shall, at all times, receive and transport the property of the United States, in the language of the section, "free from toll or other charge." What could be more explicit, or what could indicate more clearly the intention of Congress, than the accurate and precise terms in which this condition is framed? The committee will observe that the condition states that "the said railroad and branches shall be and remain a public highway for the use of the Government of the United States, free from toll or other charge." Now, if this section had ended there, there would have been something in the argument of the gentleman from Illinois, that the Government of the United States, whenever it wished to transport freight over this road, should itself furnish facilities for the transportation.

But the gentleman only reads half the contract. He stops at the material words which pin this company. He would perform half the condition, and strike out from the contract the words that impose the remainder of the condition, because the section adds to the words "free from toll" the words "or other charge on the transportation of any property or troops of the United States." The law therefore declares, as plainly as language can declare anything, that this company shall not only suffer the Government to have the use of its road-bed free of toll, but that it shall also "transport" the property or troops of the United States free of charge. That is the plain meaning of the words of the section. The last words, which are superadded to the words prohibiting the charge of toll, plainly indicate the intention of Congress to impose upon the company the duty of transportation without charge to the United States; and I do not see how any one can read the section with any other meaning.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would like to put a supposed case to my friend from Pennsylvania. I understand from him that, in case of a sudden emergency on the part of the Government for the transportation of a large number of troops and a large quantity of supplies over this railroad, greater than the rolling stock of the road could accommodate, the company would be guilty of a violation of law and would be liable to the forfeiture of its charter, if it did not instantly put on the road the rolling stock to perform this work.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Ohio. With the permission of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] I ||

would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] a single question. I desire to ask him how soon it was after the Government claimed to have its troops and munitions of war transported without charge over this road that the road advertised the Government of its intention to charge for transportation. I ask the question in view of the construction put upon the provision in question.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not know.

Mr. PRUYN. I wish to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] whether he has considered the reasons which the Secretary of War and the President gave for the conclusion to which they arrived, and for which they are now arraigned on this floor.

Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRINNELL] will permit me to answer the question of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. PRUYN,] I will state for his satisfaction that I have not considered the reasons of the Secretary of War or of the President of the United States. They have not done me the honor to submit those reasons to me. But let me add that I conceive that the members of this House are quite as competent to interpret their own laws as either the Secretary of War or the President of the United States. I am not to be told, in answer to the plain meaning of the act of Congress, that it has not that meaning because the Secretary of War, or, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] has said, the Solicitor of the War Department, puts an interpretation upon it which conflicts with my ideas of common sense and plain English.

Now, if the gentleman will point me to a decision-I will not say of the highest judicial tribunal of this country, but to the decision of any respectable judicial tribunal-putting a construction upon this act of Congress different from that which I say properly belong to its words, then he will be in a position to ask me why I hold the construction which I have assigned to it. But he does not answer the argument which presses upon him by asking me whether I have considered the reasons of the Secretary of War. The Secretary of War has no more right to give a construction which shall bind this House than any private individual of this country. Why should I go to the Secretary of War, or to any other public functionary in this country, or to anybody but the judicial tribunals of this country, to interpret a law which is so plain that it requires no interpretation?

Mr. PRUYN. I take no such position. I simply asked the question of the gentleman.

Mr. GRINNELL. I think I must now resume the floor for a few moments. In the first place I wish to answer the question of my colleague, [Mr. HUBBARD.] He asks what these lands are worth which have been given to these railroads. Undoubtedly, sir, they are worth a large sum of money. But I wish to ask him, and that will answer his question, what he supposes the stock of those railroads is worth that is based upon the cost of the road and these land grants to aid in the construction of railroads in Iowa and several other States? These land-grant railroads have never earned three per cent. upon their capital stock, not one of them; and when this assault is made upon this great interest in the West, I make the assertion that these railroads have never yet earned three per cent. upon their cost. The stock has only a nominal value. Gentlemen upon this floor must have absolute knowledge upon this subject, and I am the more surprised at the harsh conditions which they seek to impose.

What I object to is this forced interpretation, this unreasonable interpretation of the law; this oppression of those who now in time of calamity seem to be in our power; who are now carrying our soldiers and munitions of war, as well as thousands of tons of freight, wearing out their rolling stock and their rails for a small compensation. I object to this as unwise, since the State of Illinois cannot well complain; and the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Kansas, will be unable to build another mile of railroad in those States by land grants, if the law receives any such interpretation as is proposed to be given. I should not have made these remarks, as I will never defend monopoly or extortion, but that I desire to repel the idea that the proper course to carry a measure is to assail somebody, to create a prejudice against some one, and I refer especially to the remarks of the gen

two million men in the field, when the resources of every company were taxed beyond its capacity, that company was to go on and furnish transportation for munitions of war, for troops, for freight, without charge to the Government or compensation for the service.

Mr. WILSON. The gentleman from New York will allow me to say that the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company and the Pacific Railroad Company in Missouri did regard this obligation; and they applied to Congress for relief on the ground that their roads had been de

ments.

I understood the gentleman to doubt whether this Illinois Central Railroad Company would like to give up its railroad to the Government. If it is to be a military railroad, and if it is to carry everything for the Army and the soldiers, then they can go to his own town, Galena, where they can buy oats for forty or fifty cents a bushel and have a train ten miles long or less if necessary, saving expense to the Government, to take them down to our soldiers at Cairo.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would inform my friend from Iowa, [Mr. GRINNELL,] that our western soldiers are not fed on oats. [Laughter.]

Mr. GRINNELL. I should have said cavalry, as it so happens that many of their soldiers have horses that need the grain. I wish to conclude by saying that I am confident this legislation will be destructive to our best interests in the new States. I believe it is out of place, and I regret that my colleague [Mr. WILSON] has seen fit to introduce such a proposition here on an appropriation bill. I believe it is oppressive, and that it will not as a just measure stand the test of time. I believe it is a wrong toward those who have invested their money in our enterprises and who are now contemplating further investments which promise to extend our roads and unite us to the rich and far West.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of making a five-minutes speech, and then I shall ask that the debate be closed. I think that this discussion has been very discursive, not very logical, nor very close to the mark. All that has been said might, I think, have been said in half an hour.

Mr. DAVIS, of New York. Will the gentleman yield to me for a few moments?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS, of New York. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that, in the discussion of this question we have lost sight of one great principle which should guide us in its decision. I think it is due to the parties interested in this question and to the country, that we, as an American Congress, should look at the position which the Government and this company relatively occupied at the time when they entered into that contract by which the Government granted and the company accepted this donation of land. Whatever duties the parties believed that contract imposed upon them they are bound to perform; whatever contingencies or circumstances were contemplated by the parties they are bound to abide by. But I submit to this House and the country that when that contract was entered into, neither party understood that such a contingency as has arisen would arise. Neither party understood that this Government would make a demand upon the resources and transportation of that company beyond anything in their power to place upon their road. A new circumstance has arisen; a new condition has sprung into existence; and in view of this fact I say equity demands that we should step forward and give a compensation in accordance with the new condition of things. I affirm here that not a land-grant railroad company in the United States ever accepted a grant from Congress with the understanding that, in a time of war, when we had

relief. Both those companies regarded this obligation as binding upon them. Now, sir, if the gentleman from New York or any other member of the House will introduce a bill to relieve these companies from the obligations into which they have entered, we shall then have presented to us a very different question from that which we are now considering, which is merely, shall we enforce the law as it now exists until it shall be changed by Congress?

that the imputation was unjust, and that there never would be a time when the Government would not have that transportation free of charge according to the law. I remember afterward having seen a statement, made by authority of the railroad company, setting forth the value of those lands, and that it was shown that, after building the road without costing the stockholders one cent, there would be a surplus from these lands for the stockholders of over thirty million dollars.

Mr. PRUYN. Is the gentleman aware that, with these advantages and development of this road, gentlemen living abroad who have invested money in this road cannot now get more than fifty cents on the dollar?

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman knows that you cannot now get more than forty dollars in gold for a $100 bond of the United States, which is one of the best securities in the world; and what has that to do with the matter except to show that the gold gamblers have deluded us, and that we have not sense enough to confound them?

When interrupted I was saying that the stockholders of that road had from these lands a surplus of $30,000,000, although they had not ex

the construction of the road. I predicted all this in 1850. If the company says that it has made a bad bargain and wants to be relieved, perhaps we may relieve it.

I move that the committee rise, to close this debate.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. DAVIS] that we have gone wide of the mark, and I think that he has gone a little wider than the rest, for he proposes abso-pended out of their own pockets one dollar upon lutely to violate the law. He says that inasmuch as, when this law was passed, we had no civil war, therefore-although no exception was inserted in the contract; although there was no provision that civil war should operate as an abrogation of the obligation-we are bound as honest men not to insist on the performance of the contract. Why, sir, what sort of war was contemplated when this law was passed? Was it expected that we should transport munitions of war through Illinois to protect the Canadian border? With what particular nation was war contemplated? Not with France, because it was not expected that we should transport troops along that road to attack France. Not with England, for the road did not reach to England. What war, then, was in contemplation when it was provided that troops and munitions of war should be transported without charge? Why, any war, any disturbance, any insurrection, any civil war which required an interior road to transport troops and munitions of war along it. The provision can have no other sensible interpretation. It cannot apply to any other condition of things. Unless we adopt this construction the Government can never get any return for its grant to this company.

It is plain that, when this grant of land was made, it was a general grant upon a general condition. This grant of hundreds of thousands of acres was made upon what condition? That the company should build the road; that they should stock it, and operate it. None but that company had the right to put rolling stock upon it. The right to construct, and stock, and operate the road was granted exclusively to this company. For anybody to attempt to interfere with their prerogative of constructing, stocking, and operating the road would have been an absolute violation of the charter, and an outrage upon the rights of this company.

Just so with the Government. It made this grant of land for a consideration, and that consideration was that in time of war its troops and munitions should be transported free of toll or other charge by this road. Who is there senseless enough not to see that the Government was not only to use the road but also to use the rolling stock of the road? For that grant of lands we had not only the right to the use of this road, but to the rolling stock of the road. It is not too much to ask for the munificent grant of lands made by the Government. I know that we are told that there is the road, and that we are at liberty to use it, but that we must put upon it our own rolling stock. I know that we are told that there will be no charge for the use of this road. The transportation was to be free of toll or other charge. What are the other charges? What was meant except charges for freight and transportation?

Mr. Chairman, I remember that in 1850, when this law was passed, I took objection to it, and suggested that the Government would not get the value for the grant of lands; that it would not get the proposed transportation of troops and munitions of war free of charge. I recollect that my language was offensive to an honorable member from Massachusetts, (Robert Rantoul,) who said ||

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr ROLLINS, of New Hampshire, reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the special order, the bill (H. R. No. 688) making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repair of certain fortifications and other works of defense for the year ending the 30th June, 1866, had directed him to report the same back with an amendment; and also having had under consideration the Army appropriation bill, had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. STEVENS. I now call the previous question upon the fortification appropriation bill and amendment.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

The amendment of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union was concurred in, and 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. STEVENS 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.

INDIAN CLAIMS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, asking an appropriation to complete the payment of certain Indian claims; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

TAX BILL.

Mr. BROOKS moved that three times the ordinary number of the tax bill be printed for the use of the House; which, under the law, was referred to the Committee on Printing.

TELLERS TO COUNT ELECTORAL VOTES.

The SPEAKER appointed Messrs. WILSON and DAWSON as tellers on the part of the House to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL-AGAIN.

Mr. STEVENS moved that general debate in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Army appropriation bill be closed in one minute after its consideration shall be resumed. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Army appropriation bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire, in the chair,)

and resumed the consideration of the Army appropriation bill.

The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House all debate on the bill is closed in one minute. The pending question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON.]

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Upon that I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. J. C. ALLEN and Mr. WILSON were appointed.

The committee divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 68, noes 31.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire, reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the special order, being the bill (H. R. No. 683) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending 30th June, 1866, and had directed him to report the same to the House with an amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I demand the previous question upon the bill and amendment.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

The first question was on the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as follows:

Provided, That no money appropriated by this act shall be used for the purpose of paying any railroad company for the transportation of property or troops of the United States when such company may have accepted a grant of lands from Congress upon condition of furnishing said transportation free of toll or other charge, except in such cases as have been modified by act of Congress.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Upon the adoption of that amendment I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF IMMIGRATION. Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to amend an act entitled An act to encourage immigration," approved July 4, 1864, and an act entitled "An act to regulate the carriage of passengers in steamships and other vessels," approved March 3, 1855, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the special committee on immigration.

MILITARY AND POSTAL ROADS.

Mr. SLOAN, by unanimous consent, introtroduced a bill to declare certain roads military and postal roads; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

PRINTING THE TAX BILL.

Mr. A. W. CLARK, from the Committee on Printing, reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the members of this House fifteen hundred copies of the amendatory internal revenue bill, reported by the Committee of Ways and Means on the 6th instant.

PENNSYLVANIA WAR CLAIMS.

Mr. STROUSE, by unanimous consent, presented the joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, relative to the repayment by the United States of certain moneys advanced by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to pay the volunteer militia of 1863; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

STEAMER VANDERBILT.

Mr. DAWES, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to communicate to this House the amount of money paid by the Government to the owner of the steamer Vanderbilt for the use of said steamer previous to the presentation of the same to the Government, on what terms the same has been paid, and for how long a period of service.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

PENNSYLVANIA WAR CLAIMS-AGAIN.

Mr. SCHENCK. I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution of the Pennsylvania Legislature relative to the repayment by the United States of certain moneys advanced by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to pay the volunteer militia of 1863 was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. I desire to have it referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. THAYER. I hope that will not be done. Mr. STEVENS. It might as well be laid on the table. A bill passed the House last session covering these claims, and it is now in the Senate. The question was taken on the motion to reconsider; and it was agreed to.

The question recurred on the motion to refer the joint resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the joint resolution be laid on the table, and printed. The question was taken on Mr. STEVENS's motion, and it was agreed to.

PAY OF A CONTESTANT.

Mr. NOBLE. I ask unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution for reference to the Committee on Elections:

Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives to Hugh M. Martin the usual pay and mileage up to the day when he withdrew his contest before the Committee on Elections as a contestant for a seat in the Thirty-Eighth Congress as Representative from the fourth district in the State of Iowa.

Mr. WILSON. I object.

Mr. NOBLE. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw his objection, and allow the resolution to be referred to the Committe on Elections. Mr. WILSON. No, sir; I cannot do it. RETALIATION.

Mr. LOAN. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to take from the Speaker's table joint resolution of the Senate No. 97, advising retaliation for the cruel treatment of prisoners by the insurgents, for the purpose of having it referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to its being taken up to be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, because if it gets there the Lord only knows when they will be able to report it back, and I hope that when it is taken up it will be put upon its passage.

BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. Mr. NORTON. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill relating to the railroad bridge across the Mississippi river from Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, to Davenport, in the State of Iowa, to establish and declare the same a post route.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I shall have to object to that.

MILEAGE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Mr. ANCONA. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Mileage be directed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the rate of mile

age to ten cents per mile, with a view to equalizing the compensation of members; and that they be directed to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. SPALDING. Iobject.

Mr. HOLMAN. I demand the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the consideration of the enrollment bill. Mr. HOLMAN. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I appeal to the gentleman from Indiana to allow me to offer a resolution.

Mr. HOLMAN. I will waive my motion for that purpose.

CLAIMS FOR ARMY SUPPLIES.

Mr. MILLER, of New York, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of the act passed July 4, 1864, as allows the heads of the Quartermaster's and Subsistence Departments to audit and allow claims for stores furnished to the Army of the United States not receipted for by the officer receiving. the same, and which are substantiated only by ex parte affidavits, and that the Committee be further instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the said act as to restore the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in said cases, with leave to report by bill or otherwise.

ENROLLMENT LAW.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, the bill amending the enrollment law was made the special order for last Thursday. It has been crowded out of its place again and again, and now the draft is nearly approaching. I ask the gentleman from Indiana, before pressing his motion to adjourn, to permit that special order to be taken up so that we shall know that it will come up regularly.

The SPEAKER. The bill is already before the House.

Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, what has become of the special order that preceded the enrollment bill?

The SPEAKER. It was understood that the reconstruction bill was laid aside temporarily.

Mr. DAWES. I did not so understand it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that if the reconstruction bill can be passed over temporarily, as the gentleman from Ohio first suggested, it will not lose its priority. The enrollment bill will come up, and as soon as that is disposed of the reconstruction bill will come up.

Mr. PENDLETON. I would like to inquire what effect that will have on the other matters set aside for the latter days of this week.

The SPEAKER. These are the only two special orders in the House. The others are postponements.

Mr. PENDLETON. The tax bill is made a special order after to-morrow evening. When will the bill in reference to Cabinet ministers in Congress come up?

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot state.

Mr. PENDLETON. I will object to postponeing the reconstruction bill unless it be postponed to a day later than the bill for admitting Cabinet ministers to the floor.

Mr. RICE, of Maine. I desire to make an inquiry of the Chair as to the bill for territorial buildings.

The SPEAKER. That is a postponement according to the Journal-not a special order.

Mr. RICE, of Maine. It was a special order before, and was postponed as a special order.

The SPEAKER. Then there are several special orders. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PENDLETON] says he will object to the reconstruction bill being postponed, unless it be postponed until a day later than the bill for the admission of Cabinet ministers.

Mr. DAWES. I cannot consent.

The SPEAKER. Then the reconstruction bill will be the special order at the meeting when the House resumes that class of business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I I move that the House do now take a recess until seven o'clock.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that when the House resumes its session at seven o'clock, it will be in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the President's annual message. The Chair requests that the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] will take the chair.