Forty-third amendment: In line four hundred and sixty-seven strike out "$15.000" and insert "$25,000;" so that the clause will read: For surveying the public lands in Montana Territory, at rates not exceeding fifteen dollars per lineal mile for standard lines, twelve dollars for township, and ten dollars for section lines, $25,000. The Committee on Appropriations recom. mend non concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. In line four hundred and seventy-one strike out "$15,000" and insert" $5,000;" so that the clause will read: For surveying the public lands in Utah Territory, at rates not exceeding fifteen dollars per mile for standard lines, twelve dollars for township, and ten dollars for section lines, $5,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Insert after line four hundred and seventy-one the following: For surveying public lands in the State of Florida, $20,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. In lines four hundred and seventy-six, four hundred and seventy-seven, and four hundred and seventy-eight. strike out "fifteen dollars" and insert "twenty-five dollars;" strike out "$6.375" and insert "$10,625;" so that the clause will read: For surveying the eastern boundary of Nevada, estimated four hundred and twenty five miles, at not exceeding twenty-five dollars per mile, $10,625. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. I hope that some of the members of the Committee on Appropriations will listen for a moment to what I may say, because I can hardly believe that they wish to make an invidious distinction against the State of Nevada in this matter of boundary survey. It was conceded that a survey of at least the eastern boundary of Nevada was necessary. The Commissioner of the General Land Office recommended the survey of the northern and eastern boundaries. But when I appeared before the Committee on Appropriations I agreed to waive the survey of the northern boundary, because we have not many settlements there. But it is necessary to have the eastern boundary surveyed, because our officers, in levying taxes and collecting them, come in contact with the Mormon authorities for some distance there. We fixed it at fifteen dollars per mile. The recommendation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office was twenty-five dollars a mile. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Are these amendments of the Senate according to the recommendation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office? Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. are. Certainly they Forty-ninth amendment: In line five hundred and thirty-six strike out "five" and insert "three;" so as to make the paragraph read as follows: For purchase of trees and tree-boxes, to replace, when necessary, such as have been planted by the United States, to whitewash tree-boxes and fences, and to repair pavements in front of the public grounds, $3,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Insert after line five hundred and forty-four the following paragraph: For continuing the United States twenty-inch water main from its present terminus in north B street on the east side of Delaware avenue, to the United States twelve-inch main on First street east, $10,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Although perhaps it may not be proper for me to state what took place in the committee, I wish to say that on this question there was a tie, and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING,] who came in afterward, voted to non-concur, although I considered his vote too late. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to state whether this is not the fact. Mr. SPALDING. I think my vote against concurrence decided the question in commitBut I now prefer that the amendment should be concurred in. tee. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have no objection to that. The amendment was concurred in. Add the following new paragraph: To enable the Secretary of the Interior to pay for fitting necessary shelving, and for record books furnished or ordered for the office of register of deeds of the District of Columbia, during the period when Edward C. Eddie was such register, $550. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Add the following new paragraph: To enable the Secretary of the Senate to complete the alphabetical list of private claims to the end of the second session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and to pay outstanding claims for services rendered in the preparation of said work under a resolution of the Senate of March 16, 1866, $2,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Add the following new paragraph: That the sum of $15,000, or as much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to defray the expenses of the Joint Committee on Ordnance, and that the same shall be drawn from the Treasury, upon the order of the Secretary of the Senate, as it shall be required; and any portion of the amount hereby appropriated that shall be allowed by the said joint committee to witnesses attending before it, or other persons employed in its service, for per diem, traveling, or other necessary expenses, and paid by the Secretary of the Senate, in pursuance of the orders of said joint committee, shall be accordingly credited and allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. -The amendment was concurred in. Fifty-fourth amendment: Add the following new paragraph: To enable the joint Committee on the Library to pay Mrs. Sarah F. Ames an additional compensation for her marble bust of President Lincoln, $500. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Fifty-fifth amendment: Add the following new paragraph: For expenses of the trial of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, $6,000, or as much thereof as may be necessary, to be paid into the contingent fund of the Senate. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Add the following new paragraph: For the purchasing of suitable sites for the erection of additional school-houses, and for the maintainance of schools in the county of Washington, outside of the limits of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the same to be expended under the direction of the levy court of the county of Washington, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, $10,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Insert: For experiments in the cultivation and prepara tion of the madder root, $10,500, to be expended under the direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Fifty-eighth amendment: Insert as an additional section the following: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $9,263 85, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to pay balance due for the survey of lands embraced in the Osage Indian reservation, in the State of Kansas, under contract dated August 14 and 16, 1866, the said sum to be returned to the Treasury out of the proceeds of the sale of said lands, as provided by treaties with said Indians. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Fifty-ninth amendment: Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $7.775, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay for the balance due for surveying several Indian reservations in Utah Territory; the survey of which was provided for by act of Congress approved May 5, 1864. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $39,014 63, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not heretofore appropriated, to pay for the survey of the Osage Indian trust lands ceded to the United States under treaty concluded September 29, 1865, upon a contract made with the General Land Office under date of September 18, 1866, and another contract for another portion of said trust lands, dated May 28, 1867; which survey is according to the provisions of the second article of treaty concluded with said tribe September 29, 1865. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Add the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $3,362 03, to pay the balance due for the survey of the lands embraced in the Omaha and Winnebago Indian reservation in the State of Nebraska, under contract dated August 14, 1866, as provided by a treaty with the Omaha Indians, and authorized by act of Congress approved July 28, 1866. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. TAFFE. This ought to be concurred in. The survey has been made, and ought to be paid for. Mr. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Speaker, we have gone over this question in a separate bill, and the House, after full consideration, paid what they found to be deficient. What we struck out of that bill the Senate have put into this. For that reason we have not concurred in that action. The House have, by a large majority, sustained the action of the committee on the other bill. The amendment was non-concurred in. Sixty-second amendment: Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.-. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner of the General Land Office is hereby authorized to continue the extension of the geological explorations as begun in Nebraska under the provisions of the second section of the deficiency act of Congress, approved March 2, 1867, to other portions of the public lands; and for that purpose the sum of $10,000 is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. Mr. PAINE. I move to strike out "$10,-York, and four million acres to the United 000" and insert "$5,000." I hope the House will agree to that. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I do not agree to that amendment. I do not see the necessity for it. Mr. PAINE. Gentlemen say if I do not make a speech they will adopt the amendment and then concur in the amendment of the Senate. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to; and the Senate amendment, as amended, was concurred in. Sixty-third amendment: Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner of Patents be authorized to rent, under the direction of the Committees on Patents of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, such rooms as may be necessary for the speedy and convenient transaction of the business of the oflice, and to pay for the same out of the patent fund. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.-. Be it further enacted, That the city of Georgetown, the city of Washington, and the levy court of the county of Washington, District of Columbia, be, and they are hereby, authorized to levy and collect a special tax on the taxable property within their respective jurisdictions, for the erection of schoolhouses and the support of public schools, not exceeding fifty cents on each $100 for any one year, to be assessed and collected as other taxes. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That all laws and parts of laws that regulate the price of labor in the Government Printing Office be, and the same are hereby, repealed; and it shall be the duty of the Congressional Printer to contract with the persons in that employment at such prices as are for the interest of the Government, and are just to those employed. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Add the following as a new section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of executing the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, concluded on the 9th day of August, 1842, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Maine for ninety-one thousand one hundred and twenty-five acres of land assigned by said State to settlers under said article, a sum equal to $125 per acre; and to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for twenty-six thousand one hundred and fifty acres of land a sum equal to $1 25 per acre: Provided, That before said sums are paid the States of Maine and Massachusetts shall agree with the United States that the settlers upon their public lands in the late disputed territory in Maine entitled to be quieted in their possession, as ascertained by commissions heretofore instituted by said States, shall have been or shall be quieted by a release of the title of the said States. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I would like to know from the gentleman from Massachusetts whether that State did not assign all her interest in this land to the State of Maine or to the railroads within that State? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the House will not coneur in that amendment. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the following words: And to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for twenty-six thousand one hundred and fifty acres of land a sum equal to $1 25 per acre. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to make a plain statement of the facts relating to this matter which compelled the judgment of the committee in their report in its favor. By the conventional line established by what is known as the "Ashburton treaty" two several parcels of land were taken from the jurisdiction of the treating parties. One from Maine, which was added to New Brunswick, and the other came into Maine from New Brunswick by the line of the treaty. The same line running westward gave large amounts of land to New Hamphire, Vermont, and New States northwest of Lake Superior. By the fifth article of the treaty Maine was to have a certain specific sum for the land taken from her domain that was given to New Brunswick. By the fourth article of the treaty the United States agreed to quiet the titles of the British settlers and maintain them thereon on the land which came within the jurisdiction of that State from the territory of New Brunswick. The United States could not do that without the consent of the States of Maine and Massachusetts because by establishing the line it was declared that this land was the property of those States. Maine and Massachusetts therefore have undertaken to quiet the titles of these British settlers upon the State lands according to the terms of the treaty as soon as the United States will perform its part of the contract under the treaty by giving to these States the ordinary price of public lands, namely, $1 25 per acre for the lands which they must give up to these settlers to carry out the terms of the treaty. The States thus will give titles to these settlers which the United States by the Ashburton treaty agreed to give, but which the Government had not the power to do without the action of the States who owned the land, and therefore the Government must in fact buy these lands of the States to fulfill its treaty stipulations. This question has been pending now twentythree years. Estates of deceased persons cannot now be settled in that territory. Land titles cannot be passed. Improvements are stopped simply because these titles cannot be quieted. This question has been before Congress very frequently. There are eight several reports of committees in its favor. The claim has four times passed the Senate. There has never been a majority report of a committee against it, though there has been a very able minority report. There cannot be a report against it with any show of justice. The reason why we have not been able to get a hearing before in this House is that being a claim calling for an appropriation of money, and therefore contained in an appropriation bill, it has always come before the House in the last hours of the session, and has failed to be acted upon; and so, never having been open for discussion, it has not yet passed. But every committee that has examined the subject has reported in favor of the payment of the claim. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. A single question. I had but one moment to look at it; but in one of these reports I could not find that they gave anything to Massachusetts. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. When Massachusetts gave up the district of Maine to be a State she had certain public lands in common with Maine, so that a portion of her lands were taken at the same time that the lands of Maine were taken. The United States have already admitted the justice of this claim by paying for the title of a township and one half of these lands which had been granted before the treaty. They settled for and paid for the land, the title to which did not stand either in Maine or Massachusetts. But for the land, the title to which stood in Maine and Massachusetts, has not been paid for by the United States, although gone to their benefit in carrying out their treaty with Great Britain according to its terms. Now, I appeal to the justice of this House, to which I trust no man will ever appeal in vain, to give to Maine and Massachusetts this money to which they are entitled, so that they may be enabled to quiet those titles. Now, in regard to the question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] whether Massachusetts has not assigned her portion of this money to a railroad company, and therefore he has made his motion to strike out the Massachusetts portion, I appeal to his fairness if this money belongs to Massachusetts will he not allow Massachusetts to do what she pleases with it? What has Massachusetts done with it? With her accustomed liberality, with her usual public spirit, she has devoted this amount and much more to building a line of railroad inter-communication between the British provinces and the United States, an iron band to bind them to us and to bring them in sooner or later as a part of our territory. And is that action of hers to be raised as an objection against her or against Maine in this House of Representatives as a reason why either of them should not have what is their just right? Massachusetts, instead of desiring the money from our Treasury to help pay her burdens of debt arising out of the war, which debt she counts by millions-although this money is her just due, for which she has waited twenty-three years she only desires it for the purpose of contributing it to aid a great line of public im provement between the United States and the British provinces. Will you not give her her own, that with it she may benefit you? [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I was not able to concur with the nominal majority of the Committee on Appropriations in recommending a concurrence in this amendment of the Senate. My first reason was that it was a private claim in favor of a State on an appropriation bill, and against every just rule of legislation. We have, I think, invariably cut off all private claims from our appropriation bills, for the reason that it is unfair to give one claimant the advantage over another, which he would have by putting his claim upon an appropriation bill. Now, here are Maine and Massachusetts with an old claim which, according to the statement of my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] is of twenty-three years' standing; a claim which Congress has refused to pay over and over again. This claim is now thrust upon an appropriation bill, and we are asked to pass it. Mr. PETERS. When did Congress ever refuse to pay this claim? The gentleman says Congress has refused over and over again to pay it. Will he state when? : Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Well, we have not paid it we have refused to pay it by not paying it. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] says there have been eight reports in favor of this claim. Well, sir, all those reports have not been able to convince the Senate and House both together that this claim was just and proper and ought to be paid. I will not go into the merits of this claim, because I have not time for it, although my friend from Indiana, [Mr. ORTH,] while a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the last Congress, made a conclusive report against the justice of the whole matter. I protest against putting on this appropriation bill this private claim in favor of the States of Maine and Massachusetts; hence I am against concurring in this amendment of the Senate. I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. ÓRTH.] Mr. ORTH. It must be apparent to every member of this House that in the course of two or three minutes, or even five minutes The SPEAKER. The gentleman has two minutes of the remaining time of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.] Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will move to amend the amendment, and yield my five minutes to the gentleman from Indiana. The SPEAKER. There is now pending an amendment to the amendment. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope that will be withdrawn. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I will withdraw my amendment to the amendment if the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] will renew it. Mr. ORTH. I will renew the amendment to the amendment. It is utterly impossible, in the space of five minutes, to give anything like a correct history of this claim. I think my attention was first called to it some two years ago in connection with a bill which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. That bill had the specious title of “A bill to provide for the defense of the northeastern boundary of Maine." Upon examining the bill I found that it was in the interest of the European and North American Railway Company, and that a claim was preferred against Congress for $2,300,000, growing out of the treaty of Washington, of 1842. This claim now comes up before the House again, having grown "small by degrees and beautifully less. But I warn the members of this House that while this section states it is for the purpose of carrying out and executing the fourth article of the treaty, and that only $146,000 are now desired, yet when that is acknowledged you will be called on to execute the fifth article of the treaty, and then the amount will reach the neighborhood of its original proportions,|| $1,000,000. The claim upon which it is alleged this money is due is, first, for lands assigned to settlers under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington; second, for loss of timber upon the "disputed territory," between the years 1832 and 1839; third, for the correction of an error in the computation of interest on moneys advanced by the State of Maine in protecting and defending her territory under the treaty aforesaid; and, fourth, for interest upon Maine's third of the advances made by Massachusetts in the war of 1812-15. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] who has advocated this claim, has stated very correctly that some seven or eight reports have been made either in the Senate or the House of Representatives in favor of this claim; but if the gentleman would examine all these reports, as I did some two years ago, he would find that there is a very close resemblance between them-sufficient to enable one to trace their paternity to the same source. He would find, furthermore, that each one of those reports is in favor of the payment of what is called the "disputed territory" claim, when the fact is as stated for the first time in the minority report which I presented to this House, that there is a receipt in full from the States of Maine and Massachusetts for everything growing out of that claim with regard to the disputed territory," that receipt being given as far back as the administration of James Buchanan-a receipt in full for every dollar which was due to the States of Maine and Massachusetts for that claim. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I agree to that. * Mr. ORTH. Yet in every one of those eight reports to which the gentleman from Massachusetts has alluded, that claim is put forward as a valid claim arising under the fourth article of the treaty. Now, then, we come to this fourth article of the treaty, the only one now under consideration. What was the object of the treaty of 1842 between the United States and Great Britain? It was to correct the disputed boundary between our territory and that of Great Britain upon this continent. That dispute arose as far back as the early history of the French colonists upon this continent, and it was never definitely settled till the treaty of 1842. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. With the permission of the gentleman from Indiana Mr. ORTH] I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] a question. This treaty provided for something to be done hereafter. I would like to know whether the treaty is now of binding force? Mr. ORTH. Mr. Speaker, prior to the ratification of the treaty of 1842 there was, as I have stated, a disputed question of boundary between Great Britain and the United States. A convention was held, and this treaty was agreed upon to correct the boundary. New Brunswick claimed that a part of her territory had gone to the State of Maine, while Maine claimed that a part of her territory had gone to New Brunswick. Pending the struggle, settlers from New Brunswick acquired title to certain lands within the disputed territory. The citizens of Maine likewise acquired lands within that disputed territory. The object, then, of this fourth article of the treaty was simply to say to the citizens of New Brunswick, who had come upon the American side of the line, that they should be protected in the rights which they had acquired from the province of New Brunswick; and to say to the citizens of Maine who had settled north of the line that they should be protected by the British Government in the rights which they had acquired, as they supposed, under the authority of the State of Maine. The whole scope, object, and intent of the fourth article of the treaty was simply to quiet the titles of private individuals in the possession of the lands which they had acquired either from the province of New Brunswick or from the State of Maine. The treaty did not create or recognize any obligation on the part of the United States to pay one dollar of any such claim as this. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to discuss a subject of this kind in the allotted time of five minutes. In the first place the acting chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois] would prejudice this appropriation by criticising the action of the Senate in allowing it to be inserted as a part of this appropriation bill. I can only say that the Senate (and I read the proceedings carefully) came almost unanimously to the conclusion, after a full ventilation of the subject, that as the matter arose under a treaty it was properly included in a bill of this character. However, that question is foreclosed. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was an honest claim presented to Congress, this is such a claim; and I venture to say it will be met on this floor only by an appeal to prejudice, an appeal which is too often made by gentlemen on this floor under the guise of economy. The utmost scrutiny of fact, and the fair construction of the treaty of 1842, must irresistibly lead our minds to the conclusion that this claim is exactly right. Heretofore this claim has been associated with other claims which made in the aggregate two or three millions of money. There may be some question about some of these claims. There may be some question honestly raised about some of them; but on this question the people of the State of Maine have supposed from previous legislation, or attempted legislation on the subject, if it stood isolated and alone it would meet with no objection, not even from the distinguished and earnest member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. ORTH] who has just taken his seat, who made the minority report in the last Congress. What, in a word, is the history of the whole matter? I have not time in the few moments allotted to me to present it as I would like to. Maine claimed a certain tract of land. Bear in mind that Maine claimed not only State sovereignty, but Maine owned the fee in connection with Massachusetts. A treaty was made by which we surrendered and lost three million acres of land. This land was ceded by the United States to Great Britain, and she proposed to give the United States as an equivalent for the same certain disputed land in New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, and certain land not claimed by us at Rouse's Point, in New York, and certain mineral land upon Lake Michigan. Great Britain virtually acknowledged that the territory was ours, but wanted to traverse the northern part of it from province to province, and give a consideration for it. The United States gave to the State of Maine $300,000 for the lands we lost; that is for the territory we gave up and which went on the other side of the line. There is another article in the treaty alluded to, and that is that the Government of the United States shall quiet the titles of whatever British settlers there were upon our side of the line as the treaty has established the boundary to be. Now, according to the treaty, those occupants or squatters are to have a release of title of the lots occupied. From whom are they to have a release? The fee is in Massachusetts and Maine. Maine and Massachusetts are ready to give the releases. The settlers are anxious to receive them. These persons, by force of the treaty, have become citizens of the United States, and I have no doubt have intelligence enough to vote next fall for the Union and the country. They are in my district, and I know them pretty well. It is for the interest of my section of country that this pacification of this question shall take place. Now, the United States have promised these men, they have promised the Government of Great Britain that these men shall receive their release of title to their lands. Release from whom? Why, of course, from the parties owning the lands in fee, from Massachusetts and Maine. Shall we call upon the States of Massachusetts and Maine to make such releases without a fair compensation for the lands which they will thereby give up? But, sir, the question has been already foreclosed and settled. Individuals owning tracts in this formerly disputed territory upon which squatters have settled have come here, and Congress has paid them. Why, then, not pay this similar claim of the States. The whole question now at issue has been decided over and over again in the Senate. It was never reached before to-day in the House. There was never any adverse report or any adverse action. Eight favorable reports have been heretofore made in the two Houses. It has never met with any serious opposition in the other branch. It was sustained by the majority report of the Committee of this House on Foreign Relations in the Thirty-Ninth Congress. All the action of Congress heretofore, and all the precedents, favor our present proposition. The Senate have sent it to us with hardly any substantial opposition after the fullest debate. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BANKS. I move to strike out the amount named and to insert $91,125. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this claim is appropriate to this bill in every respect. A bill affecting the rights of a State is a public bill. The State is not a person, and its claims are not private claims. They have never been so held. I understand it was always held, at least formerly, wherever a State presented a subject for legislation it was never classed among private bills. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. BANKS. Certainly. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. This arose under the treaty of Washington? Mr. BANKS. Yes, sir. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Is there not an express rule of the House that no claim arising under a treaty shall be put into an appropriation bill? Mr. BANKS. I do not so understand. It is proposed to complete the action of the Government under the treaty of 1842. Now, there is no objection to this claim which has not been met. It has not been refused. Negative votes against this proposition cannot be found. It has failed of support, and every member of this House knows it would be almost impossible for a claim to be presented by anybody, however just its merits may be, and acted on and approved immediately. A great number of claims lie over from year to year without impeaching their justice in any manner whatever, and this is one of those claims. Now, sir, the fourth article of this treaty requires that Massachusetts should satisfy the claims of citizens of the British Government. They were situated on our side by the new line of partition. Massachusetts did that. There is no provision in the treaty that made it incumbent upon the United States to do this. On the contrary, the United States required Massachusetts to do it. Massachusetts having done it is therefore entitled to the consideration which she may justly claim for having extinguished titles in behalf of the interest of the United States, which the treaty required the United States to do. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] inquired whether this being to execute a condition of a past treaty that condi. tion was not extinguised? Certainly not, no matter how long it may continue. Here the condition is involved in the execution of the treaty, not by the United States, but by the State of Massachusetts; and the obligation being upon the United States to requite Massachusetts if it runs a hundred years, it still remains. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me to read the parliamentary rule on this subject? Mr. BANKS. Certainly. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. The rule is this: "In preparing bills of appropriations for other objects the Committee on Appropriations shall not include appropriations for carrying into effect treaties made by the United States; and when an appropriation bill shall be referred to them for their consideration which contains appropriations for carrying a treaty into effect, and for other objects, they shall propose such amendments as shall prevent appropriations for carrying a treaty into effect being included in the same bill with appropriations for other objects." Mr. BANKS. I understand that rule. It does not affect this appropriation. This is not to carry a treaty into effect. The treaty has already been carried into effect. Massachu setts has done that which the United States ought to have done, and now claims that she should be made whole for the expenditure she has incurred. If it were proposed to carry into effect a treaty in regard to Alaska, for instance, I would concede the point made by the gentleman. I made the same point myself once on this question. But this treaty is executed so far as the United States is concerned, and neither Great Britain nor any other party has any claim whatever. Massachusetts asks to be made good for that which she has done in behalf of the United States. Mr. MULLINS. Do I understand the gentleman to claim that Maine has carried out any treaty which the United States ought to have done, thereby recognizing the right of a State to treat with a foreign Power? Keep close to the moorings. Mr. BANKS. The Government of the United States required Maine and Massachusetts to carry out the treaty. It did not offer to do it itself, because those States had jurisdiction of that question. [Here the hammer fell.] I withdraw the amendment. Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I move to strike out the last word. I desire to say that my impressions were against this appropriation until I looked at it within the last twenty-four hours. I am now satisfied that there is no claim that can be presented that is more just than this. The State of Maine owned a large tract of land, several million acres, which the overshadowing treaty-making power which we have been discussing somewhat during the last few days, undertook to and did deprive her of. The United States received from Great Britain in exchange for that territory several million acres on Lake Superior, at Rouse's Point, and in New Hampshire and Vermont, to settle the dispute. This Government having received this exchange agreed to pay the States of Maine and Massachusetts $300,000. Those States being under restraint and having no power to do otherwise, accepted the $300,000. That settled the matter so far. But there were certain settlers located upon the land south of the conventional line whose lands came within the limits of Maine. Their land belonged as much to that State as my house belongs to me. Yet, to settle the difficulty, the Government of the United Statesthe treaty-making power-agreed that those settlers should be quieted in their titles, and that the States of Maine and Massachusetts should convey to them the property which belonged to the States of Maine and Massachusetts. That is the whole question as I understand it. You take lands that belong, beyond any question, to the States of Maine and Massachusetts, and give them to these settlers to quiet their titles. They ask you now to pay for some of the most valuable lands in the State of Maine. That is the whole story, as I understand it. And understanding it in that way, and believing this amendment to be entirely equitable and just, I shall vote for it. Mr. ORTH. Even admitting the position taken by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. WASHBURN] to be correct, what data has this House to act upon? Is there a scintilla of evidence before this House-that is to-day asked to vote $147,000 to a railroad conpany in the State of Maine-that the State of Maine has ever granted a title to a single quarter section of this land? What is the "title" referred to in the fourth section of the treaty of Washington? It is notorious that this disputed territory was squatted upon. Men went there and took possessory rights, and it is those rights which are alluded to and guarantied by this treaty. The squatter not only had to take possession of the land, but to make payment for it. Now, without showing that a single dollar has been paid for this land, we are called upon today to vote to the State of Maine an enormous sum of money when we have no evidence that the State of Maine has ever granted one single acre of land to a settler without that settler paid for it. The object of that provision of the treaty was to prevent the settler from being driven from the piece of land he had selected for his home. It said to the settler, "You have selected your homestead and you may remain there, so far as the United States and Great Britain are concerned; but you must pay for the fee-simple of your land before you can ask the State of Maine or the province of New Brunswick to give you a title to it." It was simply the possessory right which was guarantied by this treaty. It was not agreed that without any payment for the land we would give to the settler a guarantee deed for the land he has selected for his homestead. Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment. Mr. PIKE. I renew the amendment to the amendment. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] seems to have forgotten the proviso to this section, which is as follows: Provided, That before said sums are paid the States of Maine and Massachusetts shall agree with the United States that the settlers upon their public lands in the late disputed territory in Maine entitled to be quieted in their possession, as ascertained by commissions heretofore instituted by said States, shall have been or shall be quieted by a release of the title of the said States. Mr. ORTH. In other words, the United States are expected to give these lands to those settlers without payment. Mr. PIKE. There was an influx of these British settlers during the time this disputed territory was actually within the possession of the British Government; and, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] said, these settlers went upon land, a part of which belonged to private individuals and a part of it to the States of Maine and Massachusetts. When the treaty came to be made it was thought advisable on the part of both Governments that those titles should be provided for. Now, in July, 1862, Congress gave compensation to owners of the private property so squatted upon, to Munroe and others, I forget the names now. But Congress recognized their title by giving to Munroe and others compensation for the lands so taken by these squatters, thus carrying out so far the provision of the treaty. And this amendment is simply to carry out the provision of the treaty, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, as it was carried out in July, 1862, so far as private individuals are concerned. And even prior to that, in the case of Josiah S. Little, of Portland, the provision of the treaty was carried out in the same way. Therefore Congress has twice been committed to this idea of carrying out the provision of the treaty in this way. The State of Maine by that treaty sacrificed lands the value of which, if $7,200,000 is a correct estimate of the value of Alaska, cannot be less than fifteen or twenty million dollars, and this, too, without our consent, for although there was a nominal consent on the part of our commissioners, Judge Little, when he went home, said that he had been in "durance vile," and had been coerced into giving his consent. Yet, although we sacrificed by that treaty lands of this immense value, Congress at this late day is higgling about giving us this small compensation for those lands, while at the same time it is willing to give Russia $7,200,000 for Alaska. Now, I submit that if this Congress can pay $7,200,000 in gold for the friendship of Russia, it can as a matter of justice pay to the State of Maine $140,000, which has for years been due her. As my colleague, [Mr. PETERS,] whose district is more particularly interested in this matter, knows these men personally, knows that they are good and faithful citizens, willing to do the fair thing upon a?! occasions, [laughter,] I submit it is proper that this amendment of the Senate should be concurred in. Mr. MAYNARD. I would like to ask the gentleman from Maine how much of this general claim has been paid? I took occasion to examine the matter some years ago, and I believe there has been a considerable amount paid. Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] misconstrues the fourth article of the treaty. He seems to suppose that these persons, who were British squatters, or who held the land under British claims, must pay the State of Maine for their land. That is not the construction which has been put upon that article. If he will read the diplomatic correspondence which took place at the time the treaty was formed he will see that the idea was that those persons were to be protected because they had bought lands and paid for them to Great Britain. Now, that treaty stipulates that these men, who were British subjects and had bought their lands of Great Britain and paid her for them, should still hold them; and that inasmuch as the land came within the sovereignty of the United States the United States should confirm and quiet their title-should make their titles valid to the lands which had already been granted to them under British deeds. That treaty further provides the means by which this was to be done. It says it shall be done by releases. Releases from whom? Releases from the parties owning the fee. Who are the parties owning the fee? They are the State of Maine and the State of Massachusetts. And in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] I will say that these lands were owned a part by the State of Maine, a part by the State of Massachusetts, and a part by private individuals. The private individuals who had been ousted by this treaty, which is a law executing itself, came here and asked compensation. Compensation was granted them; and the honorable gentleman who makes the inquiry once made a report to this House favoring the grant. Mr. MAYNARD. I ask the gentleman whether an appropriation of this kind was not made in the Thirty-Fifth or Thirty-Sixth Congress to the States of Maine and Massachusetts as States? Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir; it was reported, but never reached so as to be passed. Mr. MAYNARD. The gentleman will recollect that George M. Weston was claiming a bonus as the agent of the State of Maine, and Simon P. Hanscom as the agent of the State of Massachusetts. Mr. DAWES. That was to pay the expenses incurred by Massachusetts in the war of 1812, an adjusted account, adjusted in the War Department and found to be due, a claim which had laid there forty years and was only paid in the Thirty-Sixth Congress. Mr. PETERS. There have been reports time and again in favor of the payment of this claim; but there being at that time no Court of Claims in existence, the bills for the payment of this money went on the Private Calendar and were there buried Reports in favor of the payment of the claim were made in the Senate by Mr. WADE, by Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire, by Mr. DOOLITTLE, by Mr. SUMNER, and by Mr. Simmons; and in the House by Mr. Walton of Vermont, and also by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Thirty-Ninth Congress. All these reports except one were unanimous, so far as I recollect. Yet although bills for the payment of this claim have passed the Senate over and over again without a division-although such a bill was passed in the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and again the other day by an overwhelming majority, the claim has never come before this House for action before to-day; no vote has ever been taken on it, nor any voice heard in debate for or against it. We are seeking pay for land we are willing to grant to the settlers, which they are entitled to under the treaty, provided we shall have compensation for it. The settlers are uneasy about their titles. They should, as soon as possible, be quieted. Our Government solemnly plighted its faith to Great Britain to do so. But are the United States to use the property of Maine and Massachusetts to make good a promise only of the United States and not pay us for such property? We have already released a portion of these lands, trusting to Government for compensation, but we will make no further steps in that direction till we get sufficient assurance that we shall not bear out of our own pockets what is strictly and honorably an obligation of the United States. Our own losses have been too great already. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I rise to oppose the amendment; but first, I ask unanimous consent to close debate on this section in ten minutes, five of which I will give to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO.] Mr. BANKS. I want two minutes. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will say twelve minutes, then. A MEMBER. Say fifteen. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask, in order to bring this discussion to a close, that by unanimous consent debate shall terminate in fifteen minutes. The SPEAKER. That can be done by a majority vote. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Then, I make the motion that it be closed in fifteen minutes. The motion was agreed to. The amendment to the amendment was withdrawn. Mr. BANKS. I renew it; and I do so for the purpose of making a statement in reference to the report. It embraced a variety of considerations, and upon many grounds might have been sustained. These persons present a single point upon which there can be no doubt at all. I want to say a word in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD.] He inquired as to what part of this claim was satisfied. The fourth article of the treaty, in order to settle the question of boundary, required the States of Massachusetts and Maine to give up that portion of territory beyond the new line; and secondly, to surrender to the squatters that portion of territory which the British then occupied within the new line. They surrendered the territory beyond the new line, for which it is understood they were paid; but for the surrender of the territory within the line and the release to the squatters, nothing whatever has been paid. This was a concession for the peace of the country, to carry out a treaty made between the United States and Great Britain, for which Massachusetts and Maine have been paid nothing whatever. is only proper and just they should have this amount. It Mr. MAYNARD. Ifind provision was made in 1858 for satisfying the claims of the States of Maine and Massachusetts under the stipulations of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, concluded the 9th day of August in the year 1842, a sum not exceeding $11,496 81 in satisfaction of such claims of the State of Maine; and $92,156 13 in satisfaction of like claims of the State of Massachusetts to be paid by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury. Mr. LYNCH. For what? Read the whole of it. Mr. MAYNARD. I have given the whole of it. It is for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the States of Massachusetts and Maine under this treaty. Mr. LYNCH. What were those claims? Mr. MAYNARD. Claims under this treaty. Mr. Speaker, I also find an act approved July 12, 1862, appropriating money for the purpose of quieting titles under this same treaty. There has also been other legislation making appropriations under this treaty. I have brought forward these facts for information. I want further information on the subject. Here are appropriations for satisfying claims under this treaty with Great Britain, and I have had a strong impression this was one of those things that had been finally settled and closed up. Mr. DELANO. I rise to oppose the amendment. If it were in my power consistently with my sense of public duty to vote for this appropriation I should do it. I have several friends who feel a desire to have it passed, but knowing something about the transaction officially I cannot remain silent while this claim is attempted to be passed. In the first place, I want the House to understand this is part of a claim of over one million dollars which is said to grow out of the Ashburton treaty, and rests upon four grounds. They are stated in the able report of Senator PATTERSON, of New Hampshire, made in the other branch of Congress. Those points are as follows: "First. A claim for lands assigned to settlers under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington. "Second. A claim for the loss of timber upon their territory during the suspension of State jurisdiction between 1832 and 1839. Third. A claim for the correction of an error made at the Treasury in computing the interest on the expenditures made by the State in defending her territory. "Fourth. A claim for interest upon advances made by Massachusetts in the war of 1812-15." On those four claims the gentleman has reported in favor of this, and made out the balance due $691,694. The present appropriation is for one branch of this quadrilateral claim. Mr. PETERS. Allow me to say they have no connection with each other. Mr. DELANO. That is matter of opinion. I think directly otherwise, and I think whenever this appropriation is made you have got the iron wedge in and are prepared to open the log with what the farmers call the clog. Now, sir, I want to say to this House that it is utterly impossible in a five-minutes' debate to discuss and analyze these claims so as to arrive at a correct conclusion in reference to any one of them. It is worse than idle, it is almost a crime, for this House, under such circumstances as these, to attempt to pass upon these large amounts. This ought to go to the Committee of Claims, where all claims go. That committee is represented now by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. WASHBURN;] and I am willing to say in advance, that for so much of it as he will report in favor of I will vote blindfolded, I know his integrity and his intelligence so well. This claim was presented to me while I was a member of that committee in the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and it is upon the knowledge that I derived from a preliminary examination, upon the supposition that it would have to come before me, that I assert that no man in this House can understand its merits in any discussion that may be had at this time. I am not now saying that it ought not to be passed, though such is my present opinion. But I want to enforce upon this House the wrong that would be done in attempting to pass this claim in the limited debate that can be had under these circumstances. It is a large claim, it involves intricate questions of international law, it involves important questions touching implied contracts, and it ought to receive careful examination before a deliberative body. Now, is there anybody here who will say that this is a deliberative consideration which we are giving the subject at this time? I pray this House, therefore, in respect to the rights of the nation, not to pass upon this claim, either in whole or in part, upon an appropriation bill with the limited discussion that it can have under the rules of debate that apply to it. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I have listened with unflagging attention to this debate, and I have heard only one class of arguments against this claim, and that is an argument to prejudice. The whole speech of my friend from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] is only that and nothing more. He says we cannot understand enough about this question in a five-minutes' debate to pass upon it. Yet the amount is only $100,000. The rules of this House for many years have confined us to five-minutes' debate only upon every item of an appropriation bill by which we can understand how to appropriate millions. We cannot debate any question appropriating money more than five minutes at a time on each question. My friend has, therefore, thus stated a very good reason why this House should follow its Committee on Appropriations and sustain its report. The committee have examined this subject and have reported upon it favorably. Now, while the House follow your committees everywhere else in matters of great moment which it has not time to examine, whenever a matter affecting the intent of the East is brought up, why, then, do gentlemen seem to try to find some reason for not following the committee? You vote with your committees for anything except when a matter comes up in favor of somebody at the East. Now, I appeal to gentlemen to do us justice. The United States took nearly four million acres of land from Maine and Massachusetts by the conventional line established by this treaty, which was an inheritance from our fathers, and we agreed to it without a murmur. And now we ask only to have returned to us what we have had to pay to the settlers on the lands given us in exchange for ours, whose titles the United States agreed to maintain and to extinguish our claim thereon. Now, I desire to call attention to what was urged by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD.] He has brought in here an appropriation to pay for the survey of those lands which the States of Maine and Massachusetts had to make because the United States would not do it. The appropriation is $9,000 for Maine and $11,000 for Massachusetts. He says he thinks that this was an appropriation to satisfy our claims for the lands themselves. Is this just? Mr. MAYNARD. Is not the language "to satisfy the claim?" Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. To satisfy certain claims, but not the claim for land. Then the gentleman brings up again the fact that in 1862 the United States paid James Munroe, Benjamin Sewall, Rufus Mandell, and James A. True for a portion of this land. That is exactly what we did do, sir. Why? Because Maine and Massachusetts had ceded, had sold these parcels of land to those parties before the treaty; so that the lands were theirs, and those States had no further or other title in them; those private parties came here and got their money, as they ought to do. We are now asking for the money for the land which belonged to us, and which we had not ceded, and which is as much ours as that land which the United States paid for was theirs. Again, my friend [Mr. ORTH] says: "What examination has this claim had?" It has had the examination of eight committees, and no committee has ever yet reported against it, and my able friend from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] could get from his committee only three members to agree with him in his minority report, with all his ability in argument. And there has never been found at any other time during the twenty-odd years since this claim has been pending three men upon any committee that has examined this claim so |