' . SENA.TE. - GovInfo.gov

' .

6974 CO~GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 7,

for the adoption of resolution introduced by Mr. LA WLEB in respect to rules of spelJing, etc.-to the Committee on Printing.

By .Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. of Arkansas: Petition of W. P. McDiel and 25 otheTS, citizens of J effe1'80n County, Arkansas, in favor of House bill 5~53-to the Committee on Agriculture. B~ Mr. COVERT: Petition of Arthur M. Allen, of West Brigbron,

N. Y., ,against the passage of the Federal election bill-to the Select Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representati~es in Congress.

By Mr. CU MMfNGS: Petition against the passage of Honse bill 9197 relating to second-class mail matter-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads.

By Mr. CUTCHEON: Petition of Moses Cole and 24 others (19 voters and 6 women), citizens of Sherman, :Mich., praying for proposal of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, impoTtation, and sale of all alcoholic liquors as a beverage-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

Also, petition of I. B. Kaye and 95 others (50 voters and 46 women), citjzens of Shelby, Mich., for same measure-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of B. Nixon and 24 others (19 voters and 6 women), citizens of Mecosta, Mich., for &'lme purpose-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DING LEY: Peliition of W. B. Mussenden and others, of Bath, Me., for perpetuation of national-banking system-to the Com-mittee on Banking and Currency. _

By Mr. DOL{SEY: Petitio~ of citizens of Nebraska, requesting favomble action on the original-package bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FARQUHAR: Petition of Merchants' Exchange of the city of Buffalo, N. Y., for the improvements at the Sault Ste. Marie Canal and the Hay Lake Channel-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. HANSBROUGH: Petition of H. C. Hill and 14 others (11 voters and 4 women), citizens of Bowesmont, N. Dak., praying for proposal of a comtitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, importation, exportationt transportation, and "Sale of all alcoholic liquor.3 a.s a beve~e-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of New York City business men1 representing $50, 000,-000 of capital, in favor of the passage of House bill 10173-to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. HAYlli;: Petition of J. V.Waterman and 37otbers (18 voters and 20 women), citizens of Oxford, Iowa, praying for proposal of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the · manufacture, importation, exportation, transportation, and sale of all alcoholic liquors as a bever-age-to the Committee on the Judiciary. .

Dy Mr. LA. WS: Petition of Grange No. 10, Webster County, Nebraska, for pure lard-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of .T. D. Elson and ~4 otheTS, citizens of Nebraska, for pure lard-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of J. W. Rees and 11 others, of Pawnee County, Nebraska, 1or pure lard-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of J. W. Rees and llothers, citizens of Pawnee County, Nebraska, for pure food-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Grange No. 10, Webster County, Nebraska-, for pure food-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also. petition of D. D. Elson and 21 others; citizens of Nebraska, for pure food-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. LIND: Petition of Ivan Netron and 131 othe:r Indians, of the Y anktonnais, asking for the establishment of an industrial school on the Pipe Stone reservation at Pipe Stone, Minn.-to the.Committee on Indian Affairs. ·

By Mr. OSBORNE: Memorial of Roston Fish Bureau, relative to duty on fish-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. PERKINS: Petition of M. R. Grant and 95others, residents of Cherryvale, Kans., asking for legislation to connteract the effect of the recent original-package Supreme Court decision-to the Committee on the .Tndiciary.

By 1\lr. STOCKDALE: Petition of A. H.M. Smith,next of kin of William Smith, deceased, of Amite County, Mississippi, asking reference of bis claim for stores and supplies taken during the war to the Court of Claims under the Bowman act-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama: Petition of Claiborne Evans, of Jackson County, Alabama, for reference of claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE.

- Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, the following changes of reference were made:

B_Y Mr.HIT'.f: Petition ofmembersofTurnverein,ofLawrence, Kans., • agarnst material change in the present national laws on immigration and

naturalization-to the Select Committee on Immigration and Natural-ization. -

By Mr. DUNNELL: Petition of Farmers' Alliance of St. Vincent Minn., requesting an examina.tfon into the physical condition ofimmi: grants coming to Minnesota via Canadian Pacific Railroad-to the Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

I

SENA.TE. MONDAY, July 7, 1890.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday last was read and ap

proved. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

The PRESIDENT p1·0 tempore presented a petition of a mass meeting of citizens of Yuma County, :Krizona Territory, praying that the law relating to arid land west of the one hundredth meridijln. withdrawing fr.om entry all lands so classed, may be repealed; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

He also presented the petition of James P. Doughty, of Bourbon County, Kansas, praying remuneration for musical ihstruments destroyed daring the war; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

He also presented a. petition of ex-Union soldiers, citizens of Arkansas, praying for the pa.ssage of a law prohibiting the exhibition of Confederate flags; which was .referred tothe Committeeon Military Affairs.

He also presented the petition of John Dunnell, of Providence Kans. the son of a soldier of the Revolutionary war, praying to be ~llowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. MANDERSON presented a petition of Sunnyside Farmers' Alliance, of Sulphm, Nebr., praying tor the passage of the Conger lard bill and the Butterworth option bill; which was referred to the Committee vn Agriculture and Forestry.

He also presented a petition of citizens of Pima County, Arizona Territory, praying for the repeal of the arid land provision in the act of0ctober2,1888; whichwasreterredtotheCommitteeonPqblicLands.

Mr. TELLER presented a petition of the Commandery of the State of Colorado, of the Loyal Legion, praying for the speedy publication of the records of the rebellion; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE presented a. petition of citizens of Saugatuck Mich., praying fpr the establishment of a lift!-saving station at that place; which wah referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr.WALT HALL presented the petition of William Young and 33 other citizens, of Mississippi City and Handsborough, Miss.,prayingtbat the custom-house be removed from Shleldsborongh, Miss., to Biloxi Miss.; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. '

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR APPROPRIATION 13ILL.

:Mr. HALE submitted the following report: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on

the amendments of the Senate to the bUJ (H_ R. 961).3) ma.kin"' appropriations for the diplomatic and consular service of the United St.ates for"the fiscal year end· ing June 30, IB91, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses a.s follows:

That the Senate recede from it.s amendments numbered 24, 25, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 52, 53, 59, and 67.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate n~bered 1, 2, S, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.1 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 21, 2_?

1 23, 27 28 29 30

31. 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 49, 50, 511 54. 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62_ 63, M, 65, 00, 5g 70 71' 72, 73, 74, 75. 76, 77 ,80, 81, and 82, ana agree to the same. ' ' '

That the House recede from it.s disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert .. 55,000;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from ita disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 18, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: Strike out in lines 2 and 3 of said amendment the words" as stated in his message ol .June 2, 1 l901 and ; " and the Senate agree to the so.me.

That the House recede from its disagreement to theamendment of the Senate numbered 20, and agree to the same with amendments as follows: In line 2 of said amendment strike out the words "an intercontinental" and insert in lieu thereof" a continental;" in line 6 strike out the word "intercontinental "and insert in lieu thereof" continental;" and in line 14 strike out the words "an intercontinental" and insert in lieu thereof "a continental;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from it.s disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 26, and agree to the same with amendments as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert " 24,000 ;" and strike oat lines 5 and 6 page 8 of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the following: "consul8-general ~t Haufax and Vienna. at !3,500 each, 87,000 ;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the Howe recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3~and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "S!01i500; " and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 4L, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: Insert after the word" Brunswick," in line 14, page 10 of the bill, the word '' Chemnitz ·" and tl:j.e Senate agree to the same. '

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 58, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken out by said amendment insert the following: "l\forrio;iburg, Canada, Newcastle-on-Tyne;" and the Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 68, and agree to the same wilh an amendment as follows : In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$55,620; " and tl1e Senate agree to the same.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 78, and agree to the same with nn amendment as follows: ln line 9 -paite 17 of the bill, strike out" Selfast;" and the Senat.e agree to the same. '

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 79. and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert " 2,560; " and the Senate agree to the same.

EUGENE HALE, W. B. ALLISON,

Managers on the part of the SenaJe. ROBERT R. HITT, . MARK H. DUNNELL, .JA1\1ES B. McCREA.RY,

Managers on me pai·t of the House.

!

•.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 6975 The PRESIDENI' pro tempore. The question is on concurring in

the report Mr. EDMUND.3. I should like to- have it explained. a little on a

few points first, if the Senator in charge will kindly explain the ma.teriai points of difference,. and what was done with the-Senate amendments.

Mr. HALE. The bill as repo1·ted .from. the conference: committee is almost precisely the same as it passed the Senate, the Honse conferees agreeing to the Senate amendments I think, in nearly all cases. If there is any particular amendment that the Senator from Vermont has in his mind, I shall be glad to explain it.

lli. DOLPH. I should be glad to have the Senator explain what was done with the amendment increasing the salary of the minister at Constantinople. -

Mr. HALE.. That was objected to by the House: conferees as not bein<Y a.necessary increase, but the conferees on the part of the Senate felt tJut that was a thing t<> insist upon,. all the more because· it had been put in by the Senate and not by the committee, and tha.t they were instructed by the Senate, and the Senate conferees enforced that. insistence. So it remains as the Senate pnt it in tlli1 bill.

The rep~t waa ccmcurred in. REPORTS OF COMl\fiTTEES.

Mr. MANDERSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, tawhom was referred the bill (S. 4112) to amend section 12"25 of the Revised Statutes, concerning details of officers of the Army and Navy to ~dncationa.1 institntions, reported it without amendment, and suhmitted a report thereon.

Mr. WALTHALL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, towhom was referred the bill (S. 3334) authorizing the Secretary of War to deliver to Charles-W. Thomas two James'. rifted cannon, sn.bmitted an adverse report thereon, which was agreed toi and the bill was post-poned in:lefinitely. .

Mr. TELLER, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was. referred the bill (S. 3938) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to comey to the Rio Grande Junction Railway Company certain lands in the State of Colorado in lien of certain. other lands in said State eonveyc.l by the said company to the United States, reported it with amendments, and submitted a report th~reon.

Mr. BATE, from the Committee on Agriculture and F<>restry, submitted the views of the minority on the bill (S. 3991) far preventing adulteration and misbranrling<>f foodanddrngs, and preventing poisonous adulterations, and for other purposeff; which were ordered t0> be printed.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. MA~DERSON introduced a. bill (S. 4190) granting an increase of pension t.o Robert Moran; which was read twice by its title, a;nd referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. TELLERintrodnced a bill (S. 4191) settingapartatractofland to be used as a cemetery by the order of Free Masons of Breckenridge, Colo.· which wa..~ read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying paper~, relerred to the Committee on Public Lands.

He also introduced a bill {S. 4192) granting a pension to Charles Ronghan: which was read twice byits title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. PLUMB introduced a bill (S. 4193) for the relief of John M. Giffin; which was read twice byit.s title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Claims.

AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. PADDOCK submitted an amendment in.tended to be pro.posed by him to the sundry civil appropriation bill; which was reforrecI to. the Committee on Appropriations.

THE REVENUE BILL.

The PRESIDENT pro te'flEJore. Is there farther morning bnsiness? If there be none, that order is closed. Mr~ MORRILL. I move that the Senate proceed: to the considera

tion of House bill 9416. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Calendar, under Rule VIll,

being in order, the Senator from Vermont moves th::J.t the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9416) to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. Mr~ FRYE rose. Mr. MORRILL. I desire to say t.o the Senator from Maine that I

shall yield tn him so far as ro ba.ve this bill laid aside infonnally for the day in order that be may getthrongh.with the bills from bjs com-mittee which are under consideratfon. •

Mr. HARRl . I desire to suggest--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate can p:roeeed only by unani

mous consent. Is there objection? Mr. HARfilS. I do not propose to debate the question, but I wish

to ma.ke an inquiry of the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will hear the Senatm

fi om Tennessee. M:r. HARRIS. If this bill is taken up at th.is honr it will not make

j.~ the unfinished business at 2o'clock?

The PRF.slDENT pro tem:pore. Iii will not. Mr~ HA.RR.IS. Then I suggest to the Senat.or from Vermont that

he wait until 2 o'clock to call up his. bill. Mr. MORRILL. I prefer to have it taken~ up at the. present time. :Mr. HARRIS. I simply wanted to ascertain the parliamentary

status it would occupyr Mr. GIBSON. I should like to inqnireofthe chairman of the Com

mittee on Commerce whether it is his purpose to ask for the consideration of the river and harbOl' bill to-day. He stated that on this day he would ask that that bill he taken up.

Mr. MORRILL. He can not wish to have it taken up until he gets through with the first bills before the Senate from his committee.

]')fr. FRYE. I gave notice that I should ask the Senate to consider the river and harbor bill to-day. So far as I am concerned, I am n9t particular about its eonsideration to-day; but I shall certainly feel obliged to ask for its consideration before the tariff bill shall be completed in the Senate.

1\I.r. EDMUNDS. We must take the opinion of the Senate on that subject.

Mr. FRYE. Undoubtedly I shall have to yield to the opinion of the Senare, as theSenator from Vermont su~ests. I shall not. antagonizetakingup tbetariffbill. bythe river and harbor billat this moment, but I understand that appropriation bills ordinarily, when they are ready for consideration, have the right of way. If the tariff bill was itoing to consume two- or three weeks' time, I certainly, under pre ent instructions trom my committee, could not consent to yield that long.

Mr. PLUMB. I want to say to the Senator from Maine tha.t it will not do to trust to unanimous consent to get up the river and harbor bill during the pendency of the tariff bill,. beeause I certainly, as one member-of this body, would object to the displacement of tbe tariff bill by the rl-ver and harbor bill.

Mr. FRYE. I should not trust to unanimous consent and should not; expect to obtain it from the Senate.

Mr. PLUMB. Then, of conrse,. the Senatol'wouldhave to move to take up the bill.

Mr. FRYE. I would have to move to take it up. Mr. PLUMB. Then what is gained by taking up the tariff bill

now? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Calendar, under Role VIII, be

ing in order, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9416.) to reduce the revenue and equalize the duties on imports, and for other purposes. [Putting the question.] The Chair is unable to decide by the sound.

Mr. MORRILL. I ask for the yeas and nays. Tbe yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. GORMAN. As I understand, by unanimous consent the ship

ping bills are in order t.o-day at 2 o'clock. Am I correct in that state-ment? ·

The PRESIDENT pra tempore. The Chair would 'sta.te in response to the Senator from Maryland that the bill previously moved by the Senator from Maine, commonly known as the shipping bill, is the un:finis.hed business at 2 o'clockl and! w!ll come up at that time without motion.

.Mr. GORMAN. Then do I understand that the Senator from Vermont desires to take up the tariff bill and have it considered only from half past 12 until 2?

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is what he wants to do, and the yeas and nays have J>een ordered on it. _

Mr. GORMAN. I should like to ask the Sena.tor from Vermont [Mr. Mo.RR.ILL] whether he proposes that the tariff bill shall be considered onJy from now until 2 o'clock to-day, and then give way to the regular order.

Mr. MOR.RILL. I have already stated that I should give way to the Senator from Maine for what are called the shipping bills, to take them up whenever he pleases; bo.t I desire to have this bill before the Senate as the regular business from and after this time, althoughl ·expect, of course, to yield to regular appropriation bills whenever they are ready,

Mr.. EDMUNDS. That~ generru appropriation bills? Mr; MORRILL. General appropriation bills. Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. President, I am unable to see from my limi~d

aequaintam;e with the methods of procedure in this body that anything is to be gained by taking up the tariff bill at this time. There certainly is nothing to be gained if it is to be laid aside from tim~ to time for the purpose of taking up other matters. I have understood that the Senator from Maine desires to complete the consideration of the two bills known as the shipping bills; that after they are disposed of he desires to call up for consideration the river and harbor bill, and that the Committee on Appropriations have, or soon will have, ready the sundry civil · appropriation bill, and perhaps other appropriation billR which ought to be considered and passed upon by the Senate.

I hope, therefore, that the Senatm from Vermont will not insist on his motion, o~ if he does, that the Senate will not sustain him, so that when the ta:riff bill shall be taken np for consideration we can proceed with it in the regular way until it is completed.

6976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 7,

Mr. MORRILL. If we are to bring this session to a close at any early period, it is necessary that we should take np the most important bills that we have before us. My purpose was merely that this bill shon1d be in order from and after t.be disposition of the bills in charge of the Senator from Maine, so that Senators who desire to speak at large upon the subject of the tariff should have an opportunity, and, if not, that we should go on as usual and act on amendments as the bill is read.

Mr. HARRIS. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to ask him what he gains? I do not know of any opposition on either side of this Chamber to taking up the tariff bill for consideration. What is to be gained by taking it up at twelve and a half o'clock in the morning, when it goes down with the fall of the gavel at 2 and loses whatever it may have gained?

Mr. MORRILL. We shall gain the reading of the bill at least, Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us have the regular order. Debate is not in

order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is proceeding by unanimous

consent. Mr. EDMUNDS. I object to further debate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays having been or

dered on the question of proceeding to the consideration of the bilJ, the roll wil1 be called.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. . Mr. FAULKNER (when his name was called). I am paired with

the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. QUAY]. If he were present, I should vote " vea."

Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. EVARTS].

Mr. PADDOCK (when his name was called). lam paired with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Eusns]. If be were here, I should vote "nay."

Mr. TURPIE (when his name was called). I inquire if the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS] has voted?

.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. He is not recorded. Mr. TURPIE. I withhold my vote. Mr. WALTHALL (when his name was called). I am paired with

the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER]. ?!Ir. COKE (after having voted in the negative; when Mr. WASH

IlURN's name was called). The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WASHBURN] is not here. I recall now the fact that I am paired with him. I therefore withdraw my vote. ·

The PRESIDENT pro tem.pore. The Senat-0r from Texas withdraws bis vote.

Mr. WILSON, of Maryland (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON].

The roll-call was concluded. Mr. MANDERSON. I am paired with the Senator from Kentucky

[Mr. BLACKBURN]. If he were present, I should vote ''yea." The result was announced-yeas 16, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-16. Aldrich, Farwell, Hiscock, Quay, Allison, Frye, • Morrill, Sawyer, Dixon, Hale, Platt, Sherman, Edmunds, Hawley, Pugn_. Stockbridge.

N.A.YS-24.

Allen, Oockrell, .Tones of .Arkansas, Reagan, Bar boar, George, Mitchell, Squire, Ilate, Gibson, Pasco, Stewart,

~=;J~ie, Gorman, Payne, Teller, Hampton, Plumb, Vest,

Casey, Harris, Ransom, Voorhees.

A.BSENT-44.

Blackburn, Daniel, Ingalls, Power, Blair, Davis, .Jones of Nevada, Sanders, Blodgett, Dawes, Kenna, Spooner. Brown, Dolph, Mc.Millan, Stanford, Butler, Eustis, McPherson, Turpie, Call, Evarts, Mander11on, Vance, Cameron, Faulkner, Moody, Walthall, Chandler, Gray, l\Iorgan, Washburn, Coke, Hearst, Paddock, Wilson of Iowa, Colquitt, Biggins, Pettigrew, Wilson of ¥d. Cullom, Hoar, Pierce, Wolcott.

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The state of the vote disclosing the want of a quorum, the Secretary will call the roll of the Senate . .

The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Allen, AlliRon, Barbour, Bate, Berry, Carlisle, Cn.sey, Cockrell, Coke, Dixon, Dolph, Edmunds, FarweU,

Faulkner, l\Ianderson, Frye, Mitchell. George, Morgan, Gibson, Morrill, Gorman, Paddock, Bale, Pasco, Hampton, Payne, Harris, Pettigrew, Hawley, Platt, Hiscock, Plumb, Ingalls, Pugh, .TonesofArka.nsas, Quay, .Tones of Nevada, Ransom,

Reagan, Sawyer, Sherman, Squire, Stewarli, Teller, Turpie, Vest, Voorhees,

;~~~IMd.

The PR&gIDENT pro tempore. Fifty Senators having responded to their names, a quorum is present. If there be no objection, further pro· ceedings under the roll-call will be dispensed with. The yeas and nays having been ordered on the question to proceed to the consideration of the tariff bill, so called, the roll will be called.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MORGAN (when bis name was called). I am paired with the

Senatorfrom New York'[Mr. EVARTS]. Mr. PADDOCK (when his name was called). I am paired with the

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. EusTis]. Ifhe were here, !should vote "nay."

Mr. PETTIGREW (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. CALL].

Mr. TURPIE (when his name was called). In the absence of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DA VIS], with whom I am paired, I with-hold my vote. ·

Mr. COKE (when Mr. W ASHBU:&N's name was called). I withhold my vote. I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WASHBURN].

The roll-call was concluded. Mr. GEORGE. Has the senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.

BLAIR] voted ? 'l.'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. He is not recorded. Mr. GEORGE (after having voted in the affirmative). I withdraw

my vote, as I am paired with him. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote is withdrawn. Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. Is the Senator from New York [Mr.

HISCOCK] recorded? The PRESIDENT pl'o tempore. He is not. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I withhold my vote. I am paired with

that Senator. Mr. MANDERSON. ·By an exchange of pairs the Senator from

Wisconsin [l\Ir. SPOONER] is pa.ired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN], which leaves the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. W ALTHA.LL] and myself at liberty to vote. I vote '' yea.''

Mr. HARRIS. I call the attention of the Senator from New York [Mr. HiscocK] to the fact that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. JONES] decJined to vote a moment since because of his absence. Now the Senator from Arkansas is absent, I think.

Mr. HISCOCK. He is here. Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 20, nays 23; as follows:

YEAS-20. Aldrich, Edmunds, Hawley, Pugh, Allison, Farwell, Hiscock, Quay, Davis, Faulkner, Manderson, Sawyer, Dixon, Frye, Morrill, Sherman. Dolph, Hale, Platt, Stockbridge.

NAYS-23.

Allen, Gorman, Payne, Teller, Bate, Hampton, Plumb, Turpie, Berry, Harris, Ransom, Vest, Carlisle, Jones of Arkansas, Reagan, Voorhees, Cockrell, Mitchell, Squire, Walthall. Gibson, Pasco, Stewart,

ABSENT-41.

Barbour, Colquitt, Ingalls, Sanders, Blackbum, Cullom, .Jones of Nevada., Spooner, Blair, Daniel, Kenna., Stanford, Blodgett, Jlawes, l\IcMillan, Vance, Brown, Eustis, McPherson, Washburn, Butler, Evarts, Moody, Wilson of Iowa. Call, George, Morgan, Wilson of Md. -Cameron, Gray, Paddock, Wolcott. Casey, Hearst, Pettigrew, Chandler, Higgins, Pierce, Coke, Hoar, Power,

So the motion was rejected. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the first

Order of Business under Rule VIII.

LA.ND COURT.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the private land claims bill that was up the other day.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1042) to establish a United State~ land court, and to provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain States and Territories. Th~ Chief Clerk resumed the reading of the bill at the point where

the reading stopped on Thursday last. The next amendment of the .. Committee on Private Land Claims was, in section 9, line 10, after ''United State3," to insert:

On any such appeal the Supreme Colll't shall retry the ca.use, a.s well the issues of fa.ct as of law, and may take testimony in addition to that given in the court below. and may amend the record of the proceedings below as truth and justice may require; and on such retrial and hearing every question shall be open, and the decision of the Supreme Court thereon shall be final and conch· sive.

The PRESIDENT pro tempo-re . I

The question is on the amendmenF,.

)

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6977 Mr. HAWLEY. I wish the Senator from Vetmont [Mr. EDMUNDS]

could reconcile my vote, at lea.st. This proposed amendment says: On any such appeal the Supreme Court shall retry the cause, as well the is

sues of fact as of law, and may take testimony in addition to that given in the court below, and may a.mend the record of the proceedings below as truth and justice may require; and onsuch retrial and hearing everyquestion shall be open.

If all these claims covered immense regions like the Maxwell grant, for example, perhaps hundreds of thousands of acres, nobody knows how much they are, it would not be a matter of so much consequence, but many of these cases involve comparatively small values, and it is provided here that after the United States shall have tried these causes in its own courts and with abundant counsel that the resources of the Government enable it to employ, an appeal may, within six months, be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. That conrt is already four years behind in its business, and Congress gives no very encouraging indication of a purpose to relieve it by any proper organization or reorganization of the courts.

It is qnite supposable that the landholder in the Territory down there who had obtained what he considered, or whose father had obtained what he considered, a perfect title from the Spanish or the Aiexican Government, guarantied to him by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, will be hr.ought on an appeal to Washington that may involve two, three, or four thousand dollars, to wait four years for trial, and to find then every detail, even the most minute detail of facts is to be brought in question again here, and that he will be expected to bring his witnesses a thousand or fifteen hundred miles, more or less, and await the deliberate proceedings of this august tribunal at Washington.

To one who is not engaged in any of this business, and perhaps does not question it at all, this seems to be prima facie a provision of possibly very great injustice indeed.

Mr. STEW ART. I should like to call the attention of the Senator from Connecticut a moment to section 16 of the bill, wherein the small holdings are provided for to be disposed of--

Mr. HAWLEY. I notice that the small holdings are provided for. Mr. STEW ART. I should like to say in regard to this that there

are ·a few of these grants of immense magnitude, and their holders necessaril.Y feel very anxious that they should have a full and perfect title. There is a grant in Arizona covering some 4, 000, 000 acres, and its holders have asked us to exclude Arizona from the bill; but the committee thought that it would be better to have the title settled, and that if there should be any miscarrying in the court below in regard to so important a matter it might be considered by the Supreme Court of the United St~~s, and that by no possibility shall such an enormous grant as that be recognized without the fullest scrutiny and consideration by the highest judicial tribunal. There is a claim of title to an enormous grant, and there should be full opportunity to have it examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. It will not delay the proceeding really.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President-Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me just a

word in connection with what the Senator from Nevada ha.s said? Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly. Mr. HAWLEY. I call the Senator's attention, as he is about to

speak upon the subject, to the fact that the saving section provides that only a man holding not exceeding 160 acres of land which he has held for twenty years next preceding, etc., may have his title decided by the court below without an appeal-a man holding 160 acres in Arizona or New Mexico. It is sometimes worth but a .very small price with a little adobe cabin upon it. I do not think a man with a thousand acres would be reached.

l\Ir. EDMUNDS. The broad answer to mv friend from Connecticut, whose solicitude I thoroughly share in tow do right, is this: In the first place, if be will do me the honor to listen to me--

Mr. HAWLEY. I am listening. Mr. EDMUNDS. This bill does not provide for people who claim

to have perfect titles from the Mexican or Spanish Government as it should not. It leaves the perfect titles, or people who pretend' that they have perfect titles, on their own ancient footing, as all changes of territory between sovereigns always do. They can defend their rights in the courts if they have any, and if not they lose them. It only provides for the imperfect, the inchoate claims that the Spanish or Mexican Government would have been bound in honor and upon principles of public justice to recognize and make perfect. So all matters about people who claim that they have a good title already, all argumen~ of that kind have no application here, for they are not required or permitted to come into court at all.

In the second place, in regard to these open cases and in regard to disputed ones, it is only the appeal cases, of course, that the Supreme Court has to retry on either the facts or the law. When therefore the decisipn of the court below is so obviously Just and s~ clear that neither party wishes to appeal, on our side under the protection of the .Attorney-General protecting the public interests and the interests of the settlers aud on the other side the claimants, that ends it.

Now as to cases that may be appealed, what is the state of the provision of this section? It is that the Supreme Court of the United States shall have precisely the same power and do precisely the same

XXI-437

thing that it does now in all equity cases from every State and Territory in th'3 Union, with the addition that the Supreme Court of the Uµ~ted States may, if it ~ee cause to do it, if any new discovered evidence comes, ~it does. in ad1!1iralty appea.ls or did until recently, procure that add1t1onal eVIdence ifany shall appear. Therefore the retrial of the facts, unless additional evidence is to be taken, and then it is taken under commission and not by witnesses present in court, is not an occasion of delay. Ali that the Supreme Court does is to do precisely what it does in every equity cause that ever comes to i~ consideration, and that is not to be bound by the action of the court below as to what the fact is appearing upon the evidence sent up, but it has the right to rejudge all the action of that tribunal in i~ findings of fact, just as I repeat it does in every equity cause that comes to it at all.

Surely, then, there is no hardship upon claimants, and there is every security for an honest claimant who finds himself defeated in the court below upon a question of fact to have the misjudgment ot the evidence by these judges reviewed by the Supreme Court, and to let the judges below know that that hangs over their heads. Of course the appeal comes up on the evidence taken in the court below; but if anything new is discovered, as in the famous California cases, newly discovered evidence (which under the California rule we applied in those old days; the Supreme Court could not open the case and retry it upon the facts), then it is within the mission of the court not to allow a fraud to be committed or injustice to be done when some subsequent evidence is before it that the court below is unable to get at. So it appears to me the provision is just exactJy as it ought to be for justice and for safety.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the effect of this provision in this bill will be to transfer the trial of all causes of any importance that occur before this court from tbe place where they were first investigated to Washington City, and it will open a tremendous door for the employment of able and distinguished counsel here for reargument and retrial of causes that have been decided or ought to have been decided finally in the court below, the peculiar commission that we are here organizing to try cases of this kind.

An action of ejectment is tried in Alabama which involves a question of the construction of a statute of the United States. It comes to the supreme court of Alabama, involving a question of the construction of a statute of the United States. It comes to the supreme court of Alabama, and is tried and decided upon the record made in the circuit court of that State. Then it is brought here under the judiciary act by ~rit of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, and to-day, m the supreme court of Alabama and in the Supreme Court of the United States, the title to that tract of land is determined by the state of the facts presented in the record. The bill of exceptions being a. part of the record, the adjudication of the conrt is final, without the resort to any new evidence or without opening up the case anew.

The same effect is produced if the question arises under a treaty between the United States and a foreign Government; as for instance in the case of Spanish grants in the State of Alabama and the States of Florida and Louisiana and elsewhere, the courts in all these cases during all the progress we have made in jurisprudence have been held competent to make a final decision upon the facts presented to them competent to as~rtain the fac~ that are presented to them, whethe; the courts are sitting in equity or whether they are sitting as c-0mmonlaw courts.

There is no reason why one of these contested Mexican land grants under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Gadsden treaty should be left.open after it had been finally decided by the five judges that we create to hear and determine these causes which does not apply equally to an action of ejectment tried. in the State of Alabama that involves the question of a grant under a Spanish treaty or un'der a statulie of the United States.

There ought to be a finality of decision, and it ought to be the business of the Congress of the United States in providing new jurisdictions to have the decision made final as soon as it can be done with due regard to justice and truth. But after the cause has been decided in this court of five judges, who are paid very large salaries and are supposed to be men of eminent ability-aflier it has been decided there as an equity cause upon the examination of witnesses in court, or upon the examination of witnesses by deposition or upon interrogatory and final decree is made by these five judges in the conrt below, an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and this bill provides or tbe amendment provides:

On any such appeal the Supreme Court shall retry the ca.m;e, as well the issues of fact as of law, and may take testimony fn addition to that given in the court below, and may amend the record of the proceedings below as truth and justice may require; and on such retrial and hearing every question shall be open, and the decision of the Supreme Court thereon shall be final and conclusive.

T~e trial in the court below is thus made a mere preliminary proceedmg. It is no more than the report of a committee of this body. _ It is not as much in dig11ity and in character according to this amendment to this bill as the report of a committee of this body upon the facts which may be brought in evidence before it upon an investigation ordered by the Senate. The case must come here and be tried de novo upon such evidence and under such forms of procedure as the Supreme

..

,'

6978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. · JULY 7,

Court of the United States shall rule, and the decision in the court below upon a matter of fact or upon a matter of law creates not even a presumption in favor oJ its regularity or its authenticity or its judicial correctness, but it is brought here as if it had been originated in some committee or upon brie:fS of counsel or upon mere pleading without an intervening adjudication.

I maintain that is unnecessary in these cases, or, if it is necessary in these cases, it is equally necessary in every action of ejectment that is brought to try the title to a tzacj; of land, it makes no difference where it comes from. If I could discern that there was any public necessity for this, if in the past experience of this country it could be demonstrated that causes failed of justice because the courts below wero incompetent to try them, and then· if I could anticipate that we are organizing a court of five judges who will be incompetent to try the case, so incompetent that their adjudication does not make any impression of a prima facie nature upon the merits of the controversy, then I might be induced to support the amendment, but otherwise I think I can not.

I repeat, sir, that the effect of this will be, whatever the purpo.c::e is, to transfer all the important litigation in respect of all these Spanish and M~can grants to the city of Washington and to have them retried here from the ground np, not merely upon the evidence that was taken in the court below, but upon such new evidence as the parties see proper to bring before the Supreme Court.

I think that is rather a broad invitation to men of distinguisb,ed ability to go into the Supreme Court of the United States and get the control and trial of the land grants in all of these great Territories t-0 the west of us. And, Mr. President, it is an injustice to the local bar. There are just as good lawyers, perhaps, out in the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico and in the States of Colorado and Nevada as there are in W ashi.J;lgton. Nevertheless, after they have expended all of their labor upon a case, and aft:.erthese.fivejudge& have adjudicated it, and after they have had an almost undefined sweep of testimony heretofore taken before surveyors-general and commissions and the like, after they have had .the equitable right and the enlarged and extended equitable power to reach out for all manner of evidence that has heretofore been taken without any controversy about any tract of this land and the whole matter has been settled by a decree in equity in the court below, it comes here and is to be tried de n-01:0.

There was a practice in admiralty which had it.sown peculiar founda· tion in reason which enabled the Supreme Court of the United States to bring in new evidence for the purpose of determining what was the right of the matter between libellants and defenill\nts or intervenors in admiralty courts, but that was a peculiar practice in admiralty, and I have not heard of its eristing in any equity cause or any common-law cause in any court.

Mr. ED~IUNDS. Why, Mr. President,. does the Senator mean t-0 sa.y that he does not know that every appeal in equity to the Supreme Court of the 'Jnited St.ates opens every question in the cause, fact as well as law?

Mr. MORGAN. But not to permit new evidence to be taken. Mr. EDMUNDS. Ah, that is the very addition which, from the ex

perience of the Supreme Court of the United States in the California. land cases, the whole committee forthelastten years, includingJudge Thurman and Judge Davis and all the great lights on the other side of the Chamber, who were chairmen of that committee, thought indispensable to the safety of the settler and of the United States against these enormous claims.

Mr. MORGAN. It is no more indispensable in that case than it is in every equity case~ whether it involves title to land or title to personality or what not, or the enforcement of a trust or any other thing that falls within equity jurisdiction. If we are to put that provision into this bill to enable the Supreme Court of the United States to decide these causes upon evidence de novo, original testimony taken in that court after the parties had announced themselves ready for trial and had closed the matter in the court below, there is no reason why we shohld not extend the rule so as to include every equity cause that comes to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is not to be assumed that injustice is going to be done in these land cases in the courts below, any more than it will be done in cases involving trusts or the administration of trusts or in cases falling within the equity jurisdiction of inferior courts, it makes no difference of what description they may be. There is no reason for supposing, not a reason that can be stated for supposing that the court below is going to be imposed upon in these land-grant cases any more than there is for supposing that the court below, the circuit court of the United States, for instance, will be imposed upon in an equity cause that may arise within its jurisdiction. But the logic of the position tn.ken by the Senator from Vermont would compel him as 'chairman of the Judicfary Committee to make a general provision by law apnllca.ble to all equity ca.uses whereby the Supreme Court of the United States might open the cases de 1ioi·o, which it has not now the right to do.

Very true, Mr. President, when an appeal is brought from a circuit court of the United States to the Supreme Court the case stands upon the record as if no opinion lrad been pronounced except the weight of

the conclusion of the court below upon matters of doubt. The Supreme Court always gives the benefit of the doubt to the court below. In a.case, for instance, where a jury has been called in a court of equity, as may be done, and the facts submitted for the finding of the jury have been embodied in the record and averdictthereuponpronounced, the Supreme Court of the United States in consideration of that case upon an appeal would not set aside the verdict of that jury and disregard it unless it was a plain case of the abuse of power by the jury or a plain case of a mistake of the facts, and even then the court would .find itself very much embarrassed in undertaking to set aside the verdict of a jury. So in regard to disputed facts found in the record, where the evidence is conflicting and where it is not very clear, the decision 1eached by the court below is always regarded upon appeal by the Ru· preme Court as being a decision in favor of the truth, and the Supreme Court will not reverse and overturn that decision unless it feels constrained to do so by the weight of testimony that it can not avoid.

Now, in this bill no jury trial is provided for at all that I see, and that is one of the defects of the bill: If there is any case that can arise in any court in the United States where the benefit of a jury trial upon the facts of the case is demanded, where the jury can have the benefit of looking at the witnes..<ies who are called to confront them and have twelve honest men to determine upon their credibility, it is the class of cases to which this bill relates. But there is no jury trial provided for here. On the contrary, all the ordinary instrumentalities of ascertaining the truth are utterly discarded by this bill, and after the court below, whether with a jury or without a jury, has gone on to ascertain and determine the facts, and perhaps after the witnesses themselves who testified are dead and gone, the case being brought here any time within three years uponanappeal to the SupremeCourtoftbe United States after the decision, the whole case stands open upon the record, just as if no judicial court had ever pa.\lsed upon its merits.

Mr. President, it will take a strong case of apparent · necessity in reaching the demands and decrees of justice to cause me to vote for a proposition like that., which keeps a case entirely untried, entirely open, after it has passed through all the expensive procedure of the court below, when it gets to the Supreme Comt of the United States • . No case will ever be tried of any conseq uenceoutside of the Supreme Court of the United States under this bill. It is a bill to provide for the control of causes upon e_vidence taken in the first instance in the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the object of it, the evident purpose of it, and I repeat it will take a strong statement to induce me to vote for it, and then I s)lould be under serious apprehensions that the law was going to be abused, that the injustice of long delay would be visited upon those litigants who are unable to bear the tlxpense of coming here and hiring counsel, after they had gained their cases in the court below, to stand by them and see that they are not broken up and destroyed and all the labor they have done thrown away by some new kink put in the case by some eminent counsel in Washington City.

What is the condition of a man who is .fighting one of those Spanish grants out there, who has, as was stated the other day, reared his family upon that soil, who has been there for twenty or thirty years, but who can not plead the rh~ht of prescription, who has accumulated around him the fruit of toil, who has fought against the desert and the winds, and who has maintained himself to a degree that he can support his family there? He is sued by one of claimants. He defends his case at home; he can employ counsel there cheaper than he can in Washington City. He maintains his defense, the case comes up here and it all stands open, and the plaintiff in the action, the owner of a great land grant, the corporation or the syndicate-for the country is full of them-begins to summon witnesses here and examine them in the Supreme Court of the United States or before some commissioner.

The Supreme Court of the United States can not stop the business of this country to go in and give a trial de novo to every case that comes before it of this character. It can not sit and hear the witnesses sworn and examined and their credibility tested by cross-examination, as is done in the courts below. It can not summon a jury, perhaps for the purpose of assisting it in its deHberatiop.s and passing upon the honesty and integrity and credibility and fairness of the witnesses who are brought here. But this man must have the case tried a second time from the root, and the testimony which will be taken must be taken under some commission issued by the Supreme Court to some commissioner to have answers made to the questions or to take depositions. The man finds himself in the power of the appellant. Having beaten him in the court below, he finds himseli now in the power of the appellant, and be must come here and hire lawyers at great expense merely to try the case that before that time bas been tried by five judges that we appoint here at enormous salaries. So I object to this amendment.

Mr. HAWLEY. The Senator from Vermont informs me that no question is raised concerning a lot of land held by an undisputed title. Who knows that it is an undisputed·title? The tenant holds that it is, but section 6 says:

· Tba.t it sha.ll a.nd may be lawful for any perion or persons or corpora.lion, or their legal representatives, claiming lands within the limits of the t~rritory derived by the United States from the Republic o! Mexico and now embraced within the '.l'erritories of New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, or Utah, or with.in the States of Nevada or of Colorado-

1890. CONGRESSiONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6979 It shall be lawful for any person- Mr. HA WL.EY. The bill says any person claiming land 1!4~ake

to present a petition, in writing, to the said court iu"the State or Terl'itory where his petition. Here is another thing I do not quite untlei:-dtand. It said land is situated and where the said court holds its sessions, etc. says:

So I see no limitation, I see nothing provided for here which justi- Seventh. No confirmation sha.11 in a.ny case be mad.-:. Ol' pa.tent issued. for a. fies what the Senator says. Whoever ia in possession, and howevE}.r greater quantity than 11 square leagues of land. Ion"" he may have been in possession, if a stranger comes there and sets I do not know why that is in there. I can not imagine. It was the up ~n adverse claim he must go· into a defense, to a lawsuit. But we old-fashioned limitation to 11 leaguee. It was the old fashion bearc told that the small holders are protected by section 16, on page 21, fore 1824 for Spaniards to give ve%] generous grants of land that they which says not the holders of only 160 acres shall be left unprotected, did not know much about, s!ipposed. to be worth but very little except but that the surve.vor shall make a resurvey of such tracts and that the for herders, and where u. man to have anything at all must have a sur rnyor "shall return with his survey the name or names of all per- great area. Befm'e 1824 grants of more than 11 leagues were perfectly sons so found to be in possession, with a proper description of the tract in order under Spanish and Mexican law, but in 1824 I believe a limin the possession of each as s~own by the survey, and the proofs fur- ~~tion waa made so ~ha.t grant~. thereafter should not ~nclude more than nisbed to him of such possession." Then- ..... v leagues, and taking that history r these grants be1~g lawful before

1Jpon r e ceipt of such survey and proofs the Commissioner of the Gcileral 11824, and the smaller ~rants afterwards, we agreed lil ~he treaty of L nndOfficc shall cause careful invf?stigation to be mad~ in such me.nnera.s "!1e Guadalupe Hidalgo to guaranty whateyer Spain and Mexico had done. sha ll deem n~essaryf?r the ascertamment of~he tr~th 1.n res~.:c1; ofsoch.chum Now we come in with a, limitation not found in that treaty. an u occupa.t10n, e.nd 1f satisfied upon such 1nvestige.t1cil that the claune.nt . d h ll l comes within the provisions of this section, he shall {!!I.Use patents to be issued Ur. EDMUNDS. I merely WlSh to say a wor on t e - eague to the parties so found to be in possession for the tracts respectively claimed by question, which does not come in here to be sure, but I may as well the m . state what the committee have always thought about that.

Then it provides farther: It is to be borne in mind all the time in respect of the class of lands T hat no person shall be ec~itled to confirmation of, or to patent for, more than mentioned in this bill, as to which the Mexican and Spanish Govern-

one tract in his own right by virtue of this section. ments bad not given a good title, but only in respect of which inchoate .And it is provided flll'ther: rights or claims bad begun and which had to appeal to the equity and

T hat this section shall not apply to anycjty lot, town lot, village lot. farm lot, justice of the Government under which the claim was made to perfect orpe.aturel_ot~eldunder~~rantfroma.nycorpor';'tionortowntheclaimtowhich it, that in executing that duty under the treaty of Guadalupe Him::.y fall within the prov1s1ons o: ~ect1on 9 of this act.. . dalgo we felt that the United States would be perfectly j~stified ii;i r~-

1\fr. EDMUNDS. It .provides for all those. bemg ta~en m a lump ro spect of these uncertain and inchoate, merely started clauns, to limit sa>e expense. And while I am up, Mr. President, I wish to say t-0 the them as the Government of Spain and as the Government of Mexico ~enator that if he h~d do°:e me the grace~ read on page .7 two or three would have had the duty and the right before the proceeding was comhnes further down m section 6 than he did-~e got to lines 11 and 12 pleted and the title bad become perfect to limit the amount of laud and there stopped-he would have seen that it adds: that could go in that way. After a man had taken the first step to get

And which have not become complete and perfect, in every such case to pre- a grant of 10, 000 leagues, if you please, it would be perfect.ly compe-sent a petiLion, etc. tent for the king to change his regulations and provide that his officers

Mr. TELLER. I would ask the Senator what he means by "com- should not confirD1 a grant ot m6re than 11 leagues. plete and perfect." I have had some experience in that question and - So in ~eneral the old Spanish laws provided that there should be I do not know what the words mean. · limitations great.er or smaller in all these grants: and of course in all

!\Ir. HAWLEY. That is the very question in issne, whether the of them ~at there should be a final confirmation by a tribunal ap-title ''has become complete and perfect." pointed by the king, and having large authority, and being composed of

Mr. EDMUNDS. This language is borrowed almost literally, and very high officers, to see that the grant was not too large, that it did not I do not know but literally, from about the first act that Congress ever crowd upon the Indians, that it did not defeat any other just right passed in regard to Louisiana, the first territory acquired from France, and squeeze off any settler-very proper and suitable regulations. Now, in providing a cour~ of land commissioners to try land titles down tlrere following the spirit of that, we have thought these laws in making ancl perfect those that were not perfect, and providing that those who those provisions. should limit it to what the Mexicans did aa soon as bad what they claimed to be good titles need not be obliged to come they got their independence and got established, that in no case should in, but the people who were appealing to the Government for political any grant be confirmed exceeding 11 square leagues. I think that is grace and political justice in the sense ot having got a right which had right. not yet given them a perfect title, like entering lands under our land .Mr. TELL.ER. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Verlaws before the man has proved up and finished the perfecting of his mont if he can call the attention of the Senate to any orders of the claim, then his claim is not complete and perfect, and Congress, I think kings of Spain limiting the grants. in the very first act, used in substance the same langua_ge, so as t.o leave Mr. EDMUNDS. I can not at this present moment, for I have not the people who were the owners of tit~es which they were willing to the book here. regard as perfect derived from the former government not to be obliged l'tlr. TELLER. Can the Senator at any time? to come in. Mr. EDMUNDS. I think so.

It is like (to take what may be an impossible illustration) tho case l\Ir. TELLER. I venture to say the Senator will find that a very or Canada being annexed to the United States, and we provided· in the .difficult problem. That matter was a matter of discretion with certain treaty of annexation that all the land titles in Canada should be re- officers of the Crown, left entirely to them, and when they put a man, spected: and as to those that had not become perfecL under the Cana- in juridical possession that was the end of the controversy. dian Government they should be made perfect by the United Stat.es Mr. EDMUNDS. That made a perfect title. jngt as they would have been by the British or Canadian Government Mr. TELLER. That made a perfect title, and that is the- condition if the annexation bad not taken place. To hold that every owner of of ~ll these landsinArizona; that is a valid title, because the Supreme land or lots in the city of Montreal, every private owner who had a Court has declared that that was necessary, and the Government of the good title should be obliged to go through the courts again, would be United States has never recognized any titles except those where tbere ex tremely unjust, because the common law, theuniversa.llaw, provides was juridical,M>ossession or a good excuse for not having the possession. fo r all those; and it is only those who wish togetthehelpofthe United taken. ThE<e bas been some exception where there have been depreState:i to make good a title which they admit by coming in is not good dations or Indian wars or something by reason of which the possession already, but which the United States are bound upon the principles of would not be taken by the grantee. Aside from that they have exacted the treaty where we promised to do it and pledged our faith to do it, always that possession should he taken. · t-0 make good, they being the people whose titles we agreed to make Mr. ED~IDNDS. The Supreme Court has decided under the law good if we found that they had a right. that such a man had a good titlet and the California laud claim com-

Mr. HA WL.EY. The Senator does not help me very much. I know mission and the Louisiana commission-and all the succession from the very well that under the language of this section, after the title has time we first obtained the Lc.uisiana grant from France have given t.o been confirmed by act of Congress or otherwise finally decided upon by everybody who proved that he had made his first start in good faith, lawful authorityt the people are not very likely to bring suit if the although he had not his juridical possession, a perfect title, such as the record shows that the matter has been already decided. But thereare former Government would have gone on andgiv6Il if the sovereignty men in possession of lands here that they got from their fathers before had not changed. them, whose titles have never been confirmed by an act of Congress nor 1\1r. TELLER. That is true. Wherever they found that there was have they ever received the a.pproval of any court of justice. a condition of affairs where the Mexican Government or the Spanish

1\.Ir. EDMUNDS. The treaty itself confirms every title that was n. Government would have completed the title where the steps were regu-good title under the Mexican Government. lar up to that pointt they had to goon; but all thegrant.sin California,

Mr. HAWLEY. But here is.an act which says that anybody may in Arizona, and in New Mexico have been subject to revision of the bring suit; on his claim where the tHle is not perfect, and then the case United Stat.es, and the Supreme Court bas never made any distinction is coming into court. The possessor may rest in perfect calmness and between complete grants and incomplete grant.s. The Supreme Court certainty that he has a good title, but here is an interloper coming in has declared that it was not an illterference with the right and not a to say that he bas a good title. violation of the treaty to require that the owners of complete titles,

Mr. EDMONDS. Not at all. perfect titles, should submit the evidence of their titles to the tribunals /

/, ......

.


establish~.d by the United States. A great many people believed that that was a. violation of the treaty, where those who held a complete title anrl the grantee bad taken every step that was required by the .Mexican or Spanish Government, and would have been under the necessity of taking no further step, that that was an infringement of the terms of the treaty to requi::e him to establish further his title. The Supreme Court said it wa:s not; so that really there is no distinction between a completed and an uncoi:!pleted title, and those words in this bill mean nothing at all.

Mr. GIBSON. I inqufre of the Senator from Vermont whether the provisions of this bill apply to all the claims within t.be territory acquired by the United Sta~ from Spain or France.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It applies to those within the Territories r;g,med and in the States named, but it does not apply to Louisiana.

Mr. GIBSON. It does not apply to Louisiana or Arkansas or Alabama or Florida.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No. Mr. TELLER. I should like to state that while it applies to claims

in the State of Colorado, it is of no especial value because, I believe, eyery grant ih that State bas been confirmed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is only named because part of it is in the aTea derived from Mexico.

Mr. TELLER. I understand it is only because it is within the area we derived from Mexico.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That. is all. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MANDERSON in the chair). The

question is on the amendment of the Committee on Private Land Claims. Mr. MORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. l\Ir. COCKRELL. Let the amendment be reported.

· The SECRET.ARY. On page 11, section 9, line 10, after ''United States," it is proposed to insert:

On any such appeal the Supreme Cow·t shall retry the ca.use, as well the issues of fa.ct as of law, and may take testimony in addition to that given in the court below, and may a.mend the record of the proceedin~ below as truth and justice may require; and on such retrial nnd hearing every question shall be open, and the decision of the Supreme Court thereon shall be final and conclu-~~ .

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. · Mr. PADDOCK (when bis name was called). I am paired with the

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Eusns]. Mr. WALTHALL (when his name was called). I am paired with

the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER], and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. MANDERSON], who is now in the chair, is paired with the Senator from Kentuck7 [Mr. BLACKBURN]. It has been arranged to exchange those pairs, and I vote "yea. "

Mr. COKE {when Mr. W ASHBURN's name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. W .AsHBURN].

The roH-eall was concluned. Mr. FAULKNER. I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. KENKA]

is detained from the Senate by reason of sickness, and is paired with the Senator from Colorado [Mr. WOLCOTT].

Mr. GEORGE. I am paired with theeenator from New Hampshire (Mr. BLAm].

Mr. MORGAN. I am paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. EV.ARTS].

Mr. P A.DDOCK. I am informed by the friends of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. EUSTIS], with whom I am paired, that it will be agreeable to him if I vote on this question. I therefore vote "yea."

The result was then announced-yeas 32, nays 11; as follows: YEAS-32.

AU-en, Dixon, Hiscock. Ransom, Barbour, Dolph, Jones of Nevada, Reagan, Berry" Edmunds, Manderson, Stewart, Casey, Farwell, Moody, Sto~bridge, Cockrell, Frye, Pasco, Turp1e, Colquitt,. Gibson, Payne, Vest, Cullom, Hale, Pettigrew, Voorhees,

· Davis, Hampton, Platt, Walthall.

NAYS-11. Bate, Hawley, Paddock, Sawyer, Faulkner, Jones of Arkansas, Plumb, Teller. Harris, Mitchell, Pugh,

ABSENT-41. Aldrich, Ooke, Ingalls, Spooner, Allison, Daniel, Kenna, Squire, Blackburn, ~awes, Mcl\iillan, Stanford, Blair, ustis, McPherson, Vance, Blodgett, Ev.:irt5, l\:lorgan, Washburn, Brown, Geoi·ge, Morrill, Wilson of Io\va, Butler, Gorman, Pierce, Wilson of .Md. Call, Gray, Power, Wolcott. Cameron, Hearst, Quay, Carlisle, Higgins, Sanders, Chandler,_ Roar, Sherman,

So the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the bill will be re

sumed. The Secretary resumed the reading of the bill. The next amendment

of the Committee on Private Land Clai.n:ts was, in section 9, line 22,

after the word "a," to strike out the word "concise " and insert ''clear;" so as to make the clause read:

Upon the rendition of o.ny judgment of thecnurt confirming any claim it shall be the duty of the attorney of the United States to notify the Attorney-General in writing, of such judgment, giving him a clear statement of the case and th~ points decided by the court. .

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 12, section 9, line 23, after the

word ''court, ' ' to insert: Which statement shall be verified by the certificate of the presiding judge of

said court; and in any case in which such statement shall not be received by the AttorneY,-General within sixty days next after the rendition of such judgment, the right of appeal on the part of the United States shall continue to exist until six months next after the receipt of such statement.

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 10, line 1, after the word "con

firmatfo&::, " to strike out "i·endered by said court;" in line 2, after the word "'final,'' to strike out "either by the failure of the United States to appeal therelrom, or by its affirmance by the Supreme Court," and in line 4, after the word "court," to insert the words "in which the final decision shall be had;" so as t.o read:

SEC. 10. That whenever any decision of con!irmation shall become final, the clerk of the court in which the final decision sha!! be had shall certify that fact to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, with ~ copy of the decree of confirmation, which shall plainly state the location , boun<i~ries, and area. of the tract confirmed. etc.

The amendment was agreed to. The Secretary resumed the reading of the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary calls the attention of

the Chair, who calls the attention of the Senator from Vermont, to an avparent omission in line 14; the word "the" should be inserted before the word ''same.''

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes; it should. I thank the Secretary very much. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The word" the" will be inserted, if

there be no objection. The Secretary continued the reading of the bill to line 24 on page 13. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Al..."IO, on page 13, section 10, line 24,

the word ''the'' should be inserted before the word ''same.'' Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, that is true. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That change will be made. The Secretary resumed the reading of the bill. The next amendment

of the Committee on Private Land Claims was, in section 10, line 41, after the word "court," to insert "in which the final decision was made;" so as to read:

At the expiration of the said ninety days the surveyor.general shall forward such survey, with the objections and proofs filed in support of or in opposition to such objections, and his report thereon, to the Commissioner or the General Land Office. Immediately upon receipt of any such survey, with or without objections thereto, the said Commissioner shall transmit the same, with all accompanying p~pers, to the court in which the final decision was m1tde for its examination of the survey and of any objections and proofs that may have been filed , or shall be furnished.

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 10, line 51, after the word

''shall," to strikeout "forthwith" and insert "as soon as maybe;" so as to read:

When any survey is finally approved by the com·t it shall be returned to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who shall as soon as may be cause a. patent to be issued thereon to the confi.rmee.

T'!:!e amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 10, beginning in line 52, to strike

out the following clause: The Commissioner of the General LR.nd Office shall also transmit to said court

for its examination all surveys of private land claims, with the accompanying papers. in the States and Territories to which this act is applicable nl)w pending in his office, togelhor wilh a.II surveys of private land claims in said States and Territories heretofore confirmed which he shall hereafter receive, and the court shall have the same jurisdiction of such surveys as it has of surveys confirmed under the provisions or this act·.

And in lien thereof to insert: One-half or the necessary expenses of making the survey and plat provided

for in this section. and in respect of which a patent shall be ordered to be issued shall be paid by the claimant or patentee, and shall be a. lien on said land, which may be enforced by the sale of so much thereof as mo.y be necessary for that purpose, aft.er a. default of payment thereof for si.x: months next after the approval of such survey and plat; and no patent shall issue until such payment.

The amendment was agreed to. The· next aJnendment was, in section 11, line 2, after the words ''past

ure lot," to strike out "held under a grant from any corporation or town" and insert "claimed directly or mediately under;" and in line 5, after the word "confirmation," to strike out "under this Government" and i~ert "by the United States;" so as to read:

That the provisions of this act shall ex tend to any city lot, town Jot, village lot, farm lot, or pasture lot claimed directly or mediately under any grant which may be entitled to confirmation by the United States, for the establishment of a city, town, or village, by the Spanish or Mexican Government, or the law-ful authorities thereof. . · .

The amendment was agreed to. The Secretary read to the end of section 11. Mr. PLUMB. I want to call attention to section 11, which has just

been read. I spoke to the Senator from Vermont about it a few moments -ago. It seems fo me there are cases down in New Mexico which this

... ·'

1890. -CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-· S])NATE. 6981 ;;ection does not meet. It must be remembered that there are a very where they might not have been so entitled, then it ought in the case considerable number of persons who are in possession of small tracts of of these small landholders. land which form villages in fact, but of which to require any burden of Mr. RANSOM. H provides for the small holders. cost or to necessitate the employment of at.torneys and going into court l\Ir. PLUMB. There are in the Rio Grande Valley below Albu-is of itself a very considerable obstruction. I doubt very much whether querque, and perhaps at various other points in that valley and at other under this section all the cases would be met. points in other valleys of the Territory, a very considerable number of

I also want to call attention to another section of the bill in con- people who went upon the land under the condition of things then exnection with this in a moment, but in the mean while I will state that isting, expecting to get title, and who, vyhether they were in the exact this section provides that the lawful authorities of the village may line of the law of Mexico in regard to the acquisition of title or not, make proof for all the members, and that in the event of there being no have the strongest possible claim upon our sense of justice. lawfol authorities, or where the land was originally granted to an in· Mr. MORGAN. The point I wanted to call the attention of the dividual, his claims shall be presented by or in the name of said indi· Senator to-- · vidual or his lega.I representatives. I think there are villages in New Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator will·pardon me, as I have only three Mexico practically occupying village grants, as known under the Span- minutes and I want to reply to the Senator from Kansas now. ish Jaw, where there are no village authorities, and communal grants The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has been where there is no person and no arrangement whereby any person could recognized by the Chair and declines to yield. be constituted to represent the community in a prClceeding of this Mr. EDMUNDS. I want to respond to my friend from Kansas that kind. I agree with his sentiments entirely, and I think I can convince him

I made to the Senator from Vermont privately a moment ago a stig- when I have ten minutes of time or less, and every body else, that the two gestion that in cases of this sort the court might be authorized to ap- sections to which he has referred do exactly the thing that he wishes to point a trustee or some other person in whose name this proceeding do, and in the cheapest possible way; and we framed the eleventh secmight be carried on in such a way as to be inexpensive, and yet at the tion and the sixteenth section with. that view. The eleventh section same time to ce~tainly result in the confirmation of the grant, with applies to wh:tt was called a communal grant; that was a grant to a such other method of determining the individual boldin~s of each mem- settlement which was to set up a town and keep a town, and annexed ber of the community as might be necessary under all the circum- to that town was a vast common of pasturage, going to a mountain, stances. It is a power which the court has to exercise in a friendly sometimes taking in probably 100 square leagues. In some of those way. I should very much hope that whatever court came to deci<le cases the towns and communes have long since entirely disappeared, and the duties devolved upon it by this bill, if it should ever become a law, the original settlers and their children have gone away and taken up would not feel that all of this character of people or any of them in other settlements, or died, and nobody knows what has become of them. point of fact held adverse to the United States in such a way as to re- There came before the Committee on Private Land Claims before we quire the court to look upon them with disfavor, or to do other than to framed these two provisions a very large claim, a communal claim.repgive them the greatest possible a..sistance in obtaining their titles. i·esented by the kind of counsel the Senator from .Alabama [Mr. MoR-

In connection with the eleventh section I desire to call attention to GA.N] has so strongly spoken of, very eminent counsel, claiming that the fact that in section 16 a certain duty is devolved upo:i;>. the <lepnty they had found the heirs of some of these ancient communes and that surveyor whQ may hereafter make surveys in these Territories, and those heirs would represent the wholecommune, and they bad a grant upon the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which seems to be, from the heirs, and they wanted us t-0 confirm this original communal if not in conflict with section 11, at the same timeto provide a different grant from the King of Spain or the Mexican Republic, whichever it remedy for what may be the same class of cases. was, and all the outlying pasture lands, amounting in that instance to

I know the Senator from Vermont is in entire sympathy with the hundreds ofsquare leagues. IrememberthatJudgeThurman, I think general view which I have expressed about these people. A. man who it was, •was the chairman of the committee at t.hat time, orJndge Da· owns or claims to own a grant covering t.en, fif~en, twenty, or fifty vis, one or the other of them, and when he came to find out exactly thousand acres ofla.nd can be safely left to take care of himself. 'rhey what the point was, the eminent counsel got very small comfort, because are not the people I have especially in mind about this le_gislation. we did not intend that somebody should go and hunt up some name to Most of them have had the good fortune by means of their diligence give a grant for a commune where there was nobody settled now, and heretofore not only to have their claims r.onfirmed by act of Congr~s, buy up·that from the supposed heir, pdmafaciethe heir because of the but at the same time to get a great deal of land that they were never same name as a person who had lived there a great while, and come entitled to at all. in and get Congress to confirm that vast tract of land for the specu·

Mr. TELLER. Adjoining land. lator. We therefore ma.de the provision of section 11. Mr. PLUMB. Yes, as the Senator from Colorado says, some adjoin- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont will please

ing land. suspend. The hour of 2 o'clock has arrived, and the Chair lays be-Mr. ED:.\IUNDS. I will tell my friend that they have not had any fore the Senate the unfinished business.

confirmed b.r act of Congress for the last twelve years. Mr. EDMUNDS. Will tny friend from Maine give me one minute? Mr. PLUMB. I understand that. There is one exception. Since Mr. FRYE. I ask that the unfinished business be informally laid

I have been a member of this body, now thirteen years, one claim aside until the Senator from Vermont finishes. amounting to about 50,000 acres was confirmed. Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for only two minutes.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not from the Committee on Private Land Claims. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title of the unfinished business Mr. PLUMB. It was from the Committee on Private Land Claims. will be stated.

I think I am quite sure about that. I will look it up, however. The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 3n8) to place the American mer-Mr. EDM:UNDS. I think I remember it. I was absent at that chant marine, engaged in foreign trade, upon an equa1ity with that of

time. Very likely it was a. correct. claim. other nations. Mr. PLUMB. I think so. At all events, in view of certain claims The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unfinished business will be in-

-which have been confirmed, it could be said to be an indication of the formally laid aside by unanimous consent, and the Senator from Ver-j ustice of the claim from the fact that only about 50, 000 acres were con· mont will proceed. · firmed, as I now remember. But here are a class of people who went l\'Ir. EDMUNDS. So we required by section 11 that these communal on these lands under the law of Mexico, or under the custom then grants sl),ould be represented by an existing commune; that is, the prevailing, who occupied only the smallest tracts of land, a few acres town, city, or village that occupied the original location, so as not to in extent, and remained there generation after g.eneration until now, and let a speculator come in and take up the abandoned villages, of which it would be a piece of infap:iy if the Congress of the United States in there are n. great many in the'>e hundreds of years. providing for the larger claims should in any wise so legislnt.e as either Mr. TELLER. Suppose they are not incorporated? to prevent any one of these holders of small tracts of laud from getting Mr. EDMUNDS. Then to provide for those actual descendants of possession and getting it practically without cost. If there may be any that commune, or anybqdy else who has settled where there was the point over wnich doubts are to be resolved in this bill, I should be in commune, or settled anywhere else and bas been in for twenty years, favor as to these people of making it perfectly cert.a.in that there shall the sixteenth section comes in and gives him a. short way out without be no form of law and no strictness of ruling required of the court which proving any claim at all except his possession. shall in any way except any one of these people from obtaining in the ' Ur. TELLER. If the Senator will allow me, I suggest to him that quickest and cheapest possible way exactly what he is entitled to by he will have to reform section 16 somewhat, I think. It provides reason of his long continued possession. "that in township surveys hereafter to be made," etc. It does not

.Mr. EDMUNDS obtained the floor. apply to those cases where surveys have already been made. M:r. MOR1:YAN. Will the Senator from Kansas ailow me to ask him .Mr. ED:.\1UNDS. It there is any fault of that kind in structure it

a question before betak~hisseali? Let me ask him if he understands is subject to correction. that this bill provides for any petition to be filed or presented hy any Mr. TELLER. I ask the Senator to look at that. Certainly it ought other person than one claiming under a grant from Spain or Mexico. to include former surveys.

Mr. PLUMB. I do not. It must be held under a grant, or, I under- Mr. PLUMB. It leaves them to the accident, too, of being discov-stand, under such custom as would have entitled the person in the ered by the county surveyor. event jurisdiction had remained in Mexico to have received his title Mr. TELLER. There ought to be some way in which they may be from that Government. But if it does not provide for a class of cases heard.

.I.

'. j

, I

;

6982 • ' I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 7,

Mr. PLUMB. The surveyor o~ht to see these people and proffer The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The report will be read. them title, and take the most caretnl and detailed means to see that The Chief Clerk read as follows: all of them are brought into court, or wherever else it is necessary, at The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the expense of the Government if need be, in order that they may get the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5381) directing the purchase of their title long before the cupidit.Y of any outsider ma~be attr:icted to sih-er buJlion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for oLher purposes,

~ " having m et, after fuU and free conference luwe 11greed to recommend and do their holdings. recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

l\Ir. EDMUNDS. That is exactly our provision in respect of these That the 8enate recede from its amendments to said bill and agree to the small settlers up t;o 160 a cres. It does not require them to prove any ~~~oi';:~~ti:n the nature of a substitute: Strike out all after the enacting clause

title o r go to the trouble of pro·ving it in court. They go to the sur- "That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase, from time veyor, tbe deputy surveyor, or Commissioner of the General Land Of- to time, s ilver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4.500,000 ounces, or so much

· d tb · 1 · thereof as may he ofJered in each month. at the market price thereof, not ex:-:fice, just like a homesteader on a pre-emption an pTO\e up eir c aim. cecding itl for 37L25 grains of pare silver, and to issue in payment for such pur-If there is anythina further that is wanted in tha t section, which I did cun.ses of s ilver bullion Treasury notes of the United States to be prepared by not dmw myself, i~ respect of the...«e actn:l.l settlers on thei r sma ll hold- the Secretary of the Treasury, in su<'h form and of such denominations, not less · h · · I t l d L h l th than Sl nor more than .. l,(J()(), as he may prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry ings, no matter W ose claim it I S, am mos g a w e P em into effect the provisions of this act is hereby appropriated out of any money do it. i n the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. DOLPH. I shonlcl like to suggest to the Sena tor that as the " 8Ec. 2. That the Treasury notes issued in accordance with the provisions of Suteenth section is now drawn it only affects those hereafter discov - this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at the Treasury of the United

States or at the office of any assistant treasurer of the United States, and when •ered by new surveys, and it ought to be so amended as t o take in all so redeemed may be reissued; but no greater or less amount of such notes shall this class of people. be outstanding at any time than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard

1tfr. EDMUNDS. Who are actual settlers? silver dollars coined therefrom, then held in the Treasury purchased by such notes; and such Treasury notes shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts,

Mr. PLUMB. Who are actual settlers living on this land. As I public and private,exceptwherc otherwise expressly stipulated in the contrnct, said to the Senator, many of these people are ignorant; many of them and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so re-d k d h k h. b t th · titl ceived may be reissued; and such notes, when held by any national-banking

ll not spea our language, an t ey -now not ing a on eir e. association, may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve. That upon demand Some of them have been there from time immemorial and they ought of the J:iolder ot any of tbe Treasury notes herein provided for the Secretary of to be protected in their small holdings. the Treasury shall, under such regulations as he may prescribe, redeem such

1'1r. ED MU11..TDS. Most certainly. notes in gold or silver coin, at his discretion, it being the established policy of .... , the United 8tates to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President-- the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law. Mr. DOLPH. I ask the Senator to yield to me while I submit an "Sm;:. 3. That the Secretary of the Trea.,ury shall each month coin 2,000,000

d h . h I h l · 14 f' h bill d h' h ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisivns of this act into amen ment w lC s a 1 propose to section O t e ' an W IC standard silver dollars until the 1st day of July, 1891, and after that time he I submit now by way of suggestion to the committee. shall coin of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act as

l'tir. EDMUNDS. L e t it be read and printed. much as may be necessary to provide for the redemption of the Treasury notes Mr. M:ORGAl"\f. Let it be read. herein provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage

shall be accounted for and paid into the 'l'reasury. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendmentproposed by the Sena- " SEc. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act shall

tor from Oregon will be read. be subject to the requirements of existing law and the regulations of the mint The CHIEl!' CLERK. Strike out all of section 14 afler the word service governing the methods of determining the amount of pare silver con

tained, and the amount of charges or deductions, if any, to be made. "thereupon,'' in line 9 of the section, and insert: " SEc. 5. That so much of the act of February 28, 1878,entitled 'An act to au-

Such claimants or their lega.l represcntative3 shall be entitled to receive as thorize th~ coinag~ of the stand.a.rd silver dollar and to restore its le~al·te!1der full consideration for the land!! so released the sum of $L.25 per acre, which ch';"racter, as reqmres~emonthlypurchase and comageofthesal:?emtos1~ver sum shall be paid to him or them by the Secretary of the Treasury, out of any ?oilars of not less than ~,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion, money in the Treasury not otherwise appt"Opriated, upon the certificate of the J is ,~rebl ~Eetled. the fthi tth b

1 ta d' 'th th T

Secretary of the Interior. . urer ~7 the U~i~0~ta1 espt~s~~er~spec~~e cr!di~sao~c~!t~on°a1 1~:-n~ for dep~~i: 1Ur. REAGAN. If the Senator will allow me, I want t;o present two ma<le to redeem the circulating no~es of such banks, and all deposits thereafter

amendments to the land bill and I ask that they may be printed by rece!ved for like purpose, shall be coyered into the Treasury as a miscellaneous th . . . ' receipt, and the Trea.~urer of the Umted States shall redeem from the general

e time It comes up again. cash in the Treasury the circulating notes of said banks which may conie into The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be received and his possession subject to redemption; and upon the certificate of the Comp-

printed troll'er of the Currency that such notes have been i·eceived by him and that they Mr R. EAGAN I th b d b tt b d have been destroyed and tha.t no new notes will be issued in their place, re-

. n. r • expt-ct ey a. e .er e rea · imbo,rsement of their amount shall be made to the Treasurer, under such regu-The PRESIDING OFFICElt They will be read. lations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, from an appropriation The CHfEF CLERK. Amend section 13 pa<Ye 17 by inserting after hereby created, to be known as 'National-bank notes: Redemption account,'

th d " ti ll · l' 10 h fi 11 '· - .<=> ' but the provisions of this act shall not apply to the deposits received under sec-e wor per ect, in me "'• t e O owing. tion 3 of the act of June 20, 1874, requiring every national bank to keep in law-

But no mere concession by eithf'>r of said Governments of the right to obtain ful money with t.he Treasurer of the United States a sum equal to 5 per cent. of title to the land claimed, or survey of the same, with the conditions on which its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of its circulating notes; it was to be obtained unfulfilled, shn.ll be deemed such a title as should be so and the balance remaining of the deposits so covered shall, at the close of each confirmed, as where there has been no occupation or survey of the land and no month, be reported on the monthly public debt statement as debt of the United payment of the public dues neces3ary to obtain the title to the same. States bearing no interest.

Mr. RE.AGAN. be read.

"SEc. 7. That this act shall take effect thirtydn.ys from and afteritspassa.ge." I ask that the other amendment I propose t;o offer And the Senate agree to the same.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be read. The CHIEF CLERK. . It is proposed to amend section 16, page 21, lines

7, 8, and 9, by striking ont the words ''residing thereon as his home, of any tract of lana of not exceeding 160 acres in such township, for twenty years" and in lieu thereof to insert:

Of any tract of land, cultivating the same or some part thereof, not exceeding . 160 acres, in any such township for twenty years next preceding the time of mak· ing such survey without title to said lands. and any person, his ancestors or grantors who shall hn.ve had like peaceable, unint.errupted, adverse, and bona. fide pos· session of any tract of land of whatever size, cultivating the same or some part thereof in any such township with boundaries known and recognized in the neighborhood where such land may be situated for a like period of twentv years, though there be no written title therefor. -

UNITED STATES ELECTION L.A. WS.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. UcPHERSO:Y, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 11045) to amend and supplement tbe election laws of the United States, and to provide for the more efficient enforcement of such laws, and for other purposes; in whrch it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

Mr . .f<'RYE. I ask that what is known as the House election bill, which bas just been sent over to the Senate, may lie on the table until the return of the Senator from :Massachusett.s (Mr. HOAR], the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. He desired that to be done when he went away.

The bill (S:. R. 11045) to amend and supplement the election laws of the United States, and to provide for the more efficient enforcement of such laws, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, and ordered to lie on the table.

TREASURY NOTES-SILVER BULLION.

1rlr. SHERMAN. I pr.esent a conference report, which I will ask to have read and lie over until to-morrow.

..

JOHN SHERMAN, JNO. P. JONES,

Managers on the part of the Senate. E. ll. CONGE~t J. H. W ALK.Eti.,

jfanagers on the pa1·t of the Bouse.

.Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the conference report be printed, and that there be printed in conneclion with it the original Honse bill and the Senate amendments followed by the conference report, so that the whole action can be seen at a glance.

The PRESIDENT p 1·0 temporc. If there be no objection, the original House bill, the Senate amendments, and the conference report will be printed consecutively ~one document.

Mr. SHERMAN. I give notice that to-morrow morning I propose to call up the conference report.

Mr. VEST. At what time do I understand the Senator from Ohio to say he expected t;o call up the conference report?

Mr. SHERMAN. To-morrow morning. Mr. DANIEL. May I inquire how many copies will be printed

under the order just made? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The usual number, 1,900 copies. Mr. DANIEL. Will th!l.t be sufficient? M:r. SHERMAN. It will be sufficient until the report is acted upon.

If it should be adopted, then as a matter of course we can have as, many copies printed as we desire.

MOBILE AND DAUPHIN ISLAND RAILROAD AND HARBOR COMP.A.NY.

1\fr. VEST. I desire t;o ask unanimous consent t;o enter a motion t;o reconsider the vote by which Senate bill 3751 was passed by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tenipore. The title of the bill will be stated. The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S, 3751) to Jil:rantr to the Mobile and

I~,

/

.. .-,I

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-' SENATE. I

Danphin Island Railraad and Harbor Company a right ta trestle across the shoal water between Cedar Point and Danphin Island.

The PREBIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been sent to the Honse of Representatives, the motion to reconsider will be accompanied by a request to recall tb~(biJl, if there be no objection.

Ur. VEST. Yes, sir; I was about to add that the vote be reconsidered and the Honse requested to retnrn the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As soon as the bill is in the posses-sion of the Senate the motion to reconsider can be made.

ENROLLED BILLS SJGNED.

A me3sa~e from the Rouse of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the President pro tempore:

A bill (S. 1064) granting a pension to Margaret E. Adamson; and A bill ( H. R. 9066) making appropriations for the legislative, exec

utiYe, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year end._ ing June· 30, 1891, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT TO A BIT~.

Mr. FRYE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the sundry eivil appropriaticm bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.

The Senate resumed the consid-eration of the bill (S. 3738) to place the American merchant marine engaged in the foreign carrying trade upon an equality with that of other nations. ,

l\fr. GfBSON. I offer 3" substitute for the bill. The substitute I offer is Senate hill No. 3739, reported by the Senator from Maine [Ur. FRYE] from the Committee on Commerce. To that bill I propose to add several sections. The last section of the bill is No. 9, and I propose to add three more sections, section 10, section.11, and section 12, and I ask that the sections to be added to the bill be read. I suppose it is not neces ary to have the bill itself read.

Mr. MORGAN. I should like to hear the whole of it read. I have not heard it. . The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MANDERSON in the chais). The

Chair understands tw amendment of the Senator from Louisiana to be 1 in the nature of a substitute, striking out all after the enacting clause

and inserting. Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all after the enact

ing clause and insert: That the Postmaster-General is hereby authorized and empowered to-enter

into contracts fore. term not le~s thsn five nor more than ten years' duration, with American citizens, for the ca.rrying of mails on American steam-ships, between the ports of the United States and such ports in foreign courft.ries, the Dominion of Cana.de. excepted, as in his judgment will best subserve and promote the postal a.nd commercial interests of the United States. Said contracts shall be made with the lowest responsible bidder for the performance of said service on each route, and the Postmaster-General shall have the right to reject all bid·s not in his opinion reasonable for the attaining of the purposes named.

SEC. 2. That before ma.king any contract for carrying ocean mails in accordance with this act the Postmaster-Genera.! shall give public notice by advertising once a week, for three months, in such daily papers as he she.ll select in each of the cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Balt.imore, New Orleans, St. Louis, Charleston, Norfolk, Sa.vanna.h, Galveston~ andMobile, and when the proposed sexvice is to be on the Pacific Ocean, then in Se.n Francisco, Tacoma. and Portland. Ruch•notice she.ll describe the route, the time when such contract will be made, the duration of the same

1 the siz·e of the steamers to be used, the

number of trips a year, the times of saihng, and the time when the service shall commence, which shall not be more than three yea.rs after the contract shall be let. 'fhe details of the mode of advertising and letting such contracts shall be coqducted in the manner prescribed in ·chapter 8 of Title XLIX of the Revised . Statutes, for the letting of inland ma.U eon tracts, so fa.r as the same shall be applicable to the ocean mail service.

SEC. 3. That the vessels employed in the mail service under the provisions of this act shall be American-built steam-ships, owned and officered by American citizens, in conformity with the existing laws, and upon each departure from the United States the following proportion of the crew shall be citizens of the United 8tates, to wit: During the first two years of such contract for carrying the mails,.one-fourth thereof; durin~ tne next three succeeding yea.rs, one-t hfrd thereof; and during the remaining time of the continuance of such contract, at least one-half thereof; ·and shall be constructed after the latest and most approved types, with all the modern improvements and appliances for ocean steamers. They sha.11 be divided into four classes. The first class shall be iron or steel screw steam-ships capable of maintaining a. speed of 20 knots an· hour at sea. in ordinary weather and of a gross registered tonnage of not less than 8,000 tons. No vessel except of said first cla'ls shall be accepted for said mail service under the provisions of this act between the United States and Great Britain. The second class shall be iron or steel steam-ships capable of maintaining a speed of 16 knots e.n hour at sea in ordinary weather and of a gross registered tonnage of not less than- 5,000 tons. The third class shall be iron 01· steel steam-sl;iips capable of maintaining a speed of 14 knots an hour at sea. in ordinary weather and of a. grnss registered tonnage of not less than 2,pOO tons. The fourth class shall be iron or.steel or wooden steam-ships capable of maintaining a speed of 12 knots an hour at sea. in ordinary weather and of e. gross registered tonnage of not less than 1,500 tons. It shall be stipulated in the contract or contracts to be entered into for the said ma.ii service that said vessels may carry passengers with their baggage in addition to said mails and may do e.11 ordinary business done by steam-ships.

Szc. 4. _That all Ateam-ships of the first;, second, and third classes employed as a.hove and· hereafter built shall be constructed with particulf'.r reference to prompt and economical coavers-ion into auxiliary naval cruisers, and according to plans a.nu specifications to be agreed a110n by and between the owners and the Secretary of the· Navy, and they shall be of sufficient strength and stability

to carry and sustain the working and operation of at least four effective i·i.fled cannon of a caliber of not less than 6 inches, and she.11 be of the highest rating known to maritime commerce And all vessels of said three classes heretofore built and so employed shall, before they are accepted for the mail service herein provided for, be thoroughly inspected by a competent naval officer or constructor detailed for that service by the Secretary of the Navy; and such officer shall report, in writin~, to the Secretary of the Navy, who shall transmit. said report to the Postmaster-General; e.nd no such vessel not approved by the Secretary of the Navy as snita.ble for the service required shall be employed by the Postmaster-General as provided for in this act.

SEC. 5. That the rate of compensation to be paid for such ocean ma.U service of the said first-class ships shall not exceed the sum of $6 a mile and for the second-class ships $3 a. mile, by the shortest practicable route, for each outward: voyage; for the third-class ships shall n ot exceed Sl.50a mile, and for the fourt·h~ class ships Sl a mile for the actnal number of miles required by the Post-Office Department to be tra-yeled on each outward-bound voyage: Provided, That in the case of failure from a.cry cause to perform the regular voyages 11tipulated for in said contracts, or any of them, a pro rat.a. deduction shall be made.from the compensation on account of such omitted voyage or voyages; and that suitable fines and penalties may be imposed for delays or irregularities in the due performance of service according to the contract, to be determined by the Postmaster-General: Provided further, That no steam-ship so employed and so paid for carrying· the United States mails sha.U receive any other bounty or subsidy from the Treasury of the Uni lied States.

SEC. 6. That upon each of said vessels the United States shall be entitled to have transported, free of charge, a mail messenger, whose duty it shall be to receive, sort., take in charge, and deliver the mails to and from the United States, and who shall be provided with suitable room for the accommodation of himself and the mails.

8EC. 7. That officers of the United States Navy may volunteer for service on said mail vessels, and when accepted by theeontracto1·or contractors may be assigned to such duty by the Secretary of the Nary whenever in his opinion such assignment can be made without detriment to the service, and while in said employment they shall receive furlough pay from the Government, and such othe'I: compensation from the contractor or contractors as may be agreed upon by the parties: Provided, That they shall only be required to perform such duties as appertain to the merchant service.

SEC. 8. That said vesselS sba.11 take, as cadets or apprentices, one A.mericnuborn boy under twenty-one years of age for ea.ch 1,000 tons gross register and one for each majority fraction thereof, who shall be educated in the duties of seamanship, rank as petty officers, and receive such pay for their services as may be reasonable.

SEC. 9. That such st-earners may be ta.ken and used by the United States as transports or cruisers, upon payment to the owners of the fair actual value of tl\e same e.t the time of the taking, and if there shall be adisag1·eementn.s to the fair actual value between the "l'nit.ed St.ates and t.he owners, then the same shall be determined by two impartial appraisers, one to be appointed by each of said parties, they at the same time selecting a third, who shall act in said appraise-ment in case the two shall fail to agree. -

SEc.10. That for the period of ten years from and after the passage of this act so many of the various provisions of Title XL Vlllof the Revised S~atutes of the United States, entitled "Regulation of Commerce and Navigation," embraced in chapters 1 e.nd 9 of said title, and from section 4131 to section 4305, both inclusive, as prohibit or restrict citizens of the United States from purcha.singsbips built in other countries, and to be used in the foreign carrying trade, or which irupose taxes, burdens, or restrictions on foreign-built ships employed in the foreign carrying trade, when owned by American citizens, which are not imposed on ships built in the United States, be, and are hereby. suspended, and it shall be lawful thereafter for the period aforesaid for all citizens of the United States to buy ships.built in whole or in part in any foreign country, aud have them registered as ships of the United States for employment in the foreign carrying trade, and when so purchased and registered and employed in the foreign carrying trade such ships shall be entitled to all the rights and subject only to Lhe same regulations as a.re provided by law for the government and manag.ement of ships built wholly within the United states and controlled by citizens thereof.

SEC. lL That this bill shall not be so construed as to permit any ship built in any other country, and purchased and registered by citizens of the United States, as provided in the preceding section, to be employed in the coasting trade or in the mall service, foreign or domestic, or engaged in the transporta-tion of freight or passengers between ports of the United States. _

SEC. 12. That section 17 of the act of June 26, 1884, entitled "An act to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and encourage the American canying trade, and for other purposes," be amended so as to read as follows: "When e. vessel is built, equipped, and titted out in the United States, by or for an American citizen for employment in the foreign trade, wholly or partly of foreign materials on which duties have been paid, there shall be allowed on such vessel, when completed ready for service.!\ drawback equal in amount to the duty paid on such materials, outfit, and equipment, to be ascertained under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." It is further hereby provided that all supplies, materials, and outfits used by all America.u ve!'lsels whil~ employed in the foreign trade shall also be entitled toe. drawback of the full amount of the duties paid on them. without retaining in the Trea.!lury any rebate or reduction e.nd without a.ny fees being called for and collected by the Treasury office1·s who calculate the drawback:. The drawback here provided for shall be paid back:, out of the Treasury, under snch reglations as shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury. But in view of the practical difficulty to repairers of vessels, and also to the builders of small vessels availing of the privilege hereby granted wltE'n usiug such materials and supplies in small quantities, it shall be the duty of the Treasury to give to such builders and owners every facility for collecting drawbacks in small amounts which is consistent with the protection of the revenue from fraud or smuggling.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendm1--nt proposed by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON].

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, I have not had opportunity to study this bill and shaU therefore not attempt a discussion of its details, but I desire to submit a few remarks on the policy indicated by the bill.

I agree most heartily with the purpose that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce has, of trying to build up anew the merchant marine of the United States, but I do not agree with the policy of the bill presented by the committee. We have adopted a revenue policy that is approaching the prohibition of imports into this country. I think , we may safely assume that if we are to trade with other conntrres, either by our own ships or by th9- help of ships of foreign countries, we must buy as well as sell commodities. That is the law of commerce in that respect. We can not expect to build up an ocean commerce between our country and other countries when by the policy of our lej!;islation we destroy or go far towards destroying the existence of an international commerce~

;· ...

_.,

•""·

.J

..... '


If we desire to have commerce with other nations we should adopt such a policy as will invite the interchange of products; otherwise no amount of Government subsidy to steam-ships or other vessels can give' us a commerce. lt may give us ships, but it can not give us commerce. The amount of subsidy whiohit is proposed by this bill to give to a ship is very sma11 compared with a great commerce. If by our revenue system we levy duties so as to increase the cost of mate.rial and of the elements of manufactured fabrics largely above what they can be made for in other countries, we can not expect to sell them, because other countries can undersell us.

A few years ago I had a very interesting conversation with an eminent citizen of Peru, and inquired of him ~by it was that we could not have fuller and freer commercial intercourse with Peru and the other South American States. He said there were two difficulties in the way: That under our revenue system when our merch!!-nts sent goods to Pe1:u they bad to pay for them in money, because, so far as their copper and wool were concerned, ·two of their large exports, they could not bring them here for sale. But he said when an English merchant ship went into their ports loaded with a cargo of merchandise they could exchange their copper, their wool, their hides, and other commodities of their country for this merchandise, and the English ship would have a cargo in and a cargo out.

So, it was an encouragement to the ship-owner by giving him a cargo both ways, and an encoura~ement to commerce by carr.ving the raw material from Peru t.o Great Britain, there to be manufactured and to be returned in manufactured fabrics. He said that, so far as the personal feelings and wishes of the people of Peru were concerned, they would undoubtedly prefer to have commercial intercourse and relafions with the people of the United States, but that commerce, like money, had no patriotism in it; it would go where it could buy cheapest and where it could sell dearest; and that under those conditions they were un-able to trade with the United States. .

Now, what was said by that gentleman in reference to Peru may be said with reference to Mexico and all the Central and South .American States. They can not trade with us because we can not take their articles of export. ·There are some things that we take. It may be said, in answer to what I have said, that we import coffee and hides free of duty; but while we do that we can export nothing, or substantially nothing-so little that it does not amount to anything-and we have to pay for those things in money.

I stop at this point for another view. We, in this count.Fy to-day, have capital enough invested in manufacturin~ establishments and machinery for manufacturing purposes, enough in operation not only to supplv our own country, but to go far towards supplying the wants as to cotton and woolen goods and iron and steel and their fabrics certainly of all the American countries to the south of us. So we have that great inducement to a freer and more libero.I commercial intercourse with those countries, not now being able to trade with them, however, because of our revenue system, which is making partially a Chinese wall around this country. ·

The machinery for manufacturing can not be run continuously through the year. Hence it is that we bear frequently of manufacturing establishments closing down or running on half time because there is no market for their products. This works a great injury to the capit·al invested in these establishments and relatively a much greater injury to the operatives engaged in these establishments, who, when they are stopped from worl , are deprived of the means of supporting themselves and their families, and the result is suffering, misery, and mi~fortune to large classes of people. These things are happening almost continuously in some one or other part of this country and in some one or other branch of business, taking its round pretty much with al! of them. We have offered such high inducements to the investment of capital in manufactures by the high rates of duties we have imposed upon imports as to induce an unusual and unnecessary investment of capital in manufacturing establishments, and thus we are working injury to capital, injury to labor, and injury to the commerce of the country.

If 'I.Ve expect to secure a merca.ntile marine we must make provision for building up commerce with other countries; we must make more free and more liberal our intercourse with other countries. Instead of adopting a protective and prohibitive tariff we must adopt a revenue tariff as low as will support the Government economically administered. When we have done that, we can then manufacture articles greatly cheaper than we can now manufacture them under the present revenue laws and we shall have markets for those articles; they can then go into the markets of the world, and especially into the markets of Mexico and Central and South America in competition with the manufactures of other countries.

When we do that, Mr. President, we shall have done what no subsidy can do. We shall have invited ships to carry our commerce, for whenever we ha~e the commerce to carry the ships are sure to come forward and carry it, whether they be our own ships or other ships.

Now, I have one other suggestion to make in this connection. If we desire to do the ocean carrying for our own country, a wise policy would suggest that we authorize American capitalists to buy foreil?:n-bnilt ships if they can do so cheaper than they can build them at home, and when

,.

they have bought the ships the capital of our citizens gets the Jlrofitof operating those ships and our coruitry gets the profit of doing its own carrying trade. Ihavenotlookedat the tables lately, but we, I believe, are sacrificing something like a hundred million dollars a year; that is, we are allowing that much money to be paid by our merchants to for· eign-built ships that might be saved to our own people if they were permitted to purchase ships which they may not be able to build.

But, Ur. President, I do not think, with our present revenue laws, we can expect capitalists in this country to go largely into the purchase of foreign ships, because of the fact that ou~ commerce is crippled by those revenue laws so that we can not hope to build up a foreign commerce so long as the idea of prohibiting commerce prevails in this country. I may not be able to see as clearly as others, but to my mind this Chinese-wall business is one of ~be most extraordinary political blunders that an intelligent people ever made.

Here, in an eminently progressive country, in a country exporting some $500,000,000 worth of agricultural products annually, for which there is no consumption at home, a country capable of manufacturing twice as much as our own people can consume, a country situated on the half-way station between the active, energetic, intelligent, commercial populations of Western Europe and the teeming populations of Asia, that we should adopt a policy that isolates us commercially from the rest of the world has seemed to me something so extraordinary that it -is difficult to comprehend why it should be done. I can only see one reason for it, and that is a deliberate purpose to sacrifice the interests of the country at large in order to promote the interests of a small portion of our own people and the purpose of promoting the interests of a small portion of our own people at the expense of the whole people, who might be more prosperous and be greatly benefited by a freer commercial intercourse with the rest of the world.

I do not know whether we ought to hope for a change of this policy. It seems that our country is committed to a line of class legislation by which we are to make millionaires out of a few men or a few classes at the expense of the great ma~ of the .American people, and we .are urged to this policy because it is said that by encouraging manufactures we are making home market'3 for our products.

'l'bat, Mr. President, is answered by the argument that with all our manufacturing establishments, with all our high rates of duty, with all our exclusion of foreign commerce from the country in order to give the business of manufacturing to our own people, after supplying our own people with all they need of agricultural products, still we have some $500,000,000 worth annually that must be exported or must rot without use. So it is idle to talk in this country about making a home market to enable the agricultural classes to be prosperous by the sale of their commodities.

A very large proportion of our people are engaged in agriculture. - It seems that this policy of class legislation is based upon the idea that those enjz;aged in agriculture, lieing a majority of the people of the country, holding large interests so far as capital and ownership of the soil are concerned, producing large amounts of commodities, furnish the field from which to draw wealth for the benefit of the class interests of this country; and instead of pursuing a policy which shall look to equal justice tQ all the people, to protection of all people and all interests alike, and to give no exclusive privileges to any man or men or to any particular interest, ~e have taken exactly the opposite direction, and instead of by such means promoting the welfare and happiness of the people we adopt a plan of robbing the great mas.."! of the people for the benefit of the few, making millionaires of the few and paupers of the many.

The extent to which the agricultural interests of this country, the farmers of this country, are loaded down with debt which they can not meet because of the policy which is pursued, it seems to me shottld awaken the attention of the men charged with the duty of legislation in this country. The scheme before us to give subsidies to ships rests upon the same idea; not upon the idea.of equal justice and equal protection to all interests, but of giving a class money out of the Treasury at the expense of other people, and putting OU\" shipping, like our manuufactures, upon stilts, and leaving the agricultural interests of the country to support both.

Instead of stilting up other interests, I would let down those that are already on stilts, at least so far as the necessities of the country would permit letting them down. I would adopt a revenue tariff; I would try to limit the expenditures of the Government to what may be actually necessary. Having done that, with the vast resources of this country in production in the farms, the mines, and in the manufacturing establishments, we should at once have a commerce that would be sought by the shipping of the world. We should have large exports, we should have largA imports. The truth is, it seems to me1

that by a wise policy we ought almost to make the United States the warehouse of the world.

Ur. President, I have not so far examined this bill as to be able or willing to undertake the discussion of its details, and only desire in this general way to call attention to the public policy which underlies the measure, the giving subsidies to steam-ships or subsidies to anything else, and to sa.y that we should liberalize our policy instead of making it more restrictive than it is a.t present, that we should rednce

.. \

-· .. · , •I

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ,- . : 6985

the power of classes to plunder the country instead of increasing the The United States had to' resort then, in the very infancy of its life, · classes and increasing their power. to retaliatory laws for the purpose of preventing herself from being

I do not feel that under the circumstances I should longer detain crushed out, first by Great Britain and afterwards by France, who was t~e Senate, having given this general expression of my view upon the our ally during the 'Revolutionary war. We had a right to expect betpolicy involved in such measures as this. terthings from France, but we found that, because we would notjoin

Mr. MORGAN. I think, Mr. President, that in all the discussions in certain alliances with her to carry out her ambitious policies in Euwhich have occurred in regard to the subject presented in these two rope and elsewhere in the world, she, too, determined that she would bills, Nos. 373ij and 3739, which are being discussed together, though cripple our growing commerce and repeat all kinds of impressment.a not considered together, no examination perhaps has been more satis- upon U9. She seized our ships and carried them into her ports and confactory or complete of all questions connected with it, historically and demoed them for no cause; and out oft.hat resulted the French spoliaotherwise, than that which is found in the House report to accompany tion claims, which we have not got done with yet. We are still dealHouse bill No. 4383, I believe it is, including the opinions of the ma- ing with the question as to how much we shall pay and to wham we jority and also of the minority of that committee, and including also va- shall pay the damages that resulted from a settlement of those controrious statements made in the nature of testimony before that committee versies between our Government and France· arising out of these interby several thoroughly trained and competent navigators and ship-own- rnptions of our commerce and navigation. ers and ship-builders; and we are left really, in the survey of this sub- The United States, therefore, in the beginning rightfully and properly ject, merely to the duty of drawing just and proper conclusions from resorted to discriminative duties, tO retaliatory duties, to differential the evidence and the facts which that committee have so ably presented. duties, whatever name you choose to call them by, under which we

There is perhaps no one who is more earnestly sincere in the desire charged as customs dues very largely more for goods imported inforeignto see American commerce increase and to see an increase also of the built ships and foreign-owned ships than we did for goods imported in. tonnage of American ships than myself. We have been now for ninety- American-built ships and American-owned ships. nine years trying a certain fixed policy in respect of this matter under Great Britain bad already adopted this differential system in respect which we~have found that our commerce, in respect of the carriage of of our commerce; and her grasp upon the commerce of the world, and productions to and from the United States, has dwindled down until particularly upon our own infantile struggles to expand our commerce, it is about 15 per cent., it may be not more than 12 per cent., of the was relaxed very slowly. The first relaxation was to admit us to trade entire shipments from our pm:ts and importations into them. freely back and forth-to her East India possessions, excluding us at that

For ninety-nine years, during which this result has come about that time from the West Indies and also from the Canadian ports. After is regarded universally, I believe, as a disaster to American political awhile a more and more liberal policy wasadoptedon thepartof Great economy, we have been trying one branch of a policy that we adopted Britain, and we commenced liberalizing our _policy. It was then the in 1789; and I want to address a plea to my friend from Maine, whether fashion of the world among all the great powers that commerce should he will not let us for one year out of the one hundred try the experi- be conducted upon principles of commercial hostility, as if such an idea ment of what we call free ships, the experiment of permitting our peo- as that could connect itself with the real prosperity, enlightenment, ple to go abroad and buy ships and bring them here and put them civilization, and uplitting of mankind. under American registry, provided those who buy them and register Commercial hostility, Mr. President, is a thing that shocks the com-them are American citizens. mon sense and the sense of justice of mankind. For any one nation1

It has been admitted in the debate here, and it has been admitted whether it is possessed of peculiar productions or not, to lock itself up all through the debates that have occurred on this topic for years and within its own borders and surround itself by laws which are hostile years past, that there is a difference of from 20 to 30 per cent. in the to commerce with other countries, is to place itself in an attitude cost of vessels of the same character built in the United States and those which is entirely unjustifiable, I think, in the moral law, and certainly built in Great Britain, on the Clyde and elsewhere. I desire to present it is unjustifiable in the laws which relate to political economy. _ the plea in behalf of our people that they should be permitted to buy The nations of the earth began, however, to relax these hostile attithose shipg at 20 and 30 per cent. discount on the prices at which they tudes toward each other, to take off restrictions from their commerce, are compelled to buy them, if we put an American flag over them, from. and those who made th~ first and the greatest relaxations were certhe United States ship-builders. tainly the most prosperous and have al ways proven to be so. Follow-

It is undeniably true that the merchants of the United States, the ing their example we have now banished from our laws all that might importers and the exporters both, own very large amounts of stock in be styled as commercial hostility to any nation in the world except foreign steam-ship lines, and in foreign steam-ships, and in tramps that portion of it (which is really more hostile to our own people than that go about where they please over the world and carry the cargoes it is to other countries) which compels us still to sail the American just as safely as any other ships. When we say that our interest in flag only over Ameriean bottoms owned by American people. Differthe tonnage which exports our commerce or imports it, is reduced t-0 ential and discriminating duties against the commerce of Great Britain1

12 or 15 per cent. of the entire value of our exports and imports, we France, Germany, Austria, or any other of the great powers of the ..are not accurate if we undertake to apply those observations to the ~t- earth have been entirely abolished; they have disappeared; not only ual situation as to American capital employed in transportation on on our side of the ocean, but on the other side. the high seas. It is impossible to ascertain how much of American China itself has come into terms of liberal reciprocity in matters of capital is employed in ships that sail under the flag of Great Britain, this kind with the other nations of the earth, and so has Japan. So or Germany, or France, or No·rway, or any other of the great maritime now there is no nation on this earth but one, and that is the United powers, but we know that a very large part of the capital invested in States, which has upon its statute-book any statute that is in the those ships and over which the British and other flags float is capital slightest degree hostile to the liberty of commerce, whether concernfurnished by American merchants and American manufacturers, Amer- ing her own citizens or concerning the citizens of other part.s of the ican exporters and American importers. earth.

The reason, an~ only reason, why that capital is not represented in ·The report to which I have referred presents in succession a synopsis the tonnage of ships under the .American flag is that the old law has of each one of the statutes that I have alluded toand shows the gradual been held on to without any relaxation at all, which prohibits tho and final disappearance from our statute-book of all discriminating and raising of the American flag on the deck of a shipuhat is not exclusively differential duties in respect of other countries, unless it may be in built in the United States and owned by citizens of the United States. instances where we have given the power to the President ot the United

That kind of policy has compelled our merchants, who have found States that it any other nation should set up against us discriminative it convenient and profitable for their business to be engaged in the or differential duties then the President may put in operation such ownership of >essels, to put them ontunder the flags of differentcoun- duties against them and prohibit the introduction of their commerce tries. They enjoy the profit; they have their goods carried back and into our ports except upon certain very stringent conditions. forth; they are supplied with all the conveniences and facilities of Now, with the qualifications which I have just mentioned, that our transportation that are necessary to their business, no matter how great own merchants, exporters, and importers do own a very large share in it may be; but they can not pot their capital and their tonnage under the vessels which bring products to our coast and carry our pr:oductions the American flag because of the prohibition of that old statute. away, it is very true that the carrying trade of the United States to

We began our career as a nation under circumstances of a very pe- and from foreign ports has descended until it has got to a very reculiar character. The mother country was at that time t,!ie predomi- markably low and discreditable figure; and on all sides, with equal nant power in the world upon the seas as to her commercial marine patriotism and an equal desire to promote the best interests of all the and also as to her naval power. She used that in every way that she navigators and ship-owners who belong to our country, our purpose is could, after she had recognized our Independence, to cripple our com- to try to stimulate the ownership of vesseLc;;, the navigation of vessels, merce, and when she found that, by reason of the great abundance o1 the freighting of vessels, and to make all necessary liberal arrangeship-timber material in the United States and the cheapness of it and ments so that our seafaring men may earn good wages upon their inthe enterprise and skill of our ship-builders, we were covering the seas vestments and have sY.ady and profitable employment. with our own fia:? upon the masts of ships that were built of American While this has been going on and we have been lol'ing tonnage from timber and in American ports, Great Britain resolved that she would the maritime record of the world, which gives us so much trouble and resort to any policy that she could for the purpose of breaking down which we would so gladly relieve ag~inst, yet our commerce has ex:that business ot ship ~construction and also for the purpose of prevent- I panded in a most wonderful degree. The Senator from Maine [Mr. ing an extension, or an expansion rather, of our commerce. FRYE] in his remarks upon this bill alluded to the fact, as he claimed,

... ',-

6986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE~ JULY 7,

that the people ofthe-UnitedStateswerepayingenormoussums in the way of freights to foreign countries which ought to be earned by our own people and go into their own pockets. There is one thing to be said about tha.t.. If foreign countries have earned a very large amount of money upon freights transported to and from our coasts, it has been because they could do that work cheaper than our own ships could do it. It has been because, and only because, tne rates of freight which they could o:ffer to oar people were lower than the rates of freight that cn.n be offered to them or have been offered to them by American-built and American-owned ships.

I can not see that the people at large, the agriculturists, the producers of every kind, in the mines, and in the fisheries, and in the forests; have lost this money because they have paid it to British owners of shipsr or German or French owners, or Norwegian or Italian owners. We have not lost tllat money. On the contrary, we have paid it to them because in doing so we could get the freights upon what we had to send abroad and what we had toimportinto the country atacheaper rate than the American sailors could afford to take our goods for. So, instead of that being a loss to the great body of the people of the United States, it is a gain to them; but it has been a loss to one class, and only to one class, and that is to the ship-owners.

Looking at the matter in that light and disconnecting it from any pricTe of our nationality, we are not so prone to regret the fact that the people of the United States have been able to expand their commerce so. vastly and so rapidly in consequence of the low rate of freights that they have got upon their exports and upon their imports. It certainly is to. the great ad.vantage ofcommerce that freights should be low; but it is to the disadvantage of the navigator or the ship-owner .that freights should be low. I am perfectly willing to resort to any system. thnt is pro-per for the purpose of equalizing the gains and the losses of all the different classesconce1ned in the commerce of the United States, for it is equality tha.t I desire more than anything else. I do not desire for the cotton-shippers of the South, for instance, an advantage over the navigators. I am willing that the latter should have fair rates for all that they carry abroad for us and all they bring into this country for us; but I am not willing to take the money taxed out of the cotton-growers and put it into the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of making the difference in freights between what the Germans and the French and the English charge us and what the American shipowner desires to charge us.

'.t'he only reason why the investment of American money in ships is not profitable, and thereby the tonnage of our countr.v is decreasing, is the fact, aud only the fact that, .when they pay from 20 to 30 percent. more for their ships than they can be bought for by capital abroad, they can not afford to put their rate of freights as low as foreign-built ships do. That is the whole subject. Then the question recurs whether we shall make up this difference to them by a subsidy or by an appropriation-out of the Treasury of the United States.

Wbat would bethought of the _people of the Sou th if they were to come here and tell us that they could not manufacture cotton as cheap as it is done in India and in Egypt, and that it is a very great consideration for the UnitedStatesandfortheworJd thatourcotton crop should be produced and spun and exported, and thereupon they should ask us to vote them out of the Treasury of the United States the differance in the cost of the production of cotton here in this country and in E~pt or India. The absurdity of the claim would at once justify its reJe\!tio~ and it would be rejected with indignation. But it is precisely the same question that is presented in this bill for the benefit of the ship-owner. He says, "At the rates of freight which these other nations are able to charge who buy their ships 20 or 30 per cent. lower than we do, some of whom are subsidized, we can not afford to

· give to the cotton-planter or the cotton-shipper rates as low as the men who are--thus subsidized."

''Wemusthave a higher rate of freight. We can not get it out of the people. We can not compel a man to ship his cotton under the American flag when he can get a lower rate of freight upon a vessel that is owned in England, Germany, France, or elsewhere. l'fot having the power to compel him to ship bis cotton on board of an American ship at an advanced rate of freight, we just ask you that yon will make np the difference. We want you now to take out of the Treasury of the United State::; money enough to compensate us for the difference in these freights. We will call it a subsidy or we will call it a bounty upon the ship and upon its sailing, etc., bat that is what we wish you to do, to take the money out of the Treasury and make up to us the difference in the freights. n

I look over this bill and I desire to asMrtain whether there is any provision in it that looks to the lowering of freights. for instance, upon the cotton crC\p. There is nothing of that kind. There is no expectation or pretense in this bill that the freights upon the cotton crop of the United State.a are to be lowered by it. It is claimed that the freights are low entmgh now, and perhaps too low; and when yon have subsidized the ships of the United States and they go into the market for the purpose of getting cargoes to ship abroad out of the cotton crop they will say to each other and they will say to the cotton-planter, " \Ve can not afford to put the frei~hts at a Iower rate than they are." On the British, French, and German ships the cotton-planter must pay

just what he does now, and no lower rate of freight, and the difference in favor of the American ship-owner must be made up by an appropriation out of the Treasury of the United States, and that difference must be taxed out of the people.

So after all, Mr. President, like all other taxes these come to .full upon the men who are producers in this country. We say, ordinarily, that they fall npon the consumers, but after all when we come to bring the thing to its last analysis it is the producer in the country who pays taxes, especially of this character. We can not get along without the productions ·of agricultnre, including the textiles, and the grains, and the meats, and the products of every kind that are produced by the farmer, the truits and so on; neither can we get along without the productions of the mines from which coal and coke are brought and iron is manufactured, and copper, zinc, steel, and a great many other things are produced and manufactured.

We can not get along without the manufacture of woods, where the forests are converted, or the fisheries. We can not dispense with them; but alter we have gotten outside of the line of these elementary productions there is no m.an in this country who makes anything upon which taxes are produced. It is tme that his ekill is incorporated with the various different elementary productions, and they are made more and more valn:ible as more and more of skill and patient labor are bestowed upon them; but after all when yon come to bring taxation down upon the real basis upon which it rests it is the producer-who bas to pay it, for the cost that be gets out of the production, the reward for his labor that he extracts from the product.ion that he makes, whether it is in one commodity or in another, is always reduced by the amount of taxation that the article has to bear.

So in the case I have just been supposing, where after the passage of this bill the ship-owners should say to the planters, "We can not afford to carry your cotton across the ocean at any lower rate thanyou. are paying now, but we will look to the Government of the United States for the profit that "we otherwise would make in carrying you-r freight at a higher rate, and the Government of the United States will look to you for the taxation to supply the money to pay the profit. ir

After all, it is a tax upon a man's commerce that he brings forth from the bowels of the earth OT from its surface, given to a.nother man, taken from him and given to another man to induce that other man to carry his produce across the seas under a certain flag.

Now, the q nestion has been put here very earnestly and debated very forcibly indeed, whether the decadence of our tonnage in the transportation to and fro of the Ami:rican productions is due to the rivalry which other nations have been able to keep up in consequence of subsidies, or whether it is due to some other cause, and, if so, to what cause? I think that there is a very easy and a very natnral way of accounting for the fact that no more money has gone into the building up of our commercial marine than has in the last twenty or twenty-five years, particularly in that period since the occurrence of the civil war.

When we look overwhat has been done in the United States in that period of time, or running back to 1840, let us say; when we look at what bas been accomplished through the industry of these-people and through the use of money that they have borrowed from other countries as well as money that they have earned from their crops and other enterprises and industries, we find that our situation has been one of remarkable progress and one differing from every other country in the world at the present and differing in its history through these years from the history of any other country that ever existed.

First of all, the configuration of our continent here, the part of it that we occupy, places us between ~he Atlantic and Pacific Oceans "Without any break in our territory. We are solid from side to aide, we are solid from the Lakes down to the Gulf and to the border of Mexico. Em braced within that area is a larger amount of fertile agric~l tnralland than can be found in any similar area in the world. You may take Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, and all of the states of the Balkan Peninsula, including Turkey-you may take all of that area of country and compare it acre by acre, mile by mile, with that which is included within this great solid possession of ours be tween these oceans and the Lakes and the Gulf, and there is no part of that country :which compares really on an :werage at least with the territory that we have been occupying and improving.

A hundred years ago we bad about 4,000,0UO people, not exceeding 5, 000, 000. I think 4, 000, 000 is perhaps a fair calculation of the population we bad a hundred years ago. We have now 65,000,000. That is sixteen times and more increase over the population we had then. During this century we have bad those people to raise, to clothe, to feed, to house, to educate, and to provide for their comfort in a degree ofluxllrious enjoyment which I think no other race of men in a hundred years have had as compared with ours. It bas cost an enormous amount of money, and labor, and industry, and attention to do that one thin!?.

Take the food, the clothing, the housing, the furniture, the public institutions, the high-ways, the churches, and all the appliances of a great civil society like ours. Take the cities and the towns that we have bad to build in a hundred years for the accommodation of the people of the United States, and then take the enormous amount.of aetive capital and credit that it baa required in order to bring about the results that we see spread around us with such wonderful beauty.

;.

· ..

• (

., ) . -J •, • .,.

1890._ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6987 Besides that. we have been engaged in other very great enterprises. have come to a common conclusion that the differential duties are not

In the last half of that century w_e have built more than 160,000 miles to be tolerated in commerce, that they are against the spirit of the age, of railrond;. and the cost of that up to the Jatest statement that I have and that trade must be free at least from the embarrassment of differen· been able to find was $!:1,.873,970,372. In 1888 interest was paid on the tial duties. · bonds tbe fru its of which entered into the construction of the roads to We have passed that period, and we can not get back to it through the amount of $199,062,531. The railroads have pai.d other interest, the barrier of our treaties, nor can we afford to surmount our character $6,217,521, ma.king in all $205,280.,052 that they have paid in interest; and our respectability so far as to undertake to go back to that anti· and then in dividends they have paid $78, 943, U41, making in all $284, • quated and obsolete condition of legisfation. So we must stay where 223, 093, the annual earnings of this vast system of railway t,hat they we are. We can not escape the light of the nineteenth century as it have laid down in the United States. pours in upon as, o_r onr responsibilities that belong to what I con-

Now we know that fully one-half, perhaps I would not be extrava· ceive to be the greatest and most prosperous people in this world. We gant in saying that two-thirds of the money with which these railroads must stay where we are; we can not get back to that by any legislative have been built and equipped, this nine billion and odd million do~ expedient. lai;s, has been borrowed from foreign countries. We have gone and If we could get back to it and make a difference in oar customs dues mortgage<:! our railroads. There is not one in the United States, I sup- of, say, 10 per cent. in favor of those goods which are imported in pose, that is 50 miles long that is not under bond and mortgage, and American bottoms we could get rich very rapidly upon that, and we the bonds and mortgages are, at least, I thrnk, two-thirds of them, held should have such a commercial marine as nobody ever saw; but other in foreign countries. So of the stocks, for the stocks in these railroads nations would immedia tely pa,ss a retaliatory law of the same kind; usually have attended the destiny of the bonds and mortgages and they would forbid the importation of our commercial products int<> have- gone along with tbem. ' their country except under like eondi tions, and there would be rein-

In addition to the investment which we have made of more than augurated the war of commerce with which we commenced our exi.st$9,000,000,000 for the building of these roads we have been paying ence in the United States and which we outgrew when we got up to the annually for some years past more than $200,000,00U of interest antl condition of robust manhood. I do not to want to get back into that dividends. Think of what a tax that is upon the industry and enter· war of commerce. I want to abroirate ever feature of it, 1 want to reprise, the power and credit of a people. Then take in a<ldition to that move every trace and mark of it from the statute· books; and one of the the national banka and other banks of the United States and we find very first and most unbecoming features of it is this provision that an that by the latest account there is invested in the national banks in American shall not sail a ship u nder theAmericanflagunlessthatship the way of paid-up capital $617,7:13,-147, and the banks had in their is built in an American port, owned by Americans, and registered and vaults in currency and in good paper and in ·capital stock paid up licensed here. $5,201,671,790 on the 1st of June, 1889. When Great Britain found it to her interest as well as in correspond-

There are about $14,000,000,000 that have been expended in the encewith the progressive spirit of her people to make :relaxations of United States since about the year of 1864 in the building of these the difficulties and obstructions and embarrassments which she bad railways and in the accumulation put into these banks in the forDJ. of placed upon the commerce of the world, and particularlY, upon the credits, earnings, or paper discounted, either due or to fall due. Ba. commerce of the United States, she went as far as she could go in re· sides that, how much money have we invested in manufactures? How pealing all of her obnoxious statutes, her orders in council of every much have we invested in manufactures in the last fifty years? I ap- kind which stood in the way of the very freest commerce. She replied to the Burnaa of Statistics to ascertain, if I could, some approxi· pealed her navigation la.ws. She permitted her citizens to go into any mate statement upon that subject, but I conld not get it. They say country in the world and to buy ships as they could buy anything else that since the last decennial census no accurate account has been ob- for the purpose of condacting commerce. tainable in regard to the amount of money that we have invested in She had a very peculiar motive in the relaxation of her system of manufactures, but it certainly is eguivalent to the amount invested in economics on that point. It was thatthe American clipper ships, what the national banks and probably it is very much larger than that. · were called the Baltimore clippers, and indeed other sailing ships of the

How much havewegotinvested. in the fisheries? Verylargeamounts UnitedStates> bad accomplished agreatsuccessin the speed and safety of money. How mueh in mines of various descriptions for the precious of the transit Mross the seas and also in carrying very large cargoes. metals and for the baser metals? How much in ships and: boats and Great Britain saw that possessing as we did all the elements oi shipcanals, structures of different kinds for the conduct of internal com- building here in superiority over any other country in the world, or at merce? Withi.n what space of time has it been that all of these earn· least any country that was then.known shemustenableberpeople to buy ings, these accumulations, these results of industrial credit have been these clipper ships in order to have them compete with us in their thus invested and have materialized in the property of the country? commercial enterprises and in holding and retaining their hold upon

Sir, there has never been so ·pro:;perous, never so busy, never so in· the trade of the world across the sea. So she repealed her navigation dustrious, never so thrifty, so energetic, and so successful a people as luws. the people of the United States have beenduring the last forty or fifty She permitted her citizens to go out and buy ships in any country. years. And yet we t..-ike out the lo~ses of a fuur years', nearly a five The first and most beneficial inducement to this course of procedure years' conflict of arms which resulted in the wastage of millions un- was to enab-le the commercial men of Great Britain to get hold of these told almost of wealth that had been accumulated in the UnitedSta.tes. fast-sailing American clippers. She broke the law-down.and permitted

Now, there is not one of these industries, there is not one of these her people to come here and buy ships. great enterprises, including mannfu.ctures, mining, banking, railroad Now, Mr. President, there is something about traffic on the seas, building, railroad openting,. agrieulture, that has not been earning there is something about this business of freighting goods across the good wages for those employed. There bas been no material distress oceans which is a little different from al mo.st any other kind of traffic among thepeopl~in conseq.uence even of overproduction, although the that you can speak of. The United States at one time, just before the laws of the United States have tended very seriously to cramp prodac- _ war, ·had a very large carrying t.rade. The occasion of the war, totion down to the point of home. consumption simply. gether with some other circumstances of a very influential character,

Mr. President, after. we have been bu.ilding up these great railways, broke that trade up. Her merchants lost their corresponding relaorganizing and capit.1.lizing these banks, putting the busy wheels of in· tions to the different business houseS-Of the- world. The commerce waa dustry at work in the different parts of the United States, and boring interrupted, and interrupted for such a length of time that new relainto the depths of the earth for the I?recious and other metals and for tionships were formed, new business transactions were entered upon. coal, is it any wonder that we bave neglected to invest our money in You can. do that with alm-0st any other business except commerce ships when the competition of the world was against us there and we across the high seas. You can interrupt business between a merchant had no power to shut it out except in respect of our coasting trade? in New York and a merchant in New Orleans, whose business is trans· Th~ differential laws which warred upon commerce were all broken acted across railways, without any serious inconvenience-to any person, down and they are broken down. to such a degree that they can not be because at either end of the line they ean ch-0ose different correspond· restored. I dare say there is not a Senator in this body who would ents and carry on the trade as usual. But when you break a line of offer a bill here for tbe purpose of reswring the ancient statutes of the communication across the sea, and the ships that were engaged in conUnited States making differences in the duty to be paid upon goods ducting it disappear and new lines of packets, steamers, or what not imported in American bottoms or in English or German bottoms. The have to be employed to carry on this traffic, the connection when once spirit of the age has carried us entirely away from that dark period, and broken in this way is hai:d to .replace. You have got to get the veswe could not. maintain the respectability of the nation even on a par sels with which to replace it. You have got to make the new comwith that of China if we sh~mld now undertake to restore those luws mercial arrangements corresponding with your facilities for the trans~ to the statute-books. portatiQn of goods back and forth. -

J'\f.r. GIBSON. I will ask the Senator from Aln.bama. if we :ire not When the American people lost these lines of tmnsportation and had prohibited by treaties frnm doing it. these commercial connections all broken up by the event of the war it

Mr- MORGAN. I know we are prohibited by treaties of course from naturally would take us-a long time to get back into place again. In doing it, but treaty prohibition is not everlasting. When Ispeakabout the mean while Great Britain, availing herself of iron as the material the enactment of laws to get back to this old regime I include the fact, for the structure of ships, cheaper to her than even timber was to us in of course, that we should h a"\"e to abrogate our treaties with all the the manufacture of vessels, at once put the energies of her people to great powers. of the earth. Yes, the 'diplomatic powers of this world work in the buikling of iron ships, and they took the place of the Ameri·

/

•,

- -·

6988' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE.- JULY 7,

can wooden ship, and took the channels of trade, and took from the na vigators, the ship-owners of the United Rtates, the transportation from which they bad reaped such a large harvest in times that were past.

It seems to me that the facts to which I have been adverting account sufficiently for the decadence of the tonnage, or rather of the ownership, of vessels entitled to register under the American flag. Our people are not by any means wanting in the facilities of commerce controlled by their own money, for they own ..ships, as I have said, in a very large part, which sail under foreign flags; but what they want, and what they would like to have, what would contribute to the just pride ot the people of the United States, and doubtless would build up to a greater extent than it bas done heretofore the commerce of the country, is the opportunity and the privilege of conducting the transportation of goods across the oceans under the American flag.

I think that is particularly important in the use of vessels for the transportation of the mails. I do not think, if we can avoid it, that the mails of the United States should be carried under any other than the American flag. I think the flag is a very potent instrumentality and symbol also of national sovereignty when you come to associating it with work for the Government. I regard it as a matter of importance that every vessel that carries the mails of the United States to and fro across the oceans should be under the American flag if wecan get it so.

We want to put our naval officers aboard of these ships; we want, according to the provisions of the Senate bill which is presented here, to have them prepared for service in time of war as a sort of naval reserve that can be resorted to, not. merely for the transportation of munitions of war and armies, but also carrying guns with which to defend themselves and also to defend the commerce of the United States and to intlict injuries, if it must be, upon the commerce of other countries.

I think that an American ship carrying the American flag and the American mails combines three important characteristics of Government service. I am not in favor of limiting the structure of that ship to America,n ports of American ship-builders, but I want it American owned and American officered, and I want the seamen on it to be seamen of the United States also--American citizens.

But when we come to the other proposition, as to the mere conveyance of commerce aa a private transaction between man and man or between port and port, "I can seen.'.> 'Particular reason why it is not just US- patriotic in me to take a ship at a lower rate of freight, if it is German or French or English, in preference to one at a higher rate of freight that is American, at my option. It is neither unpatriotic nor unwise, and, ififwere both, 999 per cent. ont of every thou~d men in the world engaged in commerce would always take the lower freight and l~t the flag go, for they can not see that there is any particular advantage in having this special piece of bunting or that piece of bunting erected upon a ship which is carrying coal, flour, or cotton, in place of some other piece. It is a purely private business transaction, and you might just as well say to the railroad companies in the United States that they shall not go to Engln.nd and buy their locomotives, pay the duty upon them, and bring them here, and they shall not be run upon American railways unless they are American built, as to say to any other person, "You shall not run a ship under the American flag unless it is actually built in the United States, officered and mannedin the United States.'' There is no more reason for saying the one thing than the other.

Mr. President, the people of the United States have endeavored by the use of bounty money to relieve the difrerences which have been caused by this old statute in tbe navigation laws, and they have spent more than $33,000,000 according to the report which I have got here, $33,974,879.96 from 1848 up to 1889, in their endeavor to foster American ships by bounties.

Opinion on this question has undergone a variety of changes, it ap-pears, and men ought to have fixed opinions upon it and ought to have

. had them long ago, but they vary and vacillate to that degree that I am not disposed to attach very much importance to the opinions of most of them, to say the least of it. ·

In 1 '69 there was a great commotion and controversy in the United States as to what was the best thing that could be done then for the advancement of the interests of the American ship-builder, and it was concluded then to enaet that section of the Revised Statutes which is still found upon the statute-book, and which is repeated, I believe, in the report of the tariff bill to the Senate at this present session, and it was renewed in hrec ·verba in 1803 in the tariff of that year. That statute provided for a drawback for the whole amount of duty upon all kinds of material, of all sorts, shapes, and sizes, that enter into the construction of an American-built ship built for the foreign service, and that ship might run for a period of two months in any year in the coasting trade, and might continue, if in American ownership and under American officers, to run exclusively in the coasting trade, provided it would repay to the United States the amount of the rebates that had been allowed upon the material that entered into its construction.

Mr. F.RYE. I think that did not include angles and plates. Mr. MORGAN. It may not have included some new contrivances

that have come in since, but by a liberal and I have no doubt a proper construction of that act those things are now included in the right of drawback.

That in 1SG9 was the proposed \)Olicy for the relief of the American ship-builder. He was expected to build ships for foreign. service and for

foreign countries. It is true they could not come in under the registration laws of the United States, except upon the coasting trade, under the conditions I have named; but in order to enable him to compete with foreign ship-builders be was permitted to have a drawback to the full amount of duties on all the material that he might import from abroad and put into a ship. That was an enormous advantage ove.r any other description of producer in the country. There were some manufacturers, I grant you, who bad similar privileges, but the producers of the country could not reach anything of that kind. They bad no such advantages and we could not give them to them by any ingenuity of law that we could enact. When that subject was up in 18ti9 Mr. Roach was before the House committee to investigate the cause of the decline-of our shipping interests. He said: · .

America has lost her commerce, ar.d what has she obtained in exchange for it? Simply the right of a few men to charge $9 per ton in gold on the importation of pig-iron. Pig-iron is the basis of all other metals connected with the making and repairing of ships. There has been a revolution in ship-building, and iron is the material from which they are now built. '.rhe high cost of iron produced by the tariff upon it is one of the principal difficulties our commerce has to contend with. I did not come here to ask a bounty, I came here to tell you that, while all other artfoles of American produce are protected to a great extent. there is no protection for Ame1 ican ships. If Conirress wilt take off all the duties from American iron, reducing it to the price of foreign iron, then we are prepared to compete with foreign ship-builders. The labor question is misstated; we are prepared to meet that dirticulty and to ask no further legislation on the subject.

That was J obn Roach in 1869. And under the pressure of such advice coming from him and other very high authorities on ship-building we went on and provided the statute of 1869, in which we gave them back all duties of every kind upon all the material, even to the cordage and the twine and the white metal and everything else that entered into the construction of a steam-ship or any other ship. That was supposed to be enough.

In the Forty-ninth Congress the Select Committee on American Ship-Building and Ship-Owning InterestM made the following report upon "A bill to amend section 4132 of t.he Revised Statutes of the United States, so n.s to authorize the purchase of foreign-built ships by citizens of the United States, and to permit the same to be registered as vessels of the United States," which report was adopted by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the Fiftieth Congress. So it was adopted by the com.mittees in two Congresses.

We herewith adopt the same and make it a part of this report.

. I will read a few extracts from that report on the point I have been trying to discuss:

Under existing laws imposing import duties, taxes ranging from 18 to 69 per cent. ad valorem are im'f)osed upon the cliief articles of imported materials used in the construction of vessels for the foreign and coastwise trade, subject to the modificationa contained in section 2513 of the Revised Statutes of the United States providing for certain rebates upon imported materials used in the construction of vessels for foreign trade.

The bill reported and recommended by the majority of the committee pro· vides, in substance, that all vessels, of whatever build, owned wholly by citizens of the United States, or by companies incorporated under the Jaws thereof, or of any State or Territory of the United States, may be registered as vessels of the United States, and shall be entitled to all the be.nefits and privileges appertaining to such vessels. The existing law, denying registration as vessels of tbe United States to all vessels except such as were built within the United States, was enacted December 31, 1792, and its object was to give protection to the ship-building interest of the United States, then in its infancy.

However wise and beneficent such a policy may have been under the condi- ' tions then existing in this country and amongst the nations then competing for tbe carr.: ing trade upon the high SPaa, it is now thought by many of the wisest and most thoughtful statesmen and economists of the country that the pol!cy of that particular method of protecting that branch of our shippiug interests has exhausted itself, and, instead of producing further benefits for the public good and general welfare, that it is n<•W, and has been for many year;,i past, reacting most disastrously to the general public good and especially to our shipping engaged in the foreign carrying trade, and indeed to the shiirbuilding interest itself, for unless there be employment for ships there can be no demand for them.

That statement in that report summarized really the whole argument in the case. Further along in that report the following remark is made:

It has been truly sa.id I.hat the difference of l penny per bushel in the cos t of transporting wheat or corn from the United States to Liverpool might deprive u~ of a market for our entire annual surplus of brea.dstuffs. In view of the strong and increasing competition that our grain products a.re now encountering from those of Southern Russia, Roumania., and India, this statement assumes vast importance, if it be not even startling. To reduce the cost, then, of transporting across the1 ocean not only what we buy, but more espl'cially what we sell, to the m~nimum should be the leading thought of our national policy and statesmanship.

How shall this result be attained if our people be debarred from entering into that wholesome competition with foreigners tor the carrying trade by which alone that minimum in the cost of transporting our products can be expected to be reached? Vvhile wooden sailing ships did the ocean carrying trade of the world, and those ships could be built cheaper in the United States than elsewhere, we took and steadily maintained a leading position in the world's ocean carrying trade, and carried 75 per cent. of 011r own foreign commerce.

The increase in our shipping from 1830 to 1840 was 60 per cent.; from 1840 to 1850, 75 per cent.; and from 1850 to 1860, 60 per cent. Had the then existing conditions continued we should soon have been mistress of the seas. England had become thoroughly alarmed, and to counteract the danger repealf'd all her restrictive shipping laws in 1849, and enacted instead her present liberal and enlightened shipping laws, permitting all vessels, wherever built, belonging wholly t-0 English subjects, to be regil\tered a.s English vessels, and removing all tuxes and burdens. She also opened the doors of competition wide by making e\·en her coasting trade free to the vessels of.all natioru1.

I will continue to read a little more from this report, as it presents the whole subject in a nutshell, and I think with great terseness and precision:

This wise and wholesome policy was gradually bearing its rich and valuable fruits when another most important factor came to her relief, and in connection

......

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6989 with these liberal laws completely restored her dominion upon the seas. It was profits out of the ownership of the vessels to take up a large part, if discovered that ships could be built of iron and steel and propelled by steam, not all the freights that they would have t-0 pay upon goods that they and that these could be built in England cheaper th11.n in' the United States .

.About the year 1856England commenced to build iron and steel steam-ships, export and goods that they import. The business of freighting goods and as fast as they were built and equipped the commerce of the world was upon ships i~ naturally connected with the export and import trade, tmn!!ferred to them because of their superior speed and· supposed safety. To and these would be the first men who would £! . . o into this business, and compete with such vessels with wooden sailing ships was, of course, as futile as it would be now to send an army of savages armed with bows and arrows they would take into it very large amounts of capital. against a modern army with guns and artillery of the most improved t:'pe. Why, sir, in the Southern States, where we have not got the art of

There was but one hope left us for further effort at maintaining our position h. b ·id· h h t th bi d th l ti and interests in the carrying trade, and that was to do what all other countries s Ip- UI mg, W ere we ave no e S p-yar s, or e accumn a on wisely did: repeal our antiquated restrictive navigation laws and allow our of money, or the opportunity of building ship-yards and building vespeople to buy iron and steel steamers woere they could get them as cheaply as sels, I have not a doubt that very large amounts of money would find their foreign competitors and register them as vessels of the United States. their way very soon in to steam-vessels which would carry cotton to Liver·

That was the conclusion of that committee. pool, carry cargoes to South America, or bring cargoes back tothe United In 1872 the Pacific Mail Steam-Ship Company came forward and asked States, and also transport our coal, and iron, and timber, and a great

for a subsidy. The House of Representatives pa-ssed a bill to grant many other things that we have in the South from which we could the subsidy to the amount of $500,000 upon the general appropriation make very large contributions to the value of the general commerce of bill for the Post-Office Department. the country, and the people who desire to trade with us and live down

An amendment was moved to the Pacific Uail contract, making it 81,000,000 in the southern part of this hemisphere. instead of $50(},000. Mr. Kerr characterized the arguments for subsidies as the Now I will take the second bill, or both of them, if you please, of the "old and pretentious prayer of the few, the aggregated wealth of the rich cor- S f M · d · · h 1 f I d h t

.Porations, for extorting contributions from the people. These contributions are enator rom ame, an mqnire as to W at C asses O vesse s an W a for bheir owJl individual pecuniary benefit. The country will gain nothing by vessels are in existence to-day that would probably receive the bene· them. Commerce will become no cheaper." Mr. Benjamin Butler said: fits of. this bounty if we should have it, and how long it would be be-

.. I am opposed diametrically with all my might, with all my judgment, with ,. h 1 f th rt f th t t th rts th t a.11 my strength, to the ideas of subsidizing any lines whatever. The only time iore t e peop e o any O er pa O e conn ry, excep ose pa a when this Government attempted to subsidize a line of steamers, the great have ship-yards already erected, could possibly engage in the business ~~~t~~i: {i~fJ~·~e not only lost our money, but we ruined those whom we un- of building ships to come up to the description which is found in these

The amendment was lost in the House on the 20th of l\Iarch, 1872, but on the two bills. 2d of May the bill was reported to the Senate by the chairman of the Commit- You may take foe bay of Mobil~, which I think is a most admirable tee on Appropriations with the above amendment attached. The amendment situation for the building of ships; take all the waters of Mobile River, passed. Senators 8HERMAN, of Ohio, Chandler, of Michigan, and MORRILL, of from the city of Mobile up to Mount Vernon arsenal, which is a possesVermont, opposed it.

Then the motion was made to incre:lse the Brazil subsidy to $450,000 for a. sion of the United States Government, and.a very beautiful and very se~!~~~:~~\~rm,,:f ~~or ten years. val nab le one besides, yon would commence the building of a dry-dock

"It is desirable to own iron ships, very desil·able, and 1 hope to see the day or ship-construction yards at some convenient and eligible location for when we shall have our old supremacy in shipping; but it never will be done the building of ships of commerce, say of 2, 500 or 3, 000 ton steamers. in the world by subsidies. It is not the subsidized lines of Great Britain that You have there every description of wood that you could desire, alpay the largest return@. * * * You will never restore your flag to the ocean most without cost, that would enter into the construction of the inner by subsidies, I care not how great you may make them; you may increase your subsidies to Sl0,000,000a year and you will notre3tore your flag." works of a steam-ship, an iron or a steel steam-ship. You go up the

Mr. Mo HRILLsaid: · Alabama River or go up the Tombigbee River or the Warrior River by "Is it practicable to recall our shipping? I think it is, and by the simplest water navigation until you come within 30 or 40 miles of the interior

process. Not a dollar of subsidies. Give us cheapmaterials and we will do it. Give us the ground on which we stand, so that we shall have our materials just of those great coal and iron fields of that country. I see my friend as cheap as they can ).>e afforded elsewhere, and then all these ship-yards and from Vermont in front· of me [Mr. !{ORRILL], who knows about the all that sldlled labor will be at work at once; and you will find that we shall possessions of a certain company there, within 30 miles of the navigable restore the balance of lhe shipping interests on the ocean that now stands against us." waters of the Upper A.labama River, the Coosa River, where there is a

Senator SHERMAN, in a Apeech advocating free ships, said: vast amount of iron ore, beautiful timber and coal, all upon the same ·•Since we can not build these vessels within 20 or 30 per cent. of the cost in tract of land and that tract of land really valuable for agricultural pnr·

England, why not admit them free? Why not admit them duty free, raise the .American flag upon them, put American officers upon their decks, and have poses besides. American lines instead of British lines? Why, sir, if that bill should pass, au- At Mobile you would have the a<lvantage, in building these ships of thorizing foreign ships when owned by American citizens to be used for the commerce, of iron that can be made in the pig-metal at Birmingham at present, for three years under the .American flag, one-half of the lines between New York and England would be American lines in sixty days." $9.50 a ton at a fair profit. What kind of iron is it? It is iron suffi-

Senator EDMUNDS declare,d that it was as much unconstitutional and wrongo ciently stron_g to make a car axle or a car wheel, and I suppose when to grant these subsidies to Americans as to give them to foreigners, and that he rolled out, drawn out properly, it would have sufficient strength and could not support them.

Hon . .J. G. CANNOS, during the debate on the subsidy question, February 28, ductility also to make the skin of an iron 'Ship. At Birmingham and 1879, used the following words: in the vicinity you can make the engines, perhaps, cheaper than you

"Now, what is this proposition? Oh, it is to give .John Roach $3,000,000 as a k th h ls · th U "ted St tes practical gratuity and to charge that as a tax on the cotton, and provisions. and can ma e em anyw ere e e lil e Ill a · tobacco, and wheat, and grain, and breadstuffs, and oil, that we produce. What Yon have got down there great transportation by railway, and you for? To enable somebody to sell something that he has made, which it cost have got river transportation in competition with it almost the en:tire $1. 43 to make here, while it costs only a dollar to make it in Europe, and both distance from the mines to Mobile. I do not see w by ship-yards for mnnufacturers have to go lo the same market, namely, Brazil Why, gentle-men, if you had a business agent who proposed to do your private business in the building of a commercial marine might not as well be put up at that way, you would put him into a lunatic asylum, or swear that he was a Mobile as at a9y other point in the United States, and it would be parthief or an idiot, and discharge him. t" l l l bl to h · els th d d 1-- hi h

"Commencing in the year 1847 down to the present time (1879} act after act lCU ar Y va ua e ave repair yar ere an OCJU1 upon W C "bas been passed for a similar purpose [postal subsidies]. I hold in my hand the vessels could be floated, and become a most important and most imofficial statements of the Secretary.of the Navy and the Postmaster-General, mense fa<'tor in the commerce of the South when the Nicaraguan Canal which show payments of subsidies to 1'he amount, in round numbers, of St4,- shall be opened, as I hope and trust it will be before a u:eat many 500,000 to steam-ship lines during the period from the year 1818 to 1858. I hold o· in my hand a statement that shows subsidies to the amount of $7,000,000, in years. round numbers, since that time, making over $21,000,000 that have been paid out But how long would it take us to do that? Why, Mr. President, of the Treasury for the purpose of establishing steam-ship lines-$7,000,000would under the stimulus of these bounties we should not do it under four buy all the steam-ships engaged in commerce that sail under the American flag on every ocean in the world-snd, more than that, the subsidizing of these or five years, and in the inean time the wooden ships and the steamsteam-ship lines, from the 'Collins' line in 1852 up to the present time, ha~ ships of different qualities and varieties engaged in the foreign trade, bankrupted every prominent w.an that has favored it." some of them with their lives nearly spent, some half spent, and so on,

Those are pretty high authorities, Mr. President, upon the question would have received the full measure of the bounty provided in this act, we are discussing, and I should think that the gentlemen connected and we should be getting nothing. We should be paying the taxes all the with the ·making of laws for the United State3 Government, who had time; we should be paying the money into the Treasury of the United such fixed convictions as far back as the period I have been referring States, out of which these subsidies are to be granted, but we should to, wourn by this time ha.Ye made some serious effort to relieve our be getting nothing at all. The mere prospect of a future r~alization navigation laws from the only restriction which they indicate here has from this bounty would be all that we could count upon for the adbeen in t!:e way of the building of American ships and American own- vantage of our ship-yards in those parts of the Union where we are not ership of American bottoms. By ''American bottoms'' I mean bottoms now prepared for the construction of ocean-going ships. that are sailed under the American flag. Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, if the Senator will pardon me, I wish

It seems to me that it is beyond all question that these gentlemen to say that under the terms of this bill over one-half of all the tonnage stated this proposi~on plainly, succinctly, as clearly and with as much of the United States engaged in the foreign trade is excluded. Those force as it is possible to state it, and that the only remaining duty we ships that the Senator talks about being old, etc., are all excluded. have now, whether we. connect this question of navigation with the ¥r. MORGAN. The others would have a mig~ty good time, 1\fr. postal service or merely with the commercial marine, is to enable our President. They would get the bounty and they would run down the people to take their money and go abroad and buy ships unless they other half that are already expiring anyhow, so weak that they can can bay them on equally advantageous terms from American ship- not stand up in battling with the elements and with the laws for many builders, who have the right to import their material all free, and on and many a year, and they would be obliged to go under. So we have those ships to commence carrying the commerce of the United States. got to sacrifice about one-half the ships we have got in order togetthe

The first operation in that direction will be amo~gst the exporting bounty for the others under the provisions of this bill. merchants and importing merchants. They will wish to make enough I But the other part that would supply the half that is going now at

.

'

6990 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE. JULY 7, I

the ship-ya.rds to be constructed in different parts of the Atlantic States, I think, would look forward t;o an almost hopeless fa ture. . The rewards would be very distant, and I think that they would hardly ever be real ized. I think we should get sick of the law and repeal it befol'e we got down t.o the point where the men who invest their money in new localities would be able to turn ships out of their yards.

Mr. F fl.YE. I ba.ve no doubt, on the contrary, that the coal lying on the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River would be the coal supply for all the South American states on the eastern coast, Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and the Central American States.

Mr. MORGAN. Now, .Mr. President, we can get coal from New Orleaps, and Mobile, and Pensacola, and Tampa Bay to any part of the ea tern Atlantic coast of South America at lower rates than the Senar tor from Maine says his ships built in Alaine can afford to carry i t for.

We were told by the Senator from Missonri [Mr. VEST] that the ocean was full of tramps, that they were rea-dy to carry off the produce of the country, and that those and the regular lines did bring in all the vast production that we consumed from South America: hides, the different products of beef, and wool, and dye-woods, and hard woods, and fruits, and India rubber, and a great many valuable productions that are brought from South America to the United States. There appears to be not the slightest difficulty in the way in getting direct sail and steam transportation from any port in South America to any port in the United States, and we can do that at a lower rate on these vessels which are covered by the flags of Germany, France, Great Britain, and other countries than we can upon the ships that are American built, American owned, and under the American flag.

Now, when the Senator from Maine gets his ship subsidies, using the langua~e of Mr. CANNON, which I read a. moment ago, the freight is not reduced. The subsidy has no effect on freight. It remains just the same, and be can not afford to go even tbl:!n and carry the coal from Alabama or Tennessee or Georgia out t.o sea and off to these foreign ports .at a lower rate of freight than these foreign vessels and these tramps are charging. So the man who produces the coal gets no advantage from the bill at all, for it is a matter that does not add up in his account as to whether the coal for which he pays the freight is.carried under an American flag or a German flag or under the flag of a tramp or the flag that is flown by some regular packet-ship. It does not cut any fignre.

Mr. FHYE. The testimony of nearly all the gentlemen who appeared before the House committee in relation to that very point was that the men who sent freight would get nearly t11e whole benefit, and if not quite the bounty that thefo,reign ships now competing with them get just below their capacity to do business and to keep their ships afloat, and that the freights nearly inevitably, t;o the extent of the

_ bounty, would go down. Mr. MORGAN. It is not generally so, and it has not for that reason

been the fact or the result in British experience. The Senator from :Missouri called attention the other day to the fact

that not more than 2 per cent. of the commercial marine of Great Britain was subsidized in any form at all, whether by postal contract or oth<::rwise, while that 2 per cent. by being subsidized is really placed in unfair competition with the other 98 per cent. of the British shippina. The general average of the prices of freight in British shipping has kone down. There has been a gradual sinking of freight rates resulting from universal competition now for several years past, but it can not be that this 98 per cent. of British ships have sunk their freight rates to correspond with the freight rates that 2 per cent. of that same shipping could afford t;o take in consequence of the bounty or in consequence of the postal subsidy that it is provided with by law.

Now, the fact of the business is this: The carrying tra.de of the ocean is overdone; that is the truth of it; and until that condition is altered freights must be carried by vessels at a losing rate. While that is true in respect of the carrying trade of the great oceans of the earth, the business of the interior communities of the United States is not only not overdone, but it is very prosperous and the fields are continually opening for additional commerc1al ventures and enterprises and the harvest of profits is continually growing and increasing throughout the United Stat.es; and if yon would jnst give us a sound metallic cnrrency as the basis of a paper currency, equivalent to the needs of the people of the United States for the conduct of their business, we should prosper in a degree that we have never yet experienced and a degree very much to be desired, because it would ~ll be solid and substantial prosperity. There would not be any boom or inflation in it at a11, but it would be solid and square through and through.

But, si r, we are not to expect people to :withdraw their credit and to withdraw their money an,9 to withdraw their .enterprise from snch vast aad wonderful.fields as are being opened in the United States now and will continue to be for the next thirty or fifty years to come, and, perhaps, longer than that, to go off into a field where the accumulated capital of the woild has been invested under the incitements of bounties and subsidies in a business that will not pay a fair return on the capital invested. There is no occasion for undertaking competition of thn.t kind. Our people get the advantage of it in lower rates, whether they get the benefit of it in the pride of their flag, commercially speaking, or not.

The advantage of it comes to us and the veople are aware of it, and

I really see no occasion for changing that condition except in the instance I have referr~ to where I think it is proper and right that the American flag, and the American ship, and the American owner t;o buy an American ship-I mean an American-owned ship-ought to be united in the service of the Government, and it ought to be a fact as weJl as a theory that when a man steps upon an .American ship and under the American flag he is upon American soil; that onr laws attend these ships to whatever part of the world theyvisit, and can take care of our mails and the persons who are charged with them, and protect them against violence, and interference, and fraud, and everything of that kind just as much as we can do it upon the land in this country.

I believe it is our duty to spread the postal service across the seas as well as across the rivers; that it is as much our duty t.o cross the Gulf of Mexico with a postal service as to cross the Mississippi River. I can see no difference. I never could think that the Government of the United 8tates was cramped and confined, in the organization and administration of its postal service, merely by the territorial land boundaries of this country. But 'it is quite a different thing when you come to subsidizing ships of commerce. 'fhat is a private transaction, in which the Government has no interest at all.

I feel, Mr. President, that it is hardly worth my while to under" take t;o occupy more of the time of the Senate in the discussion of this matter after the subject has been so thoroughly and so impartially pr8" sented in the report which I hold in my hand on both sides, the ma" jority and minority, who deal with this subject in a spirit of fairness and of honest and sincere argumentation, and each side brings forward the facts upon which it predicates its opinions and conclusions. They do it faithfully and honestly and impartially, and I am very glad to say that about them, because it seems now to have presented the question before the Congress of the United States in such a fashion that we can form a final and conclusive judgment upon it. I must say that I believe if the Congress of the United States would follow its convictions upon this question and pass as a substitute for the bill of the Senator from Maine the bill reported by the minority of that committee (which is merely a bill to provide for free ships to be owned by American citizens and run under the American flag, without reference to the old restriction that has been so long an incubus upon our carrying trade) the question before ns would be satisfactorily settled.

The Senator from Maine in the beginning of his remarks the other day in the Senate referred to a number of societies and individuals and corporations, commercial clubs, and chambers of commerce which advocated the passage of this bounty bill. I have attended several of those meetings and had occasion to listen to the debates that were conducted before them, and !think I do no injustice to the gentlemen concerned in them in saying that they have a very superficial view of these questions. They are questions which require a great deal more study than a man ordinarily is disposed to give to them unless be finds himself under the laboring oar of a pretty severe sense of duty. So I donot attach any very great importance to these petitions and recommendations which the Senat-Or from Maine saw proper to read to the Senate.

Bot my colleague in the other House, Hon. JOSEPH WHEELER, has been for a number of years president, very prominent a.s president, of one of these commercial organizations. I am not prepared to say precisely which one, whether it was national or whether it was sectional; but it was a Tery large and influential body of men. They had a great many meetings, some of which I attended, at some of which I spoke, always opposing what I conceived to be the real purpose of that society, and I notice that General WHEELER is one of the minority that . made up this report, of which Mr. FARQUHAR, of New York, was the chairman.

General WHEELER seems to have presented a very strong argument against the report of the majority of the committee, the soundness of all of which I think I am prepared to indorse, but it certainly is very strong; and if his· calculations are correct in every particular it seems to me that he has thoroughly demolished the society of which he was president, and all the purposes that were involved in its organization. I will read it. It is brief.

The undersigned fully concurs with the majority of the committee in their views regarding the importance of s ome measure being adopted to revive American shipping, but it is with r egre t that he finds himself unable to support the bi 11 H. R. ( 663.

We now produce substantially one-third of the coal, iron-ore, pig-iron, finished iron and steel that is produced in the world, and yet we have but one-twentyfifth of the population of the ea rth.

It is therefore evident that a. foreign market for our surplus product• is necessary to our continued prosperity; but for the Government to give a. bounty of 30 cents per registered ton fol" each 1,000 miles sailed by America.n ships is a questionable remedv. It would derange systems of traffic which have been adjusted a fter yea.rs of labor.

Itmnst be expected that Lhere are persons in this country who will avail themselves of all the advantages offered by the Government, and we must therefore inq uire what results are possible under the bill should it become a law.

In E uropean trade this bill would discriminate against all Atlantic cities in fa.>or of San Francisco a.nd other Pacific port'!.

' Vh ent could be transported from California or Oregon to Liverpool and receii·e a. bounty of20to 25cents a. bushel. It would also be possible to ship wheat from San Francisco, Cal., or Portland, Oregon, to some South American port and then reship to New York and other Atlantic cities, and receive from the Government (0 cents a bushel, thus militating against the wheat-growing interests of the Eastern States.

To illustrate: Suppose a ship of (,000 tons, with 1,000 tons of wheat, s&iled from Portland, Oregon, to some South American port, a. distance of 7,000 miles; tho

•

•

890. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6991 ship would receive $8,(()(), that is, 7,000 miles at 30 cent~ a. ton for every 1,000 miles sailed. The wheat could then be reshipped in a vessel of like character to New York, say 5,000 miles, and for thls voyage the Government would pay S6,000. The same wheat could then be reshipped in a similar vessel for Liverpool, for which the Government would pay 33,600.

To illustrate the consequence of such a changed condition upon the wheatgrowiug section of the ltlidcUe and Eastern States, I will cite the following from n. recent address by the president of the New York Produce Exchange: .

"The ditference in the cost of a single penny in laying down gi·a.in at Ltv.erpool may determine the question whether millions of bushels shall be 11upphed by this country or shall be drawn from the ample fields of Hungary or Southern Rus!!ia."

It would be well for us to inquire if, under this bill, should it become a. law, it would not become profitable to bring wheat from British India to New York.

Coal could be brouj?ht from Nova Scotia and comoete with American coal in _all our Atlantic ports, and by tbe use of the \Vella.nd Canal could compete with onr coal in all the Lake cities. To illustrate: A 2,000-ton ship, carrying500 tons of Nova Scotia coal for New :York, would receive a bounty of 5600,i. e. 30cents I\ ton for 581 miles, and the duty on the coal would be ~75, thus entering the coal free of duty and leaving the ship-owners $225 bounty.

Iron ore could be brought from Spa.in and draw a bounty from the Government of Si per ton. and thus transfer the iron furnaces to the Atlantic coast.

Under this law, the Government would pay a bounty upon all sugar and rice brought from the W eat India Islands t-0 this country, thus enabling those foreign producers t<> more successfully compete with our home industr1es.

During the last few days petitions have been filed with Congress by the people of Knox County, l\Iaine, claiming that they are being rrrined by the competition of the lime-burners of St. John.

If the·St. John people are given a bounty of from 60 cents to $lperton by the United States l«>vernment, what will become of industries of like character in Maine, when our duty on lime amounts to 3 cents per barrel, wllich is equal to 25 cents a.ton?

Even if the bill should not ca.use any increase of American shipping in foreign trade, it would cost the Government from ~.000,000 to i!,000,000 annually.

It' it should attain for us all the advantage that is insisted upon by the advocates of the bilJ and increase our foreign shippiP.g to such an extent 1\8 to equal that of England, the annual cost would reach '30,000,000 and possibly $40,000,-000.

These are but a few of the effects of legislation of this oharacte1·. The bill is so far-reaching. that its full results could only be ascertained by actual experiment. It only illustrates the fatal tendency of <;lass legislation and proves the soundness of the old Democratic axiom, ••Justice to all, fa•ors none."

There are many methods by.which the merchant-marine of our country could be encouraged, if not entirely restored to its former prestige. First of all, we should revise our tariff so as to open trade with foreign countries. We should modify our navigation laws. We should also modify our laws and treaties, so as t'> lessen duties uptm merchandise imported in American ships. Souie judicioU8 laws could be enacted authorizing contracts between our naval officials l\nd ehlp companies, by which ehip-bnilders could be aided, while at the same time a. full equivalent would accrue to the Government.

In England and other European Governments such contracts a.re entc1·ed into, between ship-builders and ship-owners on the one -side and the Government on the other, by which ship-builders agree to construct vessels, in accordance with plans and specifications which are submitted by the Government, of such type and speed as shall render them specially suitable for service as 1umed cruisers. The company also agrees to hold these ships ready for charter or purchase by the Government at rates fixed by the contract.

These vessels are required to have a speed of not lesstha.n 17t-018knots at sea. They &re included in what is called the "reserve fleet of the Navy." Vessels thus coni'!tructed to meet the views of the admiralty would be a.ta disadvantage in respect to their cargo-carrying power!!, and their additional cost of construction is considerable; therefore it worrld become necessary for the Government to offer# reasonable compensation to ship-builders and ship-owners to build and marntain this description of steamers.

The consideration paid by the English Government to the company for the vessel or vessels as approved by the admiralty is an annual subvention of about 15 shillings per gross registered ton for the period of not less than five years.

Hwill readily be observed that the existence of such vessels would, in :i. pecuniary sense. be of great advantage t-0 the Go•ernment, as it would lessen the numbe..r of war-vessels which it would otherwise be necessary for the Govern ment to maintain.

Mr. President, there is a case in which an honorable gentleman, who is connected with the legislation of the country, when he felt it incumbent upon him with the high duties and responsibilities of his position, in view of all the facts that had been laid before this committee, concluded to state these views, that the bill, which I believe is conied in the bill of the Senator from Maine, would inflict very serious -injury upon a number of great industries of this country, and that it was violative of the principles of sound policy and of the old Democratic axiom ''Justice to all and favors to none.''

Upon that subject of" Justice to all and favors to none," I wish to call the attention of the Senate for just a moment to some remarks made by C::tptain Bates, who is our Commissioner of Ninigation, who was examined before this committee of the House. Captain Bates, onthesubjectof "Tonnageincrea.se,n afterbaving discussed theFrench system, the German system, the Italian system, the Norwegian system, goes on then to discuss the proposed system under the bill that was then \IDder consideration. He says:

TOYN~E L'.CREASE.

Of sail and ste:un, for the first year we had anaggregat-e of 517,020tons. To re·.ce this amount in ten years requires new building at the rate of 51,702 tons . rnally. And with this amount of building there would be no increase ofton-

n tte for ten years to come. rakillir the entire marine in the domestic trade and the rate of building in the

p t ten years, we find our ship-yards doing coast and ocean work have but little more capacity than to make good the average loss of about 4t percent. During the year ending.June 30, 1839, there was built, of sail-vessels, -i8,3i0 tons, and of stea.mers, 33,250 tons; in the aggregate, 81,590 tons fib for ocean navigation.

It is pla.in, therefore, with the amount of Government work increased above ]ll!ilt year, that new ship-yards must be established before much building can be done for the foreign trade. But it is unlikely that much will be added to our building facilities, particularly for steam t-0nnage of iron and st-eel, until a. demand springs up for large ships and steamers in the place of the vessels now existing. \Vhen this demand will come must depend, not only on the a.mount of bounty paid, but very much on its utility and quickening power in the procuremtmt or freights, for it must be evident our marine can not earn bounty

without employment. And to get employment has been the chief difficulty, more especially in the case of sailing vessels..

In this connection it is important that the bounty to .be patd shall be put at command or vessel-owners, so that it shall avail in the purchase of a part or the whole of cargoes. We should look: to the chances of converting ship-owners of our own into mercha.nts of our own. We should not expect to carry ,principally, for the merchants of foreign nations, for all these, if they have not their own ships,baveclose business connections with the owners of theirllfltion and will give the preference to their own flag.

That is a very candid and sincere avowal on the part of Captain Bates, our Commissioner of Navigation, of the reasons and inducements which lie at the bottom of this movement and the very natural gains amongst the men to be realized from these bounties, that it enables the merchant to purchase his cargo so that we are really to be supplying otlt of the Treasury of the United States capital to mercantile concerns to carry on business provided they will do it in American ships and Americanbuilt ships. Here is the translation of the whole business.

J\.Ir. COKE. What page is that? Mr. MORGAN. Page 261.

CONCLUSIO~.

To what extent the bounty bill, if passed, will increase the tonna~e of our marine is not easy of prediction. It may well be regarded as a problem to be solved by trial. By the terms of the bill, reducing the bounty aft.er ten yea.rs, there is no inducement to lay the foundation of great !!hipping-houses or to establish permanent agencies in foreign ports. This aspect of transitorine s is not much calculated to inspirit ship-building, encourage ship-own\ng, or induce inyestment in commercial enterprises to be carried on with the world abroad. The bill seems to ask too little from the Government. Perhaps it is intended to test the principle of the protection which itotfers. It will doubtless do much good-prevent the threatened destruction of our marine in the foreign trade. It will surely give us a much better class of Veel!els in ten years' time, but it is not so certain that the tonnage will be so much increased as to require, in any year of the operation of the bill, over five or six millions of dollars of bounty money.

The CHAIRMAN. 'Vhat is your opinion a.s to the policy of excludinJ? vessels under 400 or 500 tons from the benefits of this bill?

Captain BATES. We have 622 vessels, of from 100 to 500 tons. We are looking to this bill in the hope of raising men and officers for our Navy, in case we have trouble, and we have 622 masters, 622 mates, and sa.Uors in proportion. Shall we throw all thl!!I naval school away or not? That id the question. I think the country would not app1ove of it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question ha3 come before the committee whether it is not throwing a.way money, as some express it, to pay for & tonnage of 100, 200, or 300. That is a question which will come up for acLion by this committee.

Captain BA.TES. If you do not protect that class of vessels, foreigners will furnish them.

The CHAIRXAK. The presumption on the part of the committee is that under this bill, while a proportion of the sail fleet may remain in service and receive its benefits, the new-built vessel is going to be steam. ·

Mr. WHEELER, of Michigan. The bill will induce people to build larger veg. sels; but this isa country of small things.

Captain BA.TES. The boys will have a better chance to get a.boa1·d of these sail-ing vessels than they will of the fine ships. .

l\Ir. WHEELER, of Michigan. In raising seamen. you think the encouragement ought to be general'!

Captain BATES. I think that is one of the ad,·antages we would get. Mr. BANKS. Raising seamen is one of the principal necessities.

l\ir. President, on that subject, while the Senator from Maine WM discussing this bill he stated two rather important facts. One was in reply to the Senator from Missouri that if one of these English iron ships was given to an American he could not earn money on it by running it. Of course, if it is a ship that cau run, a ship fit for running, a ship called a tramp, to say the least, it may not be the fastest ship, but it is a ship fast enough for the conduct of very heavy articles of commerce-a.s, for instance, hauling cross-ties from Mobile, A.la., down to Nicaragua, or hauling granite from the Maine quarries to Washington City, on the Potomac, and the like of that.

A great deal of freight that is carried across the ocean is all the better and all the cheaper for being carried slow. Even cotton sometimes pays better to ship it on a slow ship than it does on a fast one, for the reason that after you get your cotton to Liverpool or Manchester, or wherever you expect to send it, if it is not to be consumed imml:!diately, there are warehouse charges upon it, but on shipboard it pays nothing but freight, and it is as much under insurance on shipboard, and perhaps more, than it is on land and in the warehouse. So there is a great deal of the freight of the world, very heavy slow freight, that it does not make any particular difference what kind of a ship it goes on so that it gets to its destination safely, and it makes no special difference if the voyage is a slow one.

So I can not .understand, Mr. President, how it is that the Senator from Maine should find himRelf justified in saying to the honorable Senator from Missouri, ''If one of these British owners were to gi. ve you an iron ship you could not sail it 8o as to make anything out of it;'' that it would not be of any advantap;e. Well, the business must be much overdone, freights must be exceedingly low, and there must be a. very decided want of remuneration in such an investment as that .

I have no doubt the statement was made in absolute sincerity and upon a practical idea of the facts. Thereupon we commenced inquiring what it was that could make such a difference, and the Senator from Maine said that in sailing it under the American flag better living would be expected on board and the sailors would expect better wages. That is a curious sort of disadvantage to say that the humanity and decency of our living would cost so much to our people and that it should be so essential a feature in navigation under the Amer~ ican flag that we should come to the Treasury of the United States and fix up a boarding-house on a vessel for the Spanish o.r Norwegian sailor so as to give better quarters than he has got now. I do not see

•

•

6992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J-UL 7 '

that there is any kindness in that, but I can see there is a great want of generosity towards the tax-payers of our country in a proceeding of that kind.

Then I was led to ask whether or not an American ship-master under the American flag taking his crew, for instance, at Liverpool, or at Lisbon, or at any Spanish port, would not get the sailors at as low a rate as a Spanish master could do. Yes, that is all true enough, he would get them at as low a rate as the Spanish master. Then why does he not take the Spanish sailor? He is just as useful, just as good, and you get him at a lower rate. Well, we know that .is done continually. We know that it is done here amongst the :fisheries of the United States, that they go to Uanada for the -purpose of getting the Kanucks there who perhaps are just as good fishermen, if not better than the Yankees. They take them aboard of their ships and carry them through the fishing season because they get a less "divide" out of the cargo of :fish that is caught than the A.merican :fishermen.

It is true the world over, as Mr. Codman says and as other gentlemen say who have testified here, the ship-owner or the master of the shipwhenhe is shipping his crew will always get the men he can getthe cheapest provided they are serviceable, and if he can board a man for 31·t cents a day instead of a half-dollar he will board. him for 37! cents. Humanity, politeness, and decency of treatment do not enter into the consideration of these people. They do not think about such things.

What they want to know is how much money they can make out ot a cargo, how much freight they can earn, and so it is that they are continually complaining of the Lloyds in England, and of the other Lloyds in North Germany and elsewhere, that they take advantage of American ships and pat them in a false classification so as to throw down the rate of freight that they can get on board their ships. We are complaining continually, and this report is full of these complaints of the Lloyds, and yet that is a mere voluntary associatiqn, not incorporated by law, I believe, in either England or Germany. It is a large congregation of underwriters~ who have their agents all assembled at a particular place, and when a ruan comes in for the purpose of getting his vessel insured there is a limit above which no company of underwriters is allowed to go, say £100 or £50, and they distribute it all around. There is a department there with men to examine the ship in every particular, from the highest point of the mast down to the keel, to see what condition it is in, and the ship is there rated, and according to the rating is the insurance, and according to the rating and insurance is the freight that is permitted to be asked _in commercial circles or to be expected. · These combinations, of course, have wrought against the people of

the United States, theship-ownersof the United States. It.has occurred to me, althongh I am not sufficiently master o_f the subject to be able to trust my own judgment about it really, that we could with profit enact some law which would prevent the evil effects of these discriminations and place us where we could get the benefit of full and ample insurance without our ships being subJected to the discriminations that are being continually practiced against them at the Lloyds, both in En~land and in North Germany.

But now we come down to the last man in this question, except the man who goes aboard of the ship, and that is the sailor. I asked the Senator from Maine if he bad any provision in his bill for taking better care of the sailors than is taken of them under the laws as they now exist, or for giving them higher wages. No; there is nothing of that kind. Commencing with the captain and going down to the ordinary seamen and the stokers on board a steam-ship and the cooks and the assistant cooks and so on, there is no increase of wages provided for.

There is no pressure brought to bear in this prize-money-for that is what it is-out of the Treasury of the United States upon which these mencangeta "divvy." Theyhavetogowithoutanything. Theyare required to have so many American seamen the first three years, so many the next two years, and from that out to the other half of the ten years' term they are required to have so many American seamen on board a ship that receives a subsidy; but the sea.man is not to receive anything. He gets no increase of wages; he gets nothing at all. So all of this prattle of these gentlemen here, witnesses and members of Congress, about the building up of seamanship and . bodies of men to take charge of our ships in time of war as a result of this bounty bill is sheer nonsense, if you will allow me to say it.

An American sailor might just as well be on board a Chinese junk as on board as American ship, so far as the pay is concerned. · He gets nothing out of this; the ship-master gets nothing out of it; the engineer gets nothing out of it; the captain gets nothing out of it. Nobody gets anything ont of it except the ship-owner himself who puts his money in the ship. He is the man who receives the bounty, and then, according to Captain Bates, he may go abroad anywhere he pleases and use that money to buy a cargo to speculate upon and make it capital in mercantile trade between this country and foreign countries; and that is the pith, and the object, and the purpose, and the conclusion, and the result of this proposed law. So when we have passed this bill, if we shall pass it at all, we merely contribute to the private funds of the ship-owner so much money in consideration that other men risk their lives and health to sail his ship around the world so many milei:i and back, and is required to carry not a full cargo, but a fourth cargo.

If his ship is one of a thousand t~ns gross he can carry 250 tons and

draw the bounty, and a man can lay in at Mobile 250 t.ons of cross-ti and carry them around the world t.o China and bring them back. That will not cost him $250 out of a thousand; ton ship and he will draw from three to six thousand dollars bounty upon the ship and cargo. That is the bill they ask us to pass, and it is to this absurd extreme that Senators and gentlemen, statesmen, able men, and good men are driven in order to avoid the cruel results of retaining upon our statntebook that old embarrassment of 1789 which excludes American money and American people from going out and buying a ship as they would bay a locomotive or as they would buy a horse or anything else and pay a duty upon it if you say.so.

Certainly if your ship costs you $500,000 and it is worth it, valueit and pay 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. ad valorem duty when it comes in, "like any other imported goods, bat when it gets here let the man use it for all it is worth. That is the true theory of government.

Mr. President, I have gone into this more than I intended to do. It is not a sa bj ect with which . I am very familiar. It has not fallen within the line of the studies that belong to me according to the assignment of the Senate since I have had the honor to be a member of this body. But! could see in this bill-this is the first time it has come up squarely since I have been here-such a violation of the principles of good government and such a threat against the people that I peculiarly represent, the agricnltaral classes, that I felt obliged to say what I have said about it.

Mr. COKE. Mr. President-Mr. FRYE. Allow me a word? Mr. COKE. Certainly. Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, I was sorry to hear the Sena tor from A1a4

bama [Mr. MORGAN] indorse the ship statements of his colleague, General WHEELER, and then on top of the indorsement use himself a like iJlustration of how a ship would make money by sailing on the bounty with only a very small cargo, one-quarter or one-tenth or something of that kind. I looked over the minority report drawn by the distinguisbed gentleman, and to anybody who knows about ships and the cost of sailing them it is utterly absurd.

In order to accompany the Senator's remarks and his indorsement of the illustration, I will ask leave to pu~ in information which I received from a man who knows practically what he is talking about, showing just what would be the effect on a 4, 000-ton ship carrying 1,000 t-0ns cargo and taking the bounty in addition, and I ask the leave of the Senate, instead of reading it to the Senate, to print it in the RECORD.

Mr. MORGAN. What is it? Mr. FRYE. A statement ot what a 4,000-ton ship-Mr. MORGAN. Whose statement? Mr. FRYE. Thestatementofagentlemanwhomiknowto be prac-

tically acquainted with the running of ships. Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be read. Mr. MORGAN. You do not give his name. • Mr. FRYE. No. I do not want to occupy the time of the Senator

from Texas. I am rE>,ady to make a. speech if the Senate will allow me to have it put in the RECORD--

Mr. COKE. I am entirely willing to have it read. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The paper will be read, if there be

no objection. The Chief Clerk read as follows:

The argument in favor of a bounty to American ships is founded upon the faot that they can not compete with their foreign rivals for a. share of the over-sea carrying trade. ·

In the face of the testimony to this effect and the patent fact of the steady decadence of American shipping. Mr. WHEELER pictures a ship of 4,000 tons register (capable of carrying 6,000 tons weight), taking from port to port, 1,000 tons of wheat, and finding the freight on this mere fraction of a. cargo so profitable that she could afford to turn over the entire bounty intended for her benefit to the owner of this 1,000 tons of wheat.

Of course, any one conversant with ship's accounts will see at once that the honorable gentleman has had no experience in such matters, but to those who, like himself, have no proper conception of the enormous expenses of a ship, the illustration is misleading.

There are no American sailing ships of 4,000 tons. Those built a dozen years ago are generally of 1,200 to 1,500 tons register and carry 4.0 to 50 per cent. in weight above their registered tonnage. The largest ship afloat is the Rappahannock (new), 1,385 tons. A ship of 4,000 tons register should carry 6,000 tons weight; 1,000 tons wouid about ballast her. Her ship's company would be in excess of forty persons. Her first cost would be approximately $50 per ton, or &W0,000. Interest on this at6 per cent. per annum is ................................................ $12, 000 Insuranoo (net) at 7 per cent. per annum is............................................... 14, 000 Depreciation about 5 per cent .. per annum is........ ................................... 10,000 To metal a wooden ship and calk her bottom would cost about ~.ooo

every thirty months, equal to 52 000 per annum, besides her chand-lery every voyage, and occasionally new sails and spars; call repairs.. 4, 000

Captain's wages ............................................... ....... .. ... per month ... S200 l\Iate ...................................................................................... do...... 60 Second mate ............................••............................................. do...... 45 Third mate .............................................................................. do...... 35 Carpenter .........................•••......•........................................... do...... 35 Cook and steward ............................ ......... ............................ do...... 75

~ ~6;s~!t1sicl~~:·:::::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::.::::·::::.::·:::::.·.·.::::::::::::::::.-3g:::::: 6:1 \Va.ges per month .. ... ....... ................. ... ...... ........ ............................... 1,100 Victuals for forty-one persons, $10 each, or say................................ 400

If under pay ten months per year at ............................................... 1, 500 15,000

Cost to the ship-owner e;ery year, exclusive of port charges.................. 55, 000

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD::_SENATE. 6993 Such a ship is no "plaything" to be sent nbout with one-sixth of a cargo, for

the sake of the bounty. _, A ship of 4,000 tons would be too deep for Port.land, Oregon, but this is of no

consequence, as Tacoma or San Francisco furnishes the same illustration. - Months.

Allow for loading at Portland .............................................. :......... ......... ...... I Passage to Europe (direct) ............................................ .................................. 4 Discharging in Europe......... .............• .................. ................................. ...... ... 1

6

Or, say, for loading in Portland .................................... ., ......................... ,..... 1 Pas age thence to Rio Janeiro ......... ... ............. ......................................... -.... 3 Discharginl?' and reloading, o.ftcr lightering and storing and lightering back.. It Passage to Ne'v York................ ..................................................................... I t Handlin!?' the cargo there................................................................................ t

~i;;~~!~g\~:r~IF!~j;~::: :::::: ::: :::::: ::: :::::: :: ::::::: :: ::::::: :: : : :::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::: i* 10

Bounty, if going direct, $8.400, or $1,400 per month. Additional by calling at Rio and New York., 9,600, or $1~0 per month.

Going direct with 1,000 tons. Port charges, towa.ges, pilotages, stevedore, commissions, etc., Portland,

say ........................................................................................................... ~.500 Expenses di~charging at Liverpool, say...................................................... 3, 500 E.xvense of ship outside of such charges, six months ...................... ........... Zl, 500

Freig~!~~~ '{~~sg a~ i sg;.~:·::.:: :: : : ::·.:::·:.: :: :·.:·::::.::::·::::.:·::::::.:::·:.:·:.:·:::.: :· ·s;, 200 34, 500 Bounty (7,000 miles) .......................................................................... 8,400

---15,600

Loss on sailing direc ....................................................................... 18, 900

Going via other ports. RIO.

.A.ddfor-Handling cargo, storage, and lighterage twice, estimated S2.50 per ton .. $2, 500 Expense of ballast ..................... :........... ............ .. ....................................... 500

_ Other port charges, towages, consignee's charges, etc................................ 1., 000

Disbursements at Rio ... ...... ...... .. . .....• .. . .....• .. ......... ..•.••.••... ......... .....• 4, 000 l\"'EW YORK.

One year's t-0nnage dues, at 12 cents ........................ ...................... $1, 200 Stevedore on cargo, 30 centseo.c!1 way............................................. 600 Storage and labor on grain in bags ............ .................................... 500 Expense of ballast and new crew .................................................. _ 700 Wharfage, pilota.ge, towage, etc ........ , ...........•..•••.•..... :..... ....... ......... 1, 000

Four months' additional time, at $35,000 per annum, as shown above .......... ............. ........................................................ ,. ...•...•... 18, 333

26,333 Less extra bounty for deviation ........•..•.....• .. ................... ......... ...... 9, 600

4,000

8,000

--· 16,733 Brought over, loss carrying 1,000 tons direct •................................ : ..........• 18, 900

Loss for ten months on these voyages ....................................................... 35, 633

Besides an this, there would be the wastage and damage to the wheat and the inter~t -and insurance on three voyages instead of one, to be borne by the cargo, and the impracticability of tbe whole proposition is too transparent to need further illustration of its absurdity. If the ship owned the cargo, loss would be $40,000.

Of course, most of the above figures are subject to modification by changed circumstances. The rate of freight might be more or less than 30s. per ton. In no possible way could such a. subterfuge be of any advantage.

Mr. WHEELE~ speaks of a ship of 2,000 tons register ta.king riOO tons coal from NoVll. Rcotia. to New York to obtain $6()0 bounty. Such a ship would carry 3,000 tons, and the bounty would equal 20 cents per ton only on the cargo.

NEW Yoiur, April 12, 1890.

The PRESIDENT pro tempo·re. The question recurs upon agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON]. Is the Senate ready for the question?

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, does the Senator from Texas desire t.o goon?

Mr. COKE. I do not desire t.o proceed this evening, but I will speak this evening if such is the desire of the Senate.

Mr. F..RYE. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON] desires to address the Senate briefly in favor of his amendment, and I understand the Senator from Texas desires to address the Senate briefly, too, and that that is about the extent of further debate.

I have a very few matters I should like to put in, and I want to get a vote on these bills at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, with the permission of the Senate, I will say what I have to say now.

Mr. COCKRELL. How long? Mr. FRYE. Fifteen or twenty minutes. Mr. COKE. I will state to the Senator that I shall be very brief. Mr. FRYE. I shall be very happy to have the Senator from Texas

go on. Mr. COKE. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator and will speak

in the morning. Mr. FRYE. I shall be happyt.o have the Senator go on if he desires.

Jf the time is not to be occupied by others this evening, then I will occupy a brief space. I desire to give notice that I will endeavor to have the consideration of this bill proceed w-morrow morning immediately after the routine business, and finished. -

Mr. HALE. And not wait until 2 o'clock? Mr. VEST. That is only in the nature of a notice. Mr. FRYE. Only in the nature of a notice. Mr. VEST. '\\e shall attend to that when the time comes. Mr. FRYE. In some remarks I addressed to the Senate, a few days

since, I made quotations from a report of Consul-General Russell, and at the same time requested that the report might be published as a part of my remarks, and consent was given by the Senate.

My attention was called a day or two afterwards to the fact that that report did not appear in my remarks as·printed, and a Senator desired that it might be printed and appear in the RECORD, and therefore I ask again, Mr. President, that the report of Consul-General Russell may appear now as a part of my remarks. As I stated the substance of it the other day, I ask that it may be printed without reading.

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The Chair hears no objection. The report is as follows:

No.142.) UNITED STATES CONSULATE, .Liverpool, November 18, 1887.

Sm: With a view to ascertaining the relative monthly rates of wages paid to officers and seamen of vessels of the United States with that of other nationalities, together with the cost of maintenance per man on board their respective vessels, I have compiled the following t.a.bles: (1) showing th.e wages paid; and (2) the cost of maintenance, together with the rates per centum less than those of the United States.

Reference to these tables will show that the vessels of the United States pay the highest rate of wages, besides costing more for maintenance of the crews than those of any other nation. This, of course, refers to voyages commencing in the United States, but even when they commence in foreign ports, that is, ship their crews and obtain their supplies at a. foreign port, they then average higher rates than vessels of other na.tiona.littes as regards cost of maintenance.

No comment is necessary in respect of the wagesquestiou, as the genera.lla.bor market of the United States fixes that for shipments in home ports.

British vessels in domestic ports can procure crews for from 37 per cent. to 32 per cent. lower than those-pa.id on ALDerican vessels, which is a serious item m the disbursement account. Then, a.gain, the cost of maintenance on Ameri· ran ships is a.bout 40 cents per day per man, against the English 29 cents, or I\ difference of 27 per cent. in favor of the latter.

When it is considered that provisions, such as beef, pork, and flour, which a.re the principal articles of food. consumed, can be obtained in the United 8tates, if anything, at a lower price than in England, it seems remarkable that the crews of our vessels should cost 27 per cent. more per man for maintenance; yet such appears to be the case. It is an acknowledged fa.ct that the living on boa.rd our vessels is superior to that of other nations, and it. is generally asserted that larger quantities of food are supplied to the crew, the sea.le of provision laid down by Congress being rarely if ever r~sorted to.

The wages pa.id on vessels belonging t-0 Norway and Sweden, Russia, Germany, Denmark. Austria., and Spain average about 47 to 50 per cent. lower than those of United States vessels, and the cost of maintenance a.bout 32 per cent. less, excepting those of Germany which cosf,a.bout 10 per cent less only.

I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant. CHAS. T. RUSSELL, Consul.

Hon. JAMES D. PORT,ER, .Ass·istant Secretary of State.

Inclosures: 1. Table showing wages paid to seamen on vessels, various no.tionalities. 2. Cost ot maintenance. 3. Copy of dispatch and inclosures.

TABLE No. 1.-Stalement showing the rates of monthly wages paid to officers and seamen on vessels at the honie ports of the va1"ious nationalities.

Nationality. Mo.te. Per cent. less than

United States.

Second mate. Per cent. less than

United States . .

Norway and Sweden........................................................................... $17. 02 to $19. 46 63 .. Russia. .................•....•....•..................••................................. -............... 17.51 to 19.46 63 ..... su:·6·7"~·si5:56· ......... ,_, 58" G1irmany .......... ......................................... .......................................... 17. 85 t-0 20. 23 62 13. 09 to 15. 47 56 Denmark............................................................................................. 17. 99 64 ......... .......................... ............ .

t:f!i~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... .-................. 43:75· ............. 12· ..................... 3Di6· :::::::::::::::::: Great Britain :

Sailing vessels ...............................................•.............. - .............. . Steam-ships, Atlantic voyages .........................•.......................•.... Steam-ships, other voyages ......... .. ........ ....................................... .

United States: Pacific coast .................................................................................. . .Atlantic coast •.......•...... ····-··························· ............................... .

XXI-438

38.92 55. 91 t-0 66, 08

38.93

22

.50. 00 ................. . 50.00 1··-'••············

21.89 46. 18 to 51"!. 34

29.19

35.00 30. 00 to 35. 00

Sea.men.

$9. 73 to $10. 94 9. 73 to 11. 67 9. 52 to 10. 71

10.94 10. 70 to 11.19

13.b2

12.16 to 13.38 19.46 H.59

20.00 18.00

Per cent. less than

United States.

32

. 45 43 45 43 43 'Zl

to33 .................• .................• .................• ·····••••t••••••••

-_

.

,,.

J

I•,

'6994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·· SENATE, . JULY 7,

TABLE No. !-Continued.

Nationality. Carpenter.

1 :Per cent. less than

'United States.

Cook.

Per cent. · less than

United States.

Steward. Per cent. Per cent.

leUni~~dn Ordinary seamen. le~ni~~ States. States.

Norwa:y and Sweden ........................ $12.16 •to Sl4. 59 '61 $10. 94 66 $10. 94 to $12.16 69 Russia................................................. 9. 73 -to 11. 67 ' 67 .$9. "'73 to 11. 67 67 .............................................. .

$7.29 7. 29 to · 7. 78 5.95 to 7.14

8.51 9.73

ll.19

46 44 51

·37 27 17

Germany ........................................................................................................................................................................................... . Denmark:,,_ .......................................... .............................................................................................................. n ............................ ..

t;:f:/~.:::·:::::·:::::::::::::::.::·::::::::.~::::~·::: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: .................... T7. ~!' ............. 28: ..................... i9:46 . ............. :iii' Great Britain:

Sailing vessels............................. 27.98 to 84.06 17 19.46 40 24.33 to 26.76 36 7.29 to 9.73 37 'Steam-ships, .Atlantic voyages .............................................................................................. .,..... 14. 59 to 17 ~02 ............................ ..................................... . Steam-ships, other voyages......... 29.19 ............................................................................................................ ~ ........... ., ...................................... .

United Ste.tea: · Pacific coast_, .............................. . Atlantic coast ............................. ..

35. 00 to 40. 00 30. 00 to ·35. 00

TABLE No. 2.-Stat.ement showing tM cost· of maintenance pen1um per day on board vessels of variotts nationa.tit!es.

Cost of Less than Nation. mainten- the United

a.nee. States.

' Norway and Sweden ...................................................... .. Russia ..................................................... ...................... ..

'g:;~~~k .. ::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . t;;:it~i~::::::::::::::::::::-.:::::::::::::::::::·::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "British .. ......................................................................... .. •United States of America .............................................. ..

Cents. 22 t-0 24

28 36

23 to 27 24 to 36

30 22 to 86

40

Percent. 42 30 10 87 40

·40 ·21

Mr. FRYE. Now, Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to another thing which is to me somewhat remarkable. The Senator from Texas [Ur. REA.GAN] stated in his speech to-day that the difficulty about commP.rce was that we could not hope to have commercial e'X:ports to other countries and imports from other countries unless-we established an entirely different rule from what governs us to-day. In other words, I suppose he intended to say 'that it was ouriariffwhich 1 was interfering in this matter, and that of course we could not have a carrying trade if we did not have commerce. I went out and from ·papers that I had in my possession 1 gathered the following facts as to ·commerce, which I desire t.o put into this case:

Period.

. Impotts and e:tporls.

Value of imports.

·v.l.lue of exports.

1790 to 1820, inclusive................... $2, 350, 628, 238 Sl, -839, 003, 369 l.S21to1845, inclusive.................. 2,4Ul,95L,M.3 2,236,019,315 184<> to 1861,.i nclusive.... ........ ...... . 3, ~7, 572, 930 3, 397, 586, 492 '1862-to 1889, inclusive .......... """" 14, 514, 129;670 15, 010, 243, 751

Total imp<J1'ts and 'exports 1790 to l.889, inclusive.

Period. Imports. Exports.

Total.

$J, 189;631, 607 4,'637,-970, 758 7r235, 157;4.22

29, 524,' 373, 421

Total.

1790 to 1861................................... 88, 590, 152, 611 87, 462, 709, 176 $16, 052, 761, 787 1862to1889 .................................. 14,514, 129,670 15,010,243, 751 29,524;373,4.21 Excess in value of imports e.nd

exports from 1862 to 1889 ove1· those of 1790 to 1851.................. ........ ................ ........................ 13, 4n, 611, 634

From the day of the acceptance of the Constitution ot the United States dbwn to 1861 our exports and imports were $16,052, 761, 787, and from 1861 down t.o now, $29,524,373,'121.

I made myself a brief calculation of certain voyages under what is known as the postal-subsidy bill. In the left-hand column I have put in what it would cost a ship a -year under the tonnage bill; in the rightband column what it would cost tbe same ship under the postal-subskly bill; and with the leave of the Senate I will print that.

The PHESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection. The paper is as follows:

ESTIMATE OF YEARLY PAYMENTS TO STEAM"-SIDPS UNDER FARQUil • .\.R A.ND "FRYE BILLS.

New 'York to Liv~rpooi. 3,000 miles ; 12 round tri~, 72,000 miles.

FARQUHAR. I FRYE. 8, 000-ton sl).ip ........................... $l72, 800 First-class ship ................ ;..... $216, 000

New Yo1·k to Rio de la Plata. 5,768 miles; 4 round trips, 46,144 miles.

. • FARQUHAR. ? l !RYE. 5,000-toti ship.......................... "$69, .16 I Second-class ship.................... $69, 216 2,500-ton ship.......................... 34,608 Third-classship....................... 34,608 1,500-ton ship.......................... 20, 765 Fourth-class ship.................... 23, 072

35.00 ................ .. 40.00 ................ .. 15.00 ............... .. ao.oo ................ .. 35.00 ............... ". 12.00 ................. .

Neu• ro1·k to B1·azii (Para). 2,910 miles; 8 round trips, 46,560 miles.

FAB.QUHA"B. I F&YE. 5,000-ton ship........................... $69,1340 Second-class ship .................... ' 2,500-ton ship........................... 34, 920 Third-class ship ...................... . 1,500-ton ship.......................... 20, 952 Fourth-class ship .................. ..

New York to Brazil (Rio de Ja~iro). 4,778miles; 5 round trips, 47,780miles.

FARQUHAR. I F&YE. 5.000-ton ship........................... $71,670 Second-c.·la.ss ship .................. .. 2, 500-ton ship.......................... 35, 835 Third-class ship ............ ......... .. 1, 500-ton ship ..................... ;.... 21, 501 .Fourth-class ship ................... .

New York to Venezuela (La Gnayra). ~ ·1,843 miles; 12 round trips, ·44,232 miles.

5,000.ton ship, ............................ $66, 348 Second-class ship .................... . FARQUHAR. I . FRYE.

2,500-ton sh!p........................ ..... 33, 174 Third-class shiJ? ...................... . 1,500-ton ship................. ........... 19, 90:i Fourth-class ship .................... .

San .Francisco to .Australia (811dney). 6r448 miles; 3!- round trips, 4.5,136 miles.

FARQUHAR. I FRYE. 5,000..ton sh~p ............................. $67. , 702 Se~ond-class s~ip .................... . 2,500-ton ship............................. 33, 854 Third-class ship ..................... .. 1,500-toll'ship............................. 20, 211 Fourth-class ship ................... ..

Swn Francisco to China (Hong-Kong). 6,080 mileR; 4 rnund trips, 48,640 miles.

FARQUHAR. I FRYE. 5,000.ton sh!p........................... $i2, 960 Se~ond-class ship ................... .. 2,500-ton ship........................... 36, 480 Third-class ship ..................... .. 1,500-ton ship......................... .. 21, 888 Fourth-olass ship .................... .

Ban .Francisco to Japan (Yokohama~. 4,564 miles; 5 round trips, 45;640 miles.

FARQUHAR. I FRYE. ·5,000-ton ship .................... ...... $68, 460 Second-class ship .................... . _2,500-ton sh~p........................... 34, 230 Thirrl-class ship,. .................... .. 1,500-ton 10hip........................... 20, 538 Fourth-class ·ship ................... .

.Ban .li1raiicisco to East Indie& (Manila). 6,254 miles; 4 round trips, 60,032 miles.

$69,840 34.920 23,280

$71,670 35,8ll5 23,890

~66,348 33,174 22,116

f67, 704 33 852 22;5ti8

$72, 960 36,480 24,320

~.460 34,230 22, 820

5,()()()..ton ship ........................... $75,048 Second-classship ..................... $i'5,048 .F AB.QUHAR. I FRYE.

2,500-ton ship........................... 37, 524 Third-class ship....................... 37, 524 1,500-ton ship........................... .22, 514 Fourth'"Class ship..................... 25, 016

Mr. FRYE. As to the cost (and it is the great cost which would attract attention) ofa line of ships between New York and Liveipool at -$6 a mile the outward -voyage, making a little over $800,000 for four great ships, I have to say this: In every case in that bill there bas been a limit beyond which the Postmaster-General should not go, but .not a limit below which he might make his contract. In every contract for carrying the mail from the Pacific coast there undoubtedly would be competition. In every contract for carrying the mail across the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico there would be competition. Between New York and the river Plate there would not be competition . for a while; when the first contract was made there probably would be none; very likely -the Postmaster-General might pay the amount provided for in this bill, but there is one thing which might relieve him from doing that, and which probably would. Brazil and the Argentine Republic would help pay for the 16-knot vessels which should be provided for under this bill between New York and the river Plate, so that in all human probability the cost there would be less than the extreme limit which is put in this bill.

I said between New York and Liverpool there probably would be no reduction of cost because there would be no competition whatever. But suppose yon got four ships of 8, 000 tons each and 20 knot.a an hour. Those four ships, built as the bill provides, would be worth more in the event of war than one of these great line-of-battle ships which cost $3,000,000, and cost.a undoubtedly the United Statesevery year to keep it in commission and service from four to five hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. MORGAN. We have not any such four ships now? Mr. FRYE. No; four ships I say that would be built under the

postalrsubsidy bill. Suppose it did cost, I say, $800,000 a year and the United States p~id it, as the result of those four ships of 8,000 tons

J

J

.•

1890~ CONGRESSIONAL REOORD~ENATE. 6995 each, put upon the line between New York and Liverpool, built as the bill provides they should be 'built, they· would occupy the place fully in service. in case of war that one of the great line-of-battle ships would occupy.

Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator tell us how long it would- take to build those four ships?

Mr. FRYE. I hav-e no doubt it would take two years and a half. l\Ir. MORGA:N. Then what would they cost, each of them? Mr. FRYE. They would cost over a million dollars each. So in

these figures showing the cost of the voyage for the mail service I give the extreme limit of cost, when I do not believe that it would reach it or anything like it. Under the postal subsidy bill, from the best examination I have been able to give it, in my judgment it would not cost the United States for the next two years the net profit the United States to-day makes from carrying the foreign mails; that is, in the neighborhood ot $900, 000. The third year it would cost more, because by the time the third year came around you would have some of these great ships.

Now, there is another thi~ I want to call the attention of the Senate to, and lest any one should question about this matter of t!ie Government's profit from carrying our mails, I desire to read from the last report of the Superintendent of Foreign Mails:

From the postmasters' reports, which form the basis ofTa.bleD,itappearstha.t of the aggregate sum of $2,343,92.3.27 estimated in said ta.ble to have ~en received by this Department e.s postage on a.rticlesexcba.nged with all foreign countries, the postage collected on the articles exchanged with foreign countries other than Ca.nada and Mexico amounted to $1,728,743.17, or more than three times the net. cost of the service.

What Senator can object to paying for cart'ying the United States mails under the American flag wha.t it costs? Tliere is not a State south of where I stand this moment where the United States does not pay more for the transportation of mails than it receives from the letters, and there are not more than half a dozen States in the Union where the United States does not pa.y more than it receives from the mails for carrying the mails. Why should any Senator object to paying that a.mount for earrying the CJnited States mails on the ocean?

The Senator from Alabama rnad from a statement of_ Mr. Bates, the Commissioner of Navigation, touching the cost of what is knowrl as the tonnage bill, the number of vessels employed, etc., and the Sena.tor from Maryland [Mr. WILSON], in his speech made two or three days since (and he is a S.enator who would not make a misst.atement understandingly under any circumstances), also made his estima.te of the cost of this bill, and he made it about $7, 000, 000 a year. He was entirely mistaken, and only made the grievous error from not examining carefully the subject he was discussing. His statement was that our registered ships am-0unted to 800,000 tons; that you pay 30 cents a thousand miles travel on 800,000 tons of registered shipping, and it would amount to about $7,000,000 a year.

The Senator ignored entirely every limitation that is cont.ained in the bill. He ignored the limitation to 500 tons burden. What does that mean? We have ronnage about 4,5 10,000 tons, and 1,620,000 tons are in vessels less than f>OO tons burden. That is to say, of all the vessels owned in the United States over one-third are below a 500-ton vessel. I will admit that in the registered tonnage that proportion will not hold good, but in registered tonnage of all the vessels of the United States registered to-day over one-quarter in number are less than 500 tons, and therefore they would be exeluded from the bill. The Senator from. Maryland ignored that entirely in his statement of the cost.

Mr. WILSON, of Maryhi.nd. The Senator is mistaken. I especially deducted 200,000 tons for vessels that were under 500 tons.

Mr. FRYE. I do not see how the Senator, then, could make the mistake he did make.

Mr. WILSON, oJ Maryland. And also 100,000 tons on account of the inspection laws. ..

Mr. FRYE. I did not hear that; but how the Senator, then, could have made it cost $7,000,000 is beyond my comprehension. I did not hear that statement of the Senator, and I have not seen his speech yet in the RECORD. Has it been published yet?

Mr. WILSON. of Maryland. No, sir. ~h·. FRYE. That is what I thought. I examined twice to see it

ancl it has not appeared. The bill has a certain requirement as to classification under the law.

It is a matter o.f American registry. Now, that classification would exclude one-half of all the ve..<isels of the United States regi.oitered today. So there would not be over 300, 000 tons of vessels left that would receive bounty under the bill to-day.

I was saying that Mr. Bates made a statement before the committee touching these same things, and his statement there does not apply to the bill here because a limitation of 500 tons has been put in since he made his statement, and two or three other limitations contained in the bill have been put in. He has revised that statement and I have it here, addressed to the chairman of the Honse Committee on Marine and Fisheries, in which he goes into the matter at length very carefully, and so that Senators may have an intelligent idea of what this bill is likely to cost if it becomes a law I ask leave to present this

statement of the Commissioner of Navigation and have it printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDF.NT pro tempo1·e. The Chair hears no objection. The statement referred to is as follows:

E8TIMATJ!IS FOR NAVIGATION BOUNTIES.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, May 21, 1890.

Sm: As it may be expected that persorni unacquainted with the state of your marine, both in home and foreign trade, may have an idea tllat the payment of bounties to vessel trading a.broad would call for great sums of money for the first and the following years of the life of the bill, at your request 1 have revised the met.hod of my first estimate, aed made a. closer approximation of annual payments; have also ma.de a ca.lcula.tion of what the amount would be the first year, if all ou..r salt-water vessels of the size, class, and grade named in the bill could find business in the foreign trade, as. of course, they could not do.

REVIEW OF FORMER ESTIMATES-THE TOl."'NAGE.

For want of time to examine books of cla'lsification, my former estimate of tonnage qualified for bounty earning was based upon the ages of vessels, a.nd is somewhat in excess. In the present investigation the Shipmasters' Record, of New York, has been consulted, and a closer approximation made. The facts discovered concerning the condition of our marine will surprise even the best informed. Of the sail-ve.'lsels above 500 tons, in both foreign and domestic trade, whose measurement foot.s up to 901,2-14 tons, there are only 500,876 tons that are classed in the Record . A l and A. H. In other words, only 55. 5 per cent. of either of the fleets, foreign or domestic, are qualified for bounty-earning. In my statement, page '1.57 of the Report of Hee.rings, the sail tonnage computed as equivalent to permanently employed was 543,696 tons. Of this amount I estimated 70 per cent. was A 2or higher, namely, 380.7~ tons.

The change in the bill of class limit from A 1 to All, and the decrease from iO to 55.5 per cent. of fleet tallying therewith, will lower the amount of sail tonnage from 422,938 to 301,751 tons for the qualified fleet last year in the foreign trade. A.s a year will have elapsed from the date of these statistics to the probable time of passing the bi 1 l,ded ucti<>n should be maae for one year's losses from the perils of navigation (3.63 per cent. ), and for lapsing from class (6.37 per cent.), l-0<.{ether 10 per cent., making the amount of tonnage to start with next year (1891) 271,576 tens. To this should be added about half the tonnage that will be built du.ring the year. In 1889, the amount built of sail above 500 tons was 21,-335 tons (or 2.36 per cent. only of the salt-water sail of 901,244); in the same year the lossP.8 of registered tonnage amounted to 3.63 per cent. If we allow for doubling in 1.:::g1 t.be tonnage built in 1889, a.nd add half of it to 271,576, we shall have 292,911 tons as amount of sail !or boun.ty earning in the first year of the operation of the bill.

With regard to the steamers my first estimate fixed upon 151,316 tons, which was cut down by one year's losses (estimated at 10 per cent.) to 136.285 tons. It is found on consultin~ the Record that the whole tonnage of screw-st.earners above 500 tons classed A 1, th irteen yea.rs and upward. sums up to 156,606 tons. As the whole a.mount of steam last year registered and assumed to be in -the foreign trade was 194,471 tons, it would appear that 80 per cent. of our steamers in the foreign trade are qualified by size and class for bounty earning. Taking the new figure of 156,606 tons and deducting 3 per cent. for one year's losses from the perils of navigation and 5 per cent. for lapsing from class, making togeth.er 8 per cent., we have 144,078 tons to start with in the first year. '.ro this should be added about one-third of the tonnage tha.t will be built during the year. In 1889 the amount built of steam tonnage above 500 tons was 17,952 tons. This will give a result of 150,062 tons as amount for bounty earning in the first year.

TUE MILEAGE THAT MAY BE llIADE.

In my first estimate it was assumed that the sailing vessels would probably navigat.e an average distance of 18,000, and steamers of 42,000 miles annually; but-the changes in the bill limiting the bounty in any voyage k> 7,000 miles, although many voyages will be double this distance, a.ad confining the payments to voyages made direct to or from a. foreign country will ba\·e the effect of reducing this estimate largely in the case of sa.ilin6' vessels and to some extent in the case of steamers. The following examples of actual navigation will illustrate the operation of the bill as reported to the House:

Ship I. F. Chapman, New York to San Francisco, thence to LiverpooL and return to New York in thirteen a.ud one-half months, would sail 31,000 miles, but make in bouaty mileage only 10,0IO miles.

Ship L. Schepp, New York to Yokohoma, thence to :Manila, and return to New York in fifteen months, would sail 36,000 miles, but make in paying distance only 14,000 miles.

Ship Santa. Clara, New York to Melburne, thence to Newcastle, New South Wales, thence to Manila, and return to New York in seventeen and one-half months, would sail 36,000 miles, but make in mileage measurement only 14,000 miles.

Ship Daniel Barnes, New York to Melburne, thence to Newcastle, New South Wales, thence to Honolulu, thence to Hong-Kong, and return to New York in sixteen mouths, would sail 39,000 miles, but make in bounty mileage only 14,000miles.

The average bounty mileage of these ships would be only 10.060 miles a year. It also appears from actual transatlantic voyages that 18,1)()() miles annual mileage is too much for them, though all the distance ma.de be allowed. The following examples illustrate this point:

Bark H. L. Routh, 1,0Z3 tons, New Orleans to Lisbon, and thence to New York:, five and one-third monihs, distance 7,300 miles.

Ship City of Montreal, l,Ll6 t-0ns, New York to Rotterdam and back, five months. distance 6,400miles.

Ship M. N ottebohm, l,ll6 tons, New York to Bordeaux and back, five months, distance 6,200 miles.

Ship Fawn, 1,015 tons, New York to Amsterdam and back, five months, 6,400 miles.

The avera~e bounty milea.~e of these ships is at the i:ate of 15,523 annually. If we average the mileage of these ships with that of those above, a.round the capes, we shall have a. result of 12,791 miles.

Adopting 13,000 miles of distance as a probable bounty mileage tlmt will be made by the sailing fleet, we shall have 292,911 tons multiplied by 13,000 as the ton-miles ; and this product, by three-tenths of a. mill, will be Sl,142,352.

As we have now a few steamers i·unning to foreign ports, and bet ween other _ forei~n ports, before returning home, and this sort of navigation is likely to be increased, perhaps largely; and as there is t-0 be no bounty pa.id on running between foreiirn ports, my former estimate of 42,000 miles per annum is too large for average steamer mileage. It is believed on review that 35.000 miles for bounty earning would be a fair estimate as the bill now stands W e shall have, therefore, 150,062 tons multiplied by 35,000 as the ton-miles; and this product, by three-tenths of a mill, will be $1,575,651.

TIIE TOTAL OF BOUNTIES.

By these statements for sail and steam we have for the total of bounty payments the first year the a.mount of $2,718,004. If we add to this 10 per cent. for fullness of estimation, the sum would scarcely reach.a round $3,000,000.

._

..,


THE UTMOST LDIIT OF BOUNTY EARNINGS.

But, as it may be thought the vessels usually employed in the coasting tra?e might enter. the fornign trade, under the allurement of bounty pay, we ~Ill

1 now include in our estimate all of the qualified salt-watei; tonnage o~ the Umte.d States. To do this, a.s all the qualified steam tonnage is already mcluded. it will only be necessary to tnke the entire qualifi~d sail tonnage, found by the "Record" to be 500,876 tons, and make the reductions and additions which we:e made to the amount in the foreign trade, 301,751 tons, and the result sought will . be found, namely, 472.124 tons. 'l'his is an increase of 62 per cent., and would add $698,9'.!9 to 2,718,()().1, making $3,416,933 the total of bounty pay~en~ the fir~t year, supposing it possible to put into the foreign trade all the sh1ppmg quahfied under the bill.

PA'X~"'l'S OF FOLLOWING YEARS.

Befo1·e we can estimate beyond the fi1·st year it will be necessary to examine and learn the class endurance,or lifetime, remaining to our vessels now in serv' ce and speculate somewhat on the power of the law to increase the tonnage. Th~ Record of American and Foreign Shipping, of New York, supplies the data. for the following tables: , I

American sail-vessels-wood. Classed in the Record:

Number of vessels Al: 1886, 559; 1890, 497. Amount of tonnage Al: 1886, 532,822; 1890, 464,631. Falling off in number, four years, 11 per cent. Falling off in tonnag-e, four years, 10 per cent. NumberofvesselsAll : 1886,60; 1890,42. Amount of tonnage Alt : 1885, 53,561 ; 1890, 36,24.5. Falling off in number, four years, 30 per cent. Falling off in tonnage, four years, 32 per cent. Number of vessels AL and AH: 1886, 619; 1890, 539. Amount of tonnage Al and All: 1886, 586,473; 1890, 500,876.

. Falling off in number, four years, la per cent. Falling off in tonnage, four years, 14.5 per cent.

I \ \

Average time until the expiration of class: For Al vessels (above 500 to ns}, 1886, 6.55 years; 1890, 5.46 years. For Alt vessels (above 500 tons}, 1886,2.31 years; 1890, 1.97 yea.rs.

Am.er ican. steani-11essels-iron. Classed in the Record:

Number of vessels Al, thirteen to twenty years: 1886, 77; 1890, 94. Amount of tonnage Al, thirteen to (wenty yea.rs, 1885: 130,909; 1890, 156.606. Increa.c;e in number, four years, 17 per cent. Increase in tonnage, four years, 16.4 per cent. Average time till expiration of class, in years: 1886, 12 35; 1890, 9.22. From these tables it is plain, for four yea.rs past, there has not been building

enough by 3.6 per cent. annually to keep up the figures of first-clas3 sail tonnage 'n both fo1·eign and coasting trades. It also appears that all the sail capacity eligible for bounty earning WilS 500,876 tons, December, 1889. Of this amount 60 per cent-. was in the foreign trade, and 40 per cent. in the coasting trade. And the total steam capacity was 156,606 tons, all of it reckoned as in the foreign trade. '£he lapsing of these fleets from class would be as follows:

For sail: In four years, all the AH vessels, 36,24.5 tons. In five and one-half ye:as, half the Al vessels, 232,315 tons. Jn eleven and one-half years, other half the Al vessels, 232,315 tons. Of the Vt'Ssels surviving the perils of the sea., the Al, if found worthy, may be

continued, or pass down to Al~ grade; the All may be continued or find place in the lower grades. Vessels meriting these continualions are exceptional in character, and the terms given are short. They may be fairly averaged at one year for the fleet of Alt, and at two plus one, equal to three years, for the fleet of Al vessels. Including losses at sea. the L'\psing from class may be treated as ollows:

Fo1· sail. Tons. In five years, all the Ali-vessels ............................................................... 36,245 In seven years, half the Al vessels ..................................................... ... .. 2-32, 315 In thirteen years, other half Al vessels ..................................................... Z.32, 3U>

Ir the order of time the falling off would be as follows: Tons.

In the first, second. third, fourth, and fifth years .............................. .....• 53, 307 In the sixth and seventh years ............................................................ .. ... 5L038 In each of six years following~ ............................................................... 17,870

For stemn. The lapsing of steamers from class would be as follows:

Tons. In nine and one-fourth yeq.rs, half the tonnage, or ........................ ......... 78, 303 In sixteen years, other half of tonnage ...... ................................... ,.......... . 78, 003

Of the vessels surviving some may be continue<l. For this an average of two yea1·3 may be a.!lowed. Including losses at sea the lapsing from class may be ta.ken as follows:

Tons. I~ each of first ten years ............... , ................... .................................... ...... 12, 724 In each of seven years following........................................... ..................... 4, 89.1

The nmount of building to keep up the different fleets now existing being thus brought to view, it may be stated that 58,307 plus 12,724, equal to 71,031 tons of sail aud steam, need be built tho first year. Last year there was built of sail above 500 tons 21,335 tons; of steam, 17 ,952 tons; total, 3:1,287 tons.

Thus, to enlarge our marine at all we must double the amount of building in recent years. To change gradually from sail to steam tonnage we shall have to treble our building ex,1endi tu res; aud with such increase our tonnage would not be greater in ten years than it is at present, though our shipping then would have threefold efficiency and double the class duration. ·

As the entire tonnage or all kinds, ocean, lake, and river, built last year was 231.134 tons and the proportion qualified to enter the foreign trade wa..<1only17 per cent. of this total, it may be a matter of surprise that there is so little building of the larger vessels. Sloop, barge, and canal-boat building, steam-boat. tug, and fishing boat building burden our statistics with tonmtge, but do not provide yards, shops, and engine-works, shipwrights, engineers, and tools for genuine ship-work, such as must be done to c.onstruct vessels fit for foreign carryinit trade. The greater number of machanics employed in turning out tonnage fo'f'inferior purposes have neither the training nor the tools to build ships of wood or met.a.I.

It is, therefore, apparent that the s econd year of the new law will see but little addition to the tonnage of the first. '.rbere was a smal I apparent gain last year in our s~am ~hipping in the foreign trade, bat, as our investigation shows that o\lr AL sail·-vessels hose only 83 per cent. of remaining class time that they had four years ago, and that our steamer'i are worse off still, having only 75 per cent.. of the class life before them in 1886, it is certain there was no real improvement in the situd.tion. Not only are ships in the foreign trade lapsing fast from class, but the larger craft in the coasting trade, steam as well as sail, are growing older and losing fitness for their work.

So dead is the building for foreilm trade that of the vessels launched and contracted for in Maine in the pa.st five months 93 per cent. are for the protected home service.

Considering all the circumstances of our marine and carefully anticipating the effect of the law, the following table is offered as a solution of the problem, what will it cost annually for the next ten years and for the lifetime of the measure?

Probable increase of marine and bounty payments fo1· ten years to come.

· Years. · ~ Sail Steam

189l ................ ................................................... ~::· w:: 1892 ........................................................ ··········· 325,000 175,000

~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:5 ~:a 1896 ...... ............................................................... 345, 000 460, 000 1897 .. .......... ... .. ... .. . .... . .. • ...... ...... ... ...... . .. . ... .... .. .. 34-0, 000 520, 000 1898 .. .. ..... .. . .. .... . . . ...... .. .. . .. . ........... .... .. . .. . .. . .. . ...... 3:10, 000 560, 000 1899 ..................... ........................... ;.... .... .... ........ 320, 000 575, 000 l!lOO • . • • • • •• •• .. •• •• ... • ....... •• • .... .. . • • • .... ... ... .. .. .. . . .. .. • .. . .. • 300, 000 565, 000

Average annual payments .................................................... ..

Bounty payments.

~.n8,004 3,105,000 3,669,000 4,528,500 5,374,800 6,175;500 6, 786,000 7,167,000 7,284,500 7! 102, 500

5,391,080

The average for each year of the ten is Sl28,460,248. The culmination of payments would occur in 1899. .After 1900 the bounty

would decrease one-tenth each year. By 1910 it would cease. The average annual payments for the last nine years would probably amount to $2,695,540, a.nd for each of the nineleen years of the law's operation the average annual expenditure would be S4,114,245.

COMMERCIAL CONSEQ.UENCES.

Wilh regard to the COJl\lllercial consequence.<1 of t.hus supporting and encouraging our marine in foreign trade it might be fitting to say a few words, or to oiler a reasonable speculation upon their amount. It iR, of course, well u.nderstood that a merchant marine actively employed sets in motion many pnrsuits and creates many callings besides those peculiarly its own. These are so many that a detail would be tedious. I will therefore include only the chief trades and transactions, namely, ship-building, freighting, merchandising, insurance, and banking, in the totals of the estimate which follows:

Minimum. am.aunt of total, business for ten years.

Year. Total business. I

Year. Total business.

1891 .................................... $47, 442, 800 1896............... .............. ...... 8151, 849, 220 1897................................... 167,310,080 1898............... ................... 178, 169,880

1892 ... ................................. 66, 577, 360 1893 .. . . .. . . . .. .... .. .. . .. .. .. . ... ...... 80, 312, 620 1894 .. . . . ... .. . . . ........ .. .... .. . ...... 106, 336, 020 1899................................... 182, C45, 6!0 1895 .. ... ... .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. ... .. .. .. 130, 901, 820 1900... .....• ........ .... .. ... ......... 173, 657, 040

The bounty paid for this business would amount, by the figures, to 4t per cent. only. But, as the law would run nineteen years, and the average of business fort.en years might be expected to continue for the time following, it results that only 21 per cent. per annum would stand for the commission or protection paid for an American foreign commerce and carrying trade for the whole term of the law's existence. · It may therefore be summed up that the bounty would represent a very low

premium on the business transacted; whether great or small, by and through the merchant marine; at once the budget of honest toil, the means of enterprise and wenlth, and the solid base of national rank and power.

Very respectfully yours, WM. W. BA.TES, Commissioner.

Hon. Joii.....- M. FARQUIIAn, Chairman .Committee on Marine and Fishe1·ies,

House of .Representatives. Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, as to the reasonableness of the Unit.ed

Stares doing something for its vessels I read from the report of the Postmaster-General, showing what this country made every year out of its foreign mail service. To me it is utterly inexcusable. It has

·made over $10,000,000 out of this foreign mail service in the last.fifteen years. In the last twelve years it has made over $9, 000, 000 out of the foreign mail service. If yon can show me where it bas made anything out of the mai1 service in any of the States, on any of the rivers, in any of the coastwise-trade ve."'3els, I should be glad to know where it is. The United Stares makes a profit alone in the foreign mail service. I say it is the duty of the United Stares to take that money it makes out of its foreign mail service and do something to put its mails under an American flag, and that no Senator ought to object to.

Now, take another thing. We have collected tonnage taxes since 1863 to the amount of $30,364,000, and so far as that tonnage tai has been collected from American vessels up t.o 1884, when we passed·onr shipping act, the vessels never had received one dollar of benefit from the United States.. When we passed that a<,'t they did, because the United States then assumed the payments which those vessels had been compelled to make for consular fees and almost everything else; but up to that time the United Sta~ bad given nothing in return for that taxation; and yet in every State in the United States up to within the last eight years those ships have been compelled to bear their equal burden of taxation with all other prqperty in the States, while Great Britain taxes not a single ship, not a single line, only puts a bit of an income tax on the net income derived from the line.

During the warwhat protection did our ships get? That is the time when the Government owes protection to its ships ifit ever does. 'fhat is the time when our ship-owners need Government prorectian. They had absolutely none, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of t.ons

... . 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE . 6997 were compelled to go under a foreign flag, under an anonymous sail, in order to keep upon the ocean at all , and those vessels that remained under our flag were compelled to pay an enormous insurance premium to keep there, the United States doing absolutely nothing for them.

Now, why should not the United States in justice do something for its ships? Is it too much to ask that it shall take from its tonnage tax; is it too much to ask th:i.t it shall take from its net profits on the foreign. mail service and pay something to carry the mails under the ~? -

Mr. President, I feel an intense interest in these bills, in both of them. From my situation early in life my attention bas b~n called more than that of most Senators to the subject of ships and shipping. I have labored ever since I have been here, in both Houses, in season, and many Senators will say out of season, in the matter of relief to the merchant marine. A great deal has been accomplished, I admit; and yet, as I said the other day, in the foreign carrying trade we are dead. In my opinion if either one of these bills passes the Senate and becomes a law, the first real step for the resurrection of this dead body will have been accomplished.

There never has been a time in the twenty years I have served here so opportune as this. Capital is seeking everywhere investment, no longer so anxious for the public domain, becoming a little uncertain about mor~ges in the West, looking aroa.ndnow to see where-it shall go. The sentiment of the country has been aroused and the people are looking to see whether something call not be done.

The ship-yards of this country in their capacity for building great ships · have doubled in five years. There is not a ship to-day can be called for that can not be provided by our own ship-j'ards. Their capacity is not what it ought to be. There ought to be beyond any question a great iron-ship yard on the Alabama. River.

Let these bills, or either of them, become a law and that ship-yard will be established there, and iron ships will be bailt there. We have not to-day half the capacity we ou~bt to have for building these great ships, but yet we have double, as I said, what we had five years ago. There is nothing this nation desires to do that it can not do when the necessity is upon us. Nobody dreamed four years ago that you could build ~wo great iron war-ships in San Francisco, and yet they have been built.

Mr. President, I hope that to-morrow we shall get a vote on these bills. I earnestly hope that both bills will be sent to the other House. ·1 believe that one of them will become a law if they are both sent to that body.

Mr. MANDERSON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consid-eration of executive business.

Mr. VEST. Letusadjourn. Mr. MANDERSON. I should like to get in a few reports. Mr. COCKRELL. All right. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska moves

that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consid

eration of executive business. After eight minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 38 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, July 8, 1890, at 12 o'clock m.

NOMINATIONS.

Executive 1w1ninations recejved by the Senate the 7th day of July, 1890. SECRETARY OF LEGATION.

H. N. Allen, of Ohio, to be secretary of the legation of the United States at Corea, vid Charles Chaille Long, resigned.

CONSUL-GENERAL. Adam E. King, of Maryland, to be consul-general of the United

States at Paris, France, vice Jared L. Rathbone, resigned. UNITED STATES CONSULS.

Charles Heath, of Massachusetts, t-0 be consul of the United States at Cptania, vice Vincent Lamantia, recalled:

James J. Peterson, of West Virginia, to be consul of the United State8 at Merida, Mexico, vice Edward H. Thompson! recalled.

CONFIRMATIONS.

E xecutfre no1ninations con.fir-med by the Senate July 1, 1890.

REGISTER OF LAND OFFICE. John H. Burford, of Crawfordsville, Ind., to be register of the land

office at Oklahoma, in the Territory of Oklahoma. POSTMASTERS.

Robert B. Wood, to be postmaster atHampton,in thecounty of Elizabeth City and State of Virginia.

John A. Stroube, to be postmaster at Chamberlain, in the county of Brule and State of South Dakota.

Chauncey P. Smith, to be postmaster at Jamestown, in the county of Stutsman and State of North Dakota.

Lew Coleman, to be postmaster at Deer Lodge City, in the county of Deer Lodge and State of Montana.

John J. Hays, to be postmaster at Osborne, in the county of Osborne and State of Kansas. -

Charles L. Reed, to be postmaster at Longmont, in t.he county of Boulder and State of Colorado.

W. White Jones, to be postmaater at Greensborough, in the county of Hale and State of Alabama. '

Silas N. Harrington, to be postmaster at Marshali, in the county of Lyon and State of Minnesota.

Harvey Barker, to be postmaster at Portsmouth, in the county of Bay and State of Michigan.

James Ord, to be post::naster-at Medfield, in the county of Norfolk and State of Massachusetts.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. MONDAY, July 7, 1890.

The Honse met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. · MILBURN, D . D.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise · to a question 6f personal privilege.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will cause the Journal of Thursday's proceedings to be read before anything else is con8idered.

~fr. ROGERS. I make the point of order that there is no quorum pi:esent.

The SPEAKER, having counted the House, announced the pre3ence of 91 members; less than a quorum.

Mr. McKINLEY. I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll; when the following members

failed to answer t-0 their names: Adams, Clarke, Ala. Hooker, Ray, Alderson, Clunie, Kelley, Reilly, Andrew, Cogswell, Kerr1 Iowa Reyburn, Arnold, Coleman, Ketcna.m, Rockwell, Atkinson, W. Va. Conger, Knapp, Russell, Baker, Cooper, Ohio Lane, Sanford, Banks, Cothran, Lansing, Sawyer, Barnes, Covert, Lawler, Scull, Bartine, Cowles, Lehlbach, Seney, Earwig, Crain, Lester, Va. Sherman. Beckwith, Culbertson, Pa. Lodge, Shively, Belden, Cutcheon, Magner, Simonds, Bergen, Dargan, Mansur, Smyser, Biggs, Darlington, Mason, Spinola., Bingham, De Lano, McAdoo, Springer, Blancha.rd, Dickerson, McCarthy, Stahlnecker, Boatner, Dunphy, McClellan, Stewart, Ga.. Boothman, Edwunds, Mccomas, Stewart, Vt. Boutelle, Elliott, McCord, Stockbridge, Bowden, Ellis, McCormick, Stockdale, Breckinridge,Ark. Ewart, McDuffie, Struble, Brewer, Featherston, Miles, Stump, Brickner, Fitch, Montgomery, Tarsney, Brookshire, Fithian, Moore, N. H. Taylor, Ezra B. Brosius, Flood, Morgan, Taylor, Tenn. Brower, Flower, Morrill, Tillman, Brown, J.B. Forman, Morrow, Tucker, Browne, T . M. Fowler, Morse, Turner, Ga.. Browne, Va. Frank, Mudd, Turner, N. Y. Brunner, Funston, Norton, Van Schaick, Buchanan, N.J. Geissenhainer, Nute, Vaux, Buckalew, Gibson, O'Donnell, Waddill, Bunn, Greenhalge, O'Neill, Mass. Walker, Mo. Bunows, Grosvenor, Osborne, Wallace, l't!a.ss. Butterworth, Grout, Owen, Ind. Wallace, N. Y. Caldwell, Hansbrough, Payne, Washington,

. Campbell, Hare, Paynter, Watson, Candler, Mass. Harmer, Penington, Wheeler, Mieh. Carlton, Hatch, Perry, Whiting, Carter, Hayes, Phelan, Wnitthorne, Oas well, Haynes, Pickler, Wickham, Catchings, Henderson, Ill. Price, Wike, Cheatham, Henderson, N. O. - Pugsley, Wiley, Chipman, Hermann, Quackenbush, WiUcor, Clancy, Hill, Raines, Wilson, Mo. Clark, Wis. Holman, Randall. Yardley.

During t~e call of the roll the following members appeared at the Clerk's desk and their names W6re recorded under the rule:

Mr. ADAMS, Mr. ATKINSON of West Virginia, Mr. BOATNER, Mr. BREOKINRIDGEof Arkansas, Mr. BRICK.NEB, Mr. BROWNE of Virginia, Mr. BROOKSHIRE, Mr. BRUNNER, Mr. BuoHANAN of New Jersey, Mr. BURROWS, Mr. CATCHINGS, Mr. CARTER, Mr. COGSWELL, Mr. ELLIOTT, Mr. FEATHERSTON, Mr. FITHIAN, Mr. FORMAN, Mr. HENDERSON of Illinois, Mr. HERMANN, Mr. HOLMAN, Mr. KELLEY, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. McCORD, Mr. MCMILLIN, Mr. MUDD, Mr. RAY, Mr. STOCKDALE, Mr. TARSNEY, and Mr. w ASHINGTON.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk informs the Chair that 170 members, a quorum, are present.

Mr. McKINLEY. I move to dispense with all further proceedings under the call.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday last was read and ap-

proved. - '

.-

. ,

6998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 7,

PERSON AL EXPLA.N ATION.

Mr. BL.A.ND. Mr. Speaker, I desire to have read the following from the Post, of this city, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read a.s follows: NO AGREEMENT ON THE SILVER BILL.

The Republican members of the conference committee on the silver bill were in &ession yesterday H wa.s the intention to hold a. reg-ula.r conference, but Representative BLAND, of the House conferees, and Sena.tor HARRIS, of the Senate conferees, were both absent. The principal topic discussed, it is understood, was in regard to the amount of silver to be purchased monthly-whether iii shall be 4,500,0UO ounces or $4,500,UOO worth.

The proposi~ioo to strike out the bullion·redemption feature was 11.lso a subject of some discussion. No final decision on either point was arrived at when the meeting adjourned. It is expected that the conferees will meet· early next week.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, in order that I may not be put in a false light, as not having attended to my duties in not being present at that conference committee meeting, I desire to have the following read.

The Clerk read as follows: ROOM OF COMMITTEE ON COINAGE, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, • Washington, D. U., July 3, 1890.

DEAR MR. BLAND: I saw Sena.tor SHERMAN after our adjournment and we concluded not to have a. meeting of the conference on Saturday. Will notify you in time of nex.t meeting. · Respectfully,

E. H. OONGER.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, I desire to state that at our meeting on Thursday last it was understood that the conference committee was t;o meet again at 11 o'clock last Saturday, but on Friday evening I received that note from the chairman of the Committee on Coinage, Weights,

- and Measure.a [Mr. CONGER]. notifying me that the meeting would not be held, and hem·e my absence. I do not understand why the statement should have been published that I was not present, I having been notified that there would be no meeting. I do not see present this morning the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CoNGER], chairman of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, who sent me that note. I have been informed, however, that it was an effort on the part of the Republican conferees to reach some conclusion at the meeting which

' was held. H the committee of conference is to degenerate into a Republican caucus, as a matter of course I will not be present; but I am always present when notified that there will be a. meetii:Jg at which an effort will be made to come to some reasonable legislation upon this subject. I do not desire, therefore, to he advertised as being absent and not attending to my duties, the fact being that I was notified that my presence was not desired.

SETTLERS ON OMAHA INDIAN LANDS.

Mr. DORSEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer the resolution which I send to the desk, and ask for its consideration by the House.

The Clerk read as follows: Resolved bu the Home of RepresentatitJu (the Senate concurring), That the Presid~nt be reques ed to return to the House of Representatives the bill (H. &. 5974) extending the time of payment ofpurcha.!'ers of land to the Omaha. tribe of Indians in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROGERS. I demand the regular order. Mr. DORSEY. This is the regular order. This is the day for sus

pension of the rules. I move that the rules be suspended and that this resolution be placed on its passage.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. ?i!r. Speaker, I rise to a question of order. The question is whether it is within the power of the House or of Congress, when a bill has passed both Houses, when a motion has been made to reconsider the vote by which it was passed, and that motion laid on the table, to recall such a bill from the President. Itnas heretofore been a mere matter of courtesy, and the Constitution gives the House no power to recall a bill after it has passed both Houses and gone to the President. The President has ten days in which to sign it and return it or allow it to become a law without his signature; but there iH no provision under our rules giving to the two Houses the power to rt>ca.11 it.

There are no joint rules between the House and the Senate, and we oould not have considered thia bill in the House after the bill had been pa!?sed and a motion to reconsider been made and laid upon the table. So that the matter, therefore, is out oftbe power of the House; and I respectfully submit that it is out of order, according to our rules, in this indirect way, to recon ider the action of the House in pa-ssing the bill, and that it is beyond the constitutional power of Congrees to recall a bill frmn the Pre ident. Whatever of precedent has been made has been simply becan e the question has not been raised-

The SPEAKER. The Chair will not undertake to pass upon t constitutional question, but that action bas been taken by Congress from time immemorial and bow the House shall act upon it is for the House to determine.

Mr. DORSEY. This is simply to make a correction, and I hope the gentleman from Kentucky will withdraw his objection.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. It is a much graver question inrea1ity than that., becau e it affec1:8 the relations of the Congress to the President. [t is a question that may go to the validity of an act of Congress, for if it be correct that Congress has not this power and the ten days expire while we are recalling a. bill, the act becomes valid

without the approval of the President. So that it goes to the very-gist of the power of Congress in such matters and the relation of Congress to the President as well as the validity of the act improperly and ille- . gally called back.

Mr. DORSEY. It has been the custom of the House to take such action as this heretofore. It was done in the la.st Congress, and it has been done in the present Congress.

Mr. ROGEHS. Mr. SpeaKer, I make the additional point of order that heret;ofore the practice of the House in questions of this kind has been uniformly by unanimous consent. There has been no precedent for a resolution of thi<J kind to recall a bill, and it is subject to this point of order.

Mr. DORSEY. I ask my friend to make no objection, and let us have this resolution passed by unanimous consent. It is simply to correct an error.

Mr. BYNUM. I do not understand that it is simply to correct an error, but to remove an objection of the President, and if that objection be not removed possibly he would veto the bill.

l\fr. DORSEY. Oh, no. I do not understand that the President would veto the bill. It is simply a bill which allows the State of Nebraska. t-0 tax this Ja.nd before the patent is issued by the Government. That is all there is in it, and it is in the interest of about six hundred settlers on this land. Their time expired on the 1st of July without their having paid up. The bill is satisfactory to the Indians. The Government holds the funds simply as the trustee of the Indians. The IniliaIJS ask that it be passed, and so do the settlers. It has passed both branches of Congress. It was reported unanimously without objection in either House, and is a very simple matter in the interest of six hundred honest, hard-working settlers on the public domain.

Mr. ROGERS. l\Ir. Speaker, we have been doing business in a very loo e, irregular way, and I think it is time that it should cease; and I decline to withdraw the point of order.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, is this a resolution asking the President to return a bill that has been sent to him? The point of order, as I understand it, is that it is not in order to introduce a resolution and consider the same.

The SPEAKER. That is the point of order. Mr. CANNON. Just a single word. From time immemorial, as I

understand, the practice has been uniform and unbroken to introduce these resolutions between the two branches of the Congress, and also touching the co-ordinate branch of Congress, the President; and from necessity, it seems to me, that that having been the practice in the absence ol rules, it is a question of the highest privilege, for the purpose of bringing the co-ordinate branches of the Government together and for the purpose of correcting a mistake.

l\fr. McMILLIN. Mr. Speaker, as the point of order is made, it is of the utmost importance that we shouid adopt the right practice. I know that two or three times this session such resolutions have passed, but it is my memory that it was done by unanimous consent; certainly there was never a claim that it was a privileged matter. Now, it is well for us, as the point of order is made, to see what it would lead to ifit is held to be the right of any member of this House to introduce a resolntion calling back a proposition of this kind from the President.

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman allow me a question? l\Ir. Mcl\IILLIN. With pleasure. . l\1r. CANNON. I 1:lnderstand that this is a concurrent resolution, in.

vol ving the action of the two co-ordinate branches of the Legislature, addressed to the third co-ordinate branch, the President.

The SPEAKER. This is a propo ition to suspend the rules. Mr. MCMILLIN. To suspend the rules and pass the resolution? The SPEAKER. Yef4. Mr. McMILLIR· I ·was under the impression that it was a propo

sition similar to several that have come up here lately. Then the question is simply as to the rights of the President and of the two branches of Congress after the bill has gone to him.

Mr. DORSEY. All three would have to concur to secure the desired action.

Mr. MCMILLIN. But if the President declines w send back the bill! what remedy have you?

Mr. DORSEY. None whatever. Mr. McMILLIN. You have no remedy against the President in the

event of his refusing; and if he may send it back or not, as he pleases, we have no right to demand it of him.

Mr. DORSEY. This is a reque t that the President return the bill. Mr. MCMILLIN. But suppose he declines, then we have been en

gaged in mere child's play, it seems to me. Now there isa plain remedy in this case. The Constitution lays down that remedy. If there are reasons why the bill should not become a law, the Pre ident can return it to the Honse in which it originated with bis objections, and thereupon the House can remedy the difficulty, if there is one, in the way that is laid down in the Constitution. I think the course that has been pursued duriog the whole history of the Government until this time is the better course in such cases. It may lead to some hardship in this particular case.

Hardships arise trom all general rnles, but it is better not to try a new experiment, not to set a new example in legislation, not to enter

11 . . . .. . ,. ,,

. I

1890. / . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 6999 upon new and untried grounds, but to follow the established constitutional methods. The Constitution did not contemplate this rem~dy,

• and hence made no provision for it. Mr. CANNON. .The House and Senate almost daily pass re~olutions,

not concurrent, requesting ea.ch other to return bills. That is the re· quest of one co-ordinate branch of the legislative power to the other to return a bill.

Mr. Mc MILLIN. · But that is one part of the legislative branch of the Government making a request of another pa.rt of the legislative branch concerning a matter that the legislative hotly has yet ex.elusive control over.

Mr. CANNON. If the gentleman will allow me to complete my statement, I was going to say this: I understand that the Senate or the House, either one, might refuse to return a bill when such a resolution came from the other body.

Mr. Mc.MILLIN. That is true. Mr. CANNON. But in fact they do not, parliamentary practice

being the other way. Now, as I understand it, the President is nothing more nor less than a third branch of Congress, and the other two co:..ordinate branches may pass a concurrent resolution requesting him to return a bill.

Mr. Mcl\IILLIN. But my friend makes the error of treating the House and the Senate as two co-ordinate branches, whereas they are jointly one branch of the Government, and only one.

Mr. CANNON. I understand that they are two. The House is one, the Senate is another, and the President is the third.

Mr. McMILLIN. Then we have four co-ordinate branches of the Government instead of three. I have heen accustomed to think that the Honse and the Senate constituted one branch, the judiciary one, and the executive the third.

Mr. CANNON. My friend is speaking of the judicial, the executive, and the legislative departments of the Government; I am speaking only of the ley:islative. Of the legislative there are three co-ordinate branches, the House being one, the Se.o.ate another, and the President another. Those three, concurring, legislate.

Mr. McMILLIN. I would like the gentleman from Illinois to point out anything in the Constitution which, either directly or indirectly, by express terms or by implication, proviaes for-this met.hod of getting rid of a bill that has gone to the President. - l\Ir. CANNON. From the foundation of the Government there has been this pra<·tice to a greater or less extent.

Mr. McMILLIN. But I am asking where the Constitution provides . for it.

Mr. CANNON. Oh, it is a mere parliamentary practice. Mr. McMILLIN. It seems to me, .Mr. Speaker, that the safer

course is to follow the beaten path, to let the President take his course with this b\11, and then, if there is anything wrong~ let us remedy it during the summer that we are likely to spend here.

Mr. DING LEY. Is not the gentleman from Tennessee aware, M a matter of fact, that from the foundation of the Government this practice has prevailed, and that more than a dozen times in the last Congress resolutions similar to this were sent to the President.requesting the return of bills?

Mr. McMILLIN. I do not remember a single instance in which it has been don_e exoept by the unanimous consent of the two bodies.

Mr. DJNGLEY. But unanimous consent is nothing but a suspension of the rules, and how does that distinction change the principle?

Mr. Mc MILLIN. The gentleman knows that we can do very much by unanimous consent that can not be done 9therwise.

Mr. DORt;EY. Yes; and if the gentleman Jrom Tenne.ssee does not object, we will do this by unanimous consent.

Mr. DING LEY. The gentleman admits that this bus been done by unanimous consent, but it could not have been done even in that way if it was unconstitutional. It is certainly constitutional and in accordance with a practice which bas prevailed from the foundation of the Government.

Mr. BLAND. Is this a concurrent resolution, to be passed by the Senate as well as the House?

Mr. DORSEY. It is. Mr. KILGORE. What is the matter with this bill? How did the

mistake occur ? - Mr. DORSEY. The bill provides for faxing tho land; and the Attorney-General has raised the question that the title of the Government to its land may be affected by allowing it to be sold for taxes.

Mr. CRISP. I presume the object is to give time for more deliberate consideration. o

Mr. HERBERT. Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of the merits of this question. The reason why the bill ought to be returned has not been stated--

Mr. DORSEY. I did sfo.te it. Mr. HERBERT. Or if stated I did not hear it. But inasmuch us

the question bas been raised, it is, as the gentleman from Tennessee _(Mr. l\lcMILLlN] bas said, a matter of very serious concern that it be correctly decided.

Now, what will be the effect if this resolution be carried upon a motion to ~uspend the rulf;lS? It will be a reconsidera~on of a bill which

the House has once already during this session considered and passed. The rule, as I understand it, according t;o Jefferson's Manual, is that when Parliament has once during a session considered any question it can not at the same session be reconsider~d excevt in a mode pro· vided by the rules.

Now, I think that ought to be and probably is the rule here. The rules of this House point out a certain manner in which the judgment of the House may be reconsidered, namely, by a motion entered at the proper time and by the proper person. Has this House the right to re-· consider a question it has once passed upon at the same session, except in the particular mode pointed out by the rules? Will not this be a reconsideration? The Hou.c~e having already passed the bill, a motion now to suspend the rules anq bring the bill back from the President can be, it seems to me, nothing else than a reconsideration by this House of its judgment. If such a precedent as this is established, what will prevent a reconsideration at any time of any question passed upon by Congress, before the President shall have acted upon it? If a question is brought up here which is closely contested and the vote be in favor of the bill and the bill be sent to the Senate, and if by subsequent changes in the House, by the coming in of Jtew members or by the coming back of gentlemen who have been absent, the m~jority should happen to be the other way, would it not always be competent (ifthisprecedent beset) forthe majority, entertainingadifterentjudgment from that which prevailed when the bill was passe:l, to reconsider the bill by bringing . the question up on a resolution asking the President to rnturn the bill? It seems to me that this will be the effect of the ruling, if the Chair sho-uld now overrule this point of order and say that it is competent for the House to reconsider in this manner.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not undertake to say what it is competent for the House to do. The proposition betore the House is to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent resolution asking the Presi- -dent to return a bill. Such action ~as been taken on the part of both Houses of C<>ngress so many times that it would be very singular if any one s.hould undertake now to deny their right in this regard.

As for the constitutional considerations which are involved, that is a matter for the House to settle, and not for the Speaker. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. OUTHWAITE . . I ask for a second on the motion to suspend the rules.

The SPEAKER. The Chalr appoints as telle~s the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. DORSEY] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE].

.Mr. PAYSON. I ask nDl"nimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.

Mr. ROGERS. I obiect. The tellers proceeded to count the House upon the question of sec

onding the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. DOI{SEY (after the count bad proceeded for some time). Mr.

Speaker, it appears there is no quorum present; and there is a demand for a quorum. I therefore witbdraw the resolution, ·

ORDER OF BFSINESS. ·

Mr. PAYSON. I rise t-0 make a privileged report from the Committee on Public Lands. I desire to report back with a substitute the Senate bill which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Illinois kindly withdraw bis proposition until several messages from the President of the United States are laid belor'°' the Rouse?

Mr. PAYSON. Certainly. POSTAL .AND CABLE COMMUNICATION.

The SPEAKER laid before the House tJ;ie following message ot the President of the United States; which was read, and, with the accompanying papers, reforred to the Committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads, and ordered to be printed: To the Senate and House of Representatip8il:

I transmit herewith a lelter from the Secretary of State, inclos1og the recommendations of the International American Conference for the establishment of improved facil ities for postal and cable communication between the United States and the several conn tries of Central and South America. '. .

I can not too strqngly urge upon Congress the necessity of giving this subject immediate and fav01·able cpnsideration, and of makingadequat-e appropriations to carry the recommenr'lations into etft>ct; and in 'this conuection I beg leave to mtll attention to wuat wassai<i on this subject in my annual message. The delegates of the seventeen neighboring republic'!, which have so recently been ailsembled in Washington at the invitat.ion oi this Government, have expressed their wish and purpose to co-operate with the United States in "the adoption of measures to improve the means of communication between the severs.I republics of America. They recognize the neces~ity of frequent, reg-ular, and rapid steam-ship service, both for the purpose of maintaining friendly int.ercourse and fort.he convenience of commerce, and realize that without such facilities it is useless to attempt to extend the tni.de between their ports and ours.

BENJ. HARRISON. EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 2, 1890.

PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS, .ARIZONA .AND NEW MEXICO.

'.rhe SPEAKER also laid before the House the following m.essage from the President of the United States; which was read, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims, afld ordered to be printed: To the Senate attd House of Representatir.Jes1 •

In my annual message I callt:d all~ntion to th~ urgent need of legislation for . I

.,

7000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. JULY 7, .

the adjustment of the claims under Mexican grants to lands in Arizona. and New Mexico.

I now submit a correspondence which has passed between the Department of Stato and the Mexican Government concerning the rights of certain Mexican citizens to have their claims t-0 )ands ceded to the United States by the treaty ad;usted and-confirmed. I also submit a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers, showing the number and extent of these claims and their present condition. The United States owes a duty to l\Iex:ico to confirm to hP,r citizens those valid grants that were saved by the treaty, and the long delay which has attended the discharge of this duty has given just cause for complaint.

The entire community where these large claims exist, and, indeed, all of our peorle, are interested in an early aud final settlement of ttiem. No greater incubus can rest upon the energies of o. people or the development of a new country than that resulting from unsettled land titles. The necessity for legislation is so evident and so urgent that I venture to express the hope that i·elief will be given at the present session of Congress. BENJ. HARRISON. /

EXECU'l'IVE MANSION, July I, 1890.

IOWA INDIANS, INDIAN TERRITORY. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the following message

from the President of the United States; wliich was read, and, with the aecompanying pap<'J'S, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordere.d to be printed: To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, as required by section U of the act of March 2, 1889, an agreement concluded on the 20th day of l'liay last between the commissioners on behalf of the Uriited States, commonly known as the Cherokee Commission, and the Iowa Indians residing in the Iudia.n Territory. A letter of the Secretary of the Interior, which is accompanied by communications from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Assistant Attorney-General, is also submitted. These papers present a full and clear statement of the matters of fact and questions of law which Congress will need to consideriu passing upon tbe guestion of t,he ratification of the agreement, which is submitted for its consideration and such action as may be deemed proper.

BENJ. HARRISON. ExEct:TIVE MANSION, July 2, 1800.

CELEBRATION FOURTH CENTENNIAL OF DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the followin~ communi

cation from the President of the United States; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Select Committee on the World's Fair, and ordered to be printed: To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith for your information a letter from the Secretary of State inclosing a copy of the resolution passed by the International American Conference with reference to the fourth centennial of the discovery of America..

BENJ. HARRISON. EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 2, 1890.

SAC .A.ND FOX IKDIA.i.~S.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the fo1lowing message from the Presidenb of the United States; which was read1 and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on IndianAffairsi and ordered to be printed: To the Senate and House of Representatives:

In compliance with the provisions of section 14 of the act of March 2, 1889, I transmit herewith tor the consideration of Congress an a.,<>Teement concluded between the commissioners appointed -under that section on behalf of the United States, commonly known a.s the Cherokee Commission, and the Sac and Fox Nations of Indians in the Indian Territory, on the 12th day of June last. The Sac a.nd Fox Nations have a national council, and the negotiation was conducted with that body, which undoubtedly had authority to contract on behalf of the tribe for the sale of these lllnds. ·

The letter of the Secretary of the Interior and the accompanying papers, which are submitted herewith, furnish all the information necessary for the consideration of the questions to be determined by Congress. The only serious question presented is as to that article of the agreement which limits the dis· tribution of the funds to be paid by the Unit.ed -States under it to the Sac and Fox Nations now in the Indian Territory. I very gravely doubt whether the remnant or band ofthi!! tribe now living in Iowa. has any interest in these lands in the Indian Territory. The resen-ation there was apparently given in consideration of improvements upon the l~nds of the tribe in Kansas. The band now resident in Iowa, upon lands purchased in their own name, as I am advisE>d, left the Kansas reservation many years before the date of this treaty, and, it would seem, could have had no equitable interest in the improvements on the Kansas lands, which must have been the result of the labors of that portion of the tribe living upon them.

The right of the low" band to a participation of the proceeds of the sale of the Kansas reservation was exclusively reserved in the treaty; out it seems to me upon n. somewhat hasty examination of the treaty that the reservation in the Indian Territory was intended only for the benefit of those who should go there to reside. The Secretary of the Interior has expressed a. somewhat different view of the effect of this treaty, but if the facts are, as I understand, that the Iowa. band did not contribute to the improvements, which were the consideration for the reservation. and did not accept the invitation to settle upon the reservation lands in the Indian Territory, I do not well see how they have either an equitable or a. legal claim to participate in the proceeds of the sale of those lands.

The whole matter is submitted for the consideration of Congress. BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 2, 1890.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. The SPEAKER Ia.id \>.?fore the House the following requests for leave

of absence: Mr. PERRY, for two weeks. Mr. MAsoN, indefinitely, on account of sickness. Mr. BREWER, for ten days. Mr. BARNES, indefinitely. Mr. GEISSENHAINER, indefinitely. Mr. SHIVELY, for two weeks. Mr. PENINGTON, for two days. Mr. WATSON) for two wee~.

Mr. LANSING, indefinitely. Mr. W AI,LACE, of Massachusetts, indefinitely._ Mr. WILSoY, of Missouri, indefinitely. Mr. WHITING, indefinitely. Mr. LESTER, of Virgina, for one.week. · Mr. CAMPBELL, for two days. Mr •. WILLCOX, for two weeks. Mr. CHIJ>MA.N, indefinitely. Mr. TUR:NER, of Georgia, for two weeks. Mr. SANFORD, for this day. :M:r. ANDREW, indefinitely. Mr. MANSUR, indefinitely. Mr. DUNNELL. Mr. Speaker, if these leaves are granted will it

not leave the House without a quorum? The SPEAKER. That is for the House to decide, and not for the

Chair. Mr. DUNNELL. We are very near the brink now; and the time

has about come when objection should be made to the departure of any more members, excepting in cases of sickness.

Mr. PETERS. Let me remind the gentleman that the House can at any time reca.11 these leaves of absence.

Mr. DUNNELL. I understand that; but the leaves indicate a general stampede, and if we are to have that we ought to know it.

The SPEAKER. The question is for the House to determine. Is there o"Qjection to the leaves of absence requested?

There was no objection. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. PLATT, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 9603) making appropriations for the diplomatic and consular service.of the United States for the :fiscal year ending June 30, 1891.

The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the renort of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the "two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill ( H. R. 10716) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891.

The message also announced that the Senate insisted upon its amendments to the bill (H. R 4570) to authorize the Leavenworth and Platte County Bridge Company to substitute a pivot draw-bridge over the Missouri River in place of the ponton bridge, disagreed to by the House; agreed to the conf~rence asked by the House, and had appointed Mr. VEST, Mr. CULLOM, and Mr. DOLPH as conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which concurrence was requested: ·

A bill (S. 3788) to amend the laws relative to shipping commi53ioners; and

A bill (S. 3831) to prnvide for the delivery of land patents to their rightlul owners, and for other purposes.

FOB:!fEITURE OF RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. Mr. PAYSON. I ask for the present consideration of the bill which

I send to the Clerk's desk. The Clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2781) to forfeit certain lands heretofore granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads, and for other purposes.

· Be it enacted, etc., That there is hereby forfeited to the United :States, and the Uuited States hereby resumes the title thereto, a.11 lands heretofore granted to any St.ate or to any corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad opposite to and conterminous with the portion of any such railroad not now completed and in operation, for the construction or benefit of which lands have heretofore been granted; and all such lands are declared to be a part of the public domain: Provided, That this act shall not be construed as forfeitinli!: the right of way or depot grounds of any railroadco::npany heretoforegranted,ora.s forfeitinga.ny lands heretofore earned by the construction of any portion of a. railroad under any net of Congress making a. grant of public lands.

SEC. 2. That in all cases where persons are in possesslon of any of the lands affected by any such grant ancl hereby resumed by and restored to the United States, under deed, written contract with, or license from, the State or corporation to which such grant was made, or its assignees, executed prior to January I, I , they shall be entitled to purchase the same from the United Slates, in quantities not exceeding 320 acres to any one such person, at the rate of $1.25 per acre, at any time within two years from the passageofthisact.and on making said payment to receive patents therefor: Provided, That in all cases where parties, persons, or corporations, with the permission of such State or corporation, or its assignees, are in the possession of and have made improvements upon any of the lands hereby resumed and restored, and are not entitled to enter the same under the provisions of this act, such parties, per!'ons, or corporations shall have six months in which to remove any growing crop, and within which time they shall also be entitled to remove all buildings and other movable improvements from said lands: Pr(}vided further, That tbe provisions of this section shall not apply to ::i.ny lands situate in the State of Iowa, on which any person in good faith bas made or asserted the right to make a pre-emption or homestead settlement: .And providedfurthe1·, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed as limiting the rights granted to purchasers or settlers by "An act to provide for the adjustment of land grants made by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads and for the forfeiture of unearned lands, and for other purposes," approved March 3. 1887, or as repealing, altering, or amending said aet, nor as i!l any manner affecting any cause of action existing in favor of any purchaser against his grantor for breach of any covenanL'! of title.

SEC. 3. Thatifitshallbe tound that any lands heretofore granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and so resumed by the United States and restored to the public domain lie north of the line known as the "Harrison line,"

.....

... ,. . ' I

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7001 being a. line drawn from W a.Hula, Wash., easterly to !he SOll;theast coT.ner of the northeast one-fourth of the southeast quarter of section Zl, lD township 7 _uort?, of range ~east of the Willamette meridian, all persons who had acqm~ed ID

· good faith the title of the Northern Paci.fie ~ilroad Oomp~ny to 1my_portion of said la.nds prior to July 1, 1885, or who at said da.t~ "'.ere m possession of ar~y portion of said lands or bad improved the sa~e, cla.1m11:ig the sa111;e un~er written contract with said company, executed in good faith, or their heirs ~r assigns, as the case may be, shall be entitled to purchas~ the l~nd so acqu1r.ed, possessed, or improved, from the United State~. at any time pr10r to the expiration of one year after it shall be finally determined that such lands a.re restored to the public domain by the provisions of this act, at the rate of S2.50 per acre, and to receive patents therefor upon proof before the proper land office of the fact of such acquisition, pos.c;ession, or improvemen~, and payment tl~ere~or, withoutlimitationas to quantity: Provided, That.the nghts of wa.ya.nd riparian ri.,.hts heretofore attempted to be conveyed to the city of Portland, in the State of Oregon by the Northern Paci.fie Railroad Company and the Central Trust Company:of New York, by dE'.ed of conveyani:e da~d Aug:ust 8, 1886, and wh~ch a.re described as follows: A strip of land50feetm width, bemg25feeton each side of the center line of a water-pipe line, as the same issta~~dout and located, or as it shall be hereafter finally located according to the prov1s1onsofan ac_t of th~ L_egislativeAssembly of the Stale of Oregon, approved November 25, l!s85, providmg for the means lo supply the city of Portland with an. abunda~ce of good, pure and wholesome water over and across the followrng aescr!bed t!-acts of land; Sections 19 and 31, in township 1 south, of ra.i;ige 6 east; se<;t1ons 25. 31_, 33, and 35 in township 1 south, of range 5 ea.st; sect.ions 3 and 5, m townsh_1p 2 south, 'of range 5 east; section I in township 2 south, of ra~ge 4 east; se?ti.ons 23, 25, and 35, m township 1 south, of range 4 east of the Willamette merid1a~, in the State of Oregon, forfeited by this act are hereby con.firi;ned unto the s~1d . city of Portland, in the State of Oregon, its s~1ccessor.sand assigns forever, with the right to enter on the hereinbefore described strip of .land, o'!er a:n~ acro~s the a.hove described sections for the purpose of constructing, mamtaIDmg, and repairing a water-ptpe line as aforesaid.

SEO. 4. That section 5 of an act entitle.d ''..An net for a gr~nt of lan~s to t~e State of Iowa in alternate sections to aid m the construction of a railroad rn said State," approved May 17, 1864, ~nd section 7 of an act E'.nti~led ."An act extending the time for the completion of certain land-grant ra1h:oa.ds rn the ~tates of Minnesota. and Iowa, and for other purp~ses," _apµr?'!ed March 3, 1865, and also section 5 of an act entitled "An act i;nakmg a_n ~d1t1onal grant~f lands ~o the St.ate of Minnesota in alternate sections, to aid m. the c<;mstruct1on of railroads in said State," approved July 4, 1866, so far as s.atd sections are a.pphca.ble to lands embraced within the indemnity limits of said-grants, be, and the same are hereby repealed; and so much of the provisions of section 4 of an act a p-

roved Ju~e 2, 1864,and entitled "Ana.ct .to amenq·an act. entitled :A'!1act makhig a grant of lands to the State of Iowa in alternate sections, to aid 1n the construction of certain railroads in said State,'" approved May 15, 1856, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, so far as they re.qu~re the S_ecretary of t_he Interior to reserve any lands but the odd sections w1tbm the primary of 6 miles ~anted limits of the roads mentioned in said act of June 2, 1864, or the act to which the

sa.Sx~~~*::~~~f!.;ds declared forfeited to the United States by this ac~ shall by reason of such forfeiture inure to the benefit of any State or c~rporation. to which lands may have been granted by Congress, except as_ herem ot~e.rw1se provided; nor shall this act be construed to ~nlarge the area of land or1gm~lly covered by any such grant, or to confer any right upon any State, corporat.!on, or person to lu.nds which were excepted from such grant. Nor i:;~a.11 the m01ety of the lands granted to any railroad company on account of.a mau~ a11:d a branch line appertaining to uncompleted road, and hereby forfeited, w1thm the conflicting limits o! the grants for such main and branch lines, when but one of such Jines has been completed, inure, by virtue of the forfeiture hereby de-clared to the benefit of the completed line. .

SEC. '6. That a.II persons who may have settled upon f!nd are now in possession of any of the lands hereby forfeited, and who may d~sir~ to enter the same _under the homestead law,shall be allowed? when ma.kmg final proof, for the time they have already resided upon a.nu cultivated the same. .

SEC. 7. Tb!l.t the provisions of this act shall not extend to a~y ra~lr?ad in Alabama. which is completed through its entire length, 9:,S prescribed ID its chart~r, within one year a.ft.er the date of the approval of th1s act. And as to any railroad in said State not so completed this act shall take effect and operate from the date of its approval.

SEC. 8. That in u.11 cases where lands included in a gra~t of land ~ the State of Mississippi, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railr~ad from Brandon to the Gulf of Mexico, commonly known as the G1;Jlfand Shi(> Island Railroad, have heretofore been sold by the officers of the Umted States I.or cash, or with the allowance or approval of such officers ha.~e been e~ter~d m good faith under the pre-emption or homestead laws, the right and tt~le of the persons holding or claiming any such lands under such ~les or entr1e~ are hereby confirmed. And on condition that the Gulf and Ship Island Ra.1lro.ad Co~-

anv within sixty days from the passage of this act shall, by resolution of its ~oa;d of directors, duly accept the provisions of tfie same and file '!ith the Secretary of the Interior a. valid relinquishment of all said company's mterest, right title and claim in and to all such lands as ha'l"e been sold or entered as a.fore~a.id then the forfeiture declared in the first- section ?f this act shall not apply to ;,r in any wise affect so much and such parts of said grant of lands to the State of Mississippi as lie south of a line drawn east and wel:tt through the point where the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad may cro s the New Orleans an_d Nottbeastern Railroad in said State, until one year after the passage of this act. . "d. th

SEC. 9. That where any such lands granted t? the_Stateof Alabamatoa1 m. e construction ofa. railroad from Montgomery in said State to the boundary hne between Florida and Alabama have been sold and conveyed as the property of any railroad company for Slate and county taxes thereon, and the grant of such company has been or shall be hereafter forfeited, the purchaser tber~of for such taxes shall have the prior right to purchase such land:i from .the Um~d St~tes at $2.50 per acre, and patents for such land shall tb~reupon issue, whrnh right. shall continue for one year from the approval ofth_is act and no longer; or for one year from tleblaration of the forfeiture; if said declaration shall be su.bsequent to the approval of this a.ct: Provided, That said lands ~ere not pre.vious to· or at the time of the taking effect of this act in the possession of or subJect to the right of any actual settler.

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I make the point of order that this bill should be considered in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. PAYSON. Before we reach that I will state that the House Committee on Public Lands recommend a substitute for the bill, striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting a substitute, ~hich ha.s not been read by the Clerk. I desire that the Clerk may read the snbstitute.

The 8.PEAKER. Has the gentleman from Illinois "[Mr. PAYSON] anything to say in reply to the point of ord~r made by the gentleman f.rom Missouri?

Mt. P .A YSON. AB soon as the bill has been read I will reply to that.

The SPEAKER. The substitute will be read. The Clerk read as follows:

That there fa hereby forfeited to the United States, and the United States hereby resumes the title thereto, all lands heretofore granted to any State or t~ any corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad op.posite to and conterminous with the portion of any such railroad not now completed, for the construction or benefit of which lands have heretofore been granted; and all such lands are declared to be a part of the public domain: Provided, That this act shi~.ll not be construed as forfeiting the right of way or depot grounds of any railroad company heretofore granted, or lands Included in any city, town, or village site.

SEC. 2. That all persons who, at the date of the pass~e of this act, are act~al settlers in good faith on any of the lands hereby forfeited and are other:wi~e qualified, on mnking due claim on said lands under the homestead law w1th1n six months after the passage of this act, shall be entitled to a. preferE'.nce right to enter the same under the provisions of the homestead Jaw and this act, and shall be regarded as such actual settlers from the date of actual settlement or occupation ; and any pe1·son who has not. heret-0fore bad the benefit of the ho~estea.d or pre-emption law, or who has failed from any cause to perfect the title to a tract of land heretofore entered by him under either of said laws, may make a second homestead entry under the provisions of this act. The Secretary of the Interior wiU make such rules as will secure to such actual settlers these rights.

SEc. 3. That in all cases where persons are in possession of any of the 18.;1lds affected by any such grant and hereby resumed by and resl!bred to the Umted States under deed, written coutract with, or license from, the State or col'pora.. tion t~ which such grant was ma.de, or its assignees, executed prior to,Janua~ 1, 1888, they shall be entitled t-0 purchase the same from the United States, m quantities notexceeding320acres to any one such person •. at the rateof$1.25per acre, at any time within two yea.rs from the pa.83age of this a?t, and on makrng said payment -to re !e.ive patents therefor: Provided, That m all cases where parties, persons, or corporations, with the permission of such St~te or corporation, or its assignees. IJ,re in the possession of and have made 1mprov~ments upon any of the lands hereby resumed and restored, and are not entitled to enter the same under the provisions ef this act, such parties, p~rsons, or cor· porations shall have six months in which to remove any gr?-w:mg crop, and within which time they shall also be entitled t? remove a.II buildings and_o~her movable improvements from said lands: Proi,"l.dedfurtMr, That the prov1s1<?ns of this section shall not apply to any lands situate in the State of Iowa on wll~ch any person in good faith bas made or asserted the right to make a pre-emption or homestead ·settlement: And pr01Jided further, That u u.11ing in this act contained shall be construed as limiting the rights granted t-0 purchasers or settlers

,-by "An act to provide for the adjustment of land gran~ made by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads and for the forfeiture of unearned lands, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1~, or as repealii::Jg,_alterii;ig? or amending said act, nor as in any manneraffectmg any cause of act10n ex1stmg in favor of any purchaser against bis grantor for breach of any covenants of ~~ .

SEC 4. That section 5 of an act entitled "An act for a grant of lands to the State ~f Iowa in alt-ernate sections to aid in the construction of a railroad in said State," approved May 17, 1864, and secti?n 7 of an a.ct el!titled ':An a.ct extending the time for the completion of certam la.nd·grant railroads m the St.ates of :Minnesota and Iowa, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1865, and also section 5 of an act entitled "An act making an additional grant of Ja.nds to the State of Minnesota. in alternate sections to aid in the construr.tion of railroads in said State." approved July 4, 1866, so far as said sections are applicable to lands embraced within the indemnity limits of said grants, be, and the same are hereby, repealed; and so much of the provisions of secti?n 4 o.f an act a.ppr?ved June 2 1864 and entitled "An act to amend an act entitled An act makmg a grant ~f lands to the State of Iowa in alternate sections to aid in the construction of certain rail roads in said State,' " approved l\1ay 15, 1-56, be, and the same a.re hereby repealed so far as they require the Secretary of the Interior to reserve any ianJs but the odd sections within the primary or 6 miles ~ranted . limits of the roads mentioned in said act of June 2, 1864, or the act to whi.ch the

sa~~~~~~~~~~}0{[~ha11 be found that any lands heretofore gra.nted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and so resumed by the United States and restored t-0tbe public domain lie north of the line known as the" Harrison line,11

being a. line drawn from Wallula Wash., easterly to the southeast corner of the northeast one-fourth of the south'east quarter of section 27, in township ?.nort!t, of range 37 east of the Willamette meridian, al~ persons who had acquired. in good faith the title of the Northern Pacific ~a1lroad Company to a~y portion ofsaid lands prior to July 1, 1885, or who at said da~ "!ere m possession of a~y portion of said lands or had improved the e11;me, clatm?Jg the sa~e un!1er wntten contract with said company, executed m good faith, or their heirs o~ assigns, as the case may be, shall be entitled to purchase. the la.nds so acquir_ed, possessed, or improved, from the United State~. at any time prior to the exptra• tion of one year after it shall be finally determmed that such lands are restored to the public domain by the provisions of this act, at the rate of ~2.50 per acre, and to receive patents therefor upon proof before the proper land office of the fa.ct of such acquisition, possession, or improvement, an~ payment therefor, without limitation as to quantity: Prodded, That the i;ights of way al!d riparian ri.,.hts heretofore attempted to be conveyed to the city of Portland, in t.be :state of Oregon, by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the Central Trust Company of New York, by deed of conveyance da~ed ~ugust ~. 1886, and which are described as follows: A strip of land 50 feet m width, betng 25 feet on each side of the center line of a water-pipe line, a.s the ~ame is staked out and located, or as it shall be hereafter finally located accordmg to the provbions of an act of the Legislative Assembly of the State ?f Oregon approv:ed November 25, 1885, providing for the means to supply the city of Portland with an abundance of good, pure, and wholesome water over ai;id across the followin"' described tracts of laud: Sections 19 and 31, in township 1 south, of rapge 6 ea'St; se<!tions 25, 31, 33, and 35, in township I _south_, of range_~ ea.st; sections 8 and5 in township 2soutb, of range Sea.st; section 1, m townsb1p2south,ofra?ire 4east; sections 23, 25, and 35, in township 1 so!-ltb, of ral_lge 4 east of the Willa· mette meridian in the State of Oregon, forfeited by thts act, are hereby confirmed unto the 'said city of Portland; in the State of _Qregon, its sa~cessors. and assigns forever with the ri.,.ht to enter on the herembefore descnbed strip ot land over and ~cross the above described sections, for the purpose of constructing inaintaming and repairing a. wat-er-pipe line a.s aforesaid. S~c. 6. That no' lands declared forfeited to the United States by this ac~ shall

by reason of such forfeiture inure to the benefit of any State or co~porat1on .to which lands may have been granted by Congress, except as herem ot~e.rwu;e provided· nor shall this act be construed to enlarge the area of land or1gmally covered by any such grant.or to confer any right upon any State. corporation, or person to lands which were excepted from such grant. Nor s~all the moiety of the lands granted to any railroad compariy on acc.'-Ount o! a ma.1~ a~d a bra1!ch line appertaining to uncompleted road,. and hereby forf~1ted, withm the conflicting limits of the grants for such mam a.!1d branch lines. ~hen bu.tone of such Jines has been completed, inu1e, by virtue of th~ forfeiture hereby declared to the benefit of the complet_ed line, and the price of all lands affected hereby and hereby restored, when in any way sold, is hereby reduced to $1.25 per acre.

I•

I •

.· 7002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 7,

SEC. 7. That nothing in this act shnll be construed to waive or release in any way any riirbt of the United States to have any otheJ" lands granted by them as. recited in tJ:it: first section, forfeited for any failure, past or future, to comply with the conditions of the grant.

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I make the point that this ~ill should be considered in Committee of the Whole, and I believe it 18 agreed by the chairman ot the Committee on the Public Lands that that is the proper course it should take.

Mr. PAYSON. No, I do not agree to that, but I desire to state, if the.g_entleman will permit an interruption here, that there is no disposition on the part of myself or any friend of the bill to interfere in the least with the right of debate or the ·right to offer such amendments as gentlemen may choose to offer to the bill. I say this without conceding that there is anything in the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE]. If the point of order be sustained it is only a matter of form in any event. I do not think there is anything in the bill that makes it subject to the point of order at all. I assure the gentleman from Missouri that there is no desire to stifle debate or _prevent an opportunity for offering any amendments that may be desired to be offered, and I suggest that we go on in the regullll' way in the consideration of the bilL

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order ought to be made. I make the point out of de1erence to the suggestion of a number of gentlemen that it would be best to consider it in Committee of the Whole.

As to whether this bill is subject to this point of order, I desire to say to the Chair that this bill provides for the forfeiture of quite a large amount of lands ~ranted heretofore to railroad companies to aid in their construction. There are other provisions in the biU to the effect that any part of this land which has been conveyed or attempted to be conveyed by the railroad to its grantees since the -date of the grant, and which are now in the hands or in the possession ot grantees of the railroad companies, or persons who are in the po-;session of lands under claim of ownership under the public-land laws of the United Statesthere are provisions in the bill confirming the titles of such persons to certain portions of those lands, namely, to the extent of 320 acres.to each person. Now, I take it, sir, that if these lands are subject to forfeiture at all. and are forfeited, that the title becomes absolute in the Government of the Unit.ed States, and that any further provision in the bill which seeks to part with the title to them by confirming the title or by grant is such a dispo&ition of the property ot the United Statf's as makes the bill come within the meaning and intent of the rule.

The SPEAKER. The acts are simultaneous, are they not? If such action takes place it is simultaneoUB, is it not?

Mr. STONE, of Miss:mri. Ob, yes. The SPE~KER. Tba~ is, the United States reacquires the title, and

at the same mstant the title p~!Ses to these persons mentioned. .Mr. STONE, ot Missouri. It is aU in the same bill. Mr. HERMANN. If the gentleman will permit me, I think he is

somewhat in error as to the provisions of the bill. The bill recognizes the title as being in the United States, but permits these persons in posses.sion to make pu.rchase from the Government at the rate of $2.50 an acre.

.Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be hea~d at the convenience of the Chair on that point of order.

Mr. PAYSON. I desire to state in connection with what the gentlema.n from Missouri [Mr. ATONE] has just said, that section 3 of the bill is tpe section as to which the point of order is made. It provide'!!:

~EC. 3. That in all cases where persons are in possession of any of the lands affected by any such grant and hereby resumed by and re.<Jtored to the United Sta.tell, un~er deed, written contract wi~h, or !icense from, the State or corporation to which such grant. was made, or its assignees, executed prior to January I. 1888_. ~hey shall be ~ntitled to purchase the same from the United States, in quanlltlea not exceedm~ ~acres to any one such person, at the rate of $1.25 :per acre, at any time w1t~m two years from the passage of this act, and on ma.king said payment to receive patents therefor.

It provides that persons in possession shall have the prior right of purchase at the price which other persons would have to pay for Gover:tlment land. And this section, to which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE] addresses bis point of order, is not a disposition of the property, nor an appropriation of the property; but simply J?;ives a prior right of purchase to land in possession ot these persons at the price that is fixed by statute law. Tba.t is all there is of it. The languap;e of the rule, Mr. Speaker, is as follows. Clause 3 of Rule :XXlII provides:

All motions or ~ropositions _inyoving a. tax or ch~rge UJ><?n the people; all prooeedlngs touchmg appropnat10ns of money, or bills making appropriations of money-

It does not come within that. The rule further provides: or property, clr requirin~ such appropriation to be made, or authorizing paym.e!llAi out of appropriations already made, or releasing- ruiy lia.bilty to tlle United States for money or property, shall be first considered in a. Committee ol the Whole.

There is no appropriation of property. There is no disposition of property, ~nd _no chan~e in existing law except that the prior right of purcha~e 1s given to the m!ln who for the time being happens to be in poa&JS..."'1.0D.

The SPEAKER. .And that is to be the same price? Mr. PAYSON. .And that is to be the same price that any citizen

would pay. · T.he SPE~ER. And no difference whatever from the manner that

any other citizen would pay? Mr. PAYSON. None whatever. Mr. ~TONE, ~f Missouri. Is there not a provision in the bill for

coD;firmmg the titles of purchasers from the railroad company of tracts of 320 acres? -

Mr. PAYSON. What it requires is a purchase from the Government. at the regular Government price. There is no confirmation of the ~tle ~sgranted by the company; none whatever. There was a bill pendmg m the last Congress which propo ed to do that; bat this bill ~o~s not propo.,;? to do so. Mr. Speaker, I had betterread it all, though it 18 a long section: _

Snc. 2. That in all cases where persons are in possession of a.ny of the lands affected by any such ~nt and herebY: resumed by and restored to the United ~tates, un~er deed, wntten contract with, or license from. the State or corporat10n to which such grant. was made, or its assignees, executed prior to January l, 18881 they shall be ~ntitled to purchase the same from the United States in quantities not exceed1!1g .320 acres to any one such pel'8on, a.t the rate of Si.25 per a.c~e, at any time w1tJ:Un two years from the passage of this act, a.nd on makwg ~1d payment to receive patents. therefor: Provi<Ud, That in a.ll cases where ~arties, perso~s. or corpo~at10ns, with the permission of such State or corporation, or its assignees, are ID possession of and have made improvements upon a.ny of the lands here~y. resumed ~nd restored, and a.re not entitled to enter the same under. the pro~1ons ?f th1!!1 act, such parties, persons. or corporations s~all have six months ID which to remove any g-rowing crop, and within which time they shall also .be entitled to ~emove all buildings a.nd other movable im.~rovements from said lands : Provided further, That the provisions of this section .shall not ~pply to a.ny lands situate in the State of Iowa, on which any person m good fa1tb bas made <;>rasserted the right to make a pre-emption or bomest.ead settlement; ~n.d promd~dfurther, That nothin1t in this act contained shall be cons~rued as hm1~mg ihe rights granted to purchasers or settlers by "An 'II.ct to proyide for ~e a.dJustmentof land grants made by Congress to aid in the construct~?n of railroads and for the forfeiture o~ unearned lands, and for otber purposes, . approved March 3, 1_887, or as repealmg, altering, or amending said 11-ct nor as 10 a.!1-y m~ner affectmg any cauMe of action existing in favor of any pur: chaser agarnst his gra.ntor for breach ofa.ny covenants of title.

?-'here is no confirmati~n of title in anybody, nor is it seeking to depnve. a~y one o~ possession; but those original parties and any one who 18 m possession or under a contract with the railroad on lands the title t.o which was forfeitable are to be given the preference i·ight of paying for it. .

The SPEAKER. Just the same as any citizen could be ghen that privilege? ·

Mr. P AYSO~~. Any citizen could do precisely the same thing. _ Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I wonld like to suggest to the Chair that this whole question turns upon the fact whether the land which is here spoken of as for!eited1 or the land to be forleited, belongs to the Go:vernment of the Umted States or belongs to the railroad companies. If it belongs to the railroad company, Congress can not forfeit it. If it i forfeitable,_ t~en it now belongs to the Government; so that it is clearly an<l distmctly a part of the public domain.

There certainly are sections· Qf land covered by the provisions o( this bill entirely outside of the 20-mile limit which the railroads claim. Now, take a section lying entirely without the limit of the grant-land in other words, which the company bas gotten under some pretense' but to which it has no title whatever and can not have any title· land that never was and never could be within its lands-- '

Mr. PAYSON. Let me understand--Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Not now. I can not yield. Take that section of land. There can be no fog about that. There

can be no subtle legal allegations aa to the fact that that section ofland is public domain preci..qely as much as if the land were not within a thousand mile.a of a raHroad, if there could be such lands. I think that section would be COVf'red by tbiR bill, and the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE] would apply to that section. The UhaiT would clearly hold, I fancy, that as to such a section of land as that, it was undoubtedly the prop~ty of the U~ited States, and therefore I think it would be covered by that clause of the rule which t~ gentleman from lliinois has just cited, under which clause the bill would necessarily have its first consideration in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. But, even in that eYent, is there any difference from the present law, except that persons who have settled there und:er color of title or under claim of title would have the preference?

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Yes, sir; I am coming to that. The point I wish now to impre&s is this: That there may be in the Treasury $100,000 appropriated, say, to AB, but here is another $100,000 or $10, OUO lying in the Treasury for which no appropriation act was ever passed, but which AB claims. Now, I take that to be precisely an anal_ogoas case to this. Certainly that $10,000 is the property of the Umted States, and any bill or proposition to appropriate it would be considered in Committee of the Whole under the rule.

The SPEAKER. But is it any more appropriated by this bill than it is now? , Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. It isnotappropriatedatall and never was. That is my point.

The SPEAKER. It is appropriated for the use of those who purchase it under the law, is it not?

.•"

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7003 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansa's. Not at all. I am speaking of a point

back of that which the Chair is considering. I am at tho first point in the whole proposition, namely, that if the land ever was appropriated, so to speak, or granted, to a railway company, then the United States can not forfeit it except upon a breach of conditions of the grant; and I am calling the attention of the Chair to cases where land has been claimed by railroad companies entirely outside of the possible limits of their gra.nts, land to which they could have no possible claim and as to which the Government never gave any title whatever or made any provision whatever, and that there are such lands covered by this bill I have no doubt.

Mr. PA Y~ON. Will the gentleman from Kansas permit me-Mr. ANDERSON, ot Kansas. Not now, please. I want to call the

attention of the Chair to the provisions of the bill. In the second section it provides t.hat all persons who at the date of the passage of this act are actual settlers in good faith on any of the lands hereby forfeited may make settlement, and so on. Now, if the land is forfeited, by that act it becomes the property of the United States, and any man may homestead it just as he may now homestead lands in the United States. I can see no difference whatever between that land after it bas clearly been passed to the public domain, as it is by this act, and any other section of public land as to which a homesteader may now file his claim. If the proposition before the Chair were this: Whether we should pass a Jaw permitting a. man to homestead public lands, that clearly would be a bill parting with property of the United States, and I fancy that under the rule it would have to receive its first consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Now, my point is that it makes Iio difference whether a particular tract is held by a railroad company or not-and I am now speaking of a second class of lands distinct from that of which I have spoken heretofore-the very moment it is for eited, the very moment it has passed to the public domain-both of which acts, though simultaneous, must be done before the homesteader can acquire any right in the lands-my ·point is that at the very moment when that land is made a part of the public domain it could not be parted with except under the homestead law, and therefore, being public property, a bill to part with it must be considered in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Does not the law already provide for parting with that property upon the same terms as those prescribed in this bill?

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. No, I think not. The SPEAKER. The point the Chair wants to get at is this: Does

this bill, with regard to any land, whether it was forfeited or whether it never belonged to a railroad company at all, and consequent1y was always part of the public domain, but, nevertheless, was in disputedoes this bill, with regard to any such land, make any other difference than this, that it gives a preference to individuals to purchase the land at the same price and under the same regulations provided for by ex:· isting law, that preforence being given on account of the complications which have arisen out of the dispute?

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I may not be quite accurate in t.be statement I am about to make, though I think I am. I think that in the latter part of the bill a provision is made as to the homesteader· which does not exist in the present law, namely, that "any person "who bas not heretofore had the benefit of-the homestead or pre-emption law, or who has failed from any cause to perfect the title to a tract of land heretofore entered by him under eit.her of said laws, may make a second homestead entry under the provisions of this act." The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON] can say whether I am correct as to that or not.

Mr. PAYSON. There is a change made in the existing law simply · as to the qualification of the homesteader. As the law stands to-day. a man can only take one homestead claim; making a homestead claim and disposing of it prevents bis acquiring another homestead right; that is, be exhausts the homestead privi ege which the existing law gives him. This bill provides that if he has exhausted his homestead right he may, under this act, exerci~e it again. That is all. There is no change with reference to the quantity of land he may take and no attempt to regulate the disposition ot the property under existing law, but there is simply a c!iange made in the qu,alification of the homesteader by providing that if he has exhausted his homestead right under existing law he may exercise it again.

Mr. ANDEHSON, of Kansas. Well, the Chair will perceive that when you undertake to' provide different conditions under which a homesteader may acquire public land, the bill which does that is one which ought to be consirlered in Committee of the Whole. ~ow, I wish to call the attention of the Chair to one more p'lint. The SPEAKER. Is it a fact that this bill provides that a citizen

of the United States may twice exercise his homestead rights? Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Yes, sir; and that is a change of ex

isting law. Mr. HERMANN. No; I beg the gentleman's pardon. The bill pro

vides that if, in the first in">tance, the man has fai1ert to perfect his title, then be may make a second homestead entry. The original entry does not necessarily imply the ~rfection of title, but only an attempt to perlect it; and this bill provides that if a man has 1ailed w perfect his title he may make a second entry under this act.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. My impression is t-0 the effect that under the existing law, when a man has once attempted to make a. homestead entry, whether he perfects his title or not, that rules him out from a second attempt.

Mr. PAYSON. ' Oh, no. Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Well, then I withdraw that state-

ment. · Now, I wish to call the attention of the Chair to another point. On

page 12 of the printed. bill, section 5, it is provided-Tbat if it shall be found the.t any le.ndii heretofore gr&nted to the N-orthern

Pacific Ra.ilroa.d Company e.nd so resumed by the UnitM Ste.tea and restored to the public domain lie north of the line known as the "Harrison line," being a. line drawn from We.Hula., Wash., easterly to the southeast corner of the -northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of sect.ion 2'l, in township 7 north, of range 37 ea.st of t-he Willamette meridian, all perwns who had •cquired in good faith the title of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to an:v portion of said le.nds prior to July 1, 1885, or who at said date were in possession of any portion of said landsor had improved the same, claiming the same under written contract with said company, executed in good faith, or their heirs or assigns, as the case may be, shall be entitled to purchase the lands so acquired, possessed, or improved, from the Uuited States, at any time prior to the expiration of one year after it shall be finally determined that such lands a.re restored to the public domain by the provisions of this act, at the rate of $!.50 per acre, and to receive patents theretor upon proof before the proper land office of the fe. .!t of such aC'Q uisition, posses.sion, or improvement, and payment therefor, without limitation as to quantity.

Now there is a case where the land, being north of this "Harrison line," is by the bill clearly and distinctly dec1ared to be United States property, which the party may purchase. Then there is a provision somewhere else-I can not now find it-which permits the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to purchase not exceeding 320 acres of land for depot or 13tation purposes, etc., is there not? -

Mr. PAYSON. Oh, no; there is no such provision in this bill. Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I supposed there was a provision of that

kind. Mr. PAYSON. None wharever. You are thinking of a bill of the

last Congress. There is pothing of that kind fu this bill. . , · Mr. HOLMAN. I desire to call the attention of the Chair to the

third section of the 01igiaal bill (and the provision is the same in the substitute) in regard to this grant to the city of Portland, Oregon. I believe that bas not been brou~ht to the attention of the Chair. Section 3 of the original bill provides-

That the rights of way and riparian rights heretofore attempted to be conveyed to the city of Portland, in the State of Oregon, by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the C&ntral Trust Company of New York, by deed of conveyance dated August 8, 1&)6, a.nd which are described as follows-

Then follows a description of the several pieces of land-are hereby confirmed unto the said city of Portland, in the State of Oregon, its succes80rs a.nd assigns forever, with the right to enter on the hereinbefore-described strip of land, over and across the above-describtid sections, for the parpose of constructing, maintaining, and repairing a water-pipe line as aforesaid.

Now this language is a clear confirmation of grants heretofore made and which the bill a."Sumes had no 11.uthority whatever, as they were within the limits of lands through which the railroad h!iS never yet been constructed. This is a virtual grant of a strip of land 50 feet wide-

The SPEAKER. To what section of the bill does the gentleman refer?

Mr. HOLMAN. Section 3 of the original bill. I believe the language is tho same in the substitute.

Mr. PAYSON. It is section 5 of the substitute. Mr. HOLMAN. This is certainly a very clear and distinct grant of

public property. It confirms a grant of these lands which the bill it~ self assumes was absolutely void.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to call the attention of tffe gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON] to the language of this section, which seems to confirm a title--

Mr. PAYSON. That is a point that has not heretofore been made, but upon looking at the language I am not so clear in my own mind but that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOU.I.AN] is right.

Mr. HOLM.AN. The point of order as made applies of course to the entire bill.

The SPEAKER. When this point of order is made every portion of the bill is to be considered. The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. PAYSON. I move that the House resolve itself into Commit: tee of the Whole for the purpose of considering Senate bill No. 2781.

The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

on the state of the Union (Mr. PETERS in the chair) and proceeded to theconsideration of the bill (S. 2781) to forJeit certain lands hereto;. fore granted for the purpose of aiding in the construction of railroads, and for other purposes.

Mr. PAYSON. I ask unanimous consent that the formal reading of the bill be dispensed with. .

Mr. HOOKEH. .Before that qneb-tion is put, I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois whether the printed bill furnished nsSenate bill 2781-is the bill now unner consideration.

Mr. PAYSON. I do not know what print the gentleman has; but Senate bill 2781 as amended by the committee, the amendment b~1ng

. , ~

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. . . "' JULY 7,

in the form of a substitute, which is printed in italics, is the measure now before us for consideration.

Mr. HOOKER. I understand the proposition of the gentleman from ' - IJlinois is that we adopt a substitute proposed by the House Committee

on Public Lands. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous

consent to dispense with the first or formal reading of the bil1. ls t&ere objection?

l\fr. HOLMAN. I have no objection to dispensing with the reading of the Senate bill, but I hope the gentleman from Illinois will permit the substitute to be read again, so that it may be distinctly understood.

.Mr. P .A.YSON. I have no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indi'.llla (Mr. HOLMAN]

calls for the reading of the substitute. The Clerk read as follows:

. Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: ' 'Be it enacted, etc., That there are hereby forfeited to the United States, a n d the

United States hereby resumes the tit le thereto, all lands heretofore grante d to any State or to arly corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad opposite -to and cont~rminous with the portion of any such railroad not now completed. for the constrnction or benefit of which lanus have heretofore been granted; and all sach lnnds are declared to be a part of the public domain: Provided, That this act shall not be construed as forfeiting the right of way or depot grounds of any railroad company heretofore granted, or lands included in any city, town, or viUagesite.

•·SEC. :l. That all persons who at the date of the passage of this act, a.re actual settlers in good faith on auy of the lands hereby forfeited and are otherwise qualified, on making due claim on said lands under the homestead law within six mont.hs after the passage of this a.ct, shall be entitled tO a preference right to enter the same under the pro'\"ision of the homestead law and this act, and shall be regarded as such actual settlers from the date of actual settlement or occupation; and any person who has not he.retofore had the benefit of the homestead or pre-emption law, or who has failed from any cause to perfect the title to a.tract of ·land heretofore entered by him under either of said laws, may make I\ second homestead entry under the provisions of this act. 'l'he Secretary of the Interior will make such rules as will secure to such actual settlers these rights.

. "SEC. 3. That in all cases where persons are in possession of any of the lands affected by any such grant a.nd hereby resumed by aod restored to the United States, under deed, written contract with, or license from the State or corporation towhicb such grant wa.s made, or its assignees, executed prior to January l, 1888, they shall be entitled to purchase the same from the United States, in quantities not exceeding 320 acres to any one such person, at the rate! of $1.25 per acre, at any time within two years from the passage of ·this act, and on making said payment to receive patents therefor: Provided, 1'hat jn all cases where parties, per11ons, or corporations, with the permission of such State or corporation, or its assignees, are in the possession of and have :made improvements upon any of the lands hereby resumed and restored, and are not entitled to enter the same under the provisions of this act, such parties, persons, or corporations shall have six months in which to remove any growing crop, and within which time they shall also be entitled to move all buildings and other movable improvements from said lands: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not.apply to any lands (situate in the State of Iowa.) on which any person in good faith has made, or asserted the right to make, a pre-emption or homestead settlemeni: An d provided further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed as limiting the rights granted to purchasers or settlers by•• An act to provide for the adjustment of land grants made by Congress t-0 aid in the construction of railroads and for the forfeiture of unearned lands, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1887, or as repealing, altering, or amending said act, nor as in any manner affecting any ca.use of action existing in favor of any purchaser against his grantor for breach of any covenants of title.

•· SEc. 4. That section 5 of an act entitled 'An act for a grant of lands to the State of Iowa. in alternate sections to aid in the construction of a railroad in said State,' approved May 17, 1864l and section 7 of an act entitled 'An act extending the time for the comp etion of certain land-grant railroads in the States of Minnesota. and Iowa, and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1865, and also section 5 of an act entitled 'An act making an additional grantot lands to the Stat~of Minnesota. in alternate sections to aid in the construction of railroads in said State,' approved July i, 1866, so far as said sections are applicable to lands embraced within the indemnity limits of said grants, be, and the s::>.me are hereby, repealed; and so much of the provisions of section 4 of an act approved June 2, 1864, and entitled 'An act to a.mend an act entitled "An act waking a grant of lands to the State of Iowa. in alternate sections to a.id in the c9ustruction of cert.am railroads in said State," approved May 15, 1856,' be, and the same are hereby, repealed so far as they reQuire the Secretary of the Interior to reserve any lands but the odd sections within the primary or 6 miles granted limits of the roads mentioned in said a.ct of June 2, 1864, or the act to which the same is a.menda.tory.

"SEC. 5. ·rha.t if it shall be found that any lands heretofore granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and so resumed by the United States and restored to the public domain lie north of the line known e.s the "Harrison line," betng a line drawn from Wa.llula, Wash., easterly to the southeast corner of the northeast one-fourth of the southeast quarter of section 27, in township 7 north, of range 37 ea.st of the Willamette meridian, all persons who had acquired in good faith the title of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to any portion of said lands prior to July l, 188.51 or who at said. date were In possession of any purtion of said lands or had improved the same, claiming the same under written contract with said company, exP.cuted in good faith, or their heirs or assigns, as the ·case may be, shall be entitled to purchase the lands so acquired, possessed, or improved from the United States, at any time prior 10 the expiration of one year after it shall be finally determined that such lands a.re restored to the public domain by the provisions of this act, at the rate of $2.50 per acre. and to receive patents therefor upon proof before the proper land office of the fact of such acquisition, possession, or improvement, and payment therefor, without limitation as to quantity: Provided, Thattherightsofwaya.ndripa.rian rights heretofore attempted to be conveyed to the city of Portland, in the State of Oregon, by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the Central Trust Company of New York, by deed of conveyance dated August 8, 1886, and which are described as follows: A strip of land 50 teet in width, being 25 feet on each side of the center 1 ine of a water-pipe line, as the same is staked out and located, or

- as it shall be hereafter finally located according to the provisions of an act of the Legislative .Assembly of the State of Oregon approved November 25, 188.5, providing fot• the means to supply t.he city of Portland with an abundance of good, pure, and wholesomewateroverandacrossthef0llowing-described tracts of land: Sections 19 and 31, in township lsouth; of range 6~t; sections 25, 31, 33.. and 35, in township 1 south, ot range 5 east; sections 3 and 5, in township 2 south, of range 5 east; section 1, in township 2 south, of range 4 east; sections 23, 25, and 35, in township 1 south. of range 4 east of the Willamette meridian, in the State of Oregon, forfeited by this act, are hereby confirmed an to the said

city of Portland, in the State of Oregon~ its successors and assigns forever, with the right to enter on the hereinbefore-aescribed strip of land, over and a.cross the above-described sections for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, nnd repairing a water-pipe line as A.foresa.id.

"SEO. 6. That no lands declared forfeited to the United Statesbythisactshall by reason of such forfeiture inure to the benefit of any State or corporation to which lands may have been granted by Congress, except as herein otherwise provided; nor shall this act be construed to enlarge the area of land originally covered by any such grant or to confer any right upon any st.ate, corporation, or person to lands which we1·e excepted from such grant. Nor shall the moiety of the lands granted to any railroad company on account of a ma.iu and a branch line appertain ing to uncompleted road and hereby forfeited, within the conflicting limits of the grants for snch main and branch lines, when but one of such lines has been completed, inure, by virtue of the forfeiture hereby declared, to the benefit of the completed line; and the price of all lands affected hereby and hereby restored when in any wny sold is hereby reduced to Sl.25 per acre.

"SEC. 7. That nothing in this act shall be construed to waive or release in any way any right of the United States to have any other lands granted by them, as recited in the first section, forfeited for any failure, past or future, to coµiply with the conditions of the ~rant."

Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Chairman, so far as I am advised, I do not know of any opposition on the part of any member of the House-unless possibly it may be my friend from Kansas [Mr. ANDERSON]-to the adoption of the amendment which has just be~n read to the Senate bilL

l\Ir. DUNNELL. Will not the gentleman from Illinois state to the Committee of the Whole the difference between the Senate bill and the House proposition?

Mr. PAYSON. I was about to do that. At the outset, when interrupted by the ~entleman from Minnesota, I said that I did not know of any objection on the part of any member of the House to the adoption of the substitute proposed by the committee as an amendment to the Senate bill, unless it might possibly come from the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ANDEBSON], and I do not know how far his opposition may extend when he comes to understand the proposition submitted.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Will the gentleman allow an interruption?

Mr. PAYSON. Cert.a.inly • Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. The bill is so long that I am frank to

say I do not know what it-undertakes to enact. · Mr. PAYSON. Then I 'will address myself as well to my friend

from Kansas as to the other members of the committee, feeling snre that he will be included in the class which I have named when he has heard a statement of what the bill does undertake to do.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. If this bill undertakes to grant land to these railroad companies to which they are not now entitled or seeks to confirm grants which they have not earned, I am opposed to it.

Mr. PAYSON. Well, the bill does exactly the reverse, as the gentleman will understand after he has heard an explanation of the bill.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, in its general provisions proposes to forfeit and restore to the public domain all of the public lands, wherever situated in the Union, which have been heretofore granted in aid of the construction of railroads in the United States, which roads have not been completed within the time specified in the granting acts. The first section of the amended bill presented by the committee in terms provides for doing that. · This subject is by no means a new one in the House of Representa

tives, and the principle whicJ:i is involved in the :first section of the committee's amendment has received approval in the House of Representatives in the last three or four Congresses and in the Senate of the United States as well, and only failed to become a law because ot other provisions which were attached to it and in reference to which there was disagreement between the Senate and the House as to the policy which should be adopted with ·reforence to them.

Continuing a single word further in that same line, let me say that while the old members of Congress are doubtless familiar with all ot the detaiis of this legislation, there are new members, many gentlemen sitting about me no~, who, perhaps, have not had occasion to investi- ' gate the matter fully or to acquire as accurate a knowledge as to the situation as others upon the floor, and so briefly I shall ask the attention of the committee while I make a resume of the situation calling for this legislation.

.Many years ago, Mr. Chairman, commencing prominently in 1856, the policy obtained in Congress of making grants of the public land in aid of public improvements throughout the States, such as railroads, wagonroads! and canals. The policy was adopted in Congress in aid of such enterprises here and there throughout the U.tiion of granting public lands, usually in alternate sections and usually of the width of (1 miles on either side of the proposed railroad, which grants were made to the different States of the Union for thls purpose, or occasionally directly to the corporation itself. The State was made the trustee for the company which undertook the construction of the road, and, as it should progress, usually in sections of 20 miles, so that as ~O miles of the railroad, wagon-road, or canal, as the case might be, was constructed, tbe line for that distance sh9uld be examined by the inspectors on the part of the Government, and if found to be in accordance with the Jaw the land was either to be sold for the benefit of the corporation carrying on the work or was patented to the corpor:ation, to be disposed of according to its ownjudgment.

In all of these acts of Congress making provision for such donations of the public land a time was always fixed in which the work should

-.

· ... ' ...

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7005: •

be completed, usually ten years, sometimes only six years, and occa-sionally longer, some being as high as twenty years~ but usually ranging from six to ten years. It was supposed at the time the acts were . passed that because of the provision in the law, which was in substance that unles.s the road should be completed within the time required by the granting act, no further disposition of the land should be made, but that the same should revert to the Federal Governmen~it was believed that that provision in tbe act of Congress would be self-operative, so that if the road was not constructed as required by this provision of the granting ad itself the lands would revert to the General Government and the transaction would be ended.

But later along a question was presented in the case of a defaulting road, which was not completed within the time, to the Supreme Court of the United. States a.s to what a technical, and therefore not an improper, construction of that provision of the law would be. The leading case upon that point is the case of Schulenberg vs. Harriman, reported in the 21st Wallace United States Supreme Court Reports, in which case the Supreme Court decided that all these acts of Congress making such provisions for the disposal of the public lands in aid of the construction of such works and all these grants of public lands the title to which passed by the law itself-that the act of Congress was not only a law, but a conveyance in and of itself, which passed title of the land trom the Government to the State or to the corporation named as beneficiaries; and that the condition oftbe title was such that until by some legislative a-ct, or by some judicial adjudication authorized by Congress, working a forfeitur~ so that the lands should be restored to the public domain for breach of comlition, the title remained in the State or the company, as the case might be.

That deCision was made in the seventies, in 1872 or 1874, I think. No steps were taken in Congress in reference to the matter for many years, and a number of the roads which had been aided by the grants of the pubiic lands, and which bad failed to perform the conditions of the grant, had remaining large portions of their roads still unconstructed. But construction was progressing, no action having been taken by Congress to declare a forfeiture, no judicial proceedin \!s authorized by Congress to declare a judicial termination of the grant having been bad; and so the railroads went on constructing the roads, and in an early case, after the case of Schulenberg vs. Harriman was decided, the question was presented to the },...dministration then in power-the Administration of Mr. Hayes-as to whether or not the .railroads which were being constructed out-of time were not still entitled to the benefits of the larids lying along opposite sides of the road which was thus being constructed.

Mr. Attorney-General Devens delivered a very elaborate opinion in the case, known as the Atlantic and Pacific case, in which, reviewing not only the authorities at hand with reference to i~, but basing bis argument in the opinion on principle as well, be decided that until Congress should affirmatively act .by declaring a forfeiture, or authorizing oue. to be declared judicially, the roads m~ht go on and construct and be entitled to the lands lying opposite the completed portions of the road thus constructed out of time. That opinion of AttorneyGenera.1 Devens has been approved and adopted by the Attorneys-General of each Administration since then down to, but not including, the present one. It has been adopted by the Interior Department and has been acquiesced in by the courts everywhere, so far as I know. That condition of things led to the presentation of a question in Congress as to what steps should be taken, if any, with reference to lands thus granted years ago and which were in this condition to which I have already referred: as to whether tbe railroads might proceed to earn them, if not interfere~ with by such legislation as is attempted here to-day in the pending bill.

There have been, Mr. Chairman, thirty-seven railroads which have been aided by acts of Congress, which railroads have not been completed within the time required by the acts of Congress ma,king the grants. In twelve of these cases there have been forfeitures; that is to say, in former Congresses there have been forfeitures declared, which have become laws, forfeiting nearly 50, 000, 000 acres of land and operating upon twelve of these thirty-seven railroads. That leaves twenty-five of ~hese aided roads which have not yet heen acted upon. Nine of them have been fully completed since, and have been accept.ed by the General Government and are now being operated under the burdens which are imposed upon land-grant railroads. Among the burdens are these: they are reqQ.ired to transport troops and munitions of war, all supplies to army posts, and freight connected with military establishments free of any charge whatever, whenever required to do so by the General Government. They are required to transport the mails of the General Government at such compensation :ts.shall be fixed by t.he Post-Office Department, and which averages from 50 to 65 per cent. of the amount paid to non-aided roads for similar service.

There are some other burdens which are imposed, which are not nee· essary to be noticed pere. These are the principal ones. That leaves, then, sixteen railroads which are now uncompleted, partly built out of time and part not now constructed, and thisameudment, which comes from the House Committee on Public Lands, recommends to take every one of these roads, sixteen in number, which have been aided by grants of public land and which are not now constructed and declare a for-

feitnre of the land which lies opposite such portions of the road as are not now constructed and in operation. That is the substance of this bill.

Mr. DUNNELL. Will the gentleman stat~ whethe1· that includes roads which are now practically constructed? · ·

Mr. PAYSON. · I can not make it any plainer. There are sixteen railroads now left; a portion of which railroads are not constructed at all, and this bill proposes as to every one of these sixteen roads, w bich are all the railroads that there are in the country which have be(;!n aided by grants of public land and which are not now completed, to declare a forfeiture of all land lying opposite so much of the road aa bas not been constructed. I do not know how I can make it any plainer than that.

Mr. DUNNELL. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. P .A.YSON] is aware that a forfeiture has been withheld in the case of roads that wereactually in the process of construction. I desire to know whether this bill does the same thing .

.Ur. PAYSON. I do not understand the gentleman's proposition. Mr. DUNNELL. Whether this bill withholds forfeiture with ref

erence to railroads that are now actually earning thf'ir grant.9. Mr.PAYSON. I do Mt understand the gentleman's proposition. Mr. DUNNELL. I will make an illustration. The gentleman from

Illinois is aware that a forfeiture of lands that were granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad wa.~ delayea largely under the argument that the road was then acting in good faith, completiQ.g the road and earning its grant from month to month. A.re there any roads now in process · of construction earning any land?

Mr. PAYSON. Yes, nearly all of them affected by this bill are in process of construction, and it is said that they will be constructed; and the Senate bill provided for an extension of time to three different roads in terms, and that leads me to refer to an inquiry made by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. puNNELL] when the considerationoi this bill began. He inquired how this bill differed from the Senate bill and I answer the two questions together by saying that as to the right of the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad in Mississippi, the Mobile and Girard Railroad in 4,.labama, the Coosa in Tennessee, and some connecting roads in Te_nnessee the time was proposed to ·be extended by the Senate bill within which these roads could be constructed, so -that they might earn- this grant. That provision was stricken out by the House committee and does not appea~ here.

Referring to the Northern Pacific road, to which the gentleman alludes, there are 224 miles of that road not now constructed at all, connecting Wallnla with Portland. The grant of land to that piece of road amounts in the aggregate in round numbers to about 3,000,000 _ acres of land. Every now and then the directors of that road expres.3 the purpose to go on and construct the line of road and thus to earn " that land, in so far as it can b~ earned; but the scope of this bill ·is to relieve every acre of public land which can be relieved of this disability to-day, and restore it to the public domain, so that not another acre of public land can be earned by the construction of a railroad hereafter, except by a special act of Congress passed with reference to that construction.

Mr. OU1'HW AITE. I wish to ask the gentleman from Illinois, with regard to that 250 miles of road on the Northern Pacific, is not that line through such a difficult and mountainous region that the company are desirous of getting rid of that part of the line?

Mr. PAYSON. Oh, no, indeed. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HERMANN], who will follow me in this discussion later on, will expfain the exact situation with reference to that. I will say to my friend from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE]-so that he can anticipate what the gentleman from Oregon will say-that there is a line of railroad on the south side of the Columbia River, running from Wallula to Portland, built by a rival corporation, the Oregon Railroad and Navi~ation Company, which bas been operated by the Northern Pacific under a lease for some years. Perhaps that bas prevented any attempt to construct the other. I am told by the gentleman from Oregon-and I have be~n over the ground myself-that there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres of the most fertile land in Oregon that are within the limits of· this grant between Wallula and Portland, which will be forfeited by this bill if it shall become a Jaw, as it ongbt to.

Mr. HERMANN. The Northern Pacific have reached their termini on Puget Sound by another route or another line of road.

Mr. OUTHW AITE. And received tl:~e usual land grant for the same. Mr. HEARD. I want to ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. P.A.Y

eoN] a. question. .Mr. PAYSON. I will yield for a question. Mr. HEARD. I have not baq time to examine the provisions of the

"bill closely, nor have I bad the benefit of the remarks made by the gentleman from Illinois--

Mr. PAYSON. If the gentleman will ask his question I will endeavor to answer.it, but my time is running.

Mr. REA.RD. I am explaining why it was necessary to ask the question. .A.s I understand, the proposed forfoiture carried by this bill is to the land abutting those sections of the roads which have not been built. Now, there are some of our public men who insist and believe that as to the lands abutting upon sections of the road which were built out of time, the7 also should be forfeited •

. '

.:

,.. ,,

.... ·

I .


Mr. PAYSON. I am coming to that, and I may as well answer that of the amounts are estimated. That is as accurate as they can make inquiry of the gentleman now~ it at the Land Office.

Mr. HEARD. Another question I want to ask is, will this bill con- _ I reserve the remainder of my time. firm the title of the rai1foad company to such land where its line was Mr. HOLMAN. I do not desire to occupythe floor at this time, but finished out of time? . I wish to offer an amendment to the first section of the amendment

l\fr. PAYSON. Perhaps I may just as well go to that branch of the proposed by the committee in order that it may be pending. subject n-0w. There is no vote that I know of, and there never has l\1r. McRAE. Amendments are not now in order. General debate been a sentiment against the princ1ple contained in this bill. It has is not cloRed. been thought by very many in public life that the committee ought to The CHAIRMAN. If the point is made that general debate bas cover that, that there ought to be a forJeitme declared of land lying not yet been closed, the amendment can not be offered at this time. opposite a road constructed out of time; and there have been those who l\Ir. McRAE. There are several gentlemen who desire to speak to have thought that where a railroad company failed to complete any the bill. part of it.a contract there ought to be a forfeiture of the entire grant. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana will please with-There have been these views on the part of gentlemen concerning these hold his amendment for the present. publi-0 lands ever since this matter has been agitated. Three cla.s..c;es of Mr. HOLl'tIAN. Very well. forfeiture have been prtsSed upon the attention of Congress, the first Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Chairman, there are several gentlemen who beiug that where there was a failure in any part a forfeiture of the en- want to speak upon this biil and t,o compare it with the Senate bill, tire grant should be made. Somegentlemen think that. Others have and I hope that they will have an opportunity to be heard. thought that a restricted forfeiture of land lying opposite a road that Mr. PAYSON. There will be no abridgmectof the right of debate was not constructed in time, that is, the land lying opposite the road so far as I am concerned. constructed out of time, as well as the charactel' of land embraced in Mr. OATES. Mr. Chairman, the subject of forfeiting land grants to this bill, should be declared forfeited. railroads is one that has been before C-0ngress a great many years, and,

This House has, in two Congresses, adopted such a bill as that. In as stated by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAY"'ON], something the Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses a bill was passed upon the like a dozen forfeitures have been declared under the former practice principle that there should be a forfeiture of land lying opposite a road of the House of treating each grant in a separate bill. This is an omconstructed out ot time, as well as one not constructed at all. That nibus bill, which deals with all of the railroad grants which are now bill went to the Senate, but it failed there because the Aentiment in subject to forfeiture, and perhaps they can as well be dealt with in a the Senate was practically unanimous against the policy of declaring single bill as in separate ones. foifeited lands lying opposite roads constru"cted out of time and against I have examined this bill sufficiently to know that it is in exact acthe power of Congress to do so. Because the House insisted upon the cordance with the right of the Government to forfeit these land grant.a, broad forfeiture and the Senate refused to yield, the bills have failed. as I have contended in former Congresses. In the Forty-eighth ConTheTefore, lir. Chairman, the Honse, or the Committee on Public Lands, gress, when I had the honor of being a member of the Committee on present this bill, about which there is no dispute and in favorofwhich Public Lands, my attention was for the first time drawn particularly there would be a practically unanimous vote in both Houses if this to this question. From an examination of the grants and of the aushonld become a law; and it is torelieve the situa.tionofanydifficulty thorities bearing upon them, I then became satisfied that they were as to lands lying opposite roads constructed out of time. • grants in prmsenti, which passed the title, subject to forfeiture for non-

.Bat the minority of the committee, led by the gentleman from Mis- performance of the conditions-subsequent. souri [Mr. STONE], will present to this bill an amendment going to · Every lawyer knows that estates on condition are of two 1.-inds or the length of the inquiry suggested by the gentleman from ~li"5ouri characters. An estate upon condition-precedent is one in which the title [Mr. HEARD], and when that question Rhall be presented I deflire by stands nevel' vested until the condition upon which the grant i~ made the courtesy of the committee to present my views in reference to it. is fully performed. None of these railroad land grants are of thatcharBut I wish to say in passing that it is the opinion of the majority that acter. They are grants upon conditions-subsequent. 'l'he rule in this no bill broader in character than that which is under consideration character ot conditional estate is that for non-performance of the concoald pass the Senate or ever become a law. We have agitated this dition or conditions a forfeiture does not result eo instanti by the lapse question for years in both Housesof Congress. We have passed twelve of time allowed for it.a performance, but that, in order to effect it, acforteiture bills during the time I have named, aggregating something tion is required npon the part of the grantor. In the case of private like 60,000,000 acres of public lands, and no bill has ever gone further grants, if you make a grant to your neighbor upon the condition that in declaring forfeited lands than the bill reported by the Committee on he perforru or do certain things wit}?.in one year or five years, and he Public Lands. fails to do that thing within the tirne, it then becomes your right to

Mr. HEARD. Now the other inquiry, as to wh~ther it will have re-enter or repo. ess yourself of the estate granted, and that action on the effect of confirming any title in a railroad to such lands where the your part determines his estate, and you are repossessed and reinvested road was fini-1hed out of time. with the full title. But suppose yon do not re-enter and repossess your

Mr. PAY80N. Now, I am coming to the inquiry of my friend as to right, then the grant in law remains good, and notwithstanding the. whether it will .have the effect of confirming any title, or whether it time has elapsed and your opportunity is presented there is no forfeitshall prevent> Congress from acting hereafter if it desired. That is J ure until yon do act. covered by the seventh section, which I will read: Therefore I have contended all the time that as to these grants to

That nothing in this act shall be construed to waive or release in any way any right of the United States to have any other lands granted by them. as rec!Led in the first section, forfeited fo:r any failure, pa.st or future, to comply with the conditions of the grant.

railroad corporations by the Government. if the Government did not take action to forfeit the grants at the expiration of the period of time within which the roads were to be completed and the conditions complied with, the grants would remain good in law, and the grantee com-

Tha.t is reserving the right on the part of Congress to do anything it panies could go on performing the conditions, and if the grantor perma.y ckoose hereafter in any other form it pleases with reference to this mitted them to be entirely performed, it would make no difference as very character of land. to the character of the estate, and when the conditions were fully per-

1\lr. HEARD. That is satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. formed, the opportunity of the grantor for declaring a forfeiture would Mr. PAYSON. I ought to say that, as to the first character of land be forever gone. That is the rule as beLween individuals, and it ought

where there has been a breach of the conditions, there was power to to be the rule applicable to the Government, on the principle of estopdeclare an entire forfeiture, and I ought to say in connection with what pel. While technical estoppel does not apply to the Government of I have stated in relerence to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE] the United States, the Government ought always to conform to it; for that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HoL :IAN], mycolleagueon the theprinciplethat "thekingcandonowrong" basnoapplicationtoour Committee on Public Lands, proposes to offer an amendment to the form of government. :first section of this bill, declaring ·an entire forfeiture of the land where Now, this bill declares a forfeiture of all the ]ands granted to every the entire conditiom1 are not complied with within the time. The ma- railroad company to the extent that the company lJas not constructed

1 io:rity of the committee think, as l have stated, t.hat the best policy is it.a road. If a grant is made t-0 a coippany to construct a road, say of to take all these lands by the method suggested by this bill and to 100 miles in length, and it has constructed but 50 miles, this bill allows which there is no objection and restore them to the public domain, and the company to take one-half of the 11.nd grant because one·lmlf of the not to complicate it with these other questions about which there is road is constructed, and forfeits the other half to the GoYernment. this difference of opinion. Hence I approve the bill. .And right here I wish to speak more par-

Mr. HEARD . . Without barring the Gonrnment as to any further l~icnlarly of a railroad company in which the people I have the honor action. to represent here are in part interested. I refer to the Mobilelllnd Gi-

Mr. PAYSON. Precisely. Now, l'ifr. Chairman, unless some gen- rard Railroad of Alabama, which runs through a part of the district I tleman desires to ask a question I will not detain the House further. represent. f'he grant of that company was made in 185G and the limit

Mr. DUNNELL. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. of the grant was 6 miles; the indemnity limit, 15 miles. The company He has stated once the amount of land that has been heretofore re- constructed a part of its road, from Girard to Troy, a distance of 84 stored to the public domain. Will he state bow many acres of land miles, which is in full operation, and bas for years been treated by the will be retnrped to the public domain by the operations·of this bill? Government as a land-grant railroad; and, for transporting troops just

Mr. PAYSON". The information that I obtained from the General after the close of the war and for transporting the mails ever since, has Land Office is that it is about in round numbers 7,500,00~ acres; some been subjected t,o the conditions of reduced pay set forth in the grant-

\.

1890. .~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7007 ing act. For these 84 miles the company is entitled to:3o7,200 acres of land.

Another railroad company built its road upon a part of the line of thic; road, from Pollard to the Tensas River, which was surveyed by this company and the lands withdrawn in accordance with the grant. By some arrangement this other company constructed its road on the rie;ht of way of the Mobile and Girard Company for about 50 miles. While in law the Mobile and Girard Company had the-right to sell, tra.nsfor, and convey their land grant to another company, I do not think that due formalities of transfer were entered into between these two corporations, aud theretore I do not believe that the corporation which built its road on this part of the right of way is entitled to any portion of the grant. But as to the right of the Mobile and Girard Company to the land grant for the 84 miles constructed, from Girard to Troy, l have no doubt. Now, along this line there was comparatively a small a.mount of public land, perhaps not more than 20,0UO acres, which the company (}oald obtain conterminout1 with the constructed roads, but, from the peculiar character of this 2rant-and there are many others like it; in fact it is the form in which nearly all of them were made at that time-this company had aright to sell one hundred and twenty sections before they stuck a spa.de in the ground, and, furthermore, when they could not find the lands they were entitled to by sections within the limit.s of the grant, they had the right to go within the indemnity limits anywhere along the line ot the grant and takes11ch a number of acres of land as they had earned by construction.

Some time after this grant, I think aboa t the year of 1867 OJ; 1868! the Government of the United titates, acting through the Secretary of the Interior, issued paten ts or titles t;o all these lands which were granted to the State of Alabama. in tra.st for this company, and turned them over to the State. Then by an ant of the Legislature, which I think was improvidently and ip.considerately passed, these evidences of title were all turned over to the railroad company. The company since that time has sold a considerable q ua.ntity of this lanu; a portion, being timber land, has heen leased to some saw-mill companies, and another portion the railroad company has allowed to be so_ld by the State for taxes accming thereon. Gentlemen are all familiar with the principle that whenever a patent is issued for lands the United States Government parts with the title and the lands ~e then su~ject to taxation'. So that the State of Alabama, when once these lands had become the property of the railroad corporation, had a r~ht t;o collect taxe~ on them.

The only question which could be 10a.de against the State would be whether it carried out in good faith the trust reposed in it. But at any rate, in tlie view that I take of this particular matter, it does not make any difference. It is quite certain that the railroad company has disposed ot only something over 200, 000 acres of this granted land-less than 250,000 acres I should say. '

:Now, at the proper time-and I wish the particular attention of members of the committee to this proposition-I desire to offer the following amendment, which rela~ only to the lands of this particular grant and which is in the form of an amendment to the second proviso of the first section:

.Jndprovided, That the Mobile 11.nd Girard Railroad Company of Alabama shall be entitled to the qua.ntity of land earned by the construction of .their ron.d from Girard to Troy, a distance of 84 miles-

This excludes the claim for road constructed upon the southern end of the gram- · And the Secretary of tbe Interior, in making settlement and assigning the said company the lands earned thereby, shall in-Olude therein all the lands sold, convoyed. or otherwise di«posed of by said company, including such as have been sold for taxes, not to exoeed the tote.I amount earned by said company. And the titles of the purchasers to all such lands are hereby confirmed, so far as the United States are concerned therein.

Now, a word of expla.nation in regard to that. Here is a railroad eorporation which has earned over S00,000 acres of land; it has sold or in some manner part.ed with we will .say 250,000 acres, scattered all along lihe line of the grant. I have b~n informed that the company sold some of these lands for 10 cents an acre; but that does not matter, in the view that I take of this question.

As the company has earned over 300,000 acres and has parted with nearly 250,0:10 ae.res, my proposition is that when the Secretary of the Interior t'Omes to adjust with the company the amount of land they are entitlecl to for the road they have constructed he shall include in the three hundred thousand and odd acres earned by the company all the lands which they have sold or conveyed to and put in the possession of other parties.

Now, the United States are not interested in this. You are certainly going to give to that railroad company the number of acres it has earned by the con trnction of the 84 miles of road. The_ United States, there· fore, are not interested at all in what disposition the company shall make of the lands which it; has earned and which are its own.

:Mr. COHB. ls that company still in existence? Mr. OATES. Ob, of course it i.s. The road is operated now under'

a lease to the Georgia Central. • Mr. STEW ART, of Vermont. What disposition does this bill, with

out the amendment, make of the land? I ask this question for information.

Mr. OATES. The language of the bill leaves room for doubt on that point, as I will show. The first section declares-

That there are hereby forfeited to the United States, and the United States hereby resumes the title thereto, all lands heretofore granted to any State or to any corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad opposite to and conterminous with the portion of any such railroad not now completed,

Take this bill on it.s face and it would cut oft that company with 20, ooo acres only, because conterminous with the road you would only be able to find 20,000 acres. But in the grant itself, the original contract. the company barl a right, not finding the land it was entitled to in place, t-0 go anywhere along the line of theindemity limits and take the quantity of land it earned by the construction of the road.

Taking the granting act in connection with this first section, I think a court would hold that the company was entitled to the lands it had earned by the construction of so many miles of road.. But the amendment I offer can not hurt anybody. It simply makes the language plain and unmistakable as to this company. On the principle on which the bill proceeds! the company is entitled to the 300,000 acres it has earned by constructing so many miles of road. Now, I say if you concede that proposition, then what the company does with those 300,0UO acres is a matter in which this House and the United States are not at all concerned. Bot, inasmuch as they have sold, conveyed, or parted with nearly 250,000 acres, I say it is righ5, it is equitable, it is giving them their proper status before the courts and the country to include in the300,000 acres the lands which this company has sold and conveyed.

Now, a word or two more in that line t-0 show you that what I say is true and pre-eminently right. During the present year, under instruction from the Attorney-General of the United States, the district attorney has filed a bill in the circuit court of the United States to declare the lands embracP.d within this particular grant forfeited, and has also issued write; of seizure; and the marshal has gone through that section of country and upon these lands, where there are a great many large saw-mills and lumbering establishments, and has seized a large quantity of logs and lumber. In some cases they have been replevied and in others the property is still in the marshal's bands.

Now, I would not interfere with the rights of the parties, if I could, in respect to this litigation, by legislation; but I am of o.pinion, and I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON], who is veryfumiliar with the law rouching this question, will agree with me, that in the ab~nce oflegislation the bill brought in this particular case is, perhaps, noi well founded and can not be sustained. That is my opinion of it; and, anyway, I would not legislate so as to interfere with the litigation in the court. Bat you will all see the proposition which I advance in this amendment, that if the railroad corporation is entitled to more than all of these lands which it has conveyed and put these saw-mill men in possession of, where they have invested their money and are now being harassed by litigation, that it oagbt not to be taken away, where the lands were rightfully owned or may be charged to the corporation in making its settlement with the United States.

I am proceeding on the hypothesis that there is no doubt that this House and the Senate will allow (for I think it is so under the bill even without the amendment or that the bill would mean that) the lands to this corporation which it has earned by the construction of that portion of the road; and, if so, why forfeit the lands upon which these industrial esta.blishment.s are situated and further disturb and complicate matters when the railroad company has earned enough lands to make the title good to these parties?

Let me make this further remark, Mr. Chairman, that I am in favor of the substitute offered by the committee for the Senate bill. I am opposed, unalterably opposed, tothe proposition in the Senate bill which grant.s one year's time to this among other railroad companies to complete the construction of their road.

I will reserve the remainder of my time until I hear whether there is any objection to the proposition I have suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has occupied twenty-five minutes.

l\Ir. HERBERT. Mr. Chairman, this dispute between the House and the Senate as to what lands are su~ject to forfeiture has up to this time proven very unprofitable t;o the Government. In the Forty-eighth Congre•s many bills sent over by the House to the Senate were disagreed t;o by the latter body, and, the House and the Senatefailingto come to an agreement, the bills fell. The House cont.ended, as the gentleman who has just addressed us [Mr. STONE, of Missouri] still contends, tha_t all lands were subject to forfeiture which had not been ea.med by the completion of the roads within the time given by the several granting acts. The Senate al ways contended, upon the other hand, that no lands wereforfeitable except those that had not been earned by the completion of the rna<ls conterminous with the lands at the time of the passage of the forfeiture act.

The failure of these bills in the Forty-eighth CoD$?ress resulted, according to the theory of the Senate, in giving further time to the railroad companies, and many of these companies availed themselves of this time by pushing on the work of building. So it was, sir, that when we came back to the Forty-ninth Congress there were 25,000,000 or perhaps 30,000,000 acres less of lands upon which the House and the Senate could agree than there had been in the Forty-eighth Congress.

_, '\ ,

. '

- I

.

7008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE: JULY 7,

Then, when we came to the Fiftieth Congress the roads had been so far completed that there were only about 5,000,000 acres left as.to which the House and the Senate could agree that they were forfeitable and oaght to be forfeited. In the last Congress the Committee on Public Lands put all the lands they proposed to forfeit into one bill, passed it through this House, and sent it to the Senate. ThatHonse bill proposed to forfeit 50,000,000 acres. I voted for that bill as it passed the House. Bat it came back to ns so amended as to-forfeit only about 5,000,000 ~cres. There were many of us here who then thought that the House ought to accept what the Senate would agree to do and forfeit all the lands that we coald then forfeit; in other words, that we ought to be practical and do what could be done; but we were unable to reach a vote oa the question, and so no landtt were forfeited at all. .And now we come here to the Fifty-first Congress, and many of these comp~nies have still further extended their roads, and have earned their lands according to the claim of the Senate, so that. to-day I suppose-I have not the figures exactly, but I suppose there are one or two million Jess acres of land carried in this bill than were carried in the bill which was sent back to us from the Senate at the first session of

_ the Filtieth Congress. . Now the question is, Shall we agree to forfeit all the lands that it is

possible to agree on? For one, I think we should take what we can get. In my opinion now, lo·oking back, weoaght to have done that in the Fiftieth Congress. Whatever gentlemen may think as to the Jaw of this question of forfeiture the practical question for us is, What can we do? How many acres of land can we turn back to the Government of the United States or to the people? This dispute has resulted very unfortunately in many portions of the country, especially so in the district I have the honor t-0 represent.

My collea~ue [.Mr. OATES] submitted awhile ago an amendment in r~lation to the Mobile and Girard Railroad land grant in which I most heartily concur. I had a similar amendment ready to offer; in fact it is intended to carry out the very bill that I introduced at the beginning of the Fiftieth Congress and also at the beginning of the Fifty-first Congress and sent before the Committee on Public Lands for consideration. That wa.c:i to protect the rights of purchasers. I most earnestly insist that the amendment ought to be adopted. The conditions along the line' of the Mobile and Girard Railroad illustrate very forcibly the misfortune of our failure heretofore to settle this question. Along the line of that road there are many who have bought from the railraad company, while there are others who have bought from the State of .Alabama and at tax sales. Great anxiety bas existed and exists now as tow hat is to become of the titles of the people in possession of those lands. Industry has been crippled, the settlement of the conn try has been retarded, and _I, as a Representative of that people, am extremely anxious that this bill shall pass, and that that question shall be settled as it ought to have been settled heretofore. I can not see any sound reason for allowing this question to remain open when we know per-

,,. fectly well that the Senate will not consent to the forfeiture of a larger number of acres than are contained in this bill. There is no reasonable prospect of a change in the political complexion of the Senate or that a change will occur in its views for many years to come, and this ques-tion ou~ht to be settled now. -

To address myself particularly to the amendment, let me remind the committee, as my colleague [Mr. OATES] did, that the grant to the Mobile and Girard Railroad Company was made in 1856, a long time ago. .After the completion of a portion of the road the lands along the whole line of the road were certified by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in the State of Alabama for the use of that railroad company. Gentlemen may say that people who purchased those lands ought to have known, if the road was not fully completed, that the titles that they got from the company to lands not conterminous with the completed portions of the road were not good. It is easy enoagh to say that men oaght to have known it, bu~ the fact is that intelligent, honest business men did not know it, if it was so. Many of these purchasers have been advised by able lawyers that their titles were good, that the company had earned these lands and had a right to select them, so many sections of land for each section of road completed, and to select them anywhere along the line of the road. They believed the title was good. They looked to the fact that the land bad been certified by the proper authority, the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United States, to the State of Alabama, for the benefit of the road. That, according to their opinion. vested the title of the land in the railroad company, the State being simply the trustee and the railroad company the cestui que trust. So they bought those lands; they pa.id their money for them; they went on improving them.

I have here in my hand a deed made to Mr. F. J. McCoy for 640 acres of that land. It is true the consideration he paid for it was only 50 cents an acre, but at the time he paid that money the lands along the line of that road were not considered worth more than that sum. And to show that he was honest and earnest in this matter be bas' put up, as he writes me-and he is a gentleman whose word can always be trusted-he has put np on that section of land improvements costing $20,000at least. Many others have settled upon thoselands and made homes there. Others have bought and taken possession o1 the land

for the sake of the timber upon it or for the purpose of making turpentine. They have paid for the land just as honestly as Mr. McCoy did. They have invested their money and are improving it to-day just as honestly as he did; so that they are entitled to the equitable consideration of this-Honse. It seems to me that under these circumstances it is only right that this amendment should be adopted.

I have stated that always heretofore I have voted with those who were in favor of forfeiting the largest number of acres. I did so, not because I was clear upon the law, as I had not had time to consider the question carefully; I was inclined to think, and have always been, that, according to the principles laid down in Schulenberg vs. Harriman, the Senate was probably right; but I voted for the forfeiture, not being clear upon the question, wHh the idea that if any wrong was done the courts would correct it .

Now, according to the principle laid down in this case this railroad company has earned a very much larger number of acres than are comprised in this amendment of my colleague. The amendment proposes to confine the road to these particular lands, so as to give to the purchasers the title the road would otherwise have. And I hope no gentleman here will vote against that proposition. It is equitable; it is ri~ht, whatever yon may think of the law. If gentlemen say the case of Schulenberg vs. Harriman does not apply, if they take an extreme view on this question, nevertheless it is a fact that these people on those lands, although they may not technically be, according to that view of the law, bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice, because they were charged with notice of every defect of title that could have been found by running the chain back, nevertheless they did not take that view of the law; they did not so look upon the question; but they did buy these lands, they did improve them, and they are on them to-day.

Now, there is a provision in the bi.11 that all those who were actual settlers upon the land shall be entitled to a homestead by preference upon the land on which they are. - That is all well enough. But, Mr. Chairman, this bill ought to go further than that; and I have an amendment here which I propose to offer upon this question of homesteads, and which I hope the House will agree to. I read it now in order to give notice that I shall offer it at the proper time:

Insert at the end of section 2 the following: "And all lands suited to agricultural purposes and forfeited by this bill, as t-0

which no specific provision is herein made, si:Jall hereafter be subject to entry only under the homestead laws of the United States."

We had this question before us in the Fiftieth Congress, and then passed a general bill on this subject; but it possibly does not cover the lands embraced in this bill. It ought to be made certain that all the agricultural lands belonging to the Government should hereafter be reser>ed only for agricultural settlers. _

Mr. HERMilTN. What does the gentleman say in regard to those settlers who have entered on lands with the intention of purchasing them under the pre-emption Jaw? Would he cut them off?

:Mr. HERBERT. No, sir; I would include them. I am willing to accept an amendment for that purpose, which is entirely in accordance with the spirit of my amendment. My impression is that the bill 88' reported will cover the case of pre-emptions; but, if the gentleman from Oregon finds such is not the fact, I am perfectly willing, before my amendment is offered, to modify it by adding suc_h a provision as he suggests.

Mr. Chairman, both the great parties of this country are committed to the idea that all the public lands which are fitted for homes should be reserved as such for the people; and I know of no bill upon which that principle can be asserted, upon which that idea can be carried out more fitly and appropriately than this bill relating to the forfeiture of lands heretofore granted to railroad corporations.

It seems to have been the policy of this country in times now long past to give the public lands to corporations in order to build up the country. Experience has shown that while we were building up the country we were building up too many great corporations to control the country. So we now have adopted the other idea, that we ought no more to give the public lands to corporations, but should give all of them to the people for homes. Let us make the provisions of this bill so certain that there can be no possible doubt about the meaning of the law.

How much time have I occupied? The CH.AlRMAN. Tbegentlemanhasoccupied seventeen minutes. Mr. HERBERT. I do not }mow that I shall care to occupy the :floor

again, but I will reserve the time. Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court of the

United States has frequently decided that a Congressional land grant which is subject to forfeiture on account of non-compliance by the grantee with the conditions of the grant may be forfeited in either one of two ways: Fin!t, by a direct legislative declaration of forfeiture ex.pressed in an act of Congress and, secondly, by the finding and judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in a suit begun and prosecuted by the authority of an act of Congress for the purpose of obtaining a forfeiture. One is a legislative forfeiture, the other a judicial forfeiture.

.According to the oft-repeated decisions of the Supreme Court, Con-

• I

1890. . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7009 gress is at liberty to adopt either method. It may simply declare the )ands forfeited or it may direct a judicial inquiry into the facts and authorize a jndgrµent of forfeiture on the :finding. I assume there will be no controversy as to this statement.

Now, the bills passed or proposed in the Forty-seventh, Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth, and Fiftieth Congresses were all bills for a direct legislative forfoiture. This question of forfeiting lands granted to aid in the construction of railroads received its first legislative attention during t,he se&iions of the Forty-seventh Congress. In all .the Congresses since the Forty-seventh it has been a question of ~ommanding interest and of great public concern.

Almost from the very beginning of this forfeiture legislation a. conflict arose between the two Bouses of Congressas t-0 bow far the proposed forfeitures should extend. The House of Representatives took the position that Congre3S had the legal right to forfeit and that it was its duty to forfeit and restore to the public domain all that portion of the granted lands along or adjacent to which no road bad been constructed at the dates :fixed in the granting acts for the completion of the roads. ·

On the otber,band the Senate took the position that the forfeitures should be limited to that portion of the lands which lie along or adjacent to so much of the several roads as remained unconstrncted at the date of the passage and approval of the act of forfeiture. Let me illustrate: In 1864 Congress incorporated the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, and authorized it to construct a line of road from Lake Superior to Puget Sound, with a branch running from the main line along the valley of the Columbia to the city of Portland.

To aid in the construction of that road Congress granted to the company a certain number of alternate sections of the public lands, running along on either side of the road throughout its entire length. This land grant aggregated about 47,000,000 acres. Now, this act of Congress and acts supplementary thereto provided, among other things, that the grant was made and accepted upon tbe express condition that the road should be fully completed and in operation, from end to end, by July 4, 1879.

On July 4, 1879, the road was not completed. It had been partly constructed, that is to say, from its eastern terminus on Lake Superior out to Bismarck, on the Missouri River. West of Bismarck, running through Dakota., Montana, Idaho, and Washington, not a foot of road had been constrncted up to July 4, 1879. Since that time, notwithstanding the period limited for the completion of the road, and which was expressly made a condition of the grant, had then expired, the company has practically completed its main line between Bismarek and Puget Sound. The branch line along the Columbia. River, and possibly a small fraction of the main line, still remains uneonstructed.

Now, the policy of the Honse, with reference to this roi:td, has been toforfoitand restore to public uses all the granted lands which lie west of Bismarck, covering that part of the grant which bad not been "earned" by the construction of road up to July 4, 1879. ThepolicyoftheSenate bas been to forfeit only so much of the lands as now still remain "unearned" by actual construction. Under the policy of the House the railroad company would be left undisturbed in the possession and use of the lands lying along the road between Lake Superior and Bismarck, which was constructed prior to July 4, 1879, and its title to those lands would be in effect confirmed by the limitation placed on the act of rorfei ture. .

Under the policy of the Senate the company would be left in the possession of all lands lying along any constructed road, whether east or west of Bismarck, and without regard to the date of construction. ~he Senate ma)res no distinction in law, equity, or public policy, between road constructed before and road constructed after the date :fixed in the granting act for its completion.

That illustrates the contention and the issue between the two Houses of Congress. Along that line of policy the House, in the Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth Congresses, passed its forfeiture bills and sent them over to the Senate.

The Senate amended them so as to restrict the forfeitures to the lands still ''unearned." And so the issue was joined on this single proposition: Can Congress and shall Congress forfeit lands conterminous with road constructed after tbe date :fixed in the granting act for the completion of the road? Along that line the battle has been fought. The House, however, during the Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth Congresses did not allow a mere policy to stand in the way of practical results.

In cases where it made little difference in the amount of lands restored whether the forfeiture was predicated on the Senate theory or the House theor.v, the House yielded in order to reach results. The House yielded when it could do so without sacrificing much in the general outcome; it refused to yield when the difference in the amount involved was important. In that way several forfeiture bills were pas .. ed daring the Forty-eighth and Forty-nmth Congresses.

During those two Congresses bills were passed forfeiting in the ag· gregate 50,482,240 acres. Those forfeitures closed up all the larger grants on which it was possible for the two 1Jouses to agree, unless one or the other should give way and surrender the substance of the issue between them. So far in the forfeitures made the Honse yielded and the Senate had its way. Only "unearned" lands were forfeited. But

XXI-439 '\

the House yielded and permitted the Senate to have it.s way because, as to the grants affected by the bills which passed, the difference in actual results was not important.

Then came the Fil tie th Congress. Up to this time we had not attempted a general forfeiture bill, but each grant had been separately treated by a separate bill. Now, however, when the Fiftieth Congress met a general forfeiture bill was introduced in each House. The Senate bill prov\,ded for the forfoiture of all ''unearned'' lands.

The House bill also provided for the forfeiture of all ''unearned lands,'' and in addition thereto provided for the forfeiture of all lands ''earned out of time.'' We had now reached the point in this legislation when the issue between the two Houses must be fairly met. Hitherto the House bad yielded in special cases, because, as I have said, no important difference in results was involved. But now further concession or yielding meant absolute surrender.

The Senate got its general bill through first, and sent it over to the House. It proyided for the forfeiture of all "unearned" lands or lands where no road had been constructed. The House amended the bill so as to forfeit also all lands "earned out of time," or lands conterminous with road constructed after the dates fixed in the grants for the completion of the roads. If the Senate proposition succeeded the amomitof land forf~ited would be 6,180,803 acres. If the House proposition succeeded, the forfoiture would amount to 54,323,996 acres. The issue between the two Houses, therefore, involved the ownership of 48,143,193 acres, of which 34,217,741 acres were claimed by the Northern Pacific. That was the issue between the two Houses.

The Senate rejected the amendment of the House. The House msisted upon the amendment. In consequence of this disagreement the Fiftieth Congress adjourned without enacting any forteiture legislation, or practically so.

Now, the question in your minds, gentlemen, must be this: Why did the Senate r~fuse to agree to the House amendment? I can tell you what they said. Whether they gave the real reason or concealed it, I do not know; but I .can tell you what they said. A majority of the Senators having this legislation in charge, asserted, as a legal proposition, that Congress has no right or power to forfeit lands conterminous with constructed road without regard to the date of construction. We replied to them that that was a question about which eminent lawyers differed.

The attorneys of the railroads and the railroad lobby were all agreed that Congress bad no power to forfeit ''earned lands, '' whether earned ''in time'' or ''out of time.'' But there were other great lawyers and jurists in the country, not employed by railroads or interested iJi t~em, who held to the contrary. Then we were told by them that in view of the uncertain state of the law it would be unwise and imprudent legislation to enact the House proposition into a statute, for the reason that thousands of people, relying upon the authority of an act of Congress, would go upon the disputed lands and settle, and that in thE: course of time the railroad companies would sue them in ejectment, bring the cases here to the Supreme Court, and if they succeeded, as the Senators thought they would, in having the court declare that Congress had exceeded its power and set the act of forfeiture aside, thafl infinite confusion and harm would be lihe result.

Those were the grounds upon which the Senators ostensibly based tbeir objection to the adoption of the House amendment. Personally I had no faith in that contention, but it was plausible. If an act of forfeiture should be passed; if large numbers of _people, relying upon it, should settle upon the forfeited lands and improve them, and if after that the Supreme Court should declare the act of forfeiture void and uphold the title of the railroad companies, the confusion and distress apprehended and prophesied might result. So I say that con· tention had on it a plausible face.

Now comes the Fifty-first Congress. When this Congress convened-' I introduced a forfeiture, bill which I believed would allav these sensitive apprehensions of certain Senators, to which 1 have ~alluded, and remove the groundof objection upon which they predicated their opp<r sition to the House measure in the Fiftieth Congress. I divided my bill into two parts. The :first part related to the 6,180,803 acres of "unearned lands," or those lands as tothe forfeiture of which thereis no disagreement. That part of the bill provided for a direct legislative declaration of forfeiture. The provisions of that part of the bill were substantially the same throughout as the bill which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. P AYSO~] bas reported and which we are now considerin,!?'.

The second part of my bill related to the 48,143,193 acres of lands '' earned out of time,'' or those lands-which Senators saicr they were afraid to declare forfeited for fear an after adverse decision of the Supreme Court might create confusion and entail su:ftering upon the set· tiers. That part of the bill, briefly stated, directs the Attorney-General of the United States to institute suits in the circuit courts of the United States against the corporations claiming these-lands, to have those courts :find the fu.cts and then to decide, a9 a matter of law, whether lands of that character are subject to forfeiture, and if so to have judgments entered declaring them forfeited.

Appeals and writs of error to the Supreme Court are provided for, and both the circuit and Supreme Courts are directed to advance the cases to a hearing in preference to all other civil cases on their dockets.

..... -

,

--

.,

, • I

{

7010 -1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J~Y7,

Whenever any .final judgment of forfeiture shall be rendered it is provided that the forfeited lands shall thereafter be and become a. part of the public domain; in other words, that part of the bill proposes that the question in dispute, the forfeitability of the lands "earned out of time," be submitted t.l the courts, and if the holding be in favor of the Government then to have judgments of forfeiture entered.

If the judgment be in favor of the Government, then there are provisions in the bill to protect pmchasers and settlers, and which regulate the disposition of the lands forfeited and restored by the decree of the court. If the judgment should be in favor ofthe railroads, why, that would be the end of it. In other words, as to the lands about which there is no dispute I propose a legislative forfeiture; as to the lands about which there is dispute I propose a judicial forfeiture.

If that bill should pass the Honse and go to the Senate it would put an end to the objection urged in the Fiftieth Congress to which I have alluded. There could be no entry or settlement, there could be no declaration of intention to settle, the local officers would have no jurisdiction over the lands, they wouid remain in statlt q1w until the final judgment of the Supreme Court.

What was doue with that bill? It was referred by Mr. Speaker REED to the Public Lands Committee, of which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON] is the chairman. That committee cut the bill in twain. The first half of it, that which provides for a direct forfeiture of the " unearned lands," was merged in the bill reported by the gentleman from Illinois [.Mr. PAYSON] and now being considered. The half of it, that which relates to the lands in dispute and which provides for j µdicial proceedings, was formed into a separate measure, and I was "directed to report that.

In other words the committee, instead of treating the whole subject in one bill, has divided it, and two bills have been brought into the House, one for the direct forfeiture of the "unearned lands," being the bill now under consideration, and one directing the Attorney-General to institute suits in the Federal courts to obtain a jndicial forfeiture of lands "earned out of time. 11 That bill I shall offer as an amendment to the pending bill. I propose to consolidate the two propositions here, as I did in my original bilJ, and dispose of the whole subject at once.

Mr. SAYERS. Will it interfere with the gentleman if I ask him a question? .

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Not at all. Mr. SAYERS. I would like to know from the gentleman whether

the proposition insisted upon by the House in the last Congress appears in either of these bills or in the minority report.

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. No, sir; the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] proposes, as I understand, to offer, as an amendment to the first section of the pending bill, the proposition which the House passed and insisted on in the Fiftieth Congress. But I have abandoned that myself, because I do not believe that proposition can pass so long as the Senate remains as it is to-day. And I believe the proposition which I submit is preferable anyhow; because, if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. SAYERS], who has .been so good as to give me his attention, will reficct, he will see that if the proposition passed by the House and insisted upon by it during the last Congress should be enacted into law, it would forfeit land to which the railroad companies claim title; that is to say, it would forfeit lands earned by the railroad companies "out of time," as it is usually expressed. And if the Honse should pass that proposition it would meet the same objection with which it was confronted in the Senate in the Fiftieth Congress, and which I have alre.ady explained.

Mr. SA.YERS. Then I understa.nd your proposition is designed to respond to objections raised by the Senate in conference committee.

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Yes, eir; my proposition is to send thee questions to the conrm in advance and have the courts pass, first upon the question whether the lands are subject to forfeiture, and, if so, to declare them forfeited. The Supreme Court has decided over and over again that that is one of the methods of forfeiture which may be adopted.

The real question before the Honse, then, is upon the adoption of the amendment I shall propose. Are you in favor of the proposition embodied in the amendment? That interrogatory raises two questions, one of law and one of policy, though the question of law involved· is the very thing I propose to submit to the determination of. the courts.

Both these questions of law and policy have been ably and elaborately discussed here in former Congresses. It might be well, l\Ir. Chairman, in this connection to recall some things said here on this :floor a few brief years ago, since it ma7 serve the double purpose of enlightening the Honse as t-0 its duty m this emergencyand of reviving the laggard memory of that impassioned orator whose lips gave fervid utterance to these glowing sentences.

On July 26, 1886, a bill forfeiting the Northern Pacific grant was under consideration by the House. The Senate had a bill and the House had a bill. The >ery issue between the two Houses to which I have referred, namely, the extent of the forfeiture, was the issue then being discussed. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON], in a speech made by him on that day, said:

I ha,,e said, Mr. Speaker, th.at I am in favor of the House bill apd opposed to that of the Senate; and having given the facts as_ I understand them I reach the

point to state the reasons. Involved in this case, as in every other of like character, are two questions: First, the qu_estion of power; second, the que tion of policy; that is to say, first, whether we have the legal right or authority under the law to declare a forfeiture of these lands; secondly, if the first point should be established affirmatively, whether as a. matter of policy, as a. matter of fair dealing under all the circumstances of the case, the power that Congress has ought to be exercised.

Now, let us see what he thought of the first question, that is, the power of Congress to declare the forfeiture. After discussin~ that question at some length, in the speech from which I have just q noted, he said:

We conclude, then, on the legal question of power in Congress (and we are only dealing with the abstract lega.l question now) that it has the right, first, to declare the title to all unpatented lands in the gmnt forfeited, and revest the United States with it, so that it can b e l'cstored to the public domain open to sale and settlement under existing laws.

Again, further on in the same speech: Let me put it in another way: It is admitted that they have not built the Cas

cade Brs.nch, even now, and that they bave not built the road from \\'allula to Portland, 214 mile • and have practically abandoned that part of the route.

Now, sir, for this non-user of the franchise have we not the legal right to forfeit it., now and here? Unquestionably; and, if so, have we not the right to the incident-the land grant?

I am only now discussing the question of power, of strict legal right .. Gentlemen say" the law o.bho1-s a forfeiture," and this is a frequent text in

thls case. If it were so the law would be very like the gen!lemen who quote the maxim.

But it is not so; the law is the reverse. as expressly decided in the Farnsworth case (92 United States). There the court says that while forfeiture is not favored as between individuals where compensation can be made, yet in case of public grants like this the courts can not and ought not to relieve, and that the ma::rim quoted does not apply.

We had the power to assert this forfeiture in 1879, and the authorities I have cited show that .:ve have it now as a legal right beyond all question. Should it be exercised? That is a question of policy, a.nd to that I now address myeelf.

But before follOwing him into the question of policy let me make one additional quotation from the gentleman on the question of power. On April 4, 1884, a bill forfeiting a grant made to the Oregon Central Railroad Company was pending. During the discussion the following colloquy occurred :

Mr. Honn. Now, do I understand the gentleman's position to be thi!!: if a company goes on and completes a certain portion of its road in good faith nnder the terms of its contract, and is allowed to have lands patent-ed as certain por· tions of the road are completed, it may go on and build perhaps 120 miles in that way, and then, because the company does not build the re!!t of the road within the time, the Gove1·nment has a.n equitable and moral right t-0 declare the entire land forfeited 1md take a.way from the company what it has earned?

Mr. PAYSO:i<. 'Vhen the gentleman asks what we have a "moral right" todo, that is a question which every mem.ber will settle for himself. If he asks whether we have a. legal right to do it, I say unhesitatingly yes; imd I have never heard any lawyer, except some attorney for a railroad company, who evc1· denied the proposition.

Mr. SA.YERS. And that, notwithstanding that the patents had been issued?

Mr. STO:SE, of Missouri. Yes, sir. Again, the gentleman said:

ilut unless there is some re!!triction in the o.ct on the extent of the forfeiture where it is exerci ed, it extends to the whole estate granted.

I undertake to s&y, Mr. Speaker, without any M.sumption or any atfect&tion of learning with reference to this queet.ionhthat gentlemen who oppose this bill can not find a. single case that squints in t e direction of a.flirm.ing that, where there is no limitation upon the extent of forfeiture in the act of Congress or the Legislature making the grant, the power does not extend to the entire thing grunted. No matter into whose hands itma.y go, no matter what improvements may be put upon it, no matter how many mortgages may be given, the com· mon·law right to declare an absolute forfeiture attaches in such a case.

Gentlemen on the other side were pleruied to ask the question, as though it were an important factor in the calculation, has not a. mortgage been ~iven on this railroad? We ans wered yes; and gentlemen sat back as though that ended the matter. I call the att.ention of these gentlemen who have the,e scruples to the case of Farnsworth vs. The Minneeota and Pacific Railroad Com· pany (92 United States), where it was expressly decided tha."t the holder of mortgage securities upon a land grant to which a condition-subsequent was attached, so that pos!!ibly a declaration of forfeiture might be made, took the same subject to that liability. The court says (page 66) : ·

"The beneficiaries under that instrument [the mort.gage] took 'vhatever se· curity it afforded in subordination to the right of the State to enforce the forfeiture."

I could continue these quota.tions at great length if I had time. But this will do on that point.

Now, ad to t.he question of policy. In his great speech on the Northern Pacific forfeiture bill, July 26, 1886, from which I have already quoted, addressing himself to this question of policy, he said:

I have shown, sir, that under the law we ,have the power, the Jegal right, to ass.er~ this forfeiture.

I said also that if this land belongs to the people nothing should constrain us to yield it to the company exceptthe strongest equitable consideration, equities which are equal to leg&l obliptions. . 'Vith confidence I submit that with what the House bill proposes, the liberality of its provisions in what it permits the company to retain, the facts in the history of the buildin~ of the road, and the action of the company toward the people-monopolistic, exacting, a.nd unyielding always-I"earnestly insist that to make this additional dona.tion of one hubdred millions of property would be an act of stupendous folly.

* * • But I can not close in justice to myself without noticing the closin&" remarks

of the gentleman from Wi8con!lin, which I see he permits to remain in the RECORD, that these e1forta on the part of the Committee on the Public Lands to restore these lands t-0 the public domain " are the sheerc.st demagogy and of the ch ea peat class."

This kind of talk is not new to us. We have had a good deal of it, sir, first and last, since this work beiran. Not only so, air, but predictiona have been freely indul&"ed in by ~ntlemen who think and act a.! my neichbor, the gentleman from Wisconsin LMr. Price], who thin.ks that nothing ever could or would come of it, th.at no lands would ever be restored to the Government by this movement, and th.at it would all end in empty talk.

' -

\

1890. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD~HOUSE. 7011 , Mr. Speaker. it is a. matter of pride to me that. I have been connect-ed in my

wa.y and to the best of my ability with these etforts to reclaim theee vast e.reae o1 l&nd from those technically holding them, but without right or equity. I was fb1J~.g the first in the matter, and am in the matter still, and expect to remain

.Again, on July 2, 1884, while discussing another forfeiture b.ill then under consideration 1 the distinguished gentleman from lliinois bad this to say:

I ag ree with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATE ], that this is really a. pioneer case for all of these land grants which ·have been unearned by the railroads Co whom they have been given, and I deiire that the House shall make a record upon i1 here and now, as speedily as the roll can be called, t-0 show whether or not the demand on the p&rt of the people of this country that. their public lands shall remain o. part of the property of th.is great nation shall be fairly and squarely met. I believe it is their wish that these lands should be reserved on the part of the Governm~nt for the benefit of those who are homeless, for the horny-handed men of toil who are sweltering day by day for a very existence. H is for m to say whether we shall take ca.re of the trust confided to us, and keep it out ot"t.he hands of a railroad corporation that has neither justice, lnw, nor equity in support of its claim.

Representing the whole people of this land, as a member for the whole country as well as for the dist rict in which I live, I should regard myself recreant to my duty if I did not protest against a donation, a. free gift of this great area. to a corporation which had, instead of attempting to carry out the wU!hes ol Congress, con.spicnonsly succeeded in defeating it. My duty I regard as done to the H o use. I have attempted, and I venture the hope that I have succeeded in doing soJ to demonstrate tj:iat this corporation had no legal claim to any portion of tni5 grant, for no one bas yet given any authority except his own statement as •iP*ill.IJt the array of citations in the report.

Wilh the vote soen to be ta.ken which iohall determine the question whether the people shall su1fer and this defaulting companJ! be the gainer, t.be country must of necessity acquiesce, but I do not believe that. the people whose Representatives we are will be satls:fied with Jess than a. restoration to them of that which ts their own. ·

I am anxious that thls record should be made, and plead guilty to a consuming ouriosity to know how ma.ny men on this floor will dare the condem'nation of this country by condoning what this comp.iny bas done. What the country wants is acts, and not words; it wants results, and not promises, and I do not propose to delay it any longer.

1t!r. Chairman, at this point I pause to inquire what has became of this vehement. stalwart, eloquent champion of the public right as against the claims of these great corporations? What has become of that bold warrior who strode like a "plumed knight" down yonder aisle, answering corporate insolence with brave defiance? What has become of that mighty, heroic defender of the people's cause, who was in this fi~ht at the beginning and who swore he would remain immovable to the end? Where is be now? The great cause for which he made such splendid battle is in peril.

An empire is at stake. Where is our parliamentary Murat, the fieldmarshal of forfeitures? Can it be~ Mr. Chairman-is it possible that the man who four short years ago denounced those who denied the legal right of Congress to declare these forfeitures as "railroad lawyers'' and as people dominated by corporate influence is the same man who now sits yonder, timid, tender-footed, and oppressed with doubts? Can it be th.art the man who four shortyearsagodenonnced the Northern Pacific Railroad as a briber and a thief, and denounced the Senate bill as a measure intended to con.firm the claim of that corporation to more than 34,000,000 of acres of land, valued at $100,000,000, and characterized it as an act of ·~tupendonsfolly," is the same man who now, with humble, apologetic voice, advocates the adoption of tbat very proposition?

Can it be that the man who four sliort years ago boldly declared over and over again tha.t there was no shadow of doubt about our right to declare a. forfeiture of these lands, and who denounced delay in and opposition to forfeiture as equal to a crime. is the same man who now seems unwilling even to submit the que.stion in dispute to the Supreme Court and to have the law determined by the judgment of that great tribunal?

Mr. Chainnan, what subtle alchemy has wrought this wonderful metll.Illorphosis? What mellowin2 influence has softened this brawny chieftain who but yesterday was aflame with the fury of combat and converted him into an ally and advocate of a measure he condemned and denounced? I do not understand it; I can not comprehend it. It is all an inexplicable mystery to me.

But, gentlemen of the House, what say you to this amendment I shall propose? The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSO:N], althon~h he opposes the amendment. agrees that it embodies a correct principle both of law and public policy. He says he will favor it as a separate proposition, but is unwilling to make it a. part of the pending bill. Why? The substance of his objection is this: That he does not believe the Senate will agree to the amendment if the House adopts it; that the Senate will not consent to any forfeiture beyond the scope of the bill the gentleman has reported. ~ow does the gentleman know the Senate will not agree to the

amendment? True, it has steadily refused to declare a direct forfeiture of the lands covered by the amendment, but the proposition to submit the question of the forfeit.ability of those lands to the determination of the court.s has never been considered by the Senate. The proposition to submit the whole question to the courts obviates the very objection which Senators urged against the declaration of a direct forfeiture. But, the majority say, why not send it over as a separate bill? I say why not send it over as.a part of this bill? Logically and naturally, the whole question should be treated as-one measure.

The amendment is germane, pertinent, proper. Why not send it

over now ? If the Senate disagrees oo it that body can strike the amendment off and the original bill will be left as it is. The House can then determine whether it will yield the point. But I am told if that is done it means delay. That is true. Remember, however, this bill must go back to the Senate any way. There need be no great delay in any aspect of the case.

There may be no delay at all The Senate may agree to the amendment. We ought to _presume that it will agree to it rather than presume that it will not, since the proposition it.self is so eminently fair and ju.st and conservative. lam beginning recently, since both Houses have shown their hands on the silver bill and some other measures, to . have a higher opinion of the integrity and usefulness of the Se_nate. In no event can the Senate possibly be worse than the present House of Representatives.

What if there is some delay of a month or two months or six months growing out of a conference between the two Houses? What harm will be done? Oh, the gentleman from Illinois and those acting with him say that in the mean time, during the interval of this delay. the railroad companies will go on building road and further complicate the situation. All this talk about building road is nonsense; it is a false alarm, sounded t.o influence your action here.

No road is being built., none is going to be built. At least no road will be constructed for the purpose of 1

' earning '' these ''unearned ' ' la.nds covered by the bill now under consideration. Two-thirds of the six millions and odd a.cres affeeted by that bill are worthless. The railroad companies do not want those lands. They care nothing for them. The Government would lose very little if it lost them all. But, however that may be, the companies do not want these lands and are doing nothing to earn them. Here is a letter I wish to read:

DEPARTlllnt"T OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. 0., January 24, 1889.

Sm: I am in recei1,.t of your lett-er of the 23d instanb. asking whether any of the land-grant railroads are now constructing their uncompleted lines and how many miles have been constructed by euch roads during the last year.

In reply, I have to advise you that so far as known to this office none of the :uncompleted land-grant railroads are now in procesl!I o! construction. ,

The only construction of land-grant railroads durin~ the year 1888 was 2.61 • miles of the Cascade Branch o!the Northern Pacific, being the tunnel at Stam- " pede Pa.ss in the Cascade Mountains, and its approaches.

Very respectfuUy, ·

Hon. W. J. STONE, House of Rep1·esentatives.

S. M. STOCKSL.AG ER, Commis#oner.

What was true in 1889, when that letter was written, is true to-day. This talk about additional construction is an old song, which has be-come stale and uninteresting to me. ,

Now, I will explain to you, in a. word, why I am anxious to. have this amendment I shall propose adopted and w by I am opposed to sending it over to the Senate as a separate bill. My anxiety can be explained in one sentence: it is because I want that proposition brought before the Senate and acted on by tha ody. If the amendment shall- be adopted and made a part of the pending bill, that will insure its con-sideration by the Senate. _ _

But if you reject the amendment and refuse to consoliuate the two propositions; if you send two bills over to the Senate instead of one, why, then, the bill reported by the gentleman from Illinois will be ngreed tot but the other will probably be put to sleep in the pigeonholes of the Senate Committee on Public Lands. I have good reason for believing that a majority of the Senate Committee on Public Lands are opposed to any sort of forfeiture beyond the "unearned" lauds; but whether the Senate itself is opposed to a larger forfeiture I do not know. ·

I desire to put this matter in a form which will force it before the Senate. Unite the two propositions and it will 20 before the Senate; separate them and it will afford the Senate committee an easy opportunity to report the bill under consideration, which is what the railroads want, and to bury the other bill, to the passage of which the railroads are opposed.

Sir, if you reject the amendment I shall offer and pass the pending bill without it, that means the end of forfeiture legislation. If you pass the bill reported by the gentleman from Illinois you thereby close the books. You will restore to the public 6,180,803 acres of land, two~ thirds of which is worthless; but you will, also, in effect, confirm to the corporations 48,143,193 acres of fortile and valuable lands. Why do I say you will close the books? Because, in my judgment, the bill providing for a judicial forfeiture will never come before the Senate and probably never before the House. Congress will adjourn with forleitnre legislation left where you leave it to-day.

I know there is a clause in the pending bill which provides that nothing therein shall be construed to deny or abridge the right of the United States to have further forfeitures in future if they care to take them and can get them. But that looks to me like a bait cast for fools to bite at, or a screen held up for rascals t.o hide behind. May have additional forfeitures! When? After we have abandoned the fight and discredited our own contention by surrender; after the Senate has had its way, and all forfeitures have been ma~e which the Senate bas ever hitherto favored; after the Interior Department has adjusted, as' it will adjust, the grants on the basis of your legislation herej after the

--

. :

...... ' .


lands have been patented; afMt- the Interior Department, the railways, and the public have adjusted their business relative to the grants on the basis of your legislation and tbewbolequestionhasbecomeadead issue; do you then expect to have additional forfeiture legislation? Is there one here so simple as to believe that?

But after all, Mr. Chairman, this discussion is a waste of time. I have no sort of doubt that you will reject the amendment and pass this railroad bill just as it comes ·from the committiee. It is the bill which the railroad corporations, especially the Northern Paci.fie, demand of you. The Speaker of the House is well known as the friend and champion of the Northern Pacific. The first of these forfeiture bills ever introduced into Congress was a bill to forfeit this Northern Pacific grant. That was in the Forty-seventh Congress. .

That bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which Mr. THO::'iI.AS B. REED, of Maine, was the chairman. He reported the bill back to the House with a recommendation that it do not pass. He took the ground in bis report that Congress bad no power to declare an absolut.e forfeiture, :md no right whatever to take the granted lands or any part of them and restore them to the public domain. That is the most extreme view ever taken here at any time or by anybody in favor of these defaulting corporations and against the right of forfeiture.

Since the distinguished gentleman from Maine made that report in 1883 to this day he has been the recognized friend and zealous champion of that great, arrogant, and corrupt corporation on the floor of this House. These corporations know their friends and they stand by them most loyally. It is an open secret, which has been audibly whispered throughout the country, that no influence was more potential in the organization of this House than that exerted by tbei Northern Pacific Railroad and that system of roads with which it is associated. And that was very natural.

The passage of the bill under consideration is a matter of the first. importance t.o these corporations. It will pass. The pins have been set with that end in view. The "bosses" must insist upon it; they can not do.otherwise. And the rest of you poor fellows over there, with your hands tied and your lips silent, except when your parliamentary Joss unties the one that yon may clap applause to his utterances and attunes the other that you may chant a servile chorus to the commanding tones of bis majestic solos, must follow blindly wherever you are led. You are helpless.

We have almost ceased to blame yon; we are fast learning to pity yon. It is useless to appeal to you. This bill, infamous as it is, will go upon the statutes of the nation. We will not appeal to yorr. But beyond you, and beyond your parliamentary autocrat, is a great constituency--the people of the United States-and to that forum we will carry this cause which you stand ready to betray. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.]

During the delivery of the foregoing remarks the hammer fell. Mr. McRAE was recognized and yielded a part of his time to Mr.

STONE. Mr. STONE, of 1\.lissouri, then resumed and concluded bis remarks

as above. Mr. LACEY. l\Ir. Chairman, I will detain the committee but a

very few minutes. As a member of the Committee on the Public Lands of this House I

favor the bill introduced by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE] and also favor the bill that is nowhere before the House; but I wish to call the attention of the committee to the importance of keeping these two measures separate and distinct. The gentleman from Missouri insists that unless the bill now before the committee is made a part of his bill it will never have any chance in some othet House, which other House we ought not to name here, and that it will also prevent bis bill from having a proper chance in this Honse. His bill is reported unanimously by the Committee on the Public Lands. It provides in terms that all land grants which are now the subject of dispute be· tween the people or the Government on the one band and the landgrant railroads on the other shall be submitted to the courts to be there determined judicially, and the courts shall have power to declare a forfeiture in behalf of the Government and put these lands back again into the general market for occupation by the people of the country as a part of our public domain.

That is a good bill, but why should we tack upon that bill sev~n and a half million acres of other lands which are subject to dfrect forfeiture and about which there is no question or controversy? Why should his bill stand in the line of progress in the district represented by the gentleman from Alabama. (Ur. H ERBERT] who has just taken his seat? Why should the bill of the gentleman sta.nd in the way of progress in the State of Oregon, where several million acres of land are embraced in t.he terms of his bill? There is no quest.ion of the rigbt to forfeit them. It is not even a question of controversy. It has not been denied that the Government bas the right. The lands have not been earned. The "condition-subsequent" on which they were granted has not been complied with. The time bas expired in which they could have been earned, and Congress can by a word terminate the grant and restore theee seven and a half millions of acres, representing an area equal to one-fourth of the entire State of Iowa.

That is not a subject of litigation, and why should it go to the Supreme Court for settlement? Why should it be a subject of litigation at all? No good reason has been given to the Honse, in the hour and a half the gentlemaR from Missouri occupied the floor, whythis_]and about which there is no dispute should be adjudicated in the Supreme Court of the United States in the manner that he has suggested. The. Mobile and Girard grant, and a gmnt in Mississippi-the Ship Island grant-stand in the way of progress in the South, and those lands should also be opened. As I understand it. that is the only question before the committee, whether this bill shall stand on its own merits, Hs own undisputed, unquestioned merits, which restores to the public domain land which should be now open to settlement, or whether we shall tack this bill at the tail end of the 48, 000, 000 acres in dispute and then abide the result of litigation, which in magnitude and in duration perhars will be the greatest ever witnessed in America.

Nothing can do more to check the progress, the growth, and settlement of a country than to throw it into chancery. You may go into this city_, and I will venture to say that you can pick out every house that is in chancery by its outside appearance, by merely looking at it. I can go through my own community and pick out every quarter-sec· tion of land there that is in litigation, simply by its dilapidated con· dition or want of occupancy. But here is a proposition that will take 8,000,000 acres, not in litigation, which the United State.a has the un· questioned right to restore to the public domain, and put it in chancery. I hope it will not be done. It seems perfectly clear that the two measures should be separated and the proposition suggested by the committee ought to be supported as it has been reported to the Honse. There is no question in my mind that it should be adopted as an inde· pendent proposition.

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the gentJeman from Illinois will now move that the committee rise, as it is nearly 5 o'clock.

l\Ir. PAYSON. If no other gentleman desires to talk this evening I have no desire to prolong the session of the committee, and I move that the committee rise.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Pending that I will ask the gentleman from Illinois if it will be agreeable to the committee to allow amendments, which members.have to propose, to be printed in the RECORD simply for information.

l\fr. PAYSON. I have no objection. Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Then I ask unanimous consent that

that mav be done. The dHAIRMAN. Is there objection to printing proposed amend

ments in the RECORD for information only? There was no objection. l\fr. PAYSON. I will renew the motion that the committee do now

rise. Mr. HERMANN. This does not preclude the offering of amend-

ments to-morrow? Mr. PAYSON. Not at all The motion of Mr. PAYSON was then agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed

the chair, Mr. PETERS reported that the Committee of the Whole House ·on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the bill S. 2781, bad come to no resolution thereon.

Under the general leave to print, the following amendments were handed in at the Clerk's desk: ·

By Mr. HOLMA.i.~: Strike out the first section of the substitute and insert: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House o.f Representatives of the United States of Am,w

ica in Congress assembl.ed, That all lands heretOfore granted by Congress to any State or to any corporation to aid in the construction of a railroad ora railroad and telegraph line opposite to and conterminous with the portion of any such railroad not constructed and completed within the time specified in the act making the grant for the construction and comple rion of the whole of such railroad are hereby declared forfeited to the United States, and the United State!'! resumes ti~le thereto, ~nd all such lands so granted lying opposite to and conterminous with the portion of any such railroad not constructed and completed within the time prei:icribed by the a.ct of Congress ma.king such grant for the construction and completion of the whole railroad as provided for by such act, is hereby restored to the public domain and declared to be a portion thereof: Provided however, That the forfeiture hereby declared shall not extend to the right of ,.;ay of any such railroad through the rema.iuder of the route, including the necessary grounds for depots, switches, side-trncks, machine-shops, and turn-tables or to lands included in any villa.ge, town, or city within the limits of the 'lands hereby declared forfeited. "

By Mr. McRAE: Strike out all of section 3 down to and including the word '' lands," in line 21,

and insert the following: ' "SEC. 3. That in aU cases where persons are in possession of any of the lands

affected by such grant and hereby resumed by and restored to the United States under deed, written contract with, or license from the corporation for whose benefit said grant was made, or its bona fide assignees, fora valuable consideration executed in good faith prior to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1890, they shall be entitled to purchase the same from the United States, in quantities not exceeding 320 acre~ to any one such person at the 1·ate of SL25 per a.ere at any time within two years from the passage of this act, and on ma.king requisite proofs and payments to receive pa.tents therefor; and where any such person in possession of any such lands under deed, written contra.ct, or license as aforesaid, or his assignor, has made partial or full payments to said railroad company prior to the lst day of January, 1890, on account of the purchase price of said lands from it, on proof of the amount of such payments he shall be entitled to have th-:1 same, to the extent e.nd a.mount of Sl.25 per a.ere, if so much has been paid, and not more, credited to him on account of and as part of the purchase price herein provided to be paid the United States for said lands, or

..

·,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.

such persons may elect to abandon their uurcbases and make claim on said lands under the homestead la.wand as provided in the preceding section of this act : PrU'V-ided, That in all cases where parties, persons, or corporations, with the permission of said railroad company or its assignees, are in the possession of, and have ma.de improvements upon, any of the lands hereby resumed and restored, and are not entitled to-enter the same under the provisions of this act, such parties, persons, or corporations shall have six months in which to remove any growing crop, and within which time they shall also be entitled to remove all buildings and other movable improvements from said lands: Provided further, That a mortgage or pledge of any of said lands shall not be considered a sale fo_r the purposes of this section." -

By Mr. STONE, of Missouri: ' Amend by adding the following sections to the bill: "SEC. 8, And be it furtl1er enact.ed, That the .Attorney-General of the United

States is hereby authorized and directed, as speedily as possible after the passage of this act, to institute suit or suits, at law or in equity, in the name of the United Stat.es, in the cil"cuit court of the United States having jurisdiction, against any person, corporation, or association of persons claiming to own un~ der OJ.' through the grant of Congress any lands heretofore granted by Congress. to any StR.te or to any corporation to a.id in the construction of a railroad or a railroad and telegraph line, where any such lands so claimed lie opposite to or conterminous with any constructed part of any such railroad which was not constructed and completed within the time specified in the granting act or acts for the construction and completion of the whole railroad, to determine whether any such granted lands so claimed by any such person, corporation, or association of persons a.re subject and liable under the law to be forfeited and reclaimed by the ."Gnited States on account of the non-constru~tion of such pa.rt of any such railroad in accordance with the requirements of the granting act or acts, and to obtain and recover judgments declaring forfeited to the Ullited States all of such lands as are opposite to and conterminous with such constructed part or parts of either of said railroads which were not constructed within the period fixed in the granting act or irots for the completion of the whole road or otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the granting acts, aud setting aside any patents which have issued for any such lands: P1·ovided, howe'Ver, That no judgment of forfeiture shall extend to the right of way of any such railroad, or to the necessary grounds for depots, switches, side-tracks, machine-shops, and tum-tables, or to lands included in any village, town, or city within the limits of any such granted lands. ·

"SEC. 9. '11ha.t in bringing and prosecuting the suits provided for in the next preceding section the Attorney-General shall treat each grant of lands coming within the provisions of said section separately, and in each case shall institute suit in that circuit court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the lands affected thereby, or any part thereof, may lie: .Provided, That where the Ian.ts affected by any suit may lie within the jurisdiction of more than one circuit court suit may be brought in either of such courts for the forfeiture of the whole of such lands. ·

"Any person or corporation claiming any interest in the lands to be affected by said suit or suits, and whether made a party thereto or not, may inte1·vene tllerein by sworn petition to defend his interest therein, and may, upon sucll petition for intervention, also put in issueand have adjudicated and det-ermined any other question, whether of Jaw or fact, which may be in dispute between said intervenor and the United Slates, or between themselves, and affecting the right or title, predicated on the grant of the United States, to any part of the lands embraced in any such suit.

"Appeals or writs ot error may be prosecuted to the Supreme Court as in other cases from the judgment or decree of any circuit court rendered under the provisions of this act, and in all cases where any such judgment or decree shall be ad verse to the United States the Attorney-General shall prosecute an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court; and in all without regard to the value of the lands affected thereby; and any suit brought under the provisions of this act shall be advanced to hearing in preference to all other civil cases on the dof'kets of I.he circuit or supreme courts: Provided, That no judgment or decree of any circuit court rendered under the provisions of this act shall be considered final within the meaning of this act in cases where an appeal or writ of error is prosecuted therefrom. ·

"And in all cases where any final judgment shall be rendered by any ch-cuit court or the Supreme Court under the provisions of this a.ct, declaring any lands forfeited to the United States, such lands shall thereafter be and become a part of the public domain, any withdrawals heretofore ma.de to the contrary notwithstanding, except as may be herein otherwise provided.

"SEC. 10. That in all cases where any lands affected by any final judgment or decree of any circuit court or of the Supreme Court, rendered under the provisions of this act, have been, prior to January l, 1888, sold and conveyed by deed or written contract by any State or corporation to which any such grant was made, or by any corporation owning any railroad for the benefit of which any such grant was made to any person, such lands, in q_uantities not exceeding 320 acres to any one person, shall be exempt from the operation, force, and effect of any such judgment or decree, and the title to any such lands, to the extent herein limited to any one person, is hereby confirmed to the purchaser, bis heirs or assigns: Provided, That if any one.. person shall claim to own more than 320 acres of any such lands under and by virtue of any such sale and conveyance made by any such State or corporation to him or her as an original purchaser, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, or who shall claim by mesne conveyance from such original purchaser, such person may, within one year from the passage of this act, make and file before the register and receiver of the proper land office, subject to an appeal to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, proof of the good faith, consideration, date, and extent of his or her purchase; a.nd if after hearing the proof and investigating the case the register and receiver shall determine that the purchase was made in good faith anJ. for a valuable consideration, prior to January 1, 1888, then, in that case, the register and receiver shall note the finding on the records of the local land office, and thereafter certify the same to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. If the finding and decision of the register and receiver be adverse 'to the purchaser he may, within six months thereafter, under such rules as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, appeal to the Commissioner of the General Land Oftice.

"Whenever any case shall be certified or appealed to the Commissioner of the General Land Office under the provisions of this section, he shall carefully examine the same, and approve or disapprove the finding and decision of the register and receiver therein. Any person aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of the General Land Office may appeal to the Secretary of the Interior.

"Whenever the Commissioner or the General Land Office, or the Secretary of the Interior in case of appeal, shall determine that any purchase was in fact made in good faith and for a valuable ·consideration prior to January 1, IMS, the purchaser, if then a citizen of the United States or having in due form of law declared his or her intention of becoming such, shall be entitled to purchase from the United States the said lands claimed by him 01· her in excess of the 320 acres hereby confirmed to him or her, at the rate of Sl.25 per acre, at any time within two years after the decision ot the Commissioner of the General Land Office or the Secretary of the Interior has been rendered: Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to confirm any such purchases of land upon which there were prior bona fide pre-emption or homest-ead

claims subsisting on the lBt day of January, 1888, arising or asserted under color of the laws of the UniLed St.ates: Provided further, That a mortgage or pledge of any of said lands shall not be considered a sale for the purposes of this section.

"SEc.11. That all bona fide settlers upon any of the lands which may be declared forfeited by any final judgment of the Supreme Court or any circuit court under the provisions of this act are hereby permitted and i.iuthorized to acquire title to not exceeding 160 acres in each case, as a homestead, under and pursnan t to the laws relating thereto, and in making final proof -of such homestead the settler shall be allowed for the time he has already resided upon and cultivated the same, and if such settler is not entitled to tqe benefits of the homestead law he or she shall have the prior right to enter the tract settled on, not exceeding l 60 acres, at $1.25 per acre.

"SEc.12. That no lands declared forfeited to the United States by this ac , or by any judgment of the Supreme Court under the provisions of this act, shall inure to the benefit of any State or corporation to which lands may have been granted by Congress; nor shall this act be construed to enlarge the area of lands originally covered.by any such grant.

"SEc.13. That the price of the even sections of the public lands not reserved within the limits of the several grants heretofore made is hereby fixed at $1.25 per acre."

By Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas: ~ Amend section 1, line 7, by striking out the word "now" and by inserting,

after the word "completed," the words "in compliance with all the conditions of the granting act."

Aleo, amend section 1 by striking out the proviso beginning in line 10.

By Mr. LI:ND: Amend by inserting, after the word" compieted," in line 7, on page 9, the

following: ".And all lands granted to the State of Minnesota for the benefit of any railroad corporation chartered by said State, and the charter of which has beeu forfeited by the laws of said State, and such forfeiture declared by the su-preme-court thereof prior to the passage of this act." ·

BESSIE E. GILMORE.

Mr. COBB. I ask unanimous consent for thE! present considera\ion of the bill (S. 5) f6r the relief of Bessie E. Gilmore.

The bill was read at length by the Clerk for information. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of

the bill? Mr. BYNUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order. Mr. PAYSON. I move that the House do now adjourn.

EN.ROLLE_D BILLS SIGNED.

Pending the announcement of the vote, . Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported

that that committiee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

A bill (H. R. 9066) making appropriations for the legislative, exec~ tive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and for other purposes; and

A bill (S.1064) granting a pension to Margaret E. Adamson.

LEA VE OF ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. HALL, indefinitely, on account of important business. To Mr. LANE, for five days, on account of important business. To Mr. MORGAN, indefinitely, on account of important business. The motion of Mr. PAYSON was then agreed to; and accordingly

(at 4 D'clock and 59 minutes p. m.), the House adjourned.

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS.

Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, the following communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: .

CLAIM OF DANIEL DONOVAN FOR SERVICES AS REFEREE.

Letter from the Actin~ Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a copy of a communication from the commissioners of the District of Columbia in relation to an appropriation to pay the balance of a judgment rendered by the Court of Claims in favor of Daniel Donovan, being a deficiency to the appropriation for ''Payment of referees, Court of Claims, District of Columbia" (act July 7, 1884)-to. the Committee on Appropriations.

ADDITION.AL CLERICAL FORCE FOR THE SECO.ND AUDITOR'S OFFICE.

Letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a communication from the Second Auditor recommending an appropriation for ten additional clerks, class 1, on account of recent pension legis-lation-to the Committee on Appropriations. ·

REPORT IN CASE OF RICHARD H. TUTHILL VS. UNITED STATES.

A communication from the Attorney-General in the case of Richard H. Tuthill 'l:S. The United States, which case was not included in his rep~t of April 18, 1890-to the Committee on Appropriations.

MEMORIALS AND RESOLUTIONS OF STATE LEGISLATURES. Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, the following memorials and resolu

tions of the Territory of Utah were presented and reforred as follows: By Mr. CAINE: Resolutions of the Legislative Assembly of the

Territory of Utah, in favor of the passage by Congress of a bill making

-· \

·,

.....

.....

'7014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 7,

an a-ppropriation for the construction of a deep harbor at Gaheston, Tex.-to the Committee on Rive1'8 and Harbors.

·Also, memorial of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territ<>ry of Utah, praying that the term of the bienilial sessions of the Legislative Assembly of that Territory be extended to ninety daysto the Committee on the Territories.

Also, memorial of the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah , praying that the public lands situatednearthe head of Bi~ Cottonwood and adjoining canons be granted to said Territory to be set apart as a public park-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

Also, memorial of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the Terri tory of Utah, praying for the passage of Senate bill S. 326, ceding public lands in aid of the irrigation of dry and arid lands-to the Select Committee on Irrigation oi Arid Lands in the United States.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, reports of committees we~·e delivered

to the Clerk and disposed of as follows: " Mr. WILSO~, of Washington, from the Committee on Indian Affafrs, reported favorably the bill of the Senate (S. 3745) granting to the Northern Pacific and Yakima Irrigation Company a right of way throu~h the Yakima Indian reservation in Washington, accompanied by a report (No. 2624)-to the Honse Calendar.

~Ir. THOMAS, from the Committee on War Claims, reported favorably the bill of the Senate (S. 2'29...,8) for the relief of John W. Blake, accompanied by a report (No. 2625)-to the Committee of the Whole Home.

Mr. STONE. ofKentnc1..-y, from the Committee on War Claims, reported favorabJy the bill of the House (H. R. 7847) for the allowance of certain claims for rent of property taken and used by the United State.s Army, as reported by the Con.rt of Claims under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, known as the ''Bowman act,'' accompanied by a report (No. 2626)-t;o the Committee of the Whole Honse.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS.

Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills of the following titles were intro· ducoo. severally read twice, and referred as follows:

By Mr. GRIMES: A bill {H. R. 11269) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Coosa River, in the State of Alabama-to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, a bill (H. '_R. 11270) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Chattahoochee River, in the State of Georgia-to the Com-mittee on Commerce. .

By Mr. COGSWELL (by request): A bill (H. R. 11271) to establish industrial training schools and to provide land for negroes, to be held hnder Jesse with privilege of subsequent purchase-to the Committee on Education. ·

By Mr. McCORD: A bill (H. R. 11272) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior t-0 sell certarin lands and to grant the proceeds of such sale to the town of Pelican, Oneida County, Wisconsin, for school purposes-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. LODGE: A bill (H. R. 11273) to amend the law relating to shipping commissioners-t-0 the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. SNIDER (by request): A bill (H. R. 11291) authorizing the construction of a jail and reformatory for women in and for the District ot ColuDJ.bia-to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. PEEL: A bill (H. R. 11292) to regulate charges for freights, passengers, etc., by common carriers, and for other purposes in Indian Territory-to the Committee on Commerce.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills of the following titles were presented and referred as indicated below:

By Mr. BLAND: A bill (H. R. 11274) for the relief of Thaddeus Collard-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. COGSWELL: A bill (H. R. 11275) for the relief of Sarah G. ~Avery widow of George Avery-to the Committee on 'Var Claims.

By Mr. FITHIAN: A bill (H. R.11276) for the relief of James Boling:er-t-0 the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. HOOKER: A bill (H. R. 11277) for the relief of the estate of Charles H. Borland, late of Claiborne County, Mississippi-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. HOUK: A bill (H. R. 11278) for the relief of William Robbins, of Forkvale, Tenn .. -to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11279) for the relief of Nancy .J. Houk, of Sevier Couuty, Tennessee-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11280) for the relief of John W. Long, of Unitia: London County, Tennes.see-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11281) for the relief of Capt. William S. Reynolds's scouts-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LEWIS (by request): A bill (H. R. 11282) for the payment

of certain property ()f t.he Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Ok<r Iona, Miss., destroyed by the United.States Army-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. OUTHW AITE: a bill (H. R. 11283) granting a pension to Henry Larrison-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. OWEN, of Indiana: A bill (H. R. 11284) granting pay for military service to Benjamin F. Davis, Company E, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Iridiana Volunteers-to the Committee on Military A.flairs.

By Mr. ROBERTSON: A bill (H. R. 11285) for the relief of the heirs of Auguste Donato, late of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana-t<> the Com-mittee on War Claims. .

Also, a bill (H. R. 11286) for the relief of heirs of Francis Meullion, late of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana-to the Committee on W arClaims.

By Mr. SMITH, of Illinois: A bill {H. R. 11287) granting a pension to Thomas Joyce, late a drummer in Company D, Second Regiment of New York Infantry, in the Florida. war-to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11288) for the relief of James B. Phillips-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. SMITH, of West Virginia: A bill (IT. R. 11289) granting relief to William C. Mccroskey, and for other purposes-tio the Commi~ tee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. VENABLE {by request): A bill (H. R.11290) for the relief of the legal representatives of John Avery, deceased, late ofVirginiato the Committee on War {]!aims.

PETITIOl\18, ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

By Mr. BLAND: Petition of Thaddeus Collard, praying that his claim for property taken by the Army during the late war be referred to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. BLOUNT: Petition of J. M. Brooks and 19 others, of Upson County, Georgia, asking passage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of A. F. White and 30 others, of .Jasper County, Louisiana, for same measure-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. BROWER: Petition of J.P. Wade and 31 others, of Person County, North Carolina, asking passage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. BURROWS: PetitionofcitizensofKalamazoo, Mich., against sections 24 and 25 of House bill 8'.a78--to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. BURTON: Petition of postal clerks, ninth division, railway mail service, for the passage of House bill 8299-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Prnit-.Roads.

By Mr. CATCHINGS: Petition on claim of Adaline W. Clark (now Davidson), of Warren County, Missis.sippi-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, petition of Willis ]')foore & Co. and many others, of Vicksburg, Miss., for the perpetuation of the national-banking system-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. CLEMENTS: Petition of Daniel Lowry, sr., of Bartow Conn ty, Georgia, praying that his war claim be referred to the Court ot Claims under the provisions of the Bowman act-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, petition of G. E. Clark and 21 others, of Paulding County, Georgia, asking passage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. T. Caldwell and 106 others, of Catoosa County, Georgia, for same measure-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of 15 voters -0f Murray County, Georgia, in favor of a deep-water harbor at Galveston, Tex.-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

.Also, petition of many citizens of Whitfield CoU.nty, Georgia, for same measure-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of citizens of Cobb County, Georgia, for same measure-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. COLEMAN: Petition of the West Africa. St.earn-Ship Company, New Orleans, La., asking for .an appropriation of $500,000 for the establishment of a line of mail steamers between New Orleans and the west coast of Africa-to the Committee on Merchant Marine and· · Fisheries.

By l'ilr. COMSTOCK: PEf.tition from Todd County, Minnesota, asking passage of servic.e-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CRAIG: Petition of citizens of Leech burgh, Pa., for legislation remedying the original package decision-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By ltlr. CUMMINGS: l\Iemorialofthe Workingman's Reform League of New York City in reference to the Harlem Ship-Canal-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By .Mr. DAVIDSON: Petition of citizena of Polk County, Florida, praying for passage of Senate bill 2716-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 1

/

./

.-

,

•I

' , .. ~

1890. CONGRESSIONAL .BECORD-HOUSE. 7015 By Mr. DING LEY: Petition of Thomas Reynolds and 20others, cit

izens of Oxford County, Maine, in favor of the pure lard measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Walter Pettingill and 48otbers, of same county, for same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of E. Lermond and 24 others, citizens of Knox County, Maine, for same measure--to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Warren Pettingill and 48 others, of Oxford County, Maine, favoring House bill 8648 (pure food)-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Thomas Reynolds and 21 others, of same county, for same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. DOCKERY: Petition of citizens of Harrison County, M.issom;, protesting against the demonetization of silver-to the Commit-tee on Coinage, Weighm, and Measures. -

By Mr. DOLLIVER: Petition of the Cedar Center Alliance, Calhoun County, Iowa, for Butterworth option bill and Conger lard bill-t-0 the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. FUNSTON: Petition of the citizens of Lawrence, Kans. , for the passage of the Wilson original-package bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HAUGEN: Petition ofC. Decker and 20 others, citizens of Dunn County, Wisconsin, favoring House bill 8248-to the Committee on Agricul tnre.

Also, petition of W. H. ChurchiJl and 28 others, citizens of same county, for House bill 283 (pure la-rd)-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of J. H. Brown and 49 others, citizens of St. Croix County, Wisconsin, for same measur&"--to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of C. Decker and 20 others, citizens of Dunn County, Wisconsin, for same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. HA.YES: Petition of P. M. Littig and 34 others, citizens of Scott County, Iowa, asking passage of Honse bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of same persons in favor of Galvest6n deep-water harbor-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa: Paper from 82 railroad employes, of Rutland, Vt., petitioning for the passage of House bill 9682-to the Committee on Railways and Canals.

Also, paper from 86 railroad employes, of Michigan City, Ind., for same measure-to the Commjttee on Railways and Canals.

Also, paper from 105 railroad employes, favoring same measure-to the Committee on Rail ways and Canals.

By Mr. HOUK: Petition of J. W. Mullen, for increase of pensionto the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. KELLEY: Resolutions adoptedata mass meeting in Washington, Kans., asking Cqngress to pass the ·Senate (Wilson~ bill or some other law that will enable the State of Kansas to get rid of the originalpackage saloons-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of 75 citizens of Waverly, Coffey County, Kansas, asking Con~ress to enact some law that will counteract the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States relative to the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ,

By Mr. LA.NHAM: Petition of J. L. McKenney and 66 others, of Mills County, Texas, asking passage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. LAWS: Petition of citizens of Nebraska for continuation of investigation of subterranean waters in that State-to the Select Com· mittee on Irrigation of Arid Lands in the United States.

.Also, petition of Fillmore County Alliance, Nebraska, urging passage of the Butterworth bill-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petitionof Sunny Side Alliance, Nebraska, forsamemeasureto the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of Fillmore County Alliance, Nebraska., urging passage of the Conger bill-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. LESTER, of Georgia: Petition of E. F. Braxton and 22 others, of Wnrd County, Georgia, in relation to Galveston Harborto the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. LEWIS: Petition of L P. Wareand 35 others, of Carroll County, MiRsissippi, asking passage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ily Mr. MOREY: Petition of Jesse Wright and 164 others (53 voters and 112 women), citizens of Springborough, Warren County, Ohio, praying for proposal of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, importation, exportation, transportation, and sale of all alcoholic liquors as a beverage-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MORGAN: Petition of J . .M. Rucker and 72others, of Union County, Mississippi, asking pa.ssage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means. ,,

By Mr. MUDD: Three petitions of various citizens of Maryland, favoring the pa. Bage of pure-food and pure-lard bills-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By },fr. PERKINS: Petition of Benjamin J. Gunn and 335 others,

asking for legislation to counteract the effect of the recent originalpackage Supreme Court decision-'-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of Levi Hobson and 33 others, residents of Lowell, Kans., for same legislation-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of T. C. Dunbar and 57 others, of Crawford County, Kansas, for same legislation-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, resolution of a mass-meeting of the people of Lawrence, Kans., for same legislation-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ,

Also, resolutions of a mass-meeting of the citizens of Coffeyville, Kans., favoring same legislation-t o the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of W. D. Miller and 27 others, asking for legislation for a complete system of levees on the Mississippi River from Cairo to the Gulf of Mexico-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, resolutions of the Board of Trade of Kansas City, Mo., favoring free coinage of silver and opposing the McKinley bill-to the Com-mittee on Coinage, Weights, and .Measures. .

Also, resolution of Woods Farmers' Alliance, No. 249, of Parsons, Kans., favoring the passage of the "pew financial scheme" bill introduced by Mr. McCLA.Ml\IY, of North Carolina-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. PETE.RS: Petitions of citizens of-various conn ties in the Seventh district of Kansas, for the Wilson temperance bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REYBURN: PetitionofYearlyMeetingofFriends, of Philadelphia, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, for a law to prohibit the sale of liquor in original packages-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROGERS: :Memorials of certain citizens of Logan County, Arkansas, in relation to deep-water harbor at Galveston, Tex.-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. RUSSELL: Petition of Charles W. Holden and 42 others (18 voters and 25 women), citizens of Windham, Conn., praying for ''proposal of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, importation, exportation, transportation, and sale of all alcoholic liquors as a beverage "-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of Eben Terrell and 69 others (32 voters and 38 women), citizens of East Lynn and Waterford, Conn., for Rame measure-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, resolutions of Eastern Connecticut Ministerial Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church, asking the enactme~t of a law which shall allow each State to control the liquor traffic within its bordersto the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SMITH, of Illinois: Resolutions of Butchers' Union, Cairo, Ill., urging the passage of Honse bill 283 (Conger Jard bill)-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of citizens of Cairo, Ill., protesting against the passage of the Conger lard bill-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, resolutions of Butchers' Union, of Cairo, Ill., urging the passage of Honse bill 5353, to prohibit the dealing in options, etc.-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. SPOONER: Mem-0rial of Pennimon & Crumb and citizens of Providence, R. I., and vicinity, protesting against legislation by Congress compelling railroads to transport petroleum biu-rels free-to the Committee on Commerce. .

By Mr. STAHLNECKER: Petition and resolution oftheNew York City commissioners of the sinking fund favoring the Harlem River improvements-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: Petition of Fannie A. Wilson, praying passage of bill granting pay for services rendered by her brother prior to enrollment-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. STONE, of Missouri: Petition of Woodland Union, No. 25, F. and L. A., of Bates County, Missouri, for a.n increase in the currency-t~ the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By !fr. THOM.AS: Petition of C. J. Lind and 61 others, citizens of Vernon, Wis., for passage of House bill 28~to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of H. S. Tracy and 58 others, of same place, for same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. TILLMAN: Petition of Henry A. Paur and18others, of Colleton County, South Carolina, asking passage of Honse bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. TRACEY (by request): Petition of 30citizens of New Yo.rk State, favoring passage of bill to prevent adulteration of ale and beerto the Committee on Ways and Means . . By Mr. WIDTTHORNE: Petition of E. N. Griggsby, for the estate

of Wi11iam Griggs by, late of Giles County, Tennessee, for reference of claim to Committee on War Claims~t-0 the Committee on V\.,.ar Claims.

CH.ANGE OF REFERENCE.

Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, the followi.Ilg change of reference was made:

By Mr. DUNNELL: Memorial of C. W. Morrell and 24 others, citizens of Minnesota, protesting Pgainst legislation by Congress compelling railroads to transport petroleum barrels free-Committee on Waysand Means discha.rged, and referred to Committee on Commerce.

' . SENA.TE. - GovInfo.gov

Documents

Transcript of ' . SENA.TE. - GovInfo.gov