New Hampshire ask for a vote on his motion to reconsider?

Mr. TUCK. I do.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

The question being taken, on a division there were-ayes 75, noes 58.

So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

The question recurring upon the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] it was taken and decided in the affirmative.

So the rules were suspended, and the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. HIBBARD in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN stated that the question before the committee was on the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS] to the aniendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. TAYLOR.]

The following is the first section of the bill:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Congress assemNed, That nothing in the act approved September 28, 1850.

granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States," shall be construed so as to prevent the sale and transfer of any certificate or warrant issued by virtue of said aet, prior to the location of the same, or the issue of the patent thereon.

Mr. TAYLOR had submitted the following amendment to come in at the end of the above resolution:

"In conformity with a form to be prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office."

Mr. CARTTER called for the reading of the amendment to the amendment, and it was read as follows:

"Provided, That in all cases the assignment shall be acknowledged or proven by two subscribing witnesses, before some officer authorized to take the probate of deeds, who shail certify under his seal of office that the person making the assignment is personally known to him, or that his or her identity has been proven by two credible witnesses."

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, demanded tellers on the adoption of the proviso; which were ordered, and Messrs. FOWLER and CARTTER appointed.

The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and there were-ayes 52, noes 56-no quorum voting.

[Cries of "Another count!" and "Call the roll!"] The CHAIRMAN. By unanimous consent another count will be had.

Mr. KING, of New York. No, call the roll. The roll was then called, and the absentees noted. The committee then rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union having found itself without a quorum, had instructed him to report that fact to the House, with the names of the absentees.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, stated, that Mr. PARKER, of Indiana, was detained from his seat by sickness.

A quorum being now present, the committee resumed its session; and the question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, tellers reperted-ayes 67, noes 59.

to.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed

The question recurred on Mr. TAYLOR's amendment as amended.

Mr. SACKETT. Is an amendment now in order by way of substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not now in order. Mr. TAYLOR asked for the reading of the amendment as amended, and it was read.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I propose to amend the amendment by inserting at the commencement thereof the words "but the same shall be assignable."

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. That would make it imperative.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I will make it "may be assignable." As the bill now reads, it says that nothing in the existing law shall be so construed as that the warrant shall not be assignable. My object is to make it affirmative.

Mr.SACKETT. I ask leave to have an amendment read which I propose to offer as a substitute for the whole of the first section.

The CHAIRMAN. The substitute is not now in order, but by universal consent it can be read for information.

Several MEMBERS objected to the reading.

Mr. FICKLIN. I propose now to amend the amendment as amended, by inserting after the word "assignment" the words "by indorsement upon the warrant;" so as to make it read: " Pro'vided, That in all cases the assignment by indorse'ment upon the warrant shall be acknowledged or ' proven," &c.

The object of that amendment is, that the soldier shall have his warrant before he makes an assignment of it, and that he shall make the assignment upon the warrant, instead of upon a separate piece of paper. A great many of the frauds which have been committed have arisen from the want of such a provision as this.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. If we are not exceedingly cautious, we shall get into difficulty about this whole matter. This amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FICKLIN] requires the warrant never leaves the Department. It is the assignment to be upon the warrant. Now, filed there; a certificate of location is issued to the soldier, and it is located and returned here. I believe that has been the case with nearly all the warrants that have been issued.

Mr. BISSELL here interposed a remark, which was not heard by the Reporter.

Mr. JONES, (continuing.) The best way to provide for this assignment, I think, would be to declare that such sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made and authenticated in accordance with rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. He can then alter them to suit the circum

stances.

Mr. FICKLIN, (interposing.) I would suggest to the gentleman, that the certificate of location is the paper that is assigned, and is the one that is located upon the land.

Mr. JONES. Then put in "warrant or certificate of location."

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois modify his amendment?

Mr. FICKLIN. I have no objection to do so, but it is understood already. The certificate of location is the paper that is assigned.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I suggest to the gentleman from Illinois, that his amendment would be more acceptable, if it did not require the assignment to be proven before the person authorized to take the probate of deeds. It will require a man to go to the clerk's office in the county seat every time he wants to make an assignment.

Mr. FICKLIN. I will state to the gentleman from Kentucky, that the provision to which he has reference, is contained in the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. HARRIS,] which has already been adopted by the committee. My amendment is simply to have the assignment made upon the warrant or certificate of location, and not upon a separate piece of paper. My object is to prevent fraud and forgery.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Is this an amend ment to an amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. It is.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. I thought the gentleman from Illinois was willing to modify his amendment, by adding the words "or certificate of location."

Mr. FICKLIN. I will do it.

The amendment was modified accordingly. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Is it in order now to offer an amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not; there is an amendment to an amendment now pending.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I think, as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] has said, that we are likely to get into great difficulty with this bill. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FICKLIN] has submitted an amendment that these assignments shall be authenticated by two witnesses before some officer authorized to take the probate of deeds.

Mr. FICKLIN, (interrupting.) That provision was contained in the substitute submitted by me yesterday, which has not been voted upon by the

committee. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS] offered an amendment requiring the same thing, which has been voted on and adopted by the committee, and I intend, therefore, to abandon my substitute.

Mr. STEPHENS. What I wish to say is, that different officers have authority to witness deeds, in the different States of this Union. This would occasion some difficulty, if we were to pass such a law as this, and therefore I think it would be better to adopt the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. WALSH,] providing that the assignment shall be witnessed by such parties as are authorized to authenticate deeds in the several States where the assignments are made. We have been here for two days engaged upon one section of the bill, and it is impossible for gentlemen upon different sides of the House to understand one another in reference to this subject. We shall spend two more days upon the bill at this rate. I shall therefore move that the committee rise, for the purpose of submitting a motion to the House to take this bill from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, who can present to the House a bill that will meet the views and wishes of all. We can never perfect such a bill here. I move that the committee rise and report the bill to the House with a recommendation that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I ask permission to say a few words upon that motion, and I usually say as little as any gentleman here. It is well known

Mr. TUCK. I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas can only proceed by unanimous consent, as debate is out of order.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman's objection came too late. A gentleman must object before a man has begun his remarks. [Laughter, and cries of "Go on!" I have merely to say that I am perfectly satisfied of the entire sincerity of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] in making this motion, for I have been with him here for some time. But at the same time I know that after the amount of discussion which we have had upon this bill, if we now put it beyond our reach and send it to a committee, it is lost beyond resurrection. If we want these land warrants made assignable and the other relief given which is contemplated by this bill, we must go on and consider the bill and act upon it now.

If there is not sufficient intelligence amongst the members of this House to perfect a bill that was discussed for weeks during the last Congress, and has been so much discussed already in this, no Judiciary Committee can do it; it cannot be done at all. If we go back now and refer this bill to a committee, we shall have again to go through the whole process of considering and discussing separate amendments. If the committee rises now without considering and perfecting the bill, we shall have gone back to where we commenced yesterday morning. The whole country demands that these warrants shall be made assignable, and that the other provisions contemplated by this bill shall be made. We had better proceed with the bill and perfect it. I call for tellers on the motion that the committee do now rise.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. JOHNSON] appeals to the experience of this House to sustain him in saying that should this resolution go to the Committee on the Judiciary, it will be the last we shall see of it. I would barely remark that such has not been my experience.

Mr. JOHNSON. I hope the gentleman will not understand me as casting any slur upon that committee.

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not understand the gentleman as casting any slur upon that committee; but I think the experience of this House in regard to the past is, that bills which have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, have been considered and acted upon with promptness. The gentleman says this House has sufficient intelligence to perfect this resolution. I do not doubt its intelligence, but I submit that however intelligent it may be, it is impossible for us to perfect this resolution so well here as it can be done by the Judiciary Committee. I submit, with all due respect, that this committee is constituted of gentlemen who are more competent to perform

this duty; they can better draw up bills, and put them in the proper legal form, than the majority of the members of this House. Many gentlemen are not lawyers, and they may state what they desire to be done in order to put the bill in a form to make it acceptable to them. The gentleman says that it is poor soldiers whose claims are presented in this bill. Now, in my judgment, this forms an additional reason why the bill should be committed to the Committee on the Judiciary, in order that we, as members upon. this floor, may not fail in our efforts to accomplish the object we have in view, by employing improper language. I think, therefore, that it will facilitate this business if the committee rise and report the bill to the House, in order that it may be referred to the appropriate committee for perfection, with instructions (if gentleman desire it) to report with as little delay as possible. I move that the committee do now rise.

Tellers were demanded, and ordered; and Messrs. CARTTER and FOWLER were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 68, noes 67.

So the motion prevailed.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the Chairman reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and especially joint resolution No. 1, in relation to bounty land warrants, and had instructed him to report the same to the House, with the recommendation that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ORR. I desire that the House will also refer the bill upon this subject which was prepared by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. It embraces all the points touched upon in the bill before the House, and is, in many respects, preferable to any bill I have seen, and I hope that it will be referred to the Judiciary Committee along with that bill. It is as follows, viz: A BILL declaring warrants for military bounty land assignable, and for other purposes.

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all warrants for military bounty lands which have been, or may hereafter be issued, under any law of the United States, and all valid locations of the same which have been, or may hereafter be made, and the same are hereby declared, assignable, according to such form, and pursuant to such regulations, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the registers and receivers of the United States land offices shall hereafter be severally authorized to charge and receive, for their services in locating all military bounty land warrants, the same rate of compensation or percentage to which they are entitled by law for sales of the public lands for cash, at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; the said compensation to be paid by the assignee or holder of such warrant, in all cases where the same have been transferred by the soldier or his legal representatives; but in any case in which the warrant has been or may be located by and for the use of the warrantee or his heirs, no compensation shall be charged by the register or receiver for any services they may render în making such location; and the provisions of the act of 17th May, 1848, requiring the holder of military land warrants to courpensate the land officers of the United States for service in relation to the location of those warrants," be, and the same are hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the franking privilege be, and the same is hereby extended to the principal clerk of public lands of the General Land Office.

Mr. BISSELL. Is there any motion before the House?

The SPEAKER. Nothing except the report of the Committee of the Whole on the state of

the Union.

Mr. BISSELL. Then there is nothing before the House.

Mr. ORR. The report of the Committee of the Whole is before the House, and the question is on concurring with the recommendation of that committee. I submit that that is the motion.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I understand that the question now pending is to refer the bill under consideration to the Committee on the Judiciary, as recommended by the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BISSELL. That question could not come before the House without a motion, and no such motion has been made.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole is now before the House, and the question pending, therefore, is to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BISSELL. Is that motion debatable?

Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly; but I have possession of the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] has been recognized. Mr. BISSELL. I submit, with due deference to the Chair, that I was recognized first.

The SPEAKER. It is true the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] was recognized by the Chair; but that gentleman only asked a question, which the Chair answered, when the floor was accorded to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not claim the floor for the purpose of debating this question. I merely rise for the purpose of moving the previous ques

tion.

Mr. DUNHAM. Will the gentleman from Georgia withdraw the demand for the previous question for a moment, in order that I may be allowed to make a single inquiry?

Mr. STEPHENS. I will withdraw it for that purpose.

Mr. DUNHAM. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Georgia if he would not accept an amendment to his motion, to refer the bill to a select committce, instead of the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. STEPHENS. I have no objection to its going to a committee composed of the friends of the bill. I will accept the gentleman's amend

ment.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I rise to a point of order.

Mr. STEPHENS. I have not yet yielded the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL. I suppose I have the right to state my point of order, whether the gentleman yields the floor or not. What I wish to say is, that after the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] has moved the previous question, he has no right to withdraw it for the purpose of allowing one gentleman to get in his amendment, when the rest of us will not be permitted to offer ours.

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman objects, then I shall insist upon my first motion, to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. I make that motion, and now move the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] whether he designed his motion as a distinct proposition, or to be incorporated in the motion of the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. ORR. I asked that the bill to which I referred might go with the bill under consideration to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The previous question was then seconded. Mr. HALL. I desire to propound a question to the Chair.

The SPEAKER. No remarks are in order. The main question was then ordered to be put. Mr. HALL. I now desire to inquire whether, if the House refuse to refer the bill, it will not then be in order to put it upon its passage?

The SPEAKER. It will be in order to move that it be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I desire to ask how the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] has got his bill before the House?

pleton, William Appleton, Babcock, Thomas H. Bayly, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Bragg, Briggs, Brooks, Albert G. Chapman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Evans, Brown, Burrows, Busby, Joseph Cable, Carter, Chandler, Faulkner, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Giddings, Grey, Grow, Hamilton, Haseall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Hibbard, Hillyer, Howard, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, James Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Landry, Letcher, Martin, McDonald, Meacham, Henry D. Moore, Morehead, Nabers, Newton, Orr, Andrew Parker, Perkius, Robbins, Robie, Scudder, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smith, Stanly, Alex ander Stephens, Sutherland, George W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Venable, Walbridge, Wallace, Welch, Wilcox, and Wildrick-82.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Andrews, Averett, Barrere, Bartlett, Bibighaus, Bissell, Bocock, Breckenridge, Brenton, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Caskie, Chastain, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, John G. Davis, Doty, Dunham, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Gamble, Gaylord. Gentry, Goodenow, Gorman, Green, Hall, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Henn, John W. Howe, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, J. Glancy Jones, Kurtz, Lockhart, Mace, Humphrey Marshall, McCorkle, Millson, Miner, Molony, Murphy, Olds, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Porter, Richardson, Riddle, Robinson, Sackett, Savage, Sinart, Benjamin Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Stuart, Sweetser, Taylor, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Addison White, Williams, and Yates-81.

The CHAIR Voted in the negative, and the bill was not referred.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I-move this House do now adjourn.

[Cries of "No!" "No!"]

The question was then taken by tellers, (Messrs. RICHARDSON and CLINGMAN acting,) and decided in the negative-ayes 23, noes not counted. So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. FICKLIN. I move the previous question upon the bill.

Mr. DUNHAM. I rise to make an inquiry. It is whether the bill is not still under the operation of the previous question?

The SPEAKER. The previous question was ordered upon the motion to commit.

Mr. DUNHAM. I then inquire of the Chair whether or not, after the previous question has exhausted itself, the question may not be reconsidered?

The SPEAKER. The question is upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. The Chair thinks that as the House is acting upon the direction or recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, the previons question would not apply to the question of engrossment. The question is now on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time, on which the previous question has been demanded.

[Cries of "Question!"Question!"]"

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. If the House should refuse now to order the previous question, will it not be in order to refer the bill again to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union? The SPEAKER. It will.

Mr. EVANS. How will this previous question operate?

The SPEAKER. To bring the House to a vote upon the question of ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. EVANS. I then rise to a question of order. I submit that the bill takes its place in regular order upon the Speaker's table, and comes up under the 27th rule, after messages, executive communications, bills and resolutions from the Senate on their first and second reading, engrossed

Mr. STANTON. Well, I make it as a point of order, that the gentleman from South Carolina had no right to introduce his bill.

The SPEAKER. It was introduced by unani

mous consent.

Mr. STANTON. But there was no opportunity of making objection.

The SPEAKER. The question was pending to refer the bill under consideration to the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from South Carolina, by unanimous consent moved, as an amendment, to refer along with it the bill drafted by the Commissioner of the General Land both bills to that committee. Office. The question, therefore, now is to refer

bills and bills from the Senate on their third read

comes up in the fifth order, and not in the first, and cannot be now taken up on the question of engrossment without the unanimous consent of the House. The 27th rule expressly provides that it shall be the fifth business in order.

The SPEAKER. I overrule the point of order made by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. EVANS.]

Mr. EVANS. I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and ask that the 27th rule may be read.

The rule was then read, as follows:

"27. After one hour shall have been devoted to reports from committees and resolutions, it shall be in order, pending the consideration or discussion thereof, to entertain a motion that the House do now proceed to dispose of the business on the Speaker's table, and to the orders of the day January 5, 1832; which being decided in the affirmative, the Speaker shall dispose of the business on his table in the following order, viz:-September 14, 1837. "1st. Messages and other Executive communications.—

"2d. Messages from the Senate and amendments proposed by the Senate to the bills of the House.-September 14, 1837.

3d. Bills and resolutions from the Senate on their first and second reading, that they be referred to committces and put under way; but if, on being read a second time, no motion be made to cominit, they are to be ordered to their third reading, unless objection be made; in which case, if not otherwise ordered by a majority of the House, they are to be laid on the table in the general file of bills on the Speaker's table, to be taken up in their turn.-September 14, 1837.

44th. Engrossed bills and bills from the Senate on their third reading-September 14, 1837.

5th. Bills of the House and from the Senate, on the Speaker's table, on their engrossment, or on being ordered to a third reading, to be taken up and considered in the erder of time in which they passed to a second reading.

“The messages, communications, and bills on his table, having been disposed of, the Speaker shall then proceed to call the orders of the day.-September 14, 1837."

Mr. RICHARDSON. What question can arise now upon the report of the committee after that report has been acted upon?

Mr. EVANS. I had the floor upon the bill. The SPEAKER. The question is not debatable.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I move that the appeal be laid upon the table.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I hope that by general consent the 50th rule may be read, which governs this case and shows that it is now covered by the previous question. The previous question is not exhausted.

The 50th rule was then read, as follows:

"The previous question shall be in this form: Shall the main question be now put? It shall be only admitted when demanded by a majority of the members present; and its efect shall be to put an end to all debate, and bring the House to a direct vote upon a motion to commit, if such motion shall have been made; and if this motion does not prevail, then upon amendments reported by a committee, if any-then upon pending amendments, then upon the main question."

Mr. CLINGMAN. In the confusion that occurred I did not understand the Chair to decide that the previous question was exhausted. If so, I should have appealed from that decision; and I respectfully request the Chair to inform me of the operation of that decision if it has been made. It will be seen by the rule quoted that the previous question has not been exhausted, and it has been the every-day practice of all the Congresses of which I have been a member. I desire to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. FICKLIN. There is an appeal now pending

The SPEAKER. I am inclined to believe that my decision upon that subject was wrong.

Mr. EVANS. I admit that if the previous question is pending, I cannot take an appeal. But that is not the question. It is whether the previous question is pending or not. I submit to the Chair, whether I am not entitled to debate the bill. I do not wish to occupy many minutes.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. RICHARDSON to lay the appeal upon the table; and it was decided in the affirmative.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is disposed to review its decision, and his opinion is, that the prerious question, is not exhausted, and does apply to the engrossment and reading of the bill a third

time.

Mr. DUNHAM. I rise to make an inquiry, whether, if we now go on and order the bill to be engrossed, the previous question will not have exhausted itself?

The SPEAKER. It is very true. It is not now in order to interrogate the Chair upon that subject. The Chair will, however, decide that question when it comes up in order.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with a view of taking up this bill.

Cries Not in order!" from different parts of the Hall.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. You cannot get it there.

Mr. MARSHALL. My motion was made with the idea that the previous question had not been ordered by the House at all. I understood the Chair decided that the previous question had exhausted itself.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decided that the previous question had not exhausted itself. The question now recurs upon ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. TUCK. I submit that this bill was in Committee of the Whole, and before it was in

Mr. RICHARDSON. I move that the appeal be laid upon the table.

Mr. CARTTER. I rise to a privileged question. I move the House do now adjourn.

The question was taken, and the House refused to adjourn.

The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. RICHARDSON to lay the appeal upon the table, and it was agreed to.

Mr. COBB. I find we are getting into considerable difficulty.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman is not in order.

Mr. COBB. I rise for personal explanation. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama is not in order.

Mr. CARTTER. I call for the reading of the third section.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I object.
Cries of "Let the bill be read!"

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. I move that when this House adjourns it adjourn to meet on Friday

next.

The question was then taken, and the motion was agreed to.

The bill was read, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the act appoved September 28, 1850, "granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States," shall be so construed as to prevent the sale and transfer of any certificate or warrant issued by virtue of said act, prior to the location of the same, or the issue of the patent thereon.

SEC. 2. And be it further resolved, That the registers and receivers of the United States land offices shall hereafter be severally authorized to charge and receive for their services in locating bounty land warrants, the same rate of compensation or percentage to which they are entitled by law for sales of the public lands for cash, at the rate of $125 per acre, the said compensation to be hereafter paid by the assignees or holders of such warrants, in all cases where the same have been transferred by the soldier or his legal or personal representative, under the provisions of the acts of Congress, and the regulations of the General Land Office on that subject, and to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States, upon the adjustment of the accounts of such officers, where it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the General Land Office that the same was located by the soldier or warantee, or in case of his death by his next of kin, as provided by the acts of Congress aforesaid.

SEC. 3. And be it further resolved, That the said officers, whether in or out of office at the time of passage of this act, or their legal or personal representatives in case of their death, shall be entitled to receive from the Treasury of the United States, for similar services heretofore performed in such cases, an amount equal to the compensation provided for by the first section of this act, after deducting the amount already received by such officers under the act entitled "An act to require the holders of military land warrants to compensate the land officers of the United States for services in relation to the location of those warrant," approved May 17, 1848: Provided, That no register or receiver shall receive any compensation out of the Treasury of the United States, for past services, who has charged and received illegal or exorbitant fees for the location of such warrants.

SEC. 4. And be it further resolved, That nothing in the first section of the act of the 28th of September, 1850, granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States, shall be so construed as to exclude any commissioned or non-commissioned officer, musician, or private, whether of regulars, volunteers, rangers, or militia, who was mustered into the service of the United States for the suppression or prevention of Indian hostilities, and served the length of time required by said act, or whose services were subsequently recognized by the United States.

SEC. 5. And be it furthur resolved, That in all cases where the militia or volunteers, or State troops were called out under the laws or executive authority of any State, and who served in defence of the country, and whose service

have been recognized and paid by the United States Gorernment, shall be considered as having been in the service of the United States, and shall be entitled to the benefit of the act to which these resolutions are explanatory.

[Mr. WILDRICK, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported to the. House, as correctly enrolled, the joint resolution providing for printing It was then signed by the Speaker.] of additional copies of the Journals and documents.

The question recurred on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered. Mr. CARTTER. Is it competent, under the operation of the previous question, to call for a separate vote upon each section of the resolution? There is a rule somewhere, but I do not know where it can be found.

Mr. WELCH, (in his seat.) Rule 53. still in force, I call for the question. Mr. BISSELL. If the previous question is

[A message in writing was here received from the President of the United States; which in a subsequent part of this day's proceedings was laid before the House.]

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I wish to make a question of order at this time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would remind the gentleman that while the roll is being called it is not in order to make explanations.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. This bill makes an appropriation of $500,000.

Cries of "Call the roll!" "Call the roll!"

Mr. BRENTON, when his name was called, asked to be excused from voting, as he was included under the exceptions contained in the 40th rule.

The question being put and taken upon ordering the bill to be read a third time and engrossed, it resulted-yeas 89, nays 66; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Willis Allen, Andrews, Ashe, Bartlett, Bennett, Bibighaus, Bissell, Breckenridge, Albert G. Brown, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Chastain, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, John G. Davis, Doty, Dunham, Eastman," Faulkner, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Gamble, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Gorman, Grey, Hall, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Hascall, Hendricks, Hillyer, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Jackson, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, J. Glancy Jones, Kuhns, Kurtz, Lockhart, Mace, Humphrey Marshall, Martin, Molony, Morehead, Murphy, Nabers, Olds, Peaslee, Penn, Polk, Porter, Powell, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, RobinSackett, Savage, Smart, Benjamin Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abr'm P. Stevens, Stone, Stuart, Sweetser, Taylor, Thurston, Venable, Walsh, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Addison White, Wilcox, Williams, and Yates-89.

son,

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Allison, John Appleton, William Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Bocock, J. H. Boyd, Bragg, Burrows, Joseph Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Cartter, Chapman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Durkee, Edmundson, Evans, Floyd, Fowler, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goodenow, Grow, Harper, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Houston, Howard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Ives, James Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, Geo. G. King, Preston King, Landry, Letcher, McDonald, Meacham, Millson, Henry D. Moore, Newton, Orr, Andrew Parker, Penniman, Perkins, Robbins, Robie, Scudder, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smith, Alexander H. Stephens, Sutherland, George W. Thompson, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Wallace, and Wildrick-66.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. I move to reconsider the vote by which this bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and to lay that motion upon the table.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I call for a division of the question.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, called for the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER. It is not divisible.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. The question is divisible, and the first question is upon laying the motion to reconsider upon the table. If that motion is voted down, then the question will recur upon the reconsideration.

The SPEAKER. By the option of the House it may be divided, but cannot by the Chair.

The question was then taken upon laying the motion to reconsider upon the table, and it was not agreed to-ayes 47, noes not counted.

Mr. DUNHAM. I believe the previous question has now exhausted itself, and I hope the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time may prevail; for if it

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I rise to a point of order. The bill having passed under the operation of the previous question, the motion to reconsider is not debatable.

The SPEAKER. The opinion of the Chair is,

that the previous question has been exhausted, , and that the motion to reconsider is debatable. Mr. DUNHAM. I hope the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was engrossed and read a third time may prevail. If it does, I mean to make a motion to refer the bill to a select committee where it may be fully considered.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. I wish to say a word upon that motion to those having constituents interested in these land warrants. I am in favor of the reference of the subject to a select committee. By the bill as it now stands the holders of these warrants are limited in the location of them to the lands in the market at the time the bill was passed. Since that time great quantities of lands have been brought into market. Should you not adopt an amendment including the lands that were brought into market after the passage of that bill, it will be practically excluding the holders of land warrants from the best portion of the public domain.

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. Will the gentleman allow me to say a word?

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. Certainly, sir. Mr. CABELL. I propose to the gentleman from Kentucky that he will offer as an amendment such as I send to the Clerk's table.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. I will cheerfully yield to an amendment that will accomplish my purpose.

Mr. HOUSTON. The amendment is not in order.

Mr. CABELL. I do not propose to amend the bill. This question is open to discussion, and I only desired that the proposition should be read, with a view to carry out the purposes of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. BRECKENRIDGE.] I will state to the gentleman from Kentucky, and to the House, that when this bill granting bounty lands originally passed, it had no such provision attached to it as that which he proposes to repeal. All lands, subject to entry at the time of making the application to locate the bounty lands, were open to the soldier. At the succeeding session of Congress, a gentleman from Ohio, no longer a member of this House, (Mr. Vinton,) who seemed to be specially anxious to prevent new States from acquiring benefits which had been conferred most liberally upon his own, introduced, at what time I know not, in a bill having no connection with bounty lands whatever a proviso, to repeal which the gentleman from Kentucky now makes his motion. In one of the general appropriation bills of the preceding session, a proviso was introduced, providing that no land bounty for military services granted by the act of the 28th of September, 1850, entitled "An act granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States, or by virtue of any other act of Congress heretofore passed granting land bounties for military services, shall be satisfied out of any public land not heretofore brought into market, and now subject to entry at private sale under existing laws.' This was a proviso to the civil and diplomatic appropriation_bill. In that way it passed the House, and, as I think against the sense of the House. I intend, when it shall be in order, to offer an additional section to the bill, to repeal that clause of the civil and diplomatic bill, thus:

And be it further resolved, That so much of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic

expenses of Government for the year ending the 30th June, 1852, and for other purposes,' as provides that no land bounty for military services granted by the act of the 28th of September, 1850, entitled An act granting bountyl and to certain officers and soldiers who have engaged in the military service of the United States,' or by virtue of any other act of Congress heretofore passed, granting land bounties for military services, shall be satisfied out of any public land not heretofore brought into market, and now subject to entry at private sale under existing laws," be and the same is hereby repealed.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE. The proposition is not now in order. It is evident that the gentleman from Florida and myself are aiming at the same thing. I rose merely for the purpose of explaining a portion of the bill, and of showing the importance of amending it in the manner suggested. I hope the friends of the soldier will vote for the reference, and for giving this privilege to holders of land

warrants.

Mr. TUCK. I am in favor of the reconsideration moved, although I would oppose it, if nothing influenced me but the reasons which have hitherto been assigned in its favor. I am decidedly opposed to the amendment which the gentleman from

condemned. It was stated during the discussion, by a gentleman from Ohio, of great experience and great wisdom, (Mr. Vinton,) that applications for these gratuities of land had been before Congress for about twenty-five years, and had always been refused. The applications had been examined at every Congress and condemned, first because of want of merit in the applicants, who had been paid for all services they had performed, and therefore deserved nothing, in justice; and secondly, because the policy of our legislators had always condemned all schemes of plundering the public Treasury, or the public domain. Yet a law did pass the last Congress of unparalleled amplitude, giving lands to an immense number, which it is now proposed to follow up, by a precipitate enactment of another law of unestimated and unknown capacity. If gentlemen, after examining the law, and ascertaining what it means, and what it is to accomplish, are inclined to vote for it, so be it. I shall not be captious, but shall content myself with the opposition which one member can make, and which my own judgment dictates.

Florida [Mr. CABELL] designs to offer to the bill, in case the vote to reconsider prevails. To open the virgin lands of the territories to the liability of being taken by the holders of these warrants, is a measure which I can never support. I had the pleasure during the last summer to travel through several of the Western States, and into one of the Territories. In Minnesota I found men who had removed from Illinois and Wisconsin to escape the effect of such a provision as the gentleman from Florida proposes, by his amendment, to make general throughout the Territories and our whole domain. These men gave me as the only reason for leaving the fertile fields and prairies of those States, that the villages which they had commenced to build up by hard labor, amidst the inconveniences of a frontier life, had become surrounded by the lands of those who had bought up and located land warrants, and who, amidst the luxuries of eastern cities, were waiting for their lands to be made valuable by the hard labor of the western farmer. They told me that they would no longer work to develop a country, when the land about them, without an inhabitant upon it, Let me say a few words in regard to the first was to be enhanced in value by their labor only; section of the bill, which relates only to the making and to escape such a necessity they had gone to of land warrants assignable. We have been in Minnesota, where land warrants cannot be located Committee of the Whole House, and have heard by the laws of the country, and where the actual many remarks upon this section; but it has not inhabitants own the soil. These men were those yet been stated, what I now say, that some ten who live by the sweat of their brows-honest citi-days ago a bill passed this House, and is now bezens, desirous only of earning a livelihood and fore the Senate, making land warrants assignable. competence, by hard labor and patient industry. This section is entirely unnecessary, and can do It may be that the only satisfaction we shall de- nobody any good. I voted for the other bill, and rive from attempting to arrest the passage of this I have no objection to the reenactment contained bill, will be to gain the privilege of giving a de- in this section, if one reason could be given for it. liberate vote against it. That satisfaction I hope to I do not believe that such reduplication in the have, and also that of calling the attention of the labors of this branch of Congress is becoming, asHouse to some of my objections to its provisions.suming, as it does, that the attention of the Senate I call the attention of members to the fact, that may not be attracted by doing a thing over once. this bill has its present place ahead of all other It will also lead to confusion. business, because we have, in regard to this measure, dispensed with the formalities, requirements, and tests which are required in all other cases. This bill has been to no standing committee, has never been considered in Committee of the Whole House, except the first section of it, and is now attempted to be forced through, under the operation of the previous question. I am unable to understand the occasion of this hot haste, and undignified rapidity of legislation, unless speculators in warrants are impatient to have a good branch of business opened to them for the winter. Gentlemen may suppose that the multiplication of land warrants by this bill will especially benefit the Western donees of the land. They may be right in this supposition, but I can assure them that the sharp-sighted speculators of the Atlantic cities will divide the spoils with them. They will buy the warrants at a great discount, locate them in large or small parcels in all parts of the West, and patiently wait at home for the Western men to give a high value to these lands by labor and toil, in which the speculators will not participate. The lands will thus be held in a sort of mortmain, and the new States be cursed by the sharpers, who refuse to take a share in the hardships of that frontier life, by which they attempt to become enriched.

I will only say in regard to the fifth section of the bill, which is designed to give bounty lands to such State troops as have been recognized and paid for by the United States, that the section does not enlarge in the least the law of 1850, as now administered. Such claimants are now allowed bounty lands, as any one may learn by inquiring of the Commissioner of Pensions.

The second and third sections in regard to payments to assistant registers, I have not examined with much care. As at present inclined, I interpose no objection. I believe that all officers should have fair compensation for their services, and if it be the intention of these sections to secure such a purpose, I shall give them my support. I consider the fourth section of the bill creating the new class of land warrants, as before stated, to have an overwhelming importance, which throws all the other sections into comparative insignificance. To that I have exclusively directed my attention, leaving others to examine the other provisions of the measure. I entreat gentlemen to consider the great feature of this bill, and to consider the policy of this extravagant appropriation of the public domain, as well as the effect of it upon the new States, before they give to it the sanction of their support. Let it go through the ordinary stages of legislation, and be tried by those tests which are thought necessary in laws which have not one thousandth part of the importance of this. Under the fourth section of the bill there is concealed a monster, whose talons may pierce the new States, and curse them for many years. I cannot pretend to drag him forth and destroy him. I content myself with only pointing to the place where he concealed.

This bill has been talked about yesterday and to-day; but until within a short time, we have not heard a word upon that part of it which gives to it its chief importance. The great feature of the bill is contained in the fourth section. To that section, I invite the particular attention of this House. It proposes to grant bounty lands to all who have been engaged since 1790 in the sup-lies pression of Indian hostilities. It creates a new class of beneficiaries for bounty land, indefinite in number, and to an extent unestimated and unknown.

The attempt is made to force this law to the last stage of enactment, when no gentleman has yet proposed to lay before us any estimate whatever of the extent of land which will be appropriated under the operation of this law. Does this haste become us? Is it necessary for the friends of the law to deny us light, and to force a vote without knowing themselves, or permitting others to know, anything of the amplitude of the provisions of this law?

Let me call the attention of the House to the fate of the proposition contained in the fourth section, in the last Congress. It was then thoroughly discussed, and, after mature consideration, was

I did not rise with the purpose of occupying so much of your time. As I said at the outset, I fear, from the indications about me, that opposition will be fruitless, and that I must content myself with the enactment of a bad law, by the reflection that I opposed and voted against it. I have pointed out some of my objections to the bill, and I close.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Tyck] has opened a discussion here as to the effect upon the new States of the resolution now before us for consideration. I have thought, and still think, that the Representatives from the West understand her interests. They have not been accused heretofore of any negligence in this respect. The gentleman is very much afraid that our interests will be neglected and forgotten. Well, for one, I beg leave to say, that I think we understand the interests of

the West quite as well as the gentleman from New Hampshire. The gentleman says that he is opposed to certain provisions in this bill, because they open a door to speculation. How, sir? We have watched the operations of the bill as it now exists, and how has it been? The speculator who buys the land or buys the warrant without an assignment upon the back, buys it at a far less price than he would if he got the assignment, because he is to run the hazard of getting the title. The man who intends to buy him a home, and who has only money enough to do it, is not going to run any chance in speculation. It is only the speculator who will do it.

Mr. TUCK. It seems I was not fortunate nough to make myself understood. I voted for the law which passed a few days since, making these land warrants assignable. The gentleman misunderstood me. I said I am opposed to any proposition subjecting the public domain to entry by these land warrants, for the reason that it would open all the new Territories to the speculators; and to this I am opposed.

Mr. RICHARDSON.' I understood the gendeman from New Hampshire, I think. What reason ist here that this Government should not give the privilege to enter land in Minnesota as well as in Illinois? Can the gentleman assign any good reason? He says the effect of it is, to drive our population from Illinois to locate in the Territories, where they will not have to meet competition from the speculator holding these land warrants. Has not your Government perpetrated fraud by pretending to give the public domain to your citizens for public services, when it only gives them the refuse of the lands? Can the gendeman assign any reason why an individual who has his warrant from Government for land, should not locate in Minnesota as well as in Illinois? The gentleman says that the question was discussed in the last Congress, and that the subject was perfectly understood. I concur with the statement made by the gentlenian from Florida, [Mr. CABELL,] that the amendment restricting the location of the warrants to the lands then in market, found its way through this House covertly; that its purpose was not avowed, nor was it understood. I understand from gentlemen around me, that it came from the Committee of Ways and Means in one of your appropriation bills, and|| under the plea that it would have checked the wheels of Government, unless these lands were cut off from the soldiers. Thus it was that the bill was passed. I think, however pertinent this wide discussion may be at this time, that there is an appropriate place for the discussion of all these questions. I want this thing disposed of, and for the purpose of producing this result, I move the previous question.

Mr. BAYLY. I wish the gentleman would withdraw his call for the previous question for a few moments.

The call being withdrawn

and pantaloons of the citizens-a domain that belongs, (if tax-paying constitutes any rule of judgment in the premises,) not to the States, as some have contended, or to the corn-stalk army; but that belongs to the individual citizens, in rights secured by individual taxation, and that is to be

Mr. TUCK. I wish to say to the gentleman, that I defy him or any other member who heard my remarks, to find one word that assumed any position or any right to instruct members from any part of the country.

Mr. BAYLY. If that is the case, let the matter drop. That was the understanding of my friend from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON] of the speech of the gentleman from New Hampshire. It is a small matter any way. I had another view in wishing to confine the location of these warrants to lands already in market. My own decided opinion is, that it is the policy of this Government to withdraw its proprietorship over the public lands within the States as rapidly as it can be done with propriety. I knew that the public lands in nearly all of the States had already been surveyed and were in the market; and I knew, also, that by confining the location of these warrants to such lands, it would compel the extinction, to the extent of these warrants, of the Government proprietorship in these cases. I did not regard it as a matter of any hardship to these soldiers, because there are in these States, now open to private entry, as fine lands as there are on the face of the earth. It was for these reasons, and not from any disposition to do injustice to warrant holders, that I felt it my duty, in the position I then occupied, to husband the resources of Government as much as I could. In doing that, I was pleased to find that I was at the same time carrying out this very policy of the Government, to which I have referred-that is, the extinction of the proprietorship of this Government over these lands.

Mr. BISSELL. The land warrants throughout the West might have been located in the State of Illinois, and still there would be three millions of acres left there now.

Mr. BAYLY. That was the policy. I pursued.

among men who will till and occupy it. The measure will succeed. The struggle in regard to this bill, and every bill of a kindred character, which has come before this body since I have had the honor of a seat here, has been a mere scramble among speculators to plunder the public domain.

Mr. CARTTER. I will trespass upon the time of the House but a few moments. I hope that the motion to engross this bill may be reconsidered, for I understand by gentlemen best acquinted with the rules of the House, that they permit an expression of the sentiment of the House in reference to the merits of the bill, and that they also tolerate amendments. My objections to the bill are not of the character that have been alluded to, and do not obviate the objection of throwing away the public domain. I am done with that point; Mr. BAYLY resumed. I only desire to say a but my prayer now is, that my friend from word in reference to the remarks of my friend from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] may urge forward his Florida, [Mr. CABELL,] and my friend from Illi-measure for the distribution of the public domain Dois, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] in respect to the provision contained in the civil and diplomatic bill passed at the last session of Congress. It was true that that amendment was moved by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vinton) at that time, and that I aided him zealously in passing it. I therefore feel myself quite as responsible for that amendment as the gentleman from Ohio. The motives which actuated us were these: At that time it was almost certain that unless we husbanded the resources of this Government very carefully, we should have to resort to loans to carry on the Government. A loan had been recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, and I felt it my duty, in the position which I then occupied, to take every means in my power to obviate that necessity. We desired to confine the location of these warrants to lands which had been already in the market, in order that we might still continue to get some revenue from the public lands which at that time I thought we would want very much. I have not seen the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and I am not able, therefore, to say with any great confidence whether this source of revenue from the public lands can now with safety be dispensed with. By the operation of this provision, notwithstanding the predictions that this bounty land bill would cut off the entire revenue from the pub

In the pursuit of this measure, you have hunted up all the patriots that ever shouldered a musket, and they have even got warrants for corn-stalk service in the States. We have exhausted this avenue to the expenditure of the public domain; for every man that ever heard or smelt powder, or that had a great-great-grandfather that ever did; has been provided for as a patriot in the public service. [I [Laughter.] I know that this way of talking is a little unpopular. The army, and everybody that ever heard of it, is canonized, and I am aware that I run some little risk of getting into collision with this patriotic force. Nevertheless, no gentleman will differ with me in this, that, in the wide range of public benevolence, in the direction of military service, they have got them all in -corn-stalks and all.

But, sir, my objection to this bill is, that we are exhibiting our financiering talents; we are making an exhibition of our abundant capacity to throw away the public domain-a domain purchased out of the general Treasury, and paid for in the coats

eral Government, in the same description of taxation. Nevertheless, it is doomed to go, and I do not raise my voice against its alienation, for it would be impotent for that purpose.

But to the question of financiering as connected with this subject. We are proving ourselves abundantly profligate in throwing away the public domain, and not only that, but abundantly profligate in drawing out of the public Treasury money outside of the domain, to provide for its distribution. You not only tax the citizen by his contribution to the Federal Treasury, for the purchase of this domain, but you propose by this bill to tax him further in the process of giving it away to patriots. What is the third section of this bill? It says, "officers, whether in or out of office." You are not content with paying officers in office, and with prospects for the future, but you pay men whether in or out of office-the rest of mankind. [Laughter.]

Mr. BISSELL. Will the gentleman from Ohio permit me as I may not be able to get the floor when he shall have concluded-to say a word or two upon that third section?

Mr. CARTTER. Well, perhaps I might if I knew what you were going to say.

Mr. BISSELL. What I should say would be directly against what you are saying, and it would be based upon the bill itself which you misapprehend entirely.

Mr. CARTTER. I may misapprehend the bill, but it certainly reads, that said officers, whether in or out of office at the time of the passage of this act, or their legal or personal representatives, in case of their death, shall be entitled to 'receive from the Treasury of the United States"not from the revenues of the public domain, not from the fund proposed to be distributed by this bill, but from the general revenues of the United States.

Mr. ORR, (interrupting.) I desire to make a suggestion to the gentleman. Is he aware that that applies also to the Mexican bounty land warrants that have already been paid?

Mr. CARTTER. Precisely so. It is a bill in the past, present, and future tenses; providing for the dead and the living; for men in office and out of office. A more flagrant and profligate measure for drawing money out of the public Treasury, it appears to me, has never been submitted to this House. Is it not enough in all conscience to tax the American citizen to fill your public Treasury, and then give away the resources that have been purchased by his taxation, without drawing upon the public Treasury to provide the ways and means by which it shall be given away? I regard it as an outrage upon the private rights of the citizen who has not had the gratification of shouldering a corn-stalk.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. Will the gentlemen permit me?

Mr. CARTTER. I mean no disrespect to the officers of the late war. [Laughter.]

Mr. MARSHALL. I supposed the gentleman had finished.

Mr. CARTTER. I will give way to the gentleman.

Mr. MARSHALL. I did not rise with the intention of replying to the gentleman's remarks, but merely to say that it must be apparent to the House, that the course of this proceeding had thrown the friends of a measure similar to this into a position on which they must either have engrossed the bill or killed it, and it is to be hoped that the House will now unanimously agree to the reconsideration, and to the commitment of the bill either to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or to a select committee, with a view that a bill may be brought in here upon which gentlemen can expend their eloquence and their energy. I move the previous question.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] yield the floor for that purpose?

Mr. MARSHALL. The gentleman yielded the floor absolutely.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I understood the