Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

bill passes, I have the figures here, and they show that it will amount to about $200,000. As was shown by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BRENTON] yesterday, the cash value of the warrants already located, is about $12,000,000, and it is proposed to pay one per cent. upon that sum to the registers and one per cent. to the receivers. Calculate for yourselves, and you will find that that makes something like $250,000. Take off the fifty cents already received as fees, and it leaves something more than $200,000 to be paid for warrants already located. It is then proposed to go on and pay in the same ratio for the location of warrants in future, and the warrants issued under the act of 1850 will be much more numerous than the warrants issued under the Mexican bounty land law. And yet you are called upon to vote upon that proposition without hearing the facts that might be urged in opposition to it!

It is said that these registers and receivers are not properly paid. Now I ask gentlemen to tell the committee what the receivers have to do in the location of bounty land warrants, that you should pay them $2 for the location of each warrant for one hundred and sixty acres.

I hold in my hand a letter from the Commissioner of the Land Office, in which he states that they have to perform almost nothing in locating these warrants, for doing which it is proposed to pay them $2 each. I have not time to read the letter now, but I intend that it shall be published, at some proper time. I ask, if the fifty cents proposed to be paid by the bill of the select committee is not amply sufficient? The gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. CLARK,] who made a speech the other day, said that it was not sufficient, and he read an extract from a letter from one of his constituents, the register or receiver in the land office at Dubuque. That letter states, that in two weeks there were something like one thousand warrants located, and that it required three competent clerks to perform the labor. Well, that would make twenty-seven warrants a day located by each clerk, for which they would each receive $13 50 a day, and yet they say they are not paid ample compensation for the labor they perform! These facts the gentleman from Iowa stated to the House from the letter of his constituent. I ask, are you pre pared to vote this bill through in such a state of facts?

Mr. CLARK. They did not get the compensa

tion.

Mr. DUNHAM. It may be possible that they have not received pay for the location of all those warrants; but if the substitute proposed by the select committee passes, they will receive it in such cases as that, and it is ample compensation for the labor they perform-especially when you take into consideration the statement of the Commissioner of the Land Office in this letter, that those receivers do comparatively no labor at all.

Mr. BISSELL. I am opposed to this amendment; and there is one fact to which I wish to direct the attention of the committee. These land officers are not equally paid. If the honorable chairman of the select committee proposes to reduce the salaries of the land officers, let him introduce a bill which shall effect that object, doing equal justice to all, and I will probably go with him, for I am as much in favor of low salaries as he is. But when you ask me to pass a law which will have the effect of giving to one man four dollars for services which another man has to perform for one dollar, you must excuse me if I say.I cannot do it, and you may call it a threat if you please. Under the operation of the law as it now stands, some of the land officers do four times as much labor as others, and do not get more than one fourth as much pay; because, in certain land offices, nearly all the entries are made with warrants, while in others most of the entries are made with cash, upon which the officers get their percentage. If the gentleman proposes to reduce their salaries, let him do it systematically, regularly, and legitimately-equalize them all, and then see if we do not all go with him. But when you propose to compensate certain officers for certain labor, why will you cut off other officers who have to perform the same labor, from receiving the same compensation?

I wish to call the attention of the committee to another fact, and that is, that in no case under this law, could any officer receive any more than he was authorized to receive before these bounty

land bills passed. Under these laws, the land officers have had a great deal more labor to perform, and, in no event, under the law which we now propose to pass, can any of them receive a greater amount of pay than the law authorized him to receive before the bounty land laws were passed.

I believe that if you strike out these most important and essential provisions of this bill, it is lost-not only lost in this House, but I am still more convinced that it is lost in the Senate. Mr. DUNHAM. Let it go, then. Mr. BISSELL.

Ay! "let it go, then," says

the gentleman. Yes, if this darling scheme of his -this bill introduced by him from the select committee a bill incongruous, unintelligible, and unexplainable-cannot pass, it must all go. I will not call it a nonsensical bill, as a member near me says

Mr. DUNHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to make a single remark?

Mr. BISSELL. I cannot; I have not time. Mr. DUNHAM. I want to ask the gentle-[Loud cries of "Order!"]

man

Mr. BISSELL. The gentleman introduced the bill, and forthwith moved an amendment to it himself. He introduced a bill which proposed to repeal a proviso in a former law, when there was no such proviso in that law to be repealed. He made several mistakes of equal importance, and now because that heterogeneous bill cannot pass, the whole scheme must be defeated!

I repeat, that I believe this bill, if amended as the gentleman from Indiana proposes to amend it, cannot pass the Senate. I do not believe that it can pass this House. I know that if thus amended, I should be constrained to vote against it. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] Wrought himself up to the pitch of calling that "a threat.' If other members regard it so, I shall be surprised indeed to learn it. I expressed the opinion that it could not pass the Senate; the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] on the other hand, says he has good reason to know that it can pass that body. I stated that if the bill was so amended, I should vote against it; the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] say they shall vote against it unless it is so amended. So the "threat" and "bullying" seem to be pretty much on one side as well as on the other. Besides that, I suppose the House has heard too often from the gentleman from Georgia and from myself to be very much alarmed at anything we might say.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. FITCH moved to strike out of the second section of Senate bill all after the word "warrants" in the tenth line, as follows, viz:

"where they have been transferred under the provision of any act of Congress, and the regulations of the General Land Office; 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 Commissioner of the General Land Office that the warrant was located by the soldier or warrantee, or his next of kin, as provided for by law."

He said the amendment was made, not because he esteemed its adoption very essential, though proper, but to enable him to call the attention of the committee to the ridiculous blunder perpetrated by his colleague, [Mr. DUNHAM] in moving to strike out the entire second section and insert other matter identical in principle with that proposed to be stricken out. His [Mr. DUNHAM's] argument was directed not against the section he proposes to strike out, but against the third section which his motion does not propose to disturb! This blunder is only another of the series committed by the gentleman as chairman of the select committee to which the House bill on this subject was referred, and which reported back the deformity, a portion of which it is now proposed to adopt in lieu of the Senate bill.

There were often (Mr. F. said) more false facts than false theories adduced here in support of a measure. His colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] was dealing largely in the former. The very letter to which he referred but a few minutes since, to sustain his declaration that receivers had nothing do in locating warrants, states the very reverse; and in his (Mr. F's) hand was now a letter from the same source (Commissioner of the General Land Office) stating in detail the duties of receivers in such locations. To his colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] must be yielded the palm so far for blundering legisla

tion—a character of legislation to which the past may justify us in expecting a climax by the introduction as a substitute for the bill before us, of some matter upon another and wholly irrelevant subject.

He (Mr. F.) had before said his proposed amendment was not, in his estimation, highly important, and made by him for a purpose now fulfilled; but the amendment was proper, as it will leave the fees in every case to be paid by the holder of the warrant, and in no case out of the Treasury.

Mr. DUNHAM. I am opposed to the amendment. I am very much obliged to my colleague [Mr. FITCH] for the very courteous manner with which he has been pleased to speak of me upon this occasion, as well as the other day. I think, however, that if he will examine he will find that he has committed just as egregious blunders in this matter as I have. The section which I propose to strike out is as different from the one which I propose to insert, as it can be. So much for the courtesy of my colleague.

I have one word in relation to the courtesy of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL.] That gentleman has seen fit to charge me, as chairman of the select committee, with altering the bill reported from that committee. I deny it. There has not been a single proposition in any section of that bill which has been altered, even in phraseology, in the least; and I appeal to every member of that committee to sustain me in the assertion.

Mr. BISSELL. Will the gentleman from Indiana allow me one word?

Mr. DUNHAM. You will have time to reply afterwards.

Mr. BISSELL. I must be allowed to say that the gentleman is wholly mistaken in what he says.

Mr. DUNHAM. Then I simply say this: The members of that committee_are present, and can bear witness whether what I say is correct or not. I undertake to say that there was scarcely a controversy upon any section of the bill, except in reference to the first and second sections. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] voted against me upon the second section, and, as a matter of course, he did in reference to the first.

Mr. BISSELL. I ask the gentleman to say if I ever consented that land warrants should be located without regard to the price?

Mr. DUNHAM. I ask the gentleman from Illinois if he ever, in committee, proposed an amendment to obviate that difficulty? He did not; and I apprehend he did not discover the blunder any more than I did. It does not become him, as a member of that committee, to charge me with blunders which escaped his notice as well as mine.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot permit this kind of discussion to go on. It is all out of

order.

Mr. DUNHAM. Does the gentleman from Illinois pretend to say here that I altered that bill after it was reported by the committee?

Mr. BISSELL. Not knowingly. Certainly

not.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot permit this discussion to go on. The Chair calls the gen

tlemen to order.

Mr. BISSELL. I must be permitted to answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. DUNHAM. Certainly, I will permit the gentleman; and desire that he should answer my question.

Mr. BISSELL. I refer particularly to that portion of the bill which authorizes that land wat rants shall be received in payment for the public lands, without regard to the price of those lands. My understanding of it was, that warrants should be received in payment for the public lands, but that the lands should be held at their nominal value-say $250 per acre. The bill, as introduced, authorizes the holder of the warrant-for instance, the holder of a one hundred and sixty acre warrant to locate it on lands held at $2 50 per acre.

Mr. DUNHAM. Oh, I understand that. But I do not remember that the matter was mooted in the committee. And if it was, I stand here to say that the original bill, as it was submitted to the committee at its last sitting, is the same which was introduced here. The bill was laid before the committee and examined critically-examined by us all. It was sent from the committee room directly to the printing office, and the manuscript

can be examined there. It was printed and sent here; yet now, forsooth, the gentleman from Illinois comes here and charges the blunders in the bill upon the unfortunate chairman of the committee, who, as the committee know, did his utmost to perfect it.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HEBARD. I desire to ask if it is in order to ask for a division of the question on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] so that it shall first be taken upon striking out?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois. I will ask to have the amendment to the amendment read. The CHAIRMAN. As the amendment to the amendment is an unimportant one, the Chair will suggest that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FITCH] withdraw it.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I regard the amendment as one of some importance.

Mr. KING, of New York. By a rule of the House, the amendment cannot be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is aware that it cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous

consent.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Iobject. I would inquire if the question is not on the proposition to strike out the whole of the second section?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] moves to strike out the whole of the second section of the Senate bill, [as reported above,] and to insert the second section of the bill reported from the select committee in lieu thereof; and his colleague [Mr. FITCH] moves to strike out that portion of the second section of the Senate bill, as follows, viz:

"where they have been transferred under the provisions of any act of Congress, and the regulations of the General Land Office; 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 Commissioner of the General Land Office that the warrant was located by the soldier or warrantee, or his next of kin, as provided for by law."

The question is now on striking out the portion of the section which has just been read. The question was taken, and the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The question then recurred upon striking out the entire section of the Senate bill and inserting the second section of the bill proposed by the select committee, as reported above.

Mr. BRENTON. 1 offer the following amendment to the amendment. I move to strike out from the section proposed to be inserted, the words "by him located," and to insert in lieu thereof the words" of forty acres, and $2 for each warrant of one hundred and sixty acres." So that it will provide that the registers and receivers shall be entitled to receive fifty cents for each land warrant of forty acres, and $2 for each warrant of one hundred and sixty acres which they may locate. Mr. B. said: If the amendment of my colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] should prevail, the amendment which I have proposed to it must address itself at once to the intelligence of every man in this committee. I hold that our laws should be equal, and that we should not be called upon to pass laws which do not place the poor man upon the same equality with the rich man. What is the effect of the section as it now stands? It is that the man who has been enabled to raise $50 and purchased a land warrant shall be compelled to pay for the location of his warrant as much as the man who has a $200 warrant shall pay for locating his. I am not prepared to sanction any such doctrine; and I am satisfied that my colleague, when he looks at the question, will not advocate his own amendment Without the insertion of such a provision as I have indicated. Gentlemen will see at once that it requires a man who has his warrant for forty acres to

pay four times as much in proportion to its value, as the man who has his one hundred and sixty acre warrant. It says that the man with the one hundred and sixty acre warrant shall pay fifty Cents, but I am opposed to compelling the poor man, who, by his hard earnings, has been enabled to purchase a warrant for forty acres, to pay a Similar sum. Now, I am for compelling the rich Tan to pay the same for the privilege he enjoys, s the poor man, and the amendment which I have Proposed will effect that purpose. It places them apon precisely the same footing. One per cent. apon the cash sale of forty acres will amount to

about fifty cents, and one per cent. for the cash sale of one hundred and sixty acres will be about $2. This amendment, therefore, places the purchasers of the one hundred and sixty acre warrants, and the purchasers of forty acre warrants upon the same footing.

I now desire to answer some of the objections urged by my colleague, [Mr. DUNHAM,] in reference to the expense which will be incurred in carrying out the provisions of this bill. I think I shall be able to show that they will not amount to anything like the extravagant sum which he indicates. I am of the opinion that any calculations which bring the expense above $100,000 are not in accordance with the facts of the case. I stated in my remarks on yesterday, that the price of all these warrants was about $12,000,000. Now, divide one per cent. of that amount between one hundred and thirty-six men, and you will be enabled to ascertain what amount it would give to each individual for the five years past. Then from. that amount is to be deducted what the officers have received after the law of 1848. I am not prepared to say what is the precise amount, and I have made calculations on the subject, but they are not before me. I think, however, that the whole percentage on the sum will amount to a little over $100,000. From this is to be deducted the receipts of these officers under the law of 1848, so that it reduces, according to my calculation, to less than $100,000.

Mr. DUNHAM. I think I understood my colleague to say that the whole price of these warrants was $12,000,000.

Mr. BRENTON. Certainly.

Mr. DUNHAM. And that two per cent. is payable to the receivers and registers? Mr. BRENTON. Certainly-one per cent. to

each of these officers.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. J. W. HOWE. My constituents are interested in the passage of the first section; and I merely wish to say that I am in favor of passing it. It provides that land warrants shall be assign. able. As to all the remainder of the bill I am opposed to it. I wish to make this remark, that I may appear fairly upon the record. I believe it is expedient to pass a law that shall make land warrants assignable, and my constituents require that I shall so vote; but to all the rest of the bill I am entirely opposed.

As respects land officers not being compensated, I will merely say to them, as I would to members of Congress, If your compensation is not sufficient you may resign. Whenever a Congressman finds that his wages are not ample and sufficient he resigns his seat; and I suppose that a receiver or land officer might do the same thing.

In regard to western lands, I would remark that I consider the northern, or the old original thirteen States, as having no interest, or lot, or part, in them. It is a western and local question altogether. I am satisfied, from what I have seen in this House, and from all past experience of legislation upon public lands, that the old thirteen States can never get enough of them to make a Pottersfield of-never enough to bury their dead upon. The public lands are gone, irrevocably gone, from the old States. I am for making the best disposition of them under the circumstances. I am not in favor of giving bounty lands. I am for giving to every actual settler, who will go and remain upon the land, one hundred and sixty acres. I would this day vote for giving every acre away in that manner. I am entirely opposed to giving them to soulless corporations, upon a promise that they will make railroads or anything of that kind. They must go to the States to which they belong. I know that Pennsylvania can get none of them. I know the old States can get none of them. I am in favor of giving them out in parcels to individuals who will go and occupy and husband the lands, and make them valuable, and enhance the value of the property of the States to which they belong.

Mr. ALLISON. I ask my colleague to correct a word. He said he was willing to give the lands to the States to which they belong. I know my colleague did not mean to express himself in that way.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ALLISON. So I supposed.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. BRENTON to the amendment of Mr. DUNHAM, and it was lost.

The question then recurring upon the amendment of Mr. DUNHAM.

Mr. BISSELL said: I desire to have the second section of the Senate bill read as now amended. The second section as amended was read. Mr. SACKETT. I propose to amend the second section of the Senate bill by striking out the words "the same compensation or percentage to which they are entitled by law for sales of the 'public lands for cash, at the rate of $1 25 per acre, the said compensation to be hereafter paid by the assignees or holders of such warrants where they have been transferred under the pro'visions of an act of Congress, and the regulations of the General Land Office," and insert" eighty cents," and after the word "paid" in the thirteenth line, insert" in all cases where a warrant has been assigned, and in all other cases to be paid."

The CHAIRMAN. A portion of the section to which the amendment refers, has already been striken out.

Mr. SACKETT. I will then modify the amendment, so that the effect of it will be to strike out all that part of the section which is based upon the idea of giving compensation to registers and receivers, and insert instead thereof the words eighty cents. I am in favor of giving a specific compensation for the location of land warrants, and the sum I propose is eighty cents. There seems to be an opinion on the part of a large portion of the House that this compensation, by way of percentage, is too high, and that it amounts in the case of a one hundred and sixty acre warrant, to $2, and in the case of eighty acres, to $1, paid to the registers and receivers, which, in my judgment, is too high a compensation. It is for the simple reason that I do not suppose that the general law specifies a higher compensation than is proper, but yet that, in case of these land warrants which are generally located in parcels, and large numbers by individuals, speculators, and agents, the compensation should not be as much as for locating an individual purchase made for cash, that I have offered this compromise price of eighty cents for locating these warrants.

My other proposition, if I may be permitted to allude to it, was made in order that the soldiers themselves might have their warrants located, and the compensation therefor be paid out of the Treasury, but that in case the warrants reached the hands of an assignee, the compensation should be paid by the holder. That was the intention. I have no idea that these receivers should do the business for nothing; and certainly a few of the receivers should not be required to do all the business of our public lands during the time these warrants are locating; for substantially these warrants increases the business of the public land offices, and therefore I think a proper compensation should be awarded to the receivers under such circumstances. I think eighty cents is not far out of the way.

Mr. BISSELL. The second section of the Senate bill, as now amended, provides that in all cases where locations are hereafter made, two per cent. shall be paid by the person holding the warrant, whether he be the assignee or the original holder. I think that is right. I think that the holder of the warrant, whoever he may be, whether he is the old soldier or the old soldier's assignee, should be willing, and I know they are willing in every instance, to pay whatever is fair and reasonable for locating their warrants. It is not too much to ask of any man, if you give him one hundred and sixty or forty acres of land, that in the one case he shall pay $2, and in the other fifty cents for making out his papers. It is not unreasonable, and no one will complain of it.

Mr. AVERETT, (interrupting.) I understand that in order for any one to get the floor he must have an amendment to offer or he must speak in opposition.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is speaking to an amendment.

Mr. BISSELL. I am speaking to an amendment, and I am in favor of this second section of the Senate bill as it now stands. It requires, in

all cases, that the holder of a warrant, whether he be the assignee or the soldier himself, shall pay for locating the land; and shall pay precisely as much, and no more, than is paid when the location is made with cash. If I take two hundred dollars in gold to the land office and propose to enter one hundred and sixty acres of land, two dollars of that two hundred goes to compensate the register and receiver.

Mr. SACKETT, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman answer me a question. The phraseology of the bill is, "the same compensation or percentage; I wish to know if there is any other compensation besides percentage?

Mr. BISSELL. None whatever; that is mere verbiage. If I take two hundred dollars in gold to a land office to enter one hundred and sixty acres, two dollars of that gold, as I before said, go to pay the register and receiver. Under this section as now amended, if I take a one hundred and sixty acre warrant I pay the same, whereas in fact the labor of the register and receiver is, in this latter case, more than four times as great as when an entry is made with cash.

Mr. DUNHAM. I should like to ask the gentleman a question for information. Where the entry is made in cash does the man who makes the entry have to pay it?

Mr. BISSELL. I did not say so at all. I said that of the two hundred dollars two dollars go to the register and receiver-of course out of the Treasury of the United States. But under this section, when the holder of a warrant enters his land, he must, as he ought to do-the land being given to him-pay that little pittance. Who can object to that Senate bill now? It takes no money out of the Treasury, and only requires a man to whom you have given one hundred and sixty acres of land to pay two dollars for its location. Who can object to it? Who will have it struck out for this much less intelligible amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana? [Mr. DUNHAM.] This is a simple, plain, straightforward matter. I hope the second section, as now amended, and that does not take a dollar from the Treasury, but only requires the holder of a warrant to pay as much as would be paid to the register and receiver if the entry was made in cash, will remain as it is, and that it will become a part of the law.

The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. SACKETT, and it was disagreed to.

Mr. AVERETT. Is it in order to strike out all of the second section?

The CHAIRMAN. A motion is pending to strike out all after the first section, and also to strike out the second section.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I offer the follow proviso to the second section, as it now stands:

Provided, That no fees shall be charged where the warrant was located by the original warrantee.

having a warrant for the least number of acres
will be taxed the most. If I go into market to buy
land warrants, I will prefer one of one hundred and
sixty acres to forty acre warrants; and why?
Because I would have to pay only one fourth the
tax in locating a one hundred and sixty acre war-
rant, that I would have to pay for the forty acre

warrants.

Mr. BISSELL. Not at all. Under this section, to locate a forty acre warrant you pay fifty cents, to locate an eighty acre warrant you pay $1, and to locate a one hundred and sixty acre warrant you pay $2.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is the percentage. I am expressing my opposition to the provision of the House bill, which proposes to fix the compensation for locating warrants at a specific sum. I have not much to say, and I will not trouble the House by entering into the discussion. This matter has got now to about the point where I expected it would get when we referred it to a select committee. I think we were then a little further advanced than now. I am now expressing my opposition to the matter which it is intended hereafter to be inserted. It is as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, the registers and receivers of the United States land offices shall each be entitled to receive fifty cents for his services, in locating each bounty land warrant by him located, to be paid by the person or persons locating the same.

That is, no matter whether it is a forty, eighty, or one hundred and sixty acre warrant, they will charge fifty cents upon each. This will depreciate the small warrants and appreciate the large ones. Mr. EVANS. I intend to oppose the proposition, and in doing so, to make some remarks in reference to the extent of land warrants, to which I beg leave to call the attention of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. BRENTON.] It was stated by the gentleman, and assented to by his colleague, that $12,000,000 would cover the entire issue of land warrants. Well, that may be so. But a certain official report makes a different statement; I do not propose to decide where doctors disagree, nor to determine between gentlemen equally well informed, but I will ask the committee to undertake that task after hearing what I am about to read. I hold in my hand an official document of this Government-Executive document, No. 11, the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, at the second session of the 31st Congress. There is a statement appended to this report-statement K-to which I would ask the attention of the gentleman from Indiana, whose account I do not gainsay. The Secretary says, "Statement K, appended to 'this report, shows the number of warrants located 'by the acts to which reference has been made, and 'the number yet to be located, as estimated from the pay rolls and other evidences on file, with the 'quantity of lands in acres required to satisfy them. The quantity of lands sold and taken from market by virtue of these warrants, for the years 1847, 1848, 1849, is 14,727,742.40 acres (aver

$18,911,134.76, (averaging $6,303,711.58 per an'num.)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"The warrants yet to be presented under these 'acts will require 78,922,513 acres, valued at $98,653,140. At the above average of 4,909,247.46 acres per annum over sixteen years will be required to absorb and satisfy the warrants yet to 'be issued, as estimated under the several bounty 'land acts now in force.

'896."

Mr. M. I conceive the second section to be as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] under-aging 4,909,247.46 acres per annum,) valued at stands it, that it will require the soldier to pay to the registers and receivers two per cent. on the amount of his warrant, and to that I am opposed, because the bounty land law was based upon the idea that it was a gratuity upon the part of the Government to the men who had rendered military service; and I am unwilling to change the princi ple of the law, so as to charge the soldier where he make the entry, with any fee at all. I would require of the registers and receivers gratuitous "There will then be diverted from the Treasservices, at all events, where this class of personsury, from the sale of lands, the sum of $113,245,locate warrants. I am fully aware that it may be replied to this, that the speculator will charge upon the market value of the warrant whatever he may be required to pay in the Land Office, that that is an evil which unavoidably accompanies the subject, which may depress the value of the warrant, and which will, at all events, operate as a sort of tax upon the assignability of land warrants. I am opposed to the principle of the amendment which is attempted to be inserted here by our own committee, and prefer the basis of percentage as a compensation, rather than a fixed amount, for the location of land warrants, for the simple reason, that as you fix the basis of compensation according to the warrant, it operates to the depreciation in market of the forty acre warrant most, the eighty acre warrant next, and the one hundred and sixty acre warrant last, and therefore operates the largest tax upon the smallest warrant. The man

Now from this $113,245,896 is to be deducted $25,981,671, the value of the swamp lands granted to the State of Louisiana; $133,600, the value of lands granted to colleges, salines, &c.; and $2,450,314, granted for internal improvements and Choctaw certificates; which would leave $80,888,021, the value of lands granted under the several bounty land acts. The Secretary says expressly that he has based his computation upon the pay-rolls and upon the number of warrants likely to be brought in-not upon the whole number of soldiers that ever served, but upon those granted to soldiers still living, and the widows and minor children of soldiers who are dead, and those that it is probable will come in. It is not a vague and wild estimate. I would like to know-but not in the limit of my speech, as gentlemen will afterwards have an opportunity of replying--where the twelve

millions of dollars came from as the amount upon which the percentage was asked; and I would like to know how the Secretary of the Treasury made a mistake of $80,888,921. I want to know whether $12,000,000 or $80,000,000 is the correct estimate, and I want to know what it will take, at two per cent., if it is $68,000,000, to pay the registers and receivers.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BRENTON. I move to strike from the amendment the words "original warrantee." I make this motion for the purpose of setting myself right. In the first place, I would inquire of the gentleman from Maryland where he obtained the estimate he has given the committee?

Mr. EVANS. From the report of the Secretary of the Treasury at the second session of the Thirty-first Congress, Executive document No. 11. I will send it to the gentleman.

Mr. BRENTON. I was fully aware of the statement read from that document, but he has misconceived the point which I made. The question is, what amount will be necessary to pay the claims of registers and receivers at the land offices prior to the 3d March, 1849, and for warrants located up to the close of the third quarter of 1851. My estimate is upon sales previous to that time, leaving out of consideration the warrants located subsequently, and yet to be located.

Mr. EVANS. Mine braced all.

Mr. BRENTON. No gentleman can successfully controvert my position who will look at the facts as I presented them. The question is, what will it take to pay for services heretofore rendered by those turned out of office by the present Administration, and for warrants located up to the time I specified? The report is just as I stated it in my remarks on yesterday-the annual cash value of lands located by warrants up to the third quarter of 1851. That was the amount of lands actually disposed of. To take the warrants which have been issued, and all that are to be issued, has not entered into my calculation at all. I took simply the estimate in the Commissioner's report of actual locations up to a given time, and not of those in circulation.

Mr. EVANS. I understand the gentleman. I took the whole number, the gentleman only takes a part.

Mr. BRENTON. I fixed a certain time, and confined my estimate of the lands actually located within that time, and not of those which have and may be issued under the provisions of law. I am aware the vast amount of warrants authorized to be issued will exhaust millions and millions of acres of public domain. I am satisfied of that. My argument was to show the amount of money that would be drawn from the Treasury as compensation for the services already rendered by the registers and receivers. I still stand by all the facts I have stated.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I only wish to say a word in reply to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. MARSHALL.] As this second section of the Senate bill now stands, the price to be paid to the registers and receivers is one and a quarter per cent. per acre. The gentleman from Indiana moves to insert fifty cents for each warrant. One per cent. upon the value of forty acres is fifty cents. So there is little difference between the section, as it now stands amended, and the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. One per cent. upon the whole amount.

Mr. STEPHENS. There is very little difference between them; and so far as I am concerned it is wholly immaterial whether the motion fails or is agreed to. I think the gentleman from Kentucky was mistaken in supposing that it would depreciate the forty acre warrants. I am opposed to paying them anything, and shall vote with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] to strike out the whole section.

The question was then taken on the amendment
to the amendment, and it was disagreed to.
The question was then taken upon Mr. MAR-
SHALL'S amendment, and it was rejected.

Mr. DUNHAM. I move, pro forma, to amend the second section of the bill, by reducing the proposed pay one half.

I wish particularly to state a few facts to this committee, and then I have done with this part of the subject. It strikes me that these men are gen

Mr. Chairman, it is seldom you find a man out of office, who desires to hold office at all, who does not believe that the emoluments are ample and desirable; and you as seldom find one in office who believes that he is sufficiently compensated for the great sacrifices which he makes to give to the country the benefit of his services and great talents.

[ocr errors]

So the committee refused to rise. The question was then taken upon Mr. DUNHAM's amendment, and it was rejected. Mr. SACKETT. I move to strike out all after the word "seven,' in the sixth line, and insert, "on each land warrant of forty acres, fifty cents; for each land warrant of eighty acres, $1; and for each land warrant of one hundred and sixty acres, $2.'

[ocr errors]

In presenting this amendment, I wish to call the attention of the especial friends of this provision of the bill, to its consideration. I have become satisfied myself that there is a strong disposition in the House against giving to these registers, who have really performed these duties, any compensation whatever. I think that is unjust. I think it would require five or six registers or receivers, and for them to do all this business without any additional compensation whatever, would be unequal and unjust. This proposition is a graduated proposition, based upon the same principle precisely as the percentage principle, only it is half the amount proposed by the original bill itself. That is one per cent. to each of the officers. The Mr. SWEETSER. I regret exceedingly to in- effect of this is to give half per cent. to each of terfere with this pleasant episode on the part of them, and it is based upon the proposition of mathe gentleman from Indiana. I rise for the pur-king every grade of warrant equal—a warrant for pose of opposing the amendment which has been forty acres paying the same per cent. as a warrant offered by my honorable friend upon my right, for one hundred and sixty acres, thus steering and for the purpose of opposing all amendments clear of all the difficulties that have been suggested to this section. It is not my desire that this sec- in regard to that point in the case. If there is tion should be made palatable, after the demon- anything to be preserved to these men, who really stration which has been made here in relation to performed these duties, I would suggest to the the details of this bill. It seems to me that the friends of this provision of the bill, whether it friends of the original proposition-the first sec- would not be wise to adopt this proposition of half tion-which makes these land warrants assigna- per cent., or a proposition that is equivalent to ble, should cease further debate, and make it a test half per cent., and preserve an equality between all question, in relation to striking out the second warrants, giving to each register and receiver fifty section, which will be fatal to the balance of the cents for every forty acre warrant; $1 for every bill. I know there was a very decided expression eighty acre warrant, and $2 for every one hunof opinion upon the motion made by the honorable dred and sixty acre warrant. member from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] to strike out the second section. That motion seemed to

erally well paid for their services. It is well will be ample compensation for the labors per-
known to every member of this committee that formed by these officers in locating these warrants.
both registers and receivers are each paid an an- At the time my colleague was appointed regis-
nual salary of $500. Besides this, they receive a ter of the land office at Fort Wayne, a Democrat
percentage upon the moneys received upon all cash was turned out to make a place for him. I do not
entries. I will call the attention of the committee think that Democrat was anxious to be removed
to the case of a single land office, as an illustra-because the compensation was inadequate, or for
tion of the duties performed and the compensation any other reason, and I do think my colleague,
therefor. I will take the land office where the as well as several other hungry Whig office seek-
office of register was filled by my honorable col- ers, were anxious to be appointed in his place.
league, [Mr. BRENTON.] And, by the way, it real- I never heard that my colleague was disposed to
ly seems to me that my colleague shows his great give up the office until he thought there was a
modesty by his exceedingly warm support of this chance for him to be elected to a seat on this floor,
bill, having himself just left a land office which is although he had before that held it ample time to
to be affected by it, and therefore being directly have enabled him to ascertain whether he was
interested. And I know that my colleague is a sufficiently paid for his labor.
very candid man, and would do nothing but what
he thought strictly right, even in a matter wherein
he was himself directly interested; but, sir, it is so
very natural for one to work himself into the belief
that a thing is right which is for his interest, that
I think it would be well for the committee to at
least scrutinize the arguments of my colleague
closely, for fear that, notwithstanding all his can-
dor, his judgment may be a little warped. Now,
sir, our rules prohibit a member from voting upon
a measure under such circumstances; and it seems
to me that modesty should forbid him from so
earnestly advocating it. But that is merely a mat-
ter of taste, about which I do not feel particularly
interested. The amount of money received at the
land office of Fort Wayne, in Indiana, the first
quarter of 1850, was $893; the second quarter,
$8,528; the third quarter, $7,285; fourth quarter,
6,050; first quarter of 1851, $4,988; second quarter,
$529, and the third quarter $589; and so it goes on
pretty much in that way. That is the amount of
money received into the public Treasury; and for
receiving this the officers are entitled to a salary of
$500 a year, besides one per cent. upon the amount
of money actually received. But he shows you
that he has not been well paid in locating these land
warrants. Let us see. The whole number of Mex-
ican land warrants located at the Fort Wayne of-
fice, from the first issue of those warrants to the
present time, is two hundred and forty three.
For this extra service, the Government have paid
each year $500 to the officer, and besides this, he
was entitled to receive, and undoubtedly has re-
ceived, half a dollar for locating each warrant not
located by the original warrantee, and very few,
as I have before shown, have been. Yet the gen-
tleman seems to think they have not been well
paid. What is true in reference to Fort Wayne,
is true in reference to one half of the offices,
though at some of the offices much less has been
received than at Fort Wayne; at some, in fact,
for whole quarters nothing at all has been receiv-
ed. I undertake to say, that a majority of them
are paid as much as they ought to be, for the num-
ber of land warrants located. I do not believe
it is a very great hardship upon them.

Mr. BISSELL. If two hundred land warrants were located there, then the receiver cannot receive as much as $200 under this law, unless they were one hundred and sixty acre warrants. The receiver or register under the law we propose, would not receive from it so much, at any rate no more, than $200. Is not that a great sum? Now, there is the amount the receiver at Fort Wayne is to receive under this law.

Mr. DUNHAM. That is not a very great sum, it is true; but when you put together what we are asked to pay to all these officers for past and present services, it does make, as I have heretofore shown, a very large sum indeed; and if the officer is not deserving of the pay, why should we pay him at all? It is a simple question, whether these services have been properly compensated? Every western man knows, who has any experience in these public offices, that these officers are engaged in other business, and are discharging other duties by no means interfering with the business of these offices.

I know it is said that this $500 salary is for of fice-rent, fuel, &c., the books, blanks and stationery being furnished by the Government; but, sir, I will appeal to my colleague himself, that it is far more than sufficient for that purpose. I presume very few if any of the offices occupied cost a rent of $100 per annum. I apprehend, then, sir, that the excess of this $500 salary, after paying rent and contingencies, increased by the fee of fifty cents per warrant, proposed by my amendment, I

cover the balance of the bill. There was a dem-
onstration here, that this House was convinced
that the original proposition to make these land
warrants assignable, should be passed. But in
relation to the details of the bill, other proposi-
tions were brought in and tacked upon the back
of this proposition, which may receive the sanc-
tion of the House at a proper time; but the friends
of the measure were unwilling to agree to the sep-
arate provisions offered, because they were out of
place. Now, I say to these gentlemen, however
much we may differ in relation to these provisions,
let us pass the original proposition. I ask gen-
tlemen desirous of retaining the original proposi-
tion, why shall we procrastinate this matter fur-
ther? Let us come to a test vote upon striking
out the second section. That is what we desire.
After we come to that vote, then, if there is a
majority of the House who decide in favor of
striking out, gentlemen who have their different
propositions, can bring them forward and submit
them to the favorable consideration of Congress.
I will vote to give them a special committee, and
let the friends of the various propositions have an
opportunity of making a favorable showing for
their friends.

It is obvious to all that these gentlemen cannot
and do not agree among themselves in relation to
the details of their favorite propositions. That
disagreement of itself furnishes sufficient reason
for the House to reject now all the extraneous

measures.

It would be unsafe and unwise in the committee to attempt to dispose of these various propositions in the absence of all agreement upon the details, and in the haste which seems to be demanded by the pressing wishes of our constituents. Let us cease offering amendments, bring the committee to a test vote, and yield fairly to the will of the majority of the committee. I do not doubt, neither can gentlemen who differ with me doubt, but it is the wish and intention of this committee to strip this bill of all crude and irrelevant propositions.

I indulge the hope that we may speedily and without further delay, pass the law which is demanded, and in due time give our attention to the various propositions now before the committee, and dispose of each, all, in accordance with justice.

Mr. HENN moved that the committee rise. The question was then taken, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. VENÁBLE. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this and all other amendments to the bill. The proposition of my friend from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] meets with my hearty concurrence. I trust that we shall speedily come to a vote upon striking out all of this bill but the first section, which makes land warrants assignable, and, of course, available to those who have received them from the Government in acknowledgment of services rendered. I have listened with some attention to this debate, and with a sincere desire to be informed about the details of the bill, but confess that the only part which I fully comprehend is that which provides for the compensation of land officers, as well the incumbents as their predecessors. We hear that the emoluments and salaries are poor and insufficient-that the compensation is utterly inadequate for the services rendered. Sir, I am a plain man and come from a plain people, amongst whom common sense is a marked characteristic. When by the turns of the wheel of fortune an office gets fixed upon a man, and the income is not sufficient for his support, the old people advise him to resign. We are apprised that there is no part of the country where it is lawful to hold a man violently in office. I also remark, that when, in the mutations by which power is transferred from the hands of one party to another, and the incumbents of office are removed, we hear great murmuring amongst those who have been turned out from those unprofitable stations. I now understand the problem. These gentlemen have determined to serve the country from patriotic motives; and when a Democratic President obstructs their high purpose, by removal of Whigs, they have a right to complain. and so when a Whig Executive ejects Democrats from stations, in which they were determined to demonstrate their devotedness to the country, and the country alone, I am not surprised that they give utterance to feelings of dissatisfaction. Above all, sir, I would not go back and vote compensation to those who have been kept from pecuniary sacrifice by a removal from office. No, sir, those who, having determined to throw themselves upon the wave of patriotism and be wafted to honor and immortal fame, should be permitted to win the prize. I would not stain the lustre of their renown by mingling the sordid consideration of filthy lucre, in the shape of back rations, with their claims to our gratitude. It is the warm current of patriotic feeling which determines them to give up all in the self-denying duty of holding office, for, strange to tell, all the offices are filled. There is no lack of

patriotic men to meet the necessities of the country. But, sir, let us come up to the duty of making land warrants issued, and in progress of being issued, under an existing law, assignable. Let us not keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope of the soldier, or his widow, whose long-deferred claims are now acknowledged. Let us remove the artificial difficulties placed in the way of a transfer by our own legislation, and which have made many a prey to sharks and speculators. He totters on the verge of the grave; life's sand is nearly run out; let us throw a beam of light upon his dark path; let us cheer him with an assurance of the regard, and the receipt of the bounty of a grateful country, as free from conditions as his services were generous and valuable.

Mr. ALLISON moved to amend Mr. SACKETT'S amendment so as to reduce the compensation proposed to be allowed to the registers and receivers to one half.

Mr. A. then said: For one, I would be very willing that the committee should come to a vote at once upon the proposition to make land warrants assignable. That I conceive to be the object of these bills, and that is what those who are interested in these warrants require. I suppose that every gentleman upon this floor represents some who are directly interested in these warrants and are anxious to have them made assignable. We learn this from the fact that among the very first propositions submitted to this House at the commencement of the session, was a proposition to make land warrants assignable. But there are other questions which have been introduced and connected with this subject. I have not time to discuss them now, but my worthy colleague, [Mr. J. W. Howe,] who addressed the House a short time ago, made use of words which suggested an idea to my mind. He said that the old States had no longer any interest in the lands in the new States and Territories in the western part of the country. Why, sir, it amazed me to hear that the experience of that gentleman, who has held a seat upon this floor for some years, had taught him that the old States had no interest in the public lands, and that those lands ought to be given to those to whom they belonged-to the new States. As a Pennsylvanian, I could not agree to that, nor did I believe that my colleague intended it. I know that the legislation of the last few years would teach us that the old States have no interest in the public lands, but I hope that time is passed away; I hope we shall hear new doctrines and learn that the old States have a common interest in these lands, and that they are a common fund for the benefit of all the States.

Mr. J. W. HOWE. I did not mean to say that the old States had no interest in the lands. I meant to say that they had an interest in them, but could not put their hands upon it.

Mr. ALLISON. Ah! That may be. But I hope the day has come when a new doctrine is to be taught. I hope that the old States will stand up for their interest in these lands. Whilst we take a pride in the progress of improvement in that glorious part of our country-the Great West, we must not forget that the old States are borne down to the earth with taxes for improvements that were made to fill up that great West. I hope we will show that we are not derelict to our duty, but that while we are anxious to do everything calculated to benefit the West, we are also willing to protect the interests of the old States, whose sons have peopled the Western States. I hope the day has arrived when we, as members representing the people of this country, will legislate for the whole country. My colleague, I am sure, made the remark more in playfulness than in earnest, that we had no interest in the public lands, and that we were to give them away to those to whom they belonged. Why, if that was true-if my colleague was right, I would say, as he has said, that I would vote to give away the public lands to every man who has not a farm, and who does not enjoy a homestead, rather than that they should be given away to make improvements in those States that have already so largely benefited by improvements.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania. I have no desire to prolong this debate. I am opposed to this amendment, and ask for a vote upon it.

Mr. HENN moved that the committee rise. Mr. STUART demanded tellers; which were

ordered; and Messrs. CLARK and HUNTER appointed.

Mr. FISH presented the memorial of the assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in New York county, New York, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the ComMr. DODGE, of Iowa, presented the petition of Robert A. Defrance, praying a title to a lot upon which he resides in the city of Burlington, Iowa; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

And the question being put, it was decided in the affirmative-ayes 86, noes 28. The committee accordingly rose, and the Speak-mittee of Claims. er having resumed the chair, the Chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the special order of the House, being Senate bill 146, entitled "An act to make land warrants assignable, and for other purposes," and that it had come to no conclusion thereon.

On motion by Mr. AVERETT, the House then adjourned.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. KUHNS: The petition of Hon. James Bell and 72 other citizens of Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, praying for the establishment of a direct mail route from Greensburg to West Newton, in said county.

By Mr. BURROWS: The memorial of D. S. Morgan and others, citizens of the State of Illinois, praying Congress not to renew C. H. McCormick's patent for a reaping machine.

Also, the petition of L. S. Kellogg and others, citizens of Wisconsin, praying Congress not to renew C. H. McCormick's patent for a reaping machine.

By Mr. PARKER, of Pennsylvania: The petition of David Watts and 53 others, citizens of Perry and Union counties, in Pennsylvania, praying Congress to establish a mail route from Millerstown, in Perry county, via Mount Pleasant Mills, Middleburg, Centreville, and New Berlin, to Mitilinburg, in Union county.

By Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia: The memorial of citizens. of Wilkinson county, Georgia, relative to the appointment of Chaplains for both Houses of Congress.

By Mr. PEASLEE: The petition of Thomas Chadbourne and others, that an appropriation be made to the executive committee of the London Industrial Exhibition, to relieve them from expenses incurred in the transportation and display of articles from the United States.

By Mr. SCUDDER: The petitions of Alexander Baxter and others and Ira Baxter and others, citizens of Massachusetts, asking an appropriation for the preservation of the breakwater in Hyannis harbor, Massachusetts.

By Mr. THURSTON: The memorial of John Lawrie and Donald Stuart, for relief in building a bridge across Tiber creek, in the city of Washington.

By Mr. WEIGHTMAN: The memorial of sundry citizens of Arkansas, Texas, and New Mexico, praying for a mail route from Red river to the Rio Grande.

By Mr. ASHE: The memorial of R. F. Williams, deputy marshal, praying additional compensation for taking the

census.

By Mr. PORTER: The petition of sundry citizens of Montgomery county, Missouri, asking the passage of a law to modify and reduce the rates of postage on newspapers, periodicals, and other printed matter.

By Mr. HENN: The petition of James Shepherd and 115 others, praying an appropriation of land for a railroad from Lafayette, Indiana, via Peoria, Burlington, Sceosanqua, and Bloomfield, to the Missouri river.

IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, February 6, 1852.
Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN.
On motion by Mr. HUNTER, it was

Ordered, That the execution of the order of the Senate of the 22d December last, assigning Friday of each week to the consideration of private bills, be postponed until one o'clock this day.

Mr. PRATT presented the petition of the Board of Trade and Insurance Offices of the city of Baltimore, for the erection of fog bells upon Chingoteague Island, Smith's Island, Cape Henry, Currituck or False Cape, Cape Hatteras, Cape Fear, and also on board the light-boats in the Chesapeake Bay; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. WADE presented the memorial of L. H. Shepard, assistant marshal for taking the Seventh Census in Erie county, Ohio, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Commit

tee of Claims.

Mr. BRODHEAD presented the memorial of citizens of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, praying an appropriation for the erection of piers and harbors in the Delaware river and bay; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. HAMLIN presented the memorial of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in York county, Maine, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. BRADBURY presented the memorial of Benjamin Sampson and others, assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Franklin county, Maine, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, the memorial of the Legislature of Iowa, praying a donation of land to aid in the construction of the Burlington and Fort Des Moines Railroad; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FELCH presented the petition of William A. Burt, praying a just allowance in consideration of the benefit the Government has derived from the use of a compass invented by him; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. CLEMENS presented a memorial of the Legislature of Alabama, praying a donation of land in aid of the school fund of such townships as have valueless sixteenth sections; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands and ordered to be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate a memorial of inhabitants of Jefferson county, Indiana, praying that the transportation of the mails on Sunday may be prohibited by law; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. MALLORY presented a memorial of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Florida, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, a petition of citizens of Duval county, Florida, praying an alteration of the rates of postage on newspapers, pamphlets, books, and other printed matter; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. COOPER presented the petition of Thomas C. Hawkins, deputy marshal for taking the Seventh Census in the county of Green, Pennsylvania, praying to be allowed additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, the memorial of citizens of Philadelphia, praying for the construction of piers and harbors in the Delaware river and bay; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, a memorial of citizens of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, praying further legislation for the protection of lives and property on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. COOPER. I present the memorial of the officers of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society, praying for the establishment of an Agricultural Bareau. I have received, along with the memorial, a letter from the President of the Society, the Hon. Frederick Watts, in which he requests me to state to the Serrate the great desire that is everywhere manifested throughout the State of Pennsylvania, that a bureau of the kind prayed for should be established.

I move its reference to the Committee on Agriculture.

The memorial was so referred.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. FISH, it was

Ordered, That the documents on the files of the Senate, relating to the claim of John Hogan, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

On motion by Mr. BUTLER, it was

Ordered, That the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce of Charleston, South Carolina, on the files of the Senate, in relation to the establishment of a Branch Mint in that city, be referred to the Committee on Finance. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Printing, to which was referred a motion made by Mr. FELCH, on the 5th instant, to print an additional number of the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office accompanying the annual mesthereon; and, in concurrence therewith, it was sage of the President of the United States, reported

Ordered, That one thousand copies of the said report be printed, in addition to the usual number, for the use of the General Land Office.

Mr. HAMLIN, from the Committee on Printing, to which was referred the resolution, submitted the 5th instant, for the printing of an additional number of the report of the Light-House Board,

« AnteriorContinuar »