and that upon such survey and location patent shall issue therefor as in other cases. Mr. L. said: I offer this amendment, because I think it ought to be adopted-because I think the people of Oregon have claims upon this Government which can only be paid by the adoption of such a provision as I have proposed to this bill. There is no class of cases, in my judgment, more meritorious than this. At a time when the Territory of Oregon had not more than nine hundred voters, and when they could get no assistance from the Government of the United States; when there had been no troops sent there, and before the laws of the country extended over them, the Indians made war upon that country. They commenced by killing Dr. Whitcomb, his wife, and all about him, and threatened, by a union of the tribes in that vicinity, to overrun the entire settlements and destroy them. It was thought necessary by the provisional government to call out the people of that Territory. They turned out almost to a man, and endured all the hardships of a service of nearly nine months, without provisions, without supplies, without a commissary, without a quartermaster, without clothing, and without arms; every one taking up such arms as he could get hold of, for the purpose of defending his country, and saving the lives of the women and children in that country. They performed a harder service than any volunteers performed in the service of this country since the war of the Revolution. But there is no law giving them a bounty for that service. They are justly entitled to it. I think, if this House will ever inquire into this case, and understand it-if they will look at the condition that country was in at the time to which I allude, and the good conduct of the people in defending themselves-if they could know of the sufferings and hardships that people endured, they would readily, I have no doubt, provide for placing them upon the same footing with the other volunteers who have served their country. Is there any good reason why volunteers, serving in a proper and just war for avenging the murders committed apon the people of Oregon, should not be provided for the same as the volunteers serving in any other portion of the country? I have no doubt about this defence; and if the House will understand itif they will understand the nature of the war and the service performed by the people of Oregon-I believe there is no member here who would hesitate to make this provision. The whole force mustered into the service did not exceed five hundred men, and I think. less than that. Now, all we ask is, that they may be entitled to the same amount of land to which other people are entitled who have acted as soldiers in the service of the country. We ask, also, that they may have the privilege of locating their lands in the Territory of Oregon. We do not ask that they may be allowed to come here, but that they may be allowed just what they are entitled to, and the privilege of locating their lands in the Territory of Oregon. Mr. COBB. I want to ask the gentleman a question, and it is this: Are the people which the gentleman desires to make provision for, citizens of Oregon? Mr. LANE. They are citizens of Oregon. Mr. COBB. It would be with a great deal of difficulty that I could be brought to vote against anything which the honorable gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] might even ask for. I recollect distinctly, after I gave a vote a few days ago to provide for that gentleman, I was told that I should have to answer for that vote at home. Well, sir, if I have to answer for it, let me answer for it. I will do justice. As to the amendment which the gentleman from Oregon proposes to the amendment, I am opposed to it. I well recollect, when I was upon the Committee on Public Lands, we all strove to provide bountifully for that Territory, and a provision was made giving each settler from one hundred and sixty to three hundred and twenty acres of Land, and even much larger grants than that. I am determined, so far as my action goes, to provide liberally for the people of that Territory, and I am willing to vote for anything in the line of reason which the gentleman from Oregon asks for; but when he proposes an amendment which is to tranmel the bill, and which I know, whether it is intended or not, will have the effect to trammel the Samendment introduced by the gentleman from Ohio, which contains a meritorious provision for Mr. Chairman, the proposition of the gentleman from Oregon proposes to give to that meritorious class of citizens what we have already given, and we have given a much larger amount than he now proposes. I will ask that a letter be read from the Secretary of the Interior, to show his decision in relation to those citizens which we intended to be provided for by the bounty land law of 1850. 1 know what we did intend to do then, the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to the contrary notwithstanding. I know that we intended to embrace all those individuals who have been engaged in service, in the defence of their country, whether in a war declared by the General Government or not. Look at the hostilities between this Government and the Creek and Cherokee Indians! Did the Government declare war against them? Why, sir, the whole of the individuals engaged in the war with Mexico would not be considered as serving in a regularly declared war. Was war declared against the Florida Indians? Was war declared against the Mexican Indians? And yet are the soldiers who fought against those Indians in the defence of their country, to be denied the benefit of the bounty land law? the section proposed to be substituted. I hope my amendment will be assented to by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GAYLORD.] The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. BELL, and it was agreed to. Mr. DEAN. I move that the committee rise. Mr. HOUSTON. Will the gentleman modify his motion so as to provide that the committee rise and report the bill?" Mr. DEAN. That is my motion. Mr. CLINGMAN. There is an amendment now pending, and until it is disposed of, such a motion is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The motion is out of order, as there is now an amendment pending. Mr. DUNHAM. I would inquire if, being in committee by a special order, the House can do anything until this matter is disposed of? The CHAIRMAN It cannot. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Let us vote down the amendment. The question being still upon the amendment of e-the. LANE. I want to offer an amendment, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GAYLORD,] which I hope the House will adopt. I propose to amend the amendment so that all persons entitled to warrants, and now living in Oregon Territory, may have the privilege of locating their warrants within that Territory. You will recollect that unMr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I would like der the provisions of this law, to which this is to know the exact state of the question. [Here the hammer fell.] The CHAIRMAN. A motion is made to strike out the third section of the bill, and insert the fourth section of the Senate bill by way of amendment. The gentleman from Oregon proposes to amend the amendment by adding to the section which is proposed to be inserted. Mr. JOHNSON. Is that amendment amendable? The CHAIRMAN. It is already an amendment to an amendment in the second degree. The question must first be taken upon the amendment to the amendment. Mr. CARTTER called for the reading of the amendment of Mr. LANE; which was read as above inserted. The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment; and it was disagreed to. Mr. DUNHAM. The bill is now open to amendment, is it not? The CHAIRMAN. The third section is open to amendment. The amendment pending is to strike out the third section, and insert the fourth section of the Senate bill. Mr. FOWLER. Į should like to know what the fourth section is, which it is proposed to insert? I do not understand it. The fourth section of the Senate bill was then read as above inserted. Mr. BELL. Before the question is taken on that amendment, I move to amend the fourth line of the fourth section of the Senate bill by striking out the words "subsequent to the 18th of June, 1812." I presume my friend across the way [Mr. GAYLORD] who offered this amendment, will see the propriety and justice of accepting it. I would like to know why evidence of payment of soldiers by Government since June, 1812, is necessary to entitle them to bounty land, when those who served in the wars of 1790-'93-'94 are entitled to the same, although they cannot produce the evidence of payment to them by the Government? [Mr. DUNHAM here made a remark entirely inaudible to the Reporter.] Mr. BELL. Very well; I hold that it has been once paid, and at a subsequent day it cannot entitle him to a preference over a man who has rendered the service and has not been paid. There can be no reason for it. If you take the records of the Department, showing that a man has received pay from the Government as evidence that he has performed services, I ask that the same rule be applied to evidence of payment existing in the Departments, at any and all times. If this provision has any application at all, it is to bring in a class of soldiers who have not served thirty days. Now, if they served twenty-nine in the wars of Harmer, St. Clair, and Wayne, they surely would be entitled to the same consideration as if they had served in a subsequent war. Hence I think it should be stricken out. I do not design to take up the time of the committee, but simply wish to call their attention to this restriction in an amendment, bounty iands can be only located where the public lands are surveyed. They are not surveyed or in market in Oregon Territory. I ask that such persons as are referred to in my amendment, may have the privilege of locating their claims in Oregon Territory, to be surveyed by the Surveyor General in the same manner as other claims are surveyed. The amendment was then read, as follows: And it is further provided, That all persons entitled to bounty land warrants under the provisions of this act, or of the act to which this is an amendment, and which may be owned by residents of said Territory of Oregon at the date of the passage of this act, shall be permitted to locate their warrants upon any unclaimed lands in said Territory, and that upon such survey and location patents shall issue therefor, as in other cases. Mr. BROOKS. I hope the proposition of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] will not prevail. In the bill of the last Congress about fortyeight millions of acres of public lands were bestowed by these bounty land warrants. In the bill before us, as it stands now, about thirty millions more, I suppose, are proposed to be granted. We have made these warrants assignable. Now, the proposition of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] is, practically, that these land warrants be taken in large masses and groupsbeing bought up by speculators, and be located in twenty, thirty, or forty miles square in Oregonand that these large masses of land be held by one or two individuals. In the civil and diplomatic bill there is something of a like proposition, and I call the attention of the House to it now. It is to open to these bounty land warrants all lands now unsurveyed, that may hereafter be surveyed; that is, to open to the location of them the whole vast field of all the public lands. A more gigantic system of land plunder never was designed by human ingenuity. We who have lived in the midst of vast patroon estates in the State of New York, involved in anti-rent troubles and surrounded by anti-rent wars, warn the country against this gigantic scheme of land-holding. I warn Congress to take notice now, that this proposition is not to be confined to Oregon. It is to go out throughout all the unsurveyed lands of the United States. Put down this proposition and the one in the civil and diplomatic bill now, and give your attention to it now. Meet it in the beginning, unless you want the brokers of Wall street, of Cincinnati, and St. Louis, who are now gathering these assignable land warrants in all quarters, and preparing to locate them upon these lands in twenty, thirty, or forty miles square, to establish a system of patroonery landlordism, such as we are surrounded by in the State of New York, and such as has caused murders and disorders of all sorts, and has cost us hundreds and thousands of dollars to enforce the execution of the law. I am opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Oregon, for Oregon and for all other parts of the United States. If these land warrants. are to be made assignable, I say confine them to. the surveyed lands, and let them be located upon such lands, and upon no others. Let the people The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon stated his proposition, and occupied about four minutes of his time before it was stated by the Chair. Mr. LANE. I am well satisfied that the gentleman from New York does not understand my amendment, or a single word of its provisions, and it is consequently necessary for me to explain. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can call for the reading of his amendment, which will explain itself. But it will not be in order to debate it. The amendment was then read, as inserted above. The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. LANE, and it was not agreed to. are two of the most equitable propositions to Mr. BROOKS. I rise to oppose the amend- ever been half so liberal to any Territory or State Now, one word further to the gentleman from Mr. CARTTER. I propose to offer the same amendment, with an addition extending it also "to those who may hereafter become residents of the Territory of Oregon." That will materially alter the amendment, and make a new one of it. I do not see the force of the remarks of the gentle-Congress in the history of the Government has man from New York. What difference does it make whether we expose the Territory of Oregon and the unsurveyed lands of the United States to these land warrants, or give the surveyed lands to them. I should like to know where the gentleman finds his distinction? You have the same power and privilege to multiply land warrants, and to extend contiguous territory in the location of them upon surveyed land, as upon unsurveyed lands. There is a distinction, and that distinction is directly against the current of the gentleman's argument. It is this: that you do disperse the warrants by dispersing the land upon which they are to be located, and in the precise ratio as you extend the area of location you disperse the location of these land warrants; and this fume about New York anti-rentism ends in smoke. But I am willing to extend the territory of this grant for this obvious reason: You are awarding land warrants here. These land warrants are an encouragement and inducement to settlement. They constitute the title of the emigrants to the West. I would like to know, in the name of conscience, why the Territory of Oregon should be excluded from this inducement to emigration. Why say you shall not locate lands in the Territory of Oregon, because those lands are unsurveyed? You sny to the citizen holding a warrant, You shall not emigrate to Oregon. But there is a strong, substantial, and equitable reason to send these warrants over the face of the Republic wherever their holder sees fit to carry them. This doctrine of amassing them, and of Wall Street speculators whom my honorable friend from New York [Mr. BROOKS] holds in such horrid dread here, antirentism, &c., are entirely inapplicable to the proposition that has been made. It is a singular inspiration and a new one. I was in the hope that the amendment offered previously by the honorable Delegate from Oregon [Mr. LANE] would prevail, but it was voted down. What are you about to say here if you pass this bill? That land warrants shall not be located in Oregon, because the messengers of survey have never reached there. You have already said that a set of men, worthier than whom never shouldered a musket-men who performed for their households higher service than most of the men in your military campaigns, should not inherit the benevolence of the Government, when that benevolence is directed to this very class of persons; and now the magnanimous gentleman from New York adds to that the insult that your warrants shall not be located there either. Neither the men who fought the battles of Oregon against the Indians shall be rewarded for it, nor the men who fought your battles shall go there to locate their lands, because they are not surveyed. I insist that both of the propositions made by the Delegate from Oregonif any propositions can be made in connection with this process of disposing of the public domain which are worthy of the attention of the House Mr. HOUSTON. I have no disposition to propose an amendment. I am not able to speak so as to be heard all over the House. I wish to say to my friend from New York that there is no such provision in the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill as the one to which he alludes." He is wholly mistaken, Mr. BROOKS. What-does the gentleman deny there is in the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill an item repealing the provision of the last session, providing that these warrants shall not be located on now unsurveyed lands? Mr. HOUSTON. I do not deny that, but then we differ about the construction. The construction is simple and plain. At the last session of Congress Mr. CARTTER. Is discussion in order? The CHAIRMAN. Discussion is not in order. The question was again taken, and the motion was agreed to-the tellers having reported-ayes 84-noes not counted. The SPEAKER having resumed the chair, the Chairman reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particu larly the special order of the House, being Joint Resolution No. 1, explanatory of an act approved September 28th, 1850, entitled "an act granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers engaged in the military service of the United States," and had come to no resolution thereon. On motion, the House then adjourned. PETITIONS, &c. The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. BUSBY: The petition of Francis P. Griffith and 57 others, of the county of Morrow, Ohio, asking Congress to donate to each actual settler who may be a citizen of the United States, 160 acres of land. Also, the memorial of John Wildboker, Josiah F. Pierce, and William M. Baker, assistant marshals of the county of Marion, Ohio, asking more compensation for taking the Seventh Census. Also, the memorial of James B. Shaw and Thomas 8. Bunker, of the county of Morrow, Ohio, upon the same subject. By Mr. HUNTER: The petition of Samuel Blowers, Janies W. Shankland, and Abner Johnston, asking for increased compensation for taking the census in the county of Monroe, Ohio. By Mr. HENN: The petition of John Cox and 50 others, citizens of Iowa, asking that the office of Chaplain may be abolished. Also, the petition of Evan Jay and 55 others, asking for a grant of land to aid in the construction of a railroad from Burlington to the Missouri river. Also, the petition of James M. Walters and 80 others, citizens of Marion county, Iowa, asking for a mail route from Newton, via Pella, Amsterdam, Knoxville, and Chariton, to Nine Eagles or New Buda. By Mr. CONGER: The petition of Franklin La Rue and 106 others, praying for an appropriation of public lands to the State of Michigan, to aid in constructing the Oakland and Ottawa Railroad in said State. Also, the petition of Morris S. Allen and 80 others, for the same object. By Mr. FLORENCE: The memorial of George W. MeMahon, George W. Harvey, J. S. McMullin, D. B. Beiter, and others, citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, remonstrating against the extension of the Woodworth palent for planing boards, &c. Also, the memorial of James M. Snowden, Robert Clark, John W. Ryan, Henry Dubosq and other citizens of Southwark, in the county of Philadelphia, petitioning Congress to pass a law extending the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c. Also, the memorial of J. J. N. Douglass, Charles N. Rob bins, John C. Selfridge, William B. Ranken, and others, citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, remonstrating against the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c. By Mr. PARKER, of Pennsylvania: The memorial of S. P. McFadden and 29 others, citizens of Blair county, Pennsylvania, praying for the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau by Congress. Also, the memorial of Samuel Wampole and 21 others, citizens of Blair county, Pennsylvania, of like tenor and import. By Mr. BOWNE: The petition of W. F. Clah, of New York, for indemnity for loss of vessel. By Mr. BIBIGHAUS: The petition of William Price and many others, citizens of Schuylkill county, Pennsyl vania, praying for a modification of the tariff of 1846 on iron, &c. By Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York: The remonstrance of sundry inhabitants of the county of Rensselear, New York, against the Woodworth planing machine patent. Also, the petition of Hannah Pratt, late Hannah Holmes, the widow of William Holmes, a soldier in the war of 1812, praying a pension. By Mr. ST. MARTIN: A memorial of the board of underwriters of the city of New Orleans, to prevent needless detentions and expenses upon arrests in admiralty, Also, the memorial of George Hathaway, of New Or leans, Louisiana, in relation to Mexican indemnities. By Mr. BOCOCK: The petition of the heirs of Willis Wilson, deceased, praying commutation, with interest. By Mr. ASHE: The petition of Haynes Lennon, deputy marshal, praying additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census. By Mr. FITCH: The petition of John N. Ingrim, assistant inarshal of Fulton county, Indiana, for additional compensation for services in taking the census. By Mr. BOYD, of New York: The remonstrance of 238 citizens of Clinton and Essex counties, New York, against the further extension of the Woodworth patent. By Mr. INGERSOLL: The remonstrance of Charles G. Southworth and others, and of Clarke Canfield and others, citizens of Middlesex county, Connecticut, against the extension of the Woodworth patent. Also, the petition of George Van Wagner, of Connecticut, praying for a pension, on account of the revolutionary services of his father. By Mr. McLANAHAN: A memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania, praying Congress to enact such laws as will more effectually preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath day. Also, a memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the renewal of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker for an alleged improvement in submerged reaction water-wheels. Also, a memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania, praying for a modification of the tariff law. By Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana: The petition of W. H. Bonneau and 14 others, settlers on the public lands heretofore known as "Las Omegas" claim, praying for the right of preemption. Also, the petition of A. M. Campbell, and 6 other settlers on the public lands heretofore known as the "Wallace" claim, praying for the right of preemption. Also, the petition of Valery Gainnie, praying that an error in the description of land confirmed to Charles Paine by the act of July 6, 1842, be rectified. Also, the memorial of Thomas J. Durant, of New Orleans, with a brief of references in relation to his claim as late district attorney of the United States for the State of Louisiana. Also, the petition of Moses H. Butler and J. H. Rinehart, praying to be confirmed in their title to a tract of laud in T. 15 R. 4 E., in Louisiana, district north of Red river. By Mr. McDONALD: The petition of Captain F. For rest. By Mr. MACE: The memorial of James O. Brien and John L. Miller, assistaut marshals of Tippecanoe county, Indiana, asking additional pay for taking the census of said county. By Mr. FOWLER: The petition of C. W. Prouty and 9 other Senators of the Massachusetts Legislature. Also, of Charles Vinsel and 10 others, citizens of Scituate, Massachusetts, praying for an appropriation for the improvement of the harbor of Scituate, Massachusetts. On motion by Mr. DOTY, Ordered, That certain papers in relation to the claim of James Crooks be withdrawn from the files and referred to the Committee of Claims. By Mr. CHANDLER: Three inemorials signed by more than 200 citizens of Philadelphia, remonstrating against the renewal of the patent for Woodworth's planing machine. Also, four memorials numerously sigued by citizens of Philadelphia, asking for a renewal of the patent for Woodworth's planing machine. By Mr. APPLETON, of Maine: The petition of J. L. Farmer and others, merchants and ship masters of Portland, Maine, for a light-ship and fog-bell at Cape Roman Shoals, on the coast of South Carolina. Also, the petition of Josiah R. Brady and others, of Portland, Maine, and vicinity, for a modification of the tariff with respect to the importation of low-priced cigars. By Mr. ROBBINS: Resolutions passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania in relation to the Wheeling bridge. Also, resolutions of the State of Pennsylvania, requesting their Senators and Representatives in Congress to aid in the passage of a law appropriating money to complete the breakwater at the mouth of the Delaware bay; to construct an ice harbor at a point near Reedy Island, and to repair the piers at Chester, Marcus Hook, New Castle, and Port Penn, on the Delaware river. Also, a petition for the extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine signed by Jacob Wersman and 44 other citizens of Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania. Also, a petition on the same subject, signed by A. Menderson & Co. and 56 other citizens of the county of Philadelphia. Also, another on the same subject, signed by Frederick May and 70 other citizens of the county of Philadelphia. Also, another on the same subject, signed by C. M. Brunner and 64 other citizens of the county of Philadelphia. By Mr. DOTY: The petition of citizens of Marqette, Waushara, and Waupaka counties, for a mail route from Namahkun, by Black Creek, Neshkoro, and Saukville, to Waupaka. Also, a remonstrance of D. S. Curtiss, A. Sickly, and other citizens of New York, against the renewal of patents, or alterations in the patent laws. By Mr. CONGER: The petition of Darius Cole and 296 others, praying for an appropriation to place buoys, and stake out the channel in Saginaw bay and river in the State of Michigan. By Mr. BRENTON: The petition of Isaac Van Devanter, J. H. Lomax, N. B. Hawkins, and J. M. Haynes, assistant marshals in the State of Indiana, asking additional compensation for taking the census in 1850. By Mr. BRIGGS: The memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York, asking Congress to remove the Mint of the United States from Philadelphia to New York. By Mr. PERKINS: The memorial of John W. Johnson and Robert Moor, assistant marshals in New Hampshire, asking additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census. By Mr. PARKER, of Indiana: The petition of John W. Grubbs and others, assistant marshals of the county of Henry, Indiana, asking additional compensation for taking the census. IN SENATE. PETITIONS. The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate resolutions adopted at the annual meetings of the American Medical Association, held at Cin- Mr. MILLER presented the memorial of mer- Mr. COOPER presented three memorials of citizens of Blair county, Pennsylvania, praying the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau; which were referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Also, two memorials of citizens of Pennsylvania, remonstrating against an extension of the patent granted to W. W. Woodworth for a planing machine; which were referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Also, a petition of citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, praying the establishment of a naval depôt and navy-yard, and a dry dock upon the lakes; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Also, a petition of citizens of Philadelphia in favor of an extension of the patent granted to W. W. Woodworth for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Also, a petition of cigar-makers of Philadelphia, praying an increase of the duties on cigars; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. Also, the petition of Susan C. Randall, widow and executrix of Archibald Randall, late United States district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, praying compensation for his services while performing the duties of circuit judge; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. WALKER presented the memorial of John H. Sherburne, submitting a plan to save property and life by means of a floating anchorage or breakwater on the lakes. The memorialist states that in view of the immense loss on the lakes, amounting to over two millions of dollars in property and six hundred human lives, he submits a plan by which this immense amount of loss of property and human life may in future be mainly if not wholly obviated at a cost of much less than one eighth of the above amount. The plan consists of a "Floating Breakwater or Safety Anchorage," which can be completed and placed in the harbors of Oswego, Buffalo, Dunkirk, Cleveland, Chicago, and Milwaukie, in the short space of three months. Accompanying the petition is a letter signed by George H. Walker, Esq., Mayor of Milwaukie, and L. H. Colton, Esq., United States Marshal, expressive of their approbation of the plan, and recommending a trial of it by the Government at the above named harbors. The memorial having been read, Mr. WALKER. I move to refer these papers to the Committee on Commerce, and ask that Colonel Sherburne may have an opportunity of submitting his plan to them at as early a day as may suit the convenience of the committee. For my own part, it has impressed me very favorably. I believe he has discovered what will be of vast importance, and I am very confident that if his plan should be adopted on the lakes, it would be one of the best things that could be adopted for the security of life and property. the memorial, was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. CHASE presented a petition of citizens of Muskingum county, Ohio, remonstrating against an extension of the patent granted to W. W. Woodworth for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office. Mr. FISH presented a memorial of merchants, shippers, ship-owners, underwriters, and others, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, praying a modification of the law for the reduction of the costs and expenses of proceedings in admiralty; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. On motion by Mr. COOPER, it was Ordered, That the memorial of Mary F. B. Levely, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. On motion by Mr. DOWNS, it was Ordered, That the petition of Charles McCormick, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. FOOT, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Sarah D. Mackay, reported the same without amendment, and submitted a report; which was ordered to be printed. He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the memorial of Nancy Bowen, praying a pension, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for her relief; which was read and passed to the second reading. The report was ordered to be printed. He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the memorial of Anna Norton and Lewis Foskit, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for their relief; which was read and passed to the second reading. The report was ordered to be printed. He also, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to which was referred the memorial of William Beatty, praying to be allowed compensation for services in the war of the Revolution, submitted an adverse report; which was agreed to. Mr. DOWNS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the several memorials were referred, reported a bill to divide the State of Ohio into two judicial districts, and to provide for holding the district and circuit courts of the United States therein; which was read and passed to the second reading. Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the memorial of Captain L. F. McLaws, of the Army of the United States, praying the difference of pay between a lieutenant and that of a captain in the staff, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for his relief; which was read and passed to the second reading. The report was ordered to be printed. He also, from the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to which was referred the petition of Ira Reynolds, complaining of the rejection of his application by the Patent Office, asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which was agreed to. Mr. BORLAND, from the Committee on Printing, to which was referred the motion to print the memorial of engineers of the navy, praying a reorganization of the corps to which they belong, presented yesterday, reported in favor of printing the same. Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the memorial of Luther Rogers and others, citizens of Plymouth county, Massachusetts, for the improvement of the navigation of North River, asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that leave be given to withdraw the petition; which was agreed to. The motion to refer was agreed to. Mr. HAMLIN. I present a memorial very numerously signed by citizens of the State of Maine, remonstrating against the extension of the patent granted to Austin and Zebulon Parker, for improvements in water-wheels. The Committee on Patents have already reported a bill renewing that patent. This is a question in which all who are engaged in the mill interests in the State of Maine are much concerned; and they aver in this memorial, that years before the original letters patent were granted to Zebulon Parker these wheels were in use in their mills. I ask that this remonstrance may be referred to the Committee on Patents, giving notice that when the bill shall come up, I shall move to recommit it to the Com-diciary, to which was referred the memorial of mittee on Patents, in order that these remonstrants may be fairly heard. I will move now that the bill be taken up with a view to recommitment. The motion was agreed to; and the bill, with Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Finance, to which was referred the bill to establish a Mint of the United States in the city of New York, reported it with amendments. Mr. BUTLER, from the Committee on the Ju William Hollinshead, asking compensation for reporting and collating the laws of the Minnesota Territory, submitted an adverse report; which was agreed to. Mr. NORRIS, from the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Hiram Moore and John Hascall, reported the same without amendment. NOTICE OF A BILL. Mr. McRAE gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to extend the right of preemption to actual settlers upon the public lands remaining to the United States in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, within six miles of the Mobile and Ohio railroad, the price of which has been raised to $2 50 per acre, by the act of Congress making the grant of land to those States to aid in the construction of said road. BILLS INTRODUCED. Mr. MANGUM, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Professor J. P. Espy; which was read a first and second time by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Also, a bill for the relief of Professor James P. Espy, and granting compensation for the use of his conical ventilator; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. HUNTER, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to modify the several acts regulating the warehousing of imported merchandise, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. DISTRICT JUDGE OF PENNSYLVANIA. On motion by Mr. COOPER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution submitted by him on the 20th instant, instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the expediency of increasing the salary of the district judge of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, so that it shall hereafter be the same as that of the district judge of the United States for the southern district of New York. The resolution was agreed to. MEXICAN CLAIMS. Mr. DOWNS. Mr. President, yesterday several memorials on the subject of Mexican claims, which had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, were reported back, and the committee was discharged, and they are now lying on the table. I now renew the motion which I made before they were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, that they be referred to a select committee of five, with power to send for persons and papers. This is a very important investigation, which I wish to see thoroughly and fully made. While making this motion-which I do, inasmuch as I presented many of the memorials referred to-I wish to state, that I hope it will not be expected that, by making the motion, I desire to go on the committee. I prefer that it should not be so. I am serving on two other committees, the duties of which are very laborious, and furnish as much work as I can do. Another reason why I do not wish to go upon the committee is, that, in the course of these investigations, a great deal of the documentary evidence, and perhaps a great deal of the oral evidence, will be in the Spanish language, which I do not understand. There are other members of the Senate who do understand that language, and whose constituents are equally interested with mine in this matter. I think it would be advantageous to these investigations, for some one or two individuals, at least, who do understand that language, to be on the committee; therefore, while I make the motion, I hope I shall be excused from serving on the committee. The motion was agreed to. Mr. DOWNS. At the suggestion of a member of the Senate, I propose that the election of the committee be postponed until to-morrow, and fixed for one o'clock. The PRESIDENT. The question will be taken up to-morrow. Mr. MANGUM. I hope that the Chair will appoint this committee. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would prefer that the committee should be elected. Mr. MANGUM. The matters to be referred to this committee are of great importance, and I think that a much better selection would be made by the Chair. I therefore move that the committee be appointed by the Chair, and I hope that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. DowNs] will assent to that motion. Mr. DOWNS. have no objection to it at all. The PRESIDENT. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, the rule requiring that all committees shall be elected. Mr. PRATT. I prefer that the rule should be complied with. The PRESIDENT. The rule will be complied with. PARKER'S WATER-WHEEL. Mr. BRODHEAD. Yesterday, or the day before, I presented several remonstrances against extending the patent for the Parker water-wheel. These remonstrances were laid upon the table, in consequence of a bill having been reported from the Committee on Patents on that subject. The bill, this morning, was taken up and recommitted to the Committee on Patents, and I am glad of it. I now move that the memorials which 1 presented yesterday morning may be referred to the Committee on Patents. I think that the mill-owners of this country should be furnished with some reason why this bill should be passed in the shape in which it has been reported by this committee. The motion to refer the memorials to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office was agreed to. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, February 25, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. GRANT OF LAND TO MISSOURI. The SPEAKER. The first business before the House is House bill No. 104, being a bill granting the right of way and making a donation of public lands to the State of Missouri, to aid in the construction of certain railroads therein. The question immediately pending is the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WELCH] is entitled to the state of the Union; upon which question the the floor. On motion by Mr. HEBARD, by unanimous consent, it was Ordered, That leave be granted to withdraw from the files of the House the papers of Sarah Smith, for the purpose of reference in the Senate. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make a report from the Committee on Indian Affairs. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WELCH] permit me to bring forward a matter which is of great importance, and ought to be acted upon immediately? I send the bill up to the Chair, and ask that it be read, as well as the amendment which has been offered to it, and which has been recommended by the Committee on Indian Affairs. The bill was then read, creating a superintendency of Indian affairs for California, and making other provisions. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not believe this bill can give rise to any debate. I will state, further, that here is the annual communication from the department of Indian affairs, in which they urge upon us that we shall act. I will say distinctly, that the Government urges that we shall act upon this matter, that the Senate have acted-have taken up the bill and passed it at once, and sent it here--that the Committee on Indian Affairs have also acted, and agreed unanimously to the bill, with one amendment only, and have instructed me to urge upon the House that this business shall be disposed of. Mr. KING, of New York. There are a great many such cases. Mr. WELCH. If it will take but little time, I will give way. I have not distinctly understood how much time it will take. Mr. JOHNSON. I wish merely to explain the bill, and then call the previous question. I propose to put it upon its passage. Mr. KING, of New York, objected. Mr. JOHNSON. If, then, the public interests suffer, it is not my fault. Mr. KING. Not at all. Mr. McNAIR. Will the gentleman permit me to withdraw some papers for reference? Mr. WELCH. I cannot consent for one withtime would in that way be all used up. out consenting in like cases for others, and my On yesterday I proposed an amendment to the the time I did so to occupy no more time than bill now under consideration, and I intended at should be necessary to explain its meaning and operation. Having the opportunity now, I will use it, to say a few words upon that amendment. I was not aware at the time I offered the amendment-which contains a proposition to make a grant of public lands for the construction of a railroad from St. Louis, to connect with the Baltimore and Ohio railroad-that we had pending before us, as I learn we have, from the same committee which reported this bill, a bill for a similar grant, for the construction of a railroad from St. Louis to the city of Cincinnati. It would have been much more appropriate, and I certainly shall avail myself of the opportunity, when it occurs, to offer my amendment to that bill. I had hoped to obtain a vote upon the amendment, in connection with this bill, but of that I see no prospect at present. I was in hopes that the amendment to the amendment would have been accepted, and then I might have offered this as a substitute for the amendment so amended; but I find that there is a motion of pending to refer this bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which, I believe, precludes the amendment I have suggested. Hav ing offered it, or rather having had it read at the Clerk's desk, I avail myself of the opportunity to say a few words by way of enforcing, not so much that specific amendment, as the principle involved, which is this: that we should grant the public lands, or portions of them, in aid of the construction of railroads, wherever it can be done without detracting from the aggregate value of the public lands. That is the principle upon which this grant of lands to the Missouri railroads has been advocated by its friends. That is the principle upon which members from Missouri, the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] and other gentlemen put their advocacy of it. It is a principle, I say, which necessarily comes within the purview of this amendment. There is a clear and palpable distinction, which has been noticed by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] between that principle and the appropriation of the public treasures of the nation for the purpose constructing works of internal improvements. One is an appropriation from the public Treasury for the purpose of making works of general and public utility; the other is a grant of portions of the public lands-a fund which the Government holds in trust for the general good-in cases where it will not diminish the value of the fund. I have heard no gentleman speak in this House upon any of these measures, and I have read nothing said by any gentleman in the other branch of Congress, from which it cannot be inferred, that this is not a proper and admissible principle, and one which should be carried out. Is it true, then, that if you make the grant, which I propose, for the construction of a railroad from St. Louis to connect with the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, so as to give us one continuous road from the eastern sea-board to the western borders of the State, you will not by that grant diminish the value of the public domain? I maintain that you will not. I believe that you will by that means add as much to the remaining public domain, as will equal the value of that which is granted. That is the question to which I wish especially to invite the attention of members; and it is for this purpose, more than anything else, that I offer this amendment. I wish to set gentlemen to thinking upon the subject, that they may carry out the views and arguments which they themselves have already advanced. The result, I humbly conceive, must be, that gentlemen will see this subject in the same light in which I see it. We are told by one of the members from Missouri, [Mr. MILLER,] in his advocacy of the principle of this bill, that this great road from Baltimore to St. Louis, and other like roads, are "arteries" for the commerce of the country-a very happy figure to illustrate their vivifying power and healthgiving energy. But they seem to take it for granted that all the public need do is to turn their attention and energy to the construction of remote sections of these roads, and that the middle sections will be built as a matter of course. They take that for a fixed fact. It is not at all certain that any one of these roads, connecting the East and West, will, without some such aid, be constructed within any reasonable time. I am told that there has been already granted to aid in the construction of that part of these railroads running through the "eastern slope" of the continent, spoken of by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. RANTOUL,] in the shape of remission of duties upon railroad iron imported, the amount of about $6,000,000. Now, a proposition is before us, in the shape of this bill, to make a grant of lands to an amount less than two millions of money in value, to aid in the construction of the western ends of these great thoroughfares. Shall nothing be done for the middle sections? And let me say, by the way, that I do not wish to be understood as being exclusively partial to the particular road I have marked out in this amendment. I offered it for the purpose of testing the principle involved, and if there are gentlemen here in favor of taking up the other Missouri road at Hannibal, and carrying it on through a more central region of the three States of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, to Wheeling or some other point, and who will offer a similar amendment, I will go with them. It is the principle I insist upon. Out of some fourteen hundred millions of acres of public lands, this bill proposes to grant a million and a half for the construction of these two railroads in Missouri; and the amendment proposes to grant, I think, about three millions and a half additional, to continue one of these roads to the Atlantic, connecting with one which is already in part built; and thus give you a thoroughfare from the remote East to the remote West-through the entire Union, and through the central part of it, and along that channel which is the shortest, cheapest, and best in every respect-that which is marked out by the finger of nature itself. Why should we speak of a grant of this kind as a grant to a State-as a grant to Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, or Virginia? It is a grant to the public. It is an application of the public funds to the public usefor the benefit of the public. It is carrying out, in my humble view, in a most appropriate manner that trust which was confided to us when these public lands were placed in our charge. One and a half million is a very small fraction of fourteen hundred millions. I ask you to add three and a half millions more, making in all five millions, and leaving you thirteen hundred and ninety-five millions, at least seventy-five per cent. of which will lie unproductive for an indefinite time to come, if one or more of these great works is not constructed. I believe, as the advocates of this bill contend, that if you grant this one million and a half of acres to aid in the construction of these railroads in Missouri, the still remaining portion of the public domain in that State will be worth more than the whole now is. I have no doubt of that. I believe that would be the effect even if these railroads should stop at the Mississippi river, and if the Baltimore and Ohio railroad should stop where it now is. I have no doubt the construction of these roads through the State of Missouri alone, would add more to the value of the public domain than would be taken from that value by the grant of this one million and a half of acres. But the question I propound is, whether you will not by making this additional grant of three and a half millions of acres, and by the completion of this road, leave the still remaining balance of the public domain worth more than it was before either road was constructed. I cannot that commenced in 1842. The gentleman seemed I wish now to say a few words upon another But I was going on to remark, that it was taking I wish only to notice one or two propositions, which seemed to be the sum and substance of all that the gentleman said in regard to the tariff. The first proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts was this; that the price of the produce exported from the United States for the four years ending in 1842, and also for the four years ending in 1850, exceeded, by $125,000,000, the price of the same articles exported during the four years The gentleman's estimates of produce exported during the twelve years named consisted mainly in the very large amount of cotton exported. He has not seen proper to place in comparison the prices, during that period, of the staple articles of the produce of the North, such as wheat, flour, and pork. We all know how it is with cotton. The price of that article depends upon the quantity produced; no anti-protectionist ever denied that if you were to take away from the cotton growers their domestic market for cotton, and leave them the European market alone, that the effect would be to diminish the price per pound of cotton. It is not possible that it should be otherwise, provided the crop grown were the same. You cannot eat cotton as you do wheat. It must all go to market, the entire crop. It must all go to the manufacturer, either here or elsewhere. Now, is it probable that one market for a crop, all of which must go to a market, will afford a better price for that crop than two markets? Since the enactment of the tariff of 1846 the tables show that the domestic manufacture of raw cotton has decreased to the extent of about 160,000 bales per year. Of course, if the amount of cotton grown during that period was the same as formerly, this additional amount would be thrown into the European market. The question, then, is, whether the price per pound would be diminished. As an abstract proposition, no one can deny that it would have the effect to decrease the price per pound. If it be a fact, that during this latter term of four years, as the gentleman from Massachusetts says, the price of cotton has ranged higher, it must have depended upon some other cause-it must have depended upon the amount of the crop grown. But why did not the gentleman extend his comparison a little further? Why not include 1851 ? He saw proper to leave that year out of his calcu lation. Why did he not inquire what was the present price of cotton, and compare that with the price at former periods? He has not seen proper to do so. I will call the attention of the gentleman to one sentence from the London Economist, of a late date-within a few weeks. In speaking of cotton, it says: "Although it [cotton] is now above the rates of July last, it has been lower but once within the last ten years.” The purpose of the view taken by the gentleman from Massachusetts, evidently was to show that the effect of the tariff of 1842 was to diminish the price of domestic produce, and that the effect of the tariff of 1846 was to increase that price. How can the gentleman believe that? Can he look at these tables, which I must charitably believe he has never looked at, and come to that conclusion? Let me call the attention of the gentleman to some extracts from those tables-I speak particularly of those contained in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury during the present session of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I was mistaken as to the character of my abstracts. They relate to quantities and not pieces. No tables are needed to show the present low prices of breadstuffs as compared with those of 1846 and 1847. Before calling attention to my abstracts, then, I ought to state the gentleman's second proposition, which was, that the exports of domestic produce, per year, under the tariff of 1846, had exceeded those under that of 1842. I might say, again, what of that? What does that prove? As I have already stated, of course, if you diminish the amount of the domestic manufacture of cotton one hundred and sixty thousand bales, that quantity goes to a foreign market, and to that extent swells the amount exported. The question, therefore, is, whether you |