Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

mittee who made that recommendation, as I understand by my friend from Iowa that that recommendation was unanimous, I will withdraw my, motion to agree to the House amendment, and that may lead to the appointment of a committee of conference.

The PRESIDENT. The question is, will the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives?

Mr. HUNTER. I think there would be some danger, were the Senate to agree to that amendment. I understand that the Committee on Public Lands are unanimous. They think that some of the changes made in the House would lead to serious consequences.

Mr. BADGER. Then I move to disagree with the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. I hope we shall disagree with the amendment, and leave the bill as we sent it to the House. I think it is a safer bill as we sent it to the House than it is in its present shape.

Mr. BORLAND. I am sorry that the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands is not here to present to the Senate the views of the committee; but I can state that the committee were unanimous in disagreeing to the amendment of the House, and in insisting on the bill as it passed the Senate. I do not feel prepared to go fully into the subject, and for that reason I should be unwilling to see a vote taken on this amendment without some explanation of the matter, so that the Senate may clearly understand it.

Mr. BADGER. We all understand it. Let us take the vote upon it.

Mr. BORLAND. If I thought so I would be willing

Mr. BADGER. The question has been 'discussed here for years.

Mr. BORLAND. Then all I have to say is, that there are good reasons with which I will not now occupy the attention of the Senate, that would satisfy the Senate fully, not only as to the propriety of the bill as we passed it, but as to the great impropriety and impolicy of the amendment proposed by the House, particularly to that part of it which extends the operation of the bill and gives greater facilities for the location of these land

warrants.

Mr. DAVIS. I desire to hear that part of the bill read which the House has retained.

The PRESIDENT. The House has retained the first section only.

The provision was read accordingly.

Mr. CASS. That I understand is the section which was passed by the Senate. I should like now to hear what change is proposed to be made in the bill.

The PRESIDENT. Those portions of the bill will be read.

by the terms of the bill itself, of the compensation to which they were entitled by the law which existed when they went into office. They are by law entitled to a specific salary, and in addition to that, to a percentage upon the money which they receive.

This bill, by making the land warrants receiv

Mr. HUNTER. I think I can explain the difference satisfactorily to the Senator from Pennsylvania without the necessity of again reading those portions of the bill. The great difference between the sections of the bill as it went from the Senate, and the provisions which the House of Represent-able for land, of course deprives them of the peratives propose to substitute is this: The House proposes to allow bounty land warrants to be located on any lands hereafter to be exposed for sale. There was a provision in the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill of the last year providing that these warrants should only be located on those lands which were then exposed for sale. The result would be that we should derive no revenue, for a considerable time at least, from the public lands. If we adhere to the bill as we sent it to the House of Representatives, we may still derive a revenue from the lands brought into market after the passage of the act.

Mr. SHIELDS. I am very sorry that the chairman of the committee which reported this bill is not present to explain it, as it was originally reported. If I understand the matter correctly, it is a bill which passed the Senate originally with a provision, in addition to making the land warrants assignable, to pay the registers and receivers at the land offices. I had something to do, being on the Committee on Public Lands, with the preparation of the original bill. It passed the Senate and went to the House, and the House has struck out all that relates to the compensation of the registers and receivers, and sent the bill back, simply providing for the assignability of land warrants, with some other small amendments.

Now, for one, I shall oppose the passage of any bill of that kind until the House consents to make some provision for those officers who are now performing their duties without any compensation. I am actually astonished, that gentlemen of the opposite party, as I saw them do in the House, should blindly and inconsiderately vote against making any provision for the men who are now in office, receiving no compensation what

ever.

This is a subject that I understand, having been at one time at the head of the Land Office, and being also a representative of a Western State; and I know these officers cannot perform their duty without compensation. Sir, in my own State there is not a man in any of these land offices who is receiving anything more than a mere nominal compensation. All the lands are now entered by land warrants, and the law has allowed them no compensation, or what is only a mere nominal one, for that duty, and yet the labor is fourfold, even more than fourfold, what it is when the entry is made by a cash payment.

The PRESIDENT. The change proposed is to strike out all the other sections of the bill as it passed the Senate, and substitute provisions which have been adopted by the House of Representa-mittee in regard to the original bill, and our inten

tives.

Mr. CASS. It is said that the House of Representatives have made material changes in the bill in regard to the location of the land warrants.

Mr. BADGER. The House of Representatives proposes to strike out everything except the first section, and then to add provisos.

Mr. CASS. Well, let the provisos be read.
They were read accordingly.
The bill as amended by the House of Repre-

sentatives is as follows:

"Be it enacted, &c., That all warrants for military bounty land, which have been or may hereafter be issued under any law of the United States, and all valid locations of the same, which have been, or may hereafter be made, are hereby declared to be assignable, by deed or instrument of writing, made and executed after the taking effect of this act, according to such form, and pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, so as to vest the assignee with all the rights of the original owners of the warrant or location: Provided, That any person entitled to preëmption right to any land, shall be entitled to use any such land warrant in payment of the same, at the rate of $1 25 per acre, for the quantity of land therein specified: Provided, That the warrants which have been, or may hereafter be issued, in pursuance of said act or of this act, may be located upon any lands of the United States subject to private entry at the time of such location, at the minimum price: Provided fur ther, That when said warrants shall be located upon lands which are subject to entry at a greater minimum than $1.25 per acre, the locators of said warrants shall pay to the United States, in cash, the difference between the value of such warrants at $1 25 per acre, and the tract of land located on."

Mr. BRODHEAD. I ask for the reading of those sections which the House of Representatives propose to strike out.

This matter was all well considered by the com

tion was that we would make this carry through the other bill. I am satisfied from what I see, that unless we hold on here to the original bill, we shall never get any provision made for the men who are now performing duty as land officers. I cannot go into the history of the legislation upon this subject; it would take too long a time to do so; but I call on any Senator from a Western State to say whether these men can live as officers without receiving further compensation. There are gentlemen here who have been officers themselves, and they will sustain me in what I have stated. It is very singular that we must fight for those very men who have been put in by the Administration, and fight against the friends of the Administration to get a compensation for them, not in this body, but in the House of Representatives. I have been astonished to see the contest there. I shall oppose the passage of this bill in any shape, unless it provides a compensation for the officers which I have named.

Mr. BORLAND. I am sorry to be under the necessity of speaking upon this subject, and I am sorry that the chairman of the committee is not present; but I think I represent the committee fairly when I say that the amendment of the House strikes out the best features of the bill, as it passed the Senate, and it adds another which makes it very objectionable. They struck out that portion of the bill spoken of by the honorable Senator from Illinois, thereby refusing additional compensation to the land officers, and refusing it too at the very same time that they deprive them,

centage they would receive upon cash receipts; and at the same time, as the Senator from Illinois remarked, making their labor fourfold, or more than fourfold, greater than before. I think we have no right to pass this bill making land warrants assignable, or giving land warrants at all for military services, without at the same time providing for these officers in some other way the amount of compensation they would be entitled to but for the passage of this bill. Under laws long existing, these officers have gone into office, and were entitled to receive a certain compensation for their services. We now go to work and legislate them out of the compensation to which they were lawfully entitled. It seems to me that that sense of justice which every Senator must entertain, would compel us to make this provision for them, and allow them a fair compensation for their labor.

Sir, this amendment is objectionable in another respect, for it deprives a large number of meritorious individuals of a provision of bounty lands, who have claims equally meritorious as those we have provided for. The object of the bill, as it passed the Senate, is to put all persons on the same footing who have rendered military service to the country. It was not to discriminate, but to place all who were equally meritorious upon the same footing. The amendment, as it comes from the House, strikes out this provision of the bill, and discriminates offensively and injuriously.

But I said that the amendment not only struck out portions of the bill which were themselves meritorious, but added a feature which is seriously objectionable. The first section of the bill, as it passed the Senate, permitted the land warrants to be located upon any land in market, and subject to entry at private sale, with proper restrictions. The House has so amended it that they throw open the whole body of the public lands, not only that which we have now, but that which we may have hereafter; and subjects the whole to the operation of these land warrants. The effect of it must be, as any one can see, to induce speculators to monopolize the land warrants and hoard them up, or concentrate them on large tracts of land which are not now in the market, and not only deprive the Government, in this way, of all revenue to be derived from the public lands-which seems to be a consideration with those who look to the public lands as a source of revenue-but seriously injure those who have located in the country, by preventing the settlement of the country and the opening of it to improvement, and consequently preventing an increase in the value of the lands.

I am sorry that I had not expected to be called on to explain this subject, in order that I might have prepared myself to present the views which were given in the committee in a proper manner to the Senate. These are the reasons which operated upon the committee in objecting to the amendment of the House, and recommending that we should insist upon the bill as it passed the Senate. I think the proper course will be to insist upon the bill as we passed it, and let it go back to the House, and a committee of conference be appointed to adjust the difference between us.

Mr. DAVIS. In my opinion, the most expedient course for the Senate to pursue is to agree to the amendment proposed by the House. My reasons for suggesting this as the more appropriate course, are founded principally upon the fact that a large number of the persons who were benefited by the act of 1850, were by that act denied the privilege of using and disposing of the benefit which is conferred upon them, according to their own judgment. They are insulted, I may say, with a provision in that bill, denying to them the right of transferring this property according to their own judgment and discretion. It is that offensive feature of the bill which we set out to remove when we began to legislate upon this subject; and by that portion of the bill which is now left, it is removed, and therefore it is that I would vote to concur in the amendment of the House, in order

to obtain that object which I consider of so much importance to these individuals.

ward and prove their preemption right. They would be permitted by our bill to pay for the land What is the objection to it? It is said that many with a land warrant. But the House strikes out and valuable provisions which were inserted in that provision, and for what? To throw open all the bill which passed the Senate, have been struck the land subject to private entry to the land warout by the House of Representatives. I know rant speculators. But at the time the preemptor very well that provisions have been struck out of wants to pay for his preemption, it is not open to which I most heartily and cordially approve; and sale, and therefore it strikes down his privilege among others, those which were referred to by the just at the only instant at which he could avail Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS.] I am quite himself of it. So it will be seen that this bill would willing that the officers to whom he referred should seem to have been framed, if not with the express have a suitable compensation for their services; design, yet with the inevitable tendency to benefit but I put it to my friend as a man of honor, and the speculators and not the settlers. The result as a man who loves to extend justice to all who would be just this. It will be seen that as the new are entitled to it, whether it is right to endanger tracts of country become subject to private entry, the rights of the individuals to whom I have re- when new Indían purchases are made and new ferred, in order to compel the House of Represent- surveys take place and the lands become subject atives to do justice to another set of individuals? to private entry, these land warrants will be imI think it is a principle which the honorable Sen-mensely valuable. It will be the policy of the ator will not, upon reflection, attempt to enforce. speculators in Wall street to hoard up the warHe withholds a measure of justice which is emi- rants, in anticipation of the new lands coming into nently required and demanded by the individuals market. There they will be held. They will not for whom the provision is made, and he withholds go to the old refuse lands, but will wait till the new it to obtain another object which he has in view. purchases and the new surveys are made, and then I think that course cannot be justified. While I locate their warrants in the best part of the counapprove the provisions to which the honorable try, in the meantime, the settler not being perSenator has referred with regard to the land off-mitted to locate any of them. Sir, it is one of the ces, and desire that they should be adopted, I also desire that certain other provisions contained in that bill, which were struck out by the House,, should become a law; and I understand that the House of Representatives have the subject now before them in an independent bill, having separated it from this, because there were matters of controversy contained in the provisions which they struck out. They have now introduced them in a separate bill, as I understand, and propose to act upon it whenever they have time and an opportunity to do it. They have separated the subjects so as to give dispatch to business, and in my opinion, it was just and proper to do so if there was a controversy that was likely to create delay in the passage of this bill.

The honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] says, there is an additional clause in the amendment of the House, by which the privilege of location is extended to other lands than those which were indicated by the original bill, to any lands which are surveyed and brought into market, not only those which are sold at the minimum price, but those brought in at a larger price. I see no injustice in that, no objectionable principle or feature in it. If you intend to give to the old soldiers of the war of 1812 a douceur which shall be acceptable to them, why not give it to them in the form which is usual; why not give them an opportunity to locate upon any lands which are in market, not only those which are in the market at the day the bill passes, but those which shall be brought in hereafter? What objection can there be to that? So far as I am concerned, the bill is very acceptable to me as it is.

The Senator says the revenue will be impaired by the operation of this amendment. It may be so; but even if it is so, I do not think that it is any objection to it. I can see no impropriety in it. But I do not understand how the revenue is to be impaired by it. They can take up the land assigned by the warrants, and no more. Of what consequence is it in what part of the country they take it, or whether they take it from land in the market at the time the bill is passed, or from that which shall come into the market afterwards. I hope all the friends of the old soldiers, provided for by those bills, will vote to agree to the amendment of the House, and let the bill become a law.

Mr. WALKER. I think the amendment of the House of Representatives is about all that is necessary to make this preeminently a scheme for speculation. I thought it was bad enough when the bill passed the Senate, but it is wonderfully improved by the House of Representatives. As the bill passed the Senate, the preemptor, the man entitled to a preemption right, had the privilege of purchasing the land to which he had the preemption, with these land warrants. But as it comes back from the House of Representatives, he is cut off from that privilege, while the new surveys and new purchases are thrown completely open to him who holds the land warrants, for speculation. This is the way it operates. Between the time of the proclamation of the President for the public sales of the lands, and the time of the sales, the settlers on the lands preempted will be unable to come for

most ingenious things in its operation, if not in its
design, for aiding the speculator, that has ever
come before the Senate.

Mr. SHIELDS. In addition to what has been
said by my friend from Wisconsin, I will say,
and I will confine myself to one point, that these
assignees, who have now a great advantage in
getting warrants at a large discount, will be able
to enter these warrants without giving any com-
pensation to the officer.

Now, sir, the bill, as it originally passed the Senate, establishes this principle: that the assignee, when he makes an entry, shall pay exactly the same amount as if the entry was made for cash. It is not to be paid out of the Treasury, but by the assignee or owner who makes the entry.

So that if the amendment which the House of Representatives have sent to us be not adopted, the locators of bounty lands can only locate them on lands subject to private entry at the time of the passage of this proviso. If we adopt the amendment of the House, bounty lands may be located on any lands which may be hereafter brought into market. I have heard, as the Senator from Wis consin has suggested, that a large amount of these land warrants are being held back in the hands of companies and individuals. If we adopt the amendment of the House, we may all see to what it would lead. If the bounty land bill is to require, for the satisfaction of land warrants, as large a number of acres as has been computed, this amendment of the House, if passed into a law, would lead to this result-that we should get nothing into the public Treasury from the public lands for years to come. I think, therefore, that it would be safer (for I do not wish to consume time upon this question) to adopt the recom mendation of the Committee on Public Lands, and disagree to the amendment of the House. They doubtless will insist, and we shall have a committee of conference, who will regulate this matter and present us some proposition on which we can vote. Without further loss of time, I hope it will be the pleasure of the Senate to disa gree with the amendments of the House, and then we may have a committee of conference.

Mr. BORLAND. I desire simply to call the attention of the Senate to this one point: The art of 1850 was passed for the purpose of giving land to various individuals who were considered equally meritorious with those to whom lands were givea for service in Mexico. We neglected at that time (for it seems to have been an oversight in our legislation) to put them upon the same footing, by making their land warrants assignable, as those to whom land warrants were granted for service la Mexico. The object of the bill now before the Senate is to put those to whom we gave bounty lands in 1850, on an equality in all respects, as far as possible, with those to whom we gave bounty land for service in Mexico. The bill, as passed by the Senate and sent to the House, accomplished that object. The amendment of the House changes that feature of the bill, and makes a discrimination against those who have heretofore received land bounties for services in Mexico and else where, and who have located them, and gives greater advantages and confers greater value on such warrants issued under the act of September 28th, 1850, as have not yet been located. It opens a much wider field and much better land for the location of these warrants. For one, I protest against making the discrimination against giv

may now hold land warrants in their hands who may have purchased them for speculation, or who may hereafter do so. It is discriminating against those for whose benefit the law was originally passed.

The honorable Senator from Massachusetts says that he wishes that question to come up for consideration by itself, in a separate bill. Such a proposition has been before the Senate for three or four sessions, and has failed; and the only hope which we have of passing it is, to connect it with this bill. It ought to have been passed with the original bill. Sir, when this bill becomes a law, all the lands throughout the country will be entered with these warrants, and not taken up for cash. No man will enter land with cash when he can procure warrants at a less price which will answer the same purpose. And how are these land officers to live? They get no percentage. You have changed the currency, so far as the pub-ing this increased compensation to persons who lic lands are concerned, from cash to these land warrants, and you do not provide the same compensation which you gave to your officers when the entries were made with cash. This has been an oversight from the commencement. commenced this species of legislation we ought, with something like provident foresight, to have made provision for these men. We neglected them, and we shall only be augmenting that neglect if we pass this amendment. As the bill was originally framed, it compelled the assignees of these land warrants to pay the same for making an entry as they would have done if they had entered their land with cash. If you pass this bill, as it is now, you enable parties to speculate with these warrants, and to make an entry without paying anything. You compel your officers to work for the speculator, without giving them a single cent for the performance of their labor. And if the Government appoint officers, and then starve them while in office-and I know they are doing it throughout the country-will Senators tell me that it shall be continued?

When we

Mr. HUNTER. A single word of explanation in relation to the difference between the law as it would stand without the amendment of the House and the House amendment. Here is the proviso to which I referred in the civil and diplomatic bill

of 1851:

"Provided, That no land bounty for military services granted under the act of 28th of September, 1850, entitled An act granting bounty lands to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States,' or by virtue of any other act of Congress, heretofore passed, granting land bounties for military services, shall be satisfied out of any public land not heretofore brought into market, and now subject to entry at private salc under existing laws."

Mr. GEYER. If I understand the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, he is of opinion that the provisions of this bill stricken out by the House ought to pass at some time and in some form; but he desires that we shall concur in the amendment, under the expectation that the House will at some time pass a bill that will cover all those provisions. To my mind it appears better, while we are upen the subject of these land warrants, to pass all the provisions that can pass both Houses, and to corporate them in one bill. If we disagree to the amendment of the House, there will, in all prob bility, be a committee of conference, and we shall then ascertain what can be done upon the whole subject of military bounty lands, and do all that we can do in a single bill.

There are some objections, which have not been mentioned by honorable Senators, to the amend ment made by the House to the first section of the bill. I suggested the other day the propriety of making an additional provision in the bills granting land to the States to aid in the construction of railroads, requiring that the reserved lands should be put up at public sale. I stated then my reasons for that opinion. I believe that most of those lands will sell for a greatly augmented price beyond the minimum fixed by the bills. When those bills, if any of them, shall pass, provision can be made by which the lands reserved shall be exposed to public sale, and by which entries shall not be made until after the lands shall have been so ex

[ocr errors]

posed to sale. I think it is good policy, and that the interests of the Treasury require that the reserved lands should not be subject to entry until they shall have been offered at public sale.

Mr. CASS. I agree fully with the honorable Senator from Missouri. The propriety of what he has suggested struck me so strongly, that I had the design of proposing the very subject he has now suggested; and I trust it will be proposed in some of the bills before us. I hope it will be pro

justice to the registers and receivers will be done. If we agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives; if we agree to permit this bill to pass now, as amended by the House, we lose all hope of doing justice to these men; because I am confident the House of Representatives will not pass a bill to give them their usual compensation, if presented by itself. I hope, therefore, that the

amendment of the House will not be concurred in. Mr. GEYER. I desire to correct a misapprevided that none of the reserved sections shall be hension which seems to be entertained by the honsold but at public sale. The honorable Senator orable Senator from Kentucky, with reference to from Georgia, [Mr. DAWSON,] in his speech day the remarks which I submitted. I do so because it before yesterday, estimated the value of the lands is possible that other Senators also may have misgiven to the State of Illinois, which have finally understood me. I do not propose to propose an gone to a company for the construction of a rail-amendment to this bill now, but to submit amendroad, at $10 per acre. The reserved sections, of ments to the bills providing for grants of land to course, would bring the same price as the granted aid in the construction of railroads. Al the resections. The way to get at the full value, then, served sections of those lands are not now subject would be to offer the reserved lands at public sale. to entry at all. When those bills shall come up, That would show whether or not there was an in- I wish to have an amendment made to offer the creased value given to the lands. If there is, it is reserved sections at public sale. I think it is a just as proper for the Government to enter into provision that should be inserted in all bills grantcompetition, as for a State to do so. So it was in ing lands in aid of the construction of railroads; the commencement; and I think the suggestion of and I have prepared an amendment to one of the my honorable friend from Missouri is the precise bills of that sort under the consideration of the suggestion that should be made. I would insert, Senate, with the view to bring the question before in every one of these bills, provisions that the Senators. reserved lands should not be offered, except at public sale. Then the United States would get a fair price for the reserved lands. You ought not to allow any locator, or any one else, to take possession before the land has been offered for sale. You would then keep the advantage of it to yourselves.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. However desirable it may be to make such a provision, I doubt the policy of introducing it into this bill; and if it should be introduced, it can, perhaps, only be done after the appointment of a committee of conference by the two Houses. My object in rising is, to say that the Committee on Public Lands, who investigated this subject, came to the conclusion that unless some provision was made for the payment of the registers and receivers of the various land offices, as suggested by my friend from Illinois, in this bill, perhaps it would be impossible to get a separate bill through during the present session; and when you are doubling the labors of these men, the question is, will you allow them some compensation for it? By bringing these lands into market by the land warrant system, you are abstracting the commission which these officers would receive upon the lands sold for cash. The proposition to compensate them is so reasonable to me-although I do not feel the sympathy which gentlemen representing the land States do upon the subject that I cannot fail to say that I must imitate the conduct of the Senator from Virginia, and insist upon the bill as we sent it to the House, and reject the amendments of the House. I hope, therefore, that, without consuming further time, unless some gentleman has any idea which he wishes to suggest, we shall take the vote immediately, and insist on the bill as it passed the Senate. If it leads to a committee of conference, we may arrange the subject as best we can.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I concur very fully in the views taken by the Senator from Virginia, who has stated that if this bill pass as it has been amended by the House of Representatives, all the lands, including the reserved lands, will be taken up by land warrants. I am confident that thousands of these land warrants have been held back expressly for the passage of this bill, in order that they may be located on lands from which they have been heretofore excluded. I am personally acquainted with the land officers in my own State, and with many in Illinois and Missouri. I know, from having been in these offices, that they have been compelled to employ additional clerical force to enable them to enter land warrants. The Senator from Massachusetts says we ought to give a douceur to the old soldiers. I am perfectly willing to do that; but when we are doing that, will we permit the registers and receivers to sit up until midnight, as I know they sometimes do, in the discharge of their duties-being unable to pay for clerk hire-and not pay them the same compensation which they are paid for entering cash sales? Their compensation cannot in any case exceed $2,500 a year--no matter how many acres of land they may sell-no matter how many millions of dollars they may take in. I hope that this act of ||

Mr. FELCH. I was not in my seat when this discussion commenced. I have in my hand a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office on one point pertaining to this amendment, and if desired, I will read it to the Senate. The House of Representatives, by their amendment, have not only stricken out portions of the bill which I think ought to be retained, but they have added a proviso about which the Commissioner of the General Land Office has made a communication to the Committee on Public Lands. That proviso is:

"That the warrants which have been, or may hereafter be, issued in pursuance of said act, or of this act, may be located upon any lands of the United States, subject to private entry at the time of such location, at the minimum price."

Now this, as has been justly remarked, throws open for location the reserved lands along the line of railroad in Illinois, and some other States, which could not otherwise be taken up by land warrants. Some objections to that point of the subJect have already been stated. Another objection which has suggested itself to my mind is this: Under the present law granting bounty lands, the beneficiary is required to take his lands all in one body. The holder of a hundred and sixty acre land warrant must take his one hundred and sixty acres all in one body. This proviso, however, if adopted, will repeal that provision, and will enable a party holding a warrant for one hundred and sixty acres to take it in forty acre lots. The effect of this always is to withhold from sale for a long time these forty acre lots. It virtually divides up the public territory. By having such small parcels, no man will purchase them for a farm-no man will purchase them for settlement except the owner of an adjoining tract. The effect of the proviso, then, would be to exclude all others from purchasing. This point is fully stated in the letter sires to hear it, I will have it read. to which I have referred, and if any Senator de

The question was then taken on agreeing to the amendment of the House of Representatives, and it was decided in the negative.

RAILROADS IN IOWA.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa, in aid of the con

struction of certain railroads in said State.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, addressed the Senate in favor of the bill, and in opposition to the amendment of Mr. UNDERWOOD, until the usual hour of adjournment, when, without finishing, he yielded the floor. The speech will be published in the Appendix.

On motion, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, March 3, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

The Journal of Monday was read and approved.

GRANT OF LANDS TO MISSOURI.

The SPEAKER stated, as the first business in

[ocr errors]

order, the bill granting lands to the State of Missouri, to aid in the construction of certain railroads therein, and that the gentleman from New York [Mr. BENNETT] was entitled to the floor.

CANAL AROUND THE FALLS OF THE OHIO. Mr. DISNEY. I ask the unanimous consent by the Legislature of Ohio. They will not occupy of the House to present certain resolutions passed much time. I only desire to have them referred to the appropriate committee and printed. There being no objection,

Mr. DISNEY presented the joint resolutions of the Legislature of Ohio, relative to the construction of a canal on the Indiana side of the Falls of the Ohio river; which having been read, referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals. Mr. D. then moved that they be printed and

the printing of those resolutions. The subject Mr. MASON. I do not see any necessity for has undergone investigation before the Committee on Roads and Canals, and a bill has been ordered to be reported, which the chairman of the committee will report at the first convenient opportunity. It would be incurring unnecessary expense to print these resolutions. A number of resolutions of the same kind, containing the same views -I was going to say, the same erroneous suggestions-have been before the committee, and I can see no reason for printing these.

Mr. DISNEY. I am rather surprised at the objection offered by the gentleman from Kentucky; for it has been the universal usage of this House, out of courtesy and respect to the Legislatures of the different States, to print all documents emanating from them, and presented for our consideration.

Mr. MASON. If that has been the usage, I will withdraw my objection.

The question was then taken on Mr. DISNEY'S motion, and it was agreed to.

PUBLICATION OF THE CENSUS RETURNS.

Mr. HASCALL, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions passed by the Legislature of the State of New York, in regard to the compilation and publication of the Compendium of the Sixth and Seventh Censuses of the United States; which were read.

Mr. H. moved that the resolutions be referred to a select committee.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, moved their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HAVEN. I wish to make a suggestion in reference to the disposition of these resolutions. been considering what ought to be done with I have myself received a copy of them, and have

them. I am satisfied, from the course of this House heretofore, that it will be impossible for us to do anything with the census returns, that the Legislature of my State can avail itself of during its present session. It is very desirable that the Legislature of that State--and doubtless the Legislatures of all the States-should have this infor

mation. But the Legislature of New York will adjourn about the middle of April, and it will be impossible for us to reach any business of this kind before that time. I would therefore suggest that the resolutions should be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which has under consideration the resolution reported from the Committee on Printing in relation to the printing of the census.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I concur in the suggestion of the gentleman from New York, and I will withdraw my motion, and move that the resolutions be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and on that motion I call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered to be now put; and, being put, Mr. JONES's motion was agreed to.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I call for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the motion to refer the bill granting land to Missouri for certain railroads, to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and the gentleman from New York [Mr. BENNETT] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. BENNETT resumed the remarks conrmenced on a former day, giving notice of an amendment which he intended to offer, namely: that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands, with instructions to report a bill, as

a substitute therefor, making grants of lands on some equal and just principles of apportionment, and to a proper amount, to all the States, to aid in the construction of railroads therein. He argued in favor of the proposition, and against discrimination in favor of the new States to the exclusion of the old. All should share alike, the lands being public property; and he pressed his amendment on the ground of dealing fairly with regard to the rights of all States, and with a view of terminating the partial legislation on the subject of the public lands, which is urged from Congress to Congress, and which will be continued, according to the present practice, as long as there shall be an acre to grant. This was a kind of grab-game, where the noisy and clamorous get an undue share of the public domain. He did not believe in a partnership where all bear a portion of the burdens, but where all do not share in the benefits.

[Mr. B.'s speech will be found in the Appendix.]

Mr. BENNETT having concluded— Mr. STANLY said this matter has been before the House for some three weeks, and has been discussed long enough to enable every member to make up his opinion. It stops the way of all other reports-all other business of the House; and in order to bring the House to some action I move the previous question.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I appeal to the honorable gentleman from North Carolina to withdraw his call for the previous question. There have been grave charges during the progress of this discussion presented against the Western States generally, and against Ohio particularly. I would like to have an opportunity of making some reply. If the gentleman will withdraw the call I will renew it.

Mr. STANLY. The gentleman can take another time for the purpose of defending the interests and honor of his State.

The question was then put, "Shall the call for the previous question be seconded?" and upon a division there were-ayes 66, noes 67.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, demanded tellers on the second, which were ordered; and Messrs. JONES and CHANDLER were appointed.

The question was again put, and the tellers reported that there were ayes 73, noes 69-so there was a second; and the main question was then ordered to be put.

The SPEAKER. The pending motion is to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to which proposition the following amendment is proposed, which will be read for information:

"With instructions to report a bill as a substitute therefor, making a grant of land upon some equal and just principle of apportionment, and to a proper amount to all the States, to aid in the construction of railroads therein."

Mr. KING, of New York, demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Has the morning hour expired?

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has not expired, by some seven or eight minutes. Mr. CLINGMAN. The previous question

would keep this question alive.

The SPEAKER. The previous question being sustained, it will bring the House first to a vote upon the amendment to instruct the committee, and then upon the proposition to refer the bill to the committee, with or without instructions.

The yeas and nays were then ordered. The question was then taken, and resultedyeas 70, nays 96-as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. William Appleton, Ashe, Barrere, Bartlett, Beale, Bell, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Breckenridge, Briggs, Brooks, Chapman, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Duncan, Ewing, Florence, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Gentry, Goodenow, Grey, Hammond, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Horsford, John W. Howe, Ingersoll, Ives, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, George G. King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Letcher, H. Marshall, McLanahan, McMullin, Meacham, Morehead, Morrison, Outlaw, Andrew Parker, Perkins, Riddle, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Skelton, Smart, Richard H. Stanton, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Venable, Ward, Wash burn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, and Addison White-70. NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Willis Allen, Averett, Babcock, Bissell, Bragg, Brenton, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Joseph Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Clark, Cobb, Conger, Cottman, Daniel, John G. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Disney, Doty, Durkee, Eastman, Edgerton, Faulkner, Ficklin, Fitch, Freeman, Thomas J. D. Fuller. Gaylord, Giddings, Grow, Hall, Harper, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Hart, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard,

Howard, Jackson, Jenkins, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Preston King, Landry, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, McNair, McQueen, Miller, Molony, John Moore, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penn, Penniman, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Rantoul, Richardson, Robbins, Robie, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Smith, Snow, Sutherland, George W. Thompson, Townshend, Wallace, Benjamin Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Strother. Stuart, A. White, Wilcox, Wildrick, Woodward, and Yates-96. So the instructions were not agreed to.

bill and pending amendments to the Committee of The question then recurred upon referring the the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. KING, of New York. They have been

ordered.

The SPEAKER. Only upon the instructions.
The yeas and nays were then ordered.
Mr. JONES. The motion is to refer the bill

with the pending amendments, and to print.

The SPEAKER. There was no motion made

to print, in the recollection of the Chair.

Mr. McMULLIN. I desire to know whether this bill has ever been in Committee of the Whole

or not?

The SPEAKER. It has not.

The question was then taken, and there wereyeas 97, nays 77-as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Allison, William

Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Babcock, Bartlett, Beale, Ben

nett, Breckenridge, Buell, Cartter, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Churchwell, Clingman, Cottman, Curtis, Daniel, G. T. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Dockery, Duncan, Ewing, Faulkner, Florence, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gentry, Giddings, Grey, Grow, Isham G. Harris, Hart, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Horsford, John W. Howe, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, James Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, G. G. King, Preston King, Kurtz, Letcher, Mason, McLanahan, McMullin, McNair, McQueen, Meacham, Morehead, Murray, Outlaw, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Perkins, Powell, Robie, Sackett, Savage, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, David L. Seymour, Skelton, Smith, Snow, Abraham P. Stevens, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Stratton, Sutherland, Benj. Thompson, Venable, Wallace, Washburn, Watkins, Wells, Addison White, Alexander White, Wildrick, and Woodward-97.

NAYS-Messrs. Willis Allen, Barrere, Bell, Bissell, Bragg, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, Busby, E. C. Cabell, Thompson Campbell, Clark, Cobb, Conger, John G. Davis, Disney, Doty, Dunham, Eastman, Edgerton, Evans, Ficklin, Fitch, Freeman, Gaylord, Goodenow, Green, Hall, Harper, S. W. Harris, Haws, Hendricks, Henn, John Johnson, R. W. Johnson, J. G. Jones, Kuhns, Landry, Lockhart, Mace, Edward C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, McDonald, Miller, Molony, John Moore, Nabers, Newton, Olds, Orr, Penn, Penniman, Phelps, Porter, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Scurry, Smart, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Strother, Stuart, Taylor, Thurston, Townshend, Welch, Wilcox, and Yates-77.

So the bill and amendments were referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

HOMESTEADS TO ACTUAL SETTLers.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to consider the special order.

The question was taken, and it was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,

(Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN. The business in order bebill No. 7, "to encourage agriculture, commerce, fore the committee is the special order, being House manufactures, and all other branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a family and a citizen of the United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land, out of the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and cultivation of the same for the period herein specified," and upon this question the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, [Mr. McMULLIN,] who reported the bill, is entitled to the floor. Mr. McMULLIN not being present to claim the floor, it was assigned to

Mr. DAWSON, who expressed himself in favor of the bill and its provisions generally, because he considered it the inherent right of every citizen to obtain a grant of land without charge, and upon the principle that Governments would be more just and pure, if they possessed no revenue derived from the sale of public lands; and contended that, by the encouragement of the settlement of a country, its resources are more extensively developed. He referred to statistical dates to show that the revenues of a State should be derived from other sources than the sale of public lands, and read from authorities to prove that Congress has a right to dispose of them as it pleases; and concluded

with a variety of arguments in support of his views.

[Mr. D's speech will be found in the Appendix.] Mr. D. having concluded—

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE next obtained the floor. A motion was made that the committee rise. The question was taken, and there were, upon a division-ayes 85; noes not counted.

The committee rose accordingly, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the com mittee 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, being House bill No. 7, to encourage agriculture, and for other purposes, and had come

to no conclusion thereon.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. A bill has been returned to the House to-day from the Senate, in which a great many of the members of this House, and the country, feel a very deep interest. It is the bill entitled "An act to make land warrants assignable, and for other purposes." The Senate have returned it here, non-concurring with all the amendments of the House. I ask that the bil may be taken up, that the House may insist upon their amendments, and ask for a committee of conference.

Mr. GROW. I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Mis souri land bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

A motion was made to adjourn, and the question being taken, agreed to-ayes 72, noes 57. The House then adjourned to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow.

PETITIONS, &c.,

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees By Mr. McNAIR: The petition of John McKeever and 27 others, asking for a modification of the tariff on iron. Also, the petition of O. Chinchman and others, asking an appropriation for the Delaware breakwater and piers, ceded to the United States, on the Delaware river.

Also, resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania in relation to the recent suit between the State of Pennsyl vania and the Wheeling bridge.

By Mr. TAYLOR: The petition of James McLean, Baroth Eggleston, and John A. Hays, late assistant marshals for Ross county, Ohio, praying an increase of compensa tion.

Also, Joint resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, relative to the construction of a new canal on the Indiana side of the Falls of the Ohio river.

By Mr. LANDRY: The memorial of Logan Hunton, of New Orleans, praying compensation for services rendered as district attorney for the district of Louisiana.

Also, the memorial of James W. Zacharie, of New Or leaus, in relation to his claim on Mexico, assumed by the United States under the 8th and 9th articles of the treaty dated Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2d, 1848.

Also, the memorial of Thomas Powell, by his assignee, the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

Also, the memorial of Malcolm Sandman & Co., of New Orleans, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

Also, the memorial of Edmund J. Forstail, of New Or leans, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

Also, the memorial of James W. Zacharie, assignee of Asmus C. Bredall, a naturalized citizen of the United States, and resident of New Orleans, in the State of Lour siana, in relation to Mexican indemnities.

By Mr. KUHNS: The memorial of citizens of Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the passage of any act of Congress legalizing or sanctioning the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. MACE: The memorial of J. H. Barnes and 23 others, citizens of Lockport, Carroll county, Indiana, pray ing for the passage of a law preventing all public officers and agents, in the employ of the United States, from transacting public business on the Sabbath or Lord's Day.

By Mr. FITCH: The memorial of John Millikan, assist ant inarshal of Laporte county, Indiana, asking additional compensation for services in taking the census.

By Mr. INGERSOLL: The remonstrance of Isaac Judson and others, citizens of New Haven, Connecticut, against the extension of the Woodworth patent.

Also, the petition of certain citizens of New Haven, Connecticut, asking that the memorial of Henry Grinnell, of New York, in relation to an Arctic expedition, may be granted.

By Mr. PARKER, of Indiana: The petition of Alexander B. Poston, praying that the bounty land and money due his father, Richard Poston, and his two uncles, Elias and Jeremiah Poston, for services rendered in the campaign of General George Rogers Clarke, for the reduction of the posts of Vincennes and Kaskaskias, be granted their legal

beirs.

By Mr. THOMPSON, of Virginia: The remonstrance of a number of citizens of Brooke county, Virginia, and a letter of Mr. Clark Hanes, against the renewal of the patent of the Woodworth planing machine.

Also, the remonstrance of citizens of Franklin county, Pennsylvania, against the renewal of the patent of Parker's

reaction water-wheels.

Also, a letter of Mr. N. Wells, a citizen of Brooke county, Virginia, on the inequality and injustice of the fees of inspection of steamboats.

Also, a letter of Mr. B. Duffield, on the causes and means of prevention of steam-boiler explosions.

Also, the petition of John Giffen and other citizens of Ohio county, Virginia, praying that the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day, shall not be required of certain persons in the employment of the Government.

Also, a letter and accompanying draft from John W. Gill, in relation to the improvement of the harbor of Ottowa city, Ohio.

Also, the papers of Thomas Beall were withdrawn, and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

By Mr. JOHN W. HOWE: The petition of William R. Dunlap and others, citizens of Lawrence county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against a renewal of Woodworth's patent.

Also, the petition of James F. Agnew and others, citizens of Venango county, Pennsylvania, praying Congress to prohibit the transportation of the mails on the Sabbath.

[ocr errors]

By Mr. DUNCAN: The petition of Dudley F. Holt, for an invalid pension.

Also, the petition of Alfred Kettridge and others, for an appropriation to remove obstructions and place buoys in Merrimack river, Massachusetts.

Also, the petition of William D. S. Chase and others, for

the same.

By Mr. CHANDLER: The memorial of Bowen & Browns, G. W. McHenry & Co., H. & A. Cope & Co., and 90 mercantile firms in Philadelphia, asking Congress to extend additional aid to Collins's line of ocean steamers. Also, five memorials, signed by more than 200 citizens of Philadelphia, asking for a renewal of the patent for Woodworth's planing machine.

By Mr. DAVIS, of Indiana: The memorial of William H. Gifford and E. Bowling, of Indiana, for additional compensation in taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. BUELL: Two remonstrances from 300 citizens of Herkimer county, New York, against the renewal of the Woodworth patent.

By Mr. WASHBURN: The memorial of Abner Starrett, S. W. Hoskins, and James Sanders, praying additional compensation for taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts: The petition of Lucius Blair and others, citizens of Massachusetts, that the system of military superintendency in the National Armories be abolished.

By Mr. HENN: The memorial of P. C. Tiffany and 67 others, citizens of Iowa, asking a grant of lands to aid in the construction of a railroad from Burlington to the Missouri river.

Also, the proceedings of a State Railroad Convention, held at Fairfield, Iowa, on the 11th day of February, 1852. Also, the proceedings of Massachusetts Railroad Convention, held at Ottumwa, Iowa, on the 13th day of February, 1852.

Also, the proceedings of a railroad meeting, held at fowa City on the 6th day of February, 1852.

Also, the proceedings of a railroad meeting of the citizens of Davis and Appanoose counties, held at Bloomfield, Iowa, on the 29th day of January, 1852.

Also, the proceedings of a railroad meeting of the citizens of Lucas county, held at Chariton, Iowa, on the 5th day of February, 1852.

By Mr. GREEN: The memorials in relation to the improvement of the mouth of Sandusky river, in the Sandusky bay, and the improvement of the harbor of Port Clinton, on Lake Erie.

Also, sundry memorials and petitions for the improvement of the Maumee river, Ohio.

By Mr. BABCOCK: The petition of 306 citizens of the port of Oswego, New York, for a marine hospital at Oswego.

Also, the remonstrance of citizens of Oswego county, New York, against any renewal or extension of the Woodworth patent.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, March 4, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

The Journal of yesterday was read.

GRANT OF LAND TO MISSOURI.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the motion made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. GROW,] to lay upon the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill making a donation of the public lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads in Missouri was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL. Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a priv ileged question. I find myself recorded as having voted in the negative upon the motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the bill granting land to Missouri. I voted in the affirmative.

The SPEAKER. The Journal will be corrected accordingly.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I voted, on yesterday, in favor of the reference of the Missouri land bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. My intention was to have voted in the negative. I tried, but failed, to attract the attention of the Speaker at the time the result was being

announced, that I might have my vote changed. I desire now to have it changed.

The SPEAKER. That change cannot be made upon the Journal except by unanimous consent. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I hope the House will give unanimous consent. The result will not be affected by it.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I do not think that it can be done. I am very willing that the gentleman should have voted the other way; but, sir, the thing suggested has never been done within my knowledge. If it was a mistake upon the Journal, the case then would be different.

The SPEAKER. The Chair begs to say to the gentleman from Alabama, that, under the rule, it is competent to make a correction of the Journal, but that an alteration cannot be made unless by unanimous consent. The Chair, throughout his service, does not recollect an instance of the

sort.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will state that I rose before the vote was announced, and endeavored to draw the attention of the Chair that I might correct my mistake, but failed. I mentioned the fact to several gentlemen around me before the result was announced by the Chair. These are the facts, and I do not wish to have the Journal altered, but my mistake corrected.

Mr. JONES withdrew his objection.

The SPEAKER. There now being no objection, the change will be made as suggested by the gentleman.

Mr. SIBLEY. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which notice has been given, merely for the purpose of reference.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Is there not a privileged question pending as the unfinished busi

ness?

The SPEAKER. There is. The Chair has stated it.

Mr. JONES. Then it is not in order, I think, to make any sort of motion.

Mr. GROW. I withdraw my privileged mo

tion.

Mr. SIBLEY. I again ask the unanimous consent of the House for the introduction of a bill for reference.

Mr. WARD. I rise to a privileged question. I renew the motion to reconsider the vote of yesterday by which the bill granting lands to Missouri was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HEBARD. I wish to inquire whether the gentleman voted in the affirmative?

Mr. WARD. I did not vote at all. I was out when my name was called.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. cannot make the privileged motion.

Then he

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that the gentleman could not move to reconsider a vote in which he had no voice at all.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. SIBLEY, by unanimous consent of the House, introduced a bill, of which previous notice had been given, entitled "A bill to amend certain acts for the establishment of territorial governments in Oregon and Minnesota;" which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Territories.

GRANT OF LAND TO MISSOURI. Mr. DEAN obtained the floor. Mr. WHITE, of Alabama. I rise to a privileged question. I move a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill granting lands to Missouri was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. FOWLER. Did the gentleman vote in the affirmative?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the facts

of the case. The gentleman from New York rose to address the Chair, and was recognized. Immediately following, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. WHITE] rose to a privileged question, and moved the reconsideration of the vote by which the Missouri land bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The gentleman from New York now states that it was his object to make that motion. The Chair thinks the gentleman could not be deprived of his right to the floor, under the circumstances, by the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. FOWLER. I do not understand the gentleman from Alabama as moving to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table, and I think, therefore, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEAN] has precedence, as he had first risen, and now states that that was his object.

Mr. GENTRY. Is not the gentleman from Alabama entitled to the floor upon his motion?

The SPEAKER. He is not entitled to it in preference to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DEAN. I move that the vote by which the bill granting lands to Missouri was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union be reconsidered, and that that motion do lie upon the table.

Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I wish to make an inquiry. Can the motion be divided? The SPEAKER. It cannot. You will divide

it if you refuse to lay the motion upon the table, and in no other form.

Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana. Has the gentleman a right to make two privileged motions at one time?

The SPEAKER.. He has. That has been the uniform practice of the body.

The question was then taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 100, nays 68-as follow: YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Allison, Andrews, Ashe, Averett, Babcock, Thomas H. Bayly, Bartlett, Beale, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Breckenridge, Buell, Joseph Cable, Cartter, Chapman, Chastain, Churchwell, Cleveland, Clingman, Daniel, Dawson, Dean, Duncan, Edmundson, Faulkner, Florence, Floyd, Fowler, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gaylord, Giddings, Grey, Grow, Isham G. Harris, Hart, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hibbard, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas Y. How, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, Jas. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, George G. King, Preston King, Letcher, Mason, McLanahan, McMullin, McNair, McQueen, Meacham, Morehead, Morrison, Murray, Newton, Outlaw, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Perkins, Powell, Robbins, Robie, Ross, Sackett, Schermerhorn, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, David L. Seymour, Skelton, Snow, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Stratton, Sutherland, George W. Thompson. Thurston, Venable, Wallace, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Addison White, and Wildrick-100.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Willis Allen, Barrere, Bell, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell. Chandler, Clark, Cobb, Conger, Cottman, George T. Davis, John G. Davis, Doty, Eastman, Edgerton, Ewing, Ficklin, Fitch, Freeman, Gentry, Goodenow, Gorman, Hall, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Haws, Hendricks, Henn, Houston, Howard, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Kuhns, Kurtz, Landry, Mace, Humphrey Marshall, Miller, Molony, John Moore, Nabers, Olds, Orr, Penn, Penniman, Phelps, Porter, Rantoul, Richardson, Riddle, Smith, Stanly, Benjamin Stanton, Strother, Stuart, Taylor, Townshend, Ward, Alexander White, Wilcox, Williams, and Yates-68. So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

MEMPHIS NAVY-YARD.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee, by the unanimous consent of the House, introduced the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, praying additional appropriations for the navyyard at Memphis, in that State; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. OLDS called for the regular order of busi

ness. The Chair presumes the

The SPEAKER. gentleman voted in the affirmative.

Mr. WHITE. I voted in the affirmative. The SPEAKER. The Chair inquires of the gentleman from New York his object in obtaining the floor, for it may be that he cannot be deprived of his right to it by the gentleman from Alabama 2

Mr. DEAN. My object was to move the reconsideration of the vote by which the Missouri land bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and to move that the motion to reconsider do lie upon the table. I understood the Chair to state that I was entitled

to the floor.

Mr. HOUSTON. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. OLDS. Let us have reports from committees.

NON-INTERVENTION.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I ask the gentleman from Alabama to allow me, before he presses his motion, to present the joint resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia upon the subject of non-intervention. I have had them for eight or ten days, and have not yet been enabled to present them.

« AnteriorContinuar »