Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

jectionable as a graft upon a single bill. The Senator who introduced it doubtless assumed that other bills, already introduced, would pass; but, if his amendment be founded on this assumption, it should await the action of Congress on all these bills.

3. If adopted, the amendment would endanger, if it did not occasion the defeat of, the Iowa land bill. This seems certain. Having this measure at heart, believing it founded in essential justice, I am unwilling to place it in this jeopardy.

4. It prepares the way for States of this Union to become landholders in other States, subject of course to the legislation of those States-an expedient which, though not strictly objectionable on grounds of law, or under the Constitution, is not agreeable to our national policy. It should not be promoted without strong and special reasons therefor. In the bill introduced by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] bestowing lands for the benefit of the insane in different States, this objection has been partially obviated, by providing that the States in which there were no public lands should select their portion in the Territories of the United States, and not in other States. But, since in a short time these very Territories may become States, this objection is rather adjourned than entirely removed.

tion which can be perverted, because it will tend
to make the subject more understood, and will
create a greater amount of prejudice against such
a proposition, than any other objection which
could be urged. It can raise the old cry of foreign
Sovereignties-States becoming proprietors, land-
holders, within the sovereign jurisdiction of other
States. Without saying anything more, I ask
that the question be taken on this amendment to
the amendment, in order that these selections may
be confined-if the amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky should be adopted-to lands within the
territories, and not within the limits of any organ-
ized State of the Union.

to.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed

The question recurred on the amendment as amended.

the whole course I have pursued since I have been
a public man.

Mr. RHETT. I am not going to debate this question; but, as I am the only Senator present from the State I represent, I propose to state, in a very few words, why I cannot support either the amendment or the bill. I cannot support the amendment, because it is a clear and distinct assertion of the right of the Government to aid in enabling States to carry on internal improvements. It is an appropriation, therefore, of lands, and, consequently of money, to carry on works of in5. But the lands held under this amendment, ternal improvement. This power is not granted though in the hands of States, will be liable to tax- by the Constitution to Congress, either in the apation, as the lands of other non-resident proprie-propriation of money or lands. It is contrary to tors, and on this account will be comparatively valueless. For this reason I said that the amendment held out the attraction of seeming, though unsubstantial, self-interest. That the lands will be liable to taxation cannot be doubted. The amendment does not propose in any way to relieve them from this burden; nor am I aware that they can be relieved from it. The existing immunity is only so long as they belong to the United States. Now, there is reason to believe that, from lack of agencies and other means familiar to the United States, the lands distributed by this amendment would not find as prompt a market as those still in the hands of the Great Landholder. But howsoever this may be, it is entirely clear, from the recorded experience of the national domain, that these lands, if sold at the minimum price of the public lands, and only as rapidly as those of the United States, and if meanwhile they are subject to the same burdens as the lands of other non-residents, will, before the sales are closed, be eaten up by the taxes. The taxes will amount to more than the entire receipts from the sales of the lands; and thus the grant, while unjust to the land States will be worthless to the old States, the pretended beneficiaries. In the Roman law an insolvent inheritance was known by an expressive phrase as damnosa hereditas. A grant under this amendment would be damnosa donatio.

For these good and sufficient reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. BELL. To test the sense of the Senate on a question suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, I offer an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, to come in as a proviso at the end of the first section of it, as follows:

Provided, That the lands to be selected for the States under the provisions of this section, shall not be located within the limits of any State, but shall be selected within the territories organized, or to be hereafter organized, east of the Rocky Mountains.

I do not mean to occupy the attention of the Senate on this subject. I have listened to the arguments of honorable Senators who have opposed this amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, with great attention; and it seems to me that there was more plausibility in the objection urged by the Senator from Massachusetts, (and which is obviated by this amendment of mine,) than in any of the objections which have been made. I say that it is only a plausible objection; for really, when you come to look at the subject in a legal and constitutional point of view, there can be very little difference whether States or individuals are the proprietors of lands within the States-considering that our States are not foreign to each other; for, although this is not a consolidated government, yet, in many respects, they are the same great State. The privileges of a citizen of one State are equally privileges of citizens of all the other States. There is no prohibition of free intercourse of trade or holding property between any of the States. Nevertheless, it is an objec

The same objection, it appears to me, applies also to the bill itself. It is very true that in the operation of the bill it would appear that the remark of my friend from lowa [Mr. DODGE] was correct. It does speak of alternate sections for six miles on each side of the road. That being the case, according to his argument, and according to the argument of Mr. Calhoun, it would be no loss to the Government, inasmuch as every other alternate section is appreciated and doubled in price to the Government by the bill. If this appreciation of alternate sections takes place, I admit that the principle stated by Mr. Calhoun covers the bill. But this bill does not stop there; and I think the real practical part of the bill does not begin there. The real operation of the bill is in the ulterior part, providing that beyond the six miles lands may be located for fifteen miles further; and within these fifteen miles, they are not to take lands by alternate sections, and there is to be no appreciation of sections, but they may take them in one body aggregately.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. They are to take lands fifteen miles in all, and not fifteen miles beyond the six miles.

Mr. RHETT. Well, then, nihe miles beyond the six miles they are to take lands, and they are not then to take them alternately, but may take them aggregately. Undoubtedly they will select all the best portions of the lands in aggregate masses. Pursuing their own interests, they would be acting foolishly if they did not do so. What, then, becomes of the alternate-section principle, by which the improvement of a part is made to inure to the benefit of the whole? They will take the better portions, and leave the refuse lands, that we have no right to suppose will realize any advantage to the Government. This portion of the bill seems to me to go entirely beyond the original bills passed by the Senate formerly, when Mr. Calhoun was a member of this body. Then, the lands that were granted were entirely waste and wild lands. But these railroads, I understand, will go through lands in the West, where there are not any alternate sections which are not taken, but where the greater portion of the land on each side of the road has been taken. This very provision, allowing the land to be taken in large masses beyond the six miles, places it pretty much on the same footing with the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. Therefore the objection that applies to the amendment, applies also, in my judgment, to the original bill. They are both of them in this form, as I have said, bills appropriating lands as a substitute for money by this Government for internal improvements in the States. I have been, and I believe ever will be, unalterably opposed to an appropriation for internal improvements in the States, either of money from the public Treasury, or of lands from the public domain.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. RHETT] is m error as to the construction of this bill. I understand this to have been, in the respect to which he refers, a copy of the bill which passed at the last Congress for the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Illinois. The construction which has been given to that bill, not only by its friends upon this floor and in the other House of Congress, but by the Departments in its execution, has been that the lands, not only within the six miles, but also outside of the six miles, and within the fifteen miles, were to be selected in alternate sections. That question has been before the Departments, under that law, within the last few weeks, and was so decided with reference to the selection of lands by the three States to which I have referred.

Mr. WALKER. That is the fair construction. Mr. DOUGLAS. It having therefore received that construction, which is in my opinion the correct construction according to the intent and meaning of the friends of the measure here and in the other House at the time it passed, of course this bill wil receive the same construction when it shall become the law of the land and the Departments shall be called upon to execute it. And receiving that construction, these lands will be selected in alternate sections to the extent that they go on each side of the road, even up to the limit of fifteen miles. That I apprehend obviates the objection which has been urged by the Senator from South Carolina. In regard to his remark with reference to the policy of Mr. Calhoun, I can only say that the speech of that distinguished Senator from South Carolina, now no more, was made in support of the Illinois bill, of which this is a copy. There fore, I regard the speech of Mr. Calhoun as hav ing indorsed not only the principles but the details of the bill now pending before the Senate. I re member, well the language of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina at that time. When it was urged that the Illinois grant was too much, that the road was too long, that it required too large a quantity of land, his reply was, that the principle being right, the policy being correct, the longer the road the greater would be the advantage

which would result to the United States from it. It was with reference to this policy that that speech was made. Of course it is fresh in my mind, because being here at the time and feeling an interest in the bill on which he was speaking, it made a deep and abiding impression on me. I thought that he was correct then; and if correct then, I think the policy is right now when applied to a different road from that on which he spoke, the principles and the details of the bill being the same, so far as they occur to me at this time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I do not recollect that, in the former discussions on this subject, the atten tion of the Senate was ever brought minutely to the selection of the lands beyond the six miles. provided for in these several bills. I do not recollect that the attention of the Senate has ever been, until this session, brought to the consideration of the selection of the lands on the outside of the six miles in reference to the price. That is what I want to have understood. I do not intend now to discuss anything, for I am as much tired of the subject as any gentleman can be, and I am tired even of hearing myself talk. I have talked enough on the subject; but I want to make my statement, and then, after making a motion, I will

take my seat.

I wish to state that I do not recollect that Mr. Calhoun, or any other Senator, in discussions which have taken place in former Congresses upon this subject, ever called the attention of the body to the question of the increased price outside of the six miles next the line of the road. Sir, it is a fact that there is no increase provided for by these bills upon any land beyond the six miles. The increase of price is limited to the lands within the six miles; and if there be no land within that distance from which to make the selection, the effect of the bills is a donation, a complete donation, of so much land outside of the six miles, which the States get without any equivalent at all. I have voted for these bills heretofore upon the principle of internal improvements, for all that-knowing it, feeling it, and willing to go it. But I want things understood. I want the Senate and the country to know, when we vote for these bills, that that is the effect of them-that the lands on the outside of the six miles are given as so much

[blocks in formation]

Mr. RHETT. Mr. President, when I noticed what Mr. Calhoun said in the argument which was referred to by my friend from Iowa, I did not wish the Senate to understand that I intended to support what Mr. Calhoun supported, or repudiate what he repudiated. But as he had been quoted, and as he is some authority in South Carolina, I thought proper to show, if I understood the bill, that Mr. Calhoun was not correctly reported; and now, if I understand the bill correctly, I do not stand corrected by the Senator from Illinois. What was the principle upon which Mr. Calhoun advocated these bills? Why, it was the alternate, section principle, that you are to give one section and then add a double price to the next section; that this Government, by selling the next section at the double price, lost no money; that it was not a donation for internal improvements to the States; that it was nothing more than an equitable and convenient arrangement by which the United States, as a landholder, so arranged its own property, as that it lost nothing, although the States gained by the operation. That was the proposition and principle of Mr. Calhoun. that the principle of this bill? Why, sir, the Senator from Kentucky has just stated, that this principle operates here only within the six miles, and not beyond that limit. Beyond that limit-and for the nine miles beyond, there is no such provision whatsoever, so far as Mr. Calhoun's principle is concerned. It is true, I thought, there was an additional principle upon the face of the bill itself— and that beyond the six miles limitation, the lands could be located in the aggregate and not in alternate sections.

Is

I will not insist upon my construction of the bill, if Senators say that the Departments give it another construction; but it is certainly capable of the construction I contended for. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. DAWSON] alleged in his speech, that the meaning I ascribed to it was its meaning, and I certainly have not heard that assertion contradicted in any argument on this floor. The bill is certainly not in conformity, in any view, to the principle which Mr. Calhoun laid down, which was that as a landholder we did not give away the land; that it was in reality giving nothing, because by giving one section we realize as much by obtaining double the price from the alternate section, and the Government lost nothing by the operation; and that it was an arrangement which, as a landholder, the Government had a right to make, without being involved in the question of internal improvements. In this way he steered clear entirely of the constitutional objection. But he could never have asserted this principle, if his attention had been brought to a measure like the bill before us. Suppose it had been proposed that Illinois or any other State should go and take every alternate section, and that the sections reserved should not sell for any other price than that stipulated for in the general laws of the country-that the alternate sections should not sell for the double price; would Mr. Calhoun have voted for a bill of that kind? No proof that he would have done so has been presented to the Senate; and it cannot be shown from his observations that he supported any principle which would justify such an appropriation of the public lands.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I desire to say to the Senate that I do not expect to vote upon the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky; not that it does not meet my approbation, on the contrary, I am in favor of it. I might have avoided the vote, but I do not desire to avoid any vote, and hence I wish to state the reason why I shall not vote at all upon the amendment. The Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. SEBASTIAN]-his family being in a condition requiring his presence-came to me, and asked me to pair off with him. As a matter of courtesy and kindness I agreed to do 80. He was opposed to the amendment; I am in favor of it. It is for this reason that I shall not vote upon it.

Mr. SUMNER. I desire to make a similar explanation. At the request of the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. DAWSON,] who has participated in this debate, and who has been called home to his family, and with a view to his personal accommodation, I have paired off with him. I should, otherwise, have voted against the amendment.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, on the amendment offered by Mr. UNDERWOOD, as amended, resulted as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Bell, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, James, Mangum, Prati, Seward, Smith, Underwood, and Upham-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Bayard, Borland, Brodhead, Brooke, Cass, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Town, Douglas, Downs. Felch, Geyer, Gwin, Jones of Iowa, King, McRae, Mason, Morton, Rhett, Rusk, Shields, Soulé, Stockton, Wade, and Walker-26.

So it was rejected.

The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended. The amendment made was the substioriginal bill. tute of the Committee on Public Lands for the

Mr. SEWARD. I have an amendment which I wish to offer to the bill. I move to strike out from the first section the words "of railroads from 'the city of Dubuque to Keokuck, and from Davenport, on the Mississippi river, in said State, as may be designated by the authority of said State," and insert "of a railroad from Davenport, on the Mississippi river, as may be designated by the authority of the said State, through Fort Des Moines to such point as the said authority shall select on the Missouri river, with branches from Fort Des Moines to Burlington and Dubuque.'

[ocr errors]

The part of the section proposed to be amended would then read as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That the right of way through the public lands be, and the same is hereby gran ed to the State of Iowa, for the construction of a railroad from Davenport, on the Mississippi river, as may be designated by the au thority of the said State, through Fort Des Moines, to such point as the said authority shall select on the Missouri river, with branches from Fort Des Moines to Burlington and Dubuque, and to such point as the said authority shall select on the Missouri river; which authority shall also fix and determine the routes of each of said railroads.

I shall detain the Senate but a moment upon this amendment. It requires some explanation. This bill, as I understand it, proposes to aid the construction of two railroads in the State of Iowa; one from Davenport, on the Mississippi river, to some point in the Council Bluffs, on the Missouri river; and another railroad from Dubuque, on the Mississippi river, to Keokuck, on the Mississippi river-that is, one railroad running east and west through the State of Iowa, and one railroad running north and south, between two points on the Mississippi river, both in that State.

In order to express my purpose, I propose to take out part of the bill and insert a substitute; and I propose to leave the chief railroad, running through the State, precisely as it is in the billthat is, from Davenport, on the Mississippi river, to Council Bluffs, on the Missouri river. Then, in lieu of the railroad connecting the two points, Dubuque and Keokuck, on the Mississippi river, Í propose that roads shall be constructed which shall run east and west through the State; and to accomplish that object, to make a branch railroad from Fort Des Moines, upon Des Moines river, which is in the center of the State, and is a point through which the principal eastern and western railroad will pass, to Dubuque, on the Mississippi river, and another branch from Fort Des Moines to Burlington, on the Mississippi river.

Thus, while my amendment contemplates leaving the central railroad just as it is in the bill, it proposes, in lieu of the railroad between Dubuque and Keokuck, crossing the State from north to south to make branches from the Des Moines river to the two points, Dubuque and Burlington. The reason which has controlled my mind, grounded upon such information as I have with regard to the State, is, that the communications to the markets from that State will necessarily be to the east and the south. The northern branch which I propose, to Dubuque, will give the people living in the region of the State through which it will pass, an eastern communication by railroad, connecting with the eastern railroad at Dubuque, and so with other lines of railroad to the cities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia-that is, with the Atlantic coast. The same effect will be produced by branches running from that same point

to Burlington, which will there connect this country with the railroads in the process of construction, and so give to Burlington, as well as to Dubuque, access, by communications through the State of Illinois, to Eastern markets, while at the same time they will have, through the southern branch at Burlington, a communication with the Mississippi river, and so with the Southern ports.

Now, sir, I am not able to say that this is a more judicious location of these internal improvements; I can only say that I am so informed, and I think it looks reasonable. It will be seen that the railroad which the bill contemplates between Dubuque and Keokuck, runs not quite parallel, indeed, with the Mississippi river, yet it is practically so, and thus giving a railroad communication down the Mississippi, though not materially shorter than by river, and perhaps it is even as long as the part of the Mississippi river between the two points, although the Mississippi is navigable between the two points to be connected by this proposed railroad. The Government of the United States have already made appropriations for the improvement of the Des Moines river, and the effect of granting these lands now, to make a railroad communication between the two points on the Mississippi, seems to come in conflict with the policy of the Government in improving the navigation of the Des Moines river. It is for these reasons, which I have stated as tersely as I could, that I have preferred the system contained in the amendment which I have proposed. I need not say that I make this suggestion not without selfdistrust, and with very great deference to the Senators of the State which is so much interested in this bill.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the Senator from New York the propriety of proposing his amendment to the amendment of the committee, which is in the same words as those used in the original bill. His amendment will then come in the third line of the sixth section. The amendment reported by the committee has been agreed to by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and it is now before the Senate for consideration.

Mr. SEWARD. I have no objection that it should be introduced in the section named by the Chair.

Mr. ATCHISON. Before I vote upon this proposition, I would be glad if one of the Senators from Iowa would explain the effect of this proposition. Sir, if the principles of this bill are settled here, I think the details may safely be left to the State of Iowa; in other words, I think it may safely be left to that State to say where shall be the location of the road. I think that this amendment will materially change the object of the bill; and without the assent of the Senators from Iowa to it, I shall vote against it, and against any similar proposition to amend.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I trust that the Senate will not agree to the amendment of the Senator from New York. This is a question which ought to be left to the State of Iowa to decide upon. That State has now, for three different sessions, memorialized Congress to grant the land proposed by the bill for making a railroad from Dubuque to Keokuck, and from Davenport to Council Bluffs. It will be entirely competent for the Legislature of the State, and the companies which may be organized, to make the line of road as proposed by the Senator from New York, if they should deem it advisable; but they desire to have surveys made with reference to the best locality on which to place these roads, and I think it ought to be left to the State, and not to Congress, to designate the routes or the points to be adopted. I hope that the amendment will be rejected, and that the bill will be passed exactly as it is now before the Senate.

Mr. DODGE, of lowa. I do not know that I understand the amendment offered by the Senator from New York. It was read, but in the connection in which it was read, I confess I did not understand it. It is a most unexpected amendment by the friends of this bill. We were not advised that the Senator from New York, or any other Senator, designed to offer such an amendment, and we were not consulted in relation to it. If I understand it, it proposes to leave the roads as they now are in the bill, with an additional branch from Fort Des Moines to Burlington.

Mr. SEWARD. If the Senator from Iowa will

[ocr errors]

allow me, I will state that the amendment proposes to leave the main or central road as it isthat is, from Davenport to Council Bluffs, and to strike out the road from Dubuque to Keokuck, and to make branches from Fort Des Moines to Burlington and Dubuque.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think I can explain in one instant the change which this proposed amendment makes, so that Senators will understand it. The amendment of the Senator from New York, as I understood from him a moment since, leaves the main road as it is proposed in the bill-that is, the road from Davenport to Council Bluffs, by the way of the Raccoon river, and in lieu of the road from Dubuque to Keokuck, it provides for two branches, which two branches shall constitute the other road, with this change only: It makes the two branches constitute one road from Dubuque via Fort Des Moines to Burlington, instead of Keokuck. It will be as the other bill was, with the exception that it makes Fort Des Moines a point in the road between Dubuque and the lower extremity of the road, and then changes the terminus from Keokuck to Burlington. Otherwise the bill will be as it was.

Mr. ATCHISON. That is a very material alteration.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It is so; and it is a change which I think should not be adopted. That matter should be left to the people of the State of Iowa to settle for themselves.

take it as it is. If there is any other proposition differing from this, that proposition ought, in my opinion, to go before the Committee on Public Lands, and be reported upon by them. We want to know the facts; and the committee investigate the facts, and report accordingly. If there is to be another proposition, let it be a separate one, and let it be sent to the committee, that they may examine it, and report upon it.

Mr. SEWARD, I ought to say that this amendment is offered in no spirit of opposition to the bill. I shall vote for the bill, whatever disposition the Senate may make of the amendment I have proposed. I am not going to insist, either, that the Committee on Public Lands have not exercised a sound discretion on this subject. I barely say this: that there is a right remaining to every member of the Senate to pass his opinion on the judgment of every committee of the Senate; and that, looking at the map, with such information as I have in regard to the State of Iowa, it seems to me that the public interest generally, as well as the interest of the State itself, would be more promoted by such a plan as that which I have proposed than by the other. With regard to the Union, sir, I think the argument is decidedly in favor of my proposition, because it connects a larger portion of the States, East and West, and North and South. One of these branch railroads connects with the East, and the other with the South; while the two branches connect the whole State with the South, and they start from the center of the State. Mr. HALE. I think, Mr. President, that the honorable Senator from lowa, [Mr. DODGE] sug

proposed by the Senator from New York could be made by which the State of Iowa would consent to receive three hundred thousand acres more than is proposed to be given by this bill, he would be in favor of it. [Laughter.] If it could be done, sir, I should be in favor of it too, because we would thus get rid of three hundred thousand more acres of the public land by such an amendment, and would thereby effect a great saving in the time of Congress.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. In answer to an inquiry made on my right as to the situation of Burlington, I will state that it is about forty miles north of Keokuck, and between those two points inter-gested that if some modification of the amendment vene the Rapids of the Des Moines river. One great object of the railroad is to get below the Des Moines river rapids, which are a great obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river. Fort Des Moines is not named in the bill, and I hope it will not be named. I trust lowa will be allowed to designate the towns and routes for itself. I was going to remark that if the bill were left as it now stands, with an additional provision for a grant of land for a road from Fort Des Moines to Burlington, I certainly should not object to it. I would most willingly consent to a proposition of that sort, and the more so, because our Legislature, at its last session-though we were not advised of the fact till long after this bill was reported-memorialized Congress for a grant of land to aid in the construction of a road from Burlington to Fort Des Moines. I have a calculation of the quantity of land which would be granted, if this amendment were adopted, and I find it would only amount to an additional appropriation of some 200,000

acres.

Mr. HALE. Oh! is that all?

Mr. DODGE. If the bill were allowed to stand, and the branch from Fort Des Moines to Burlington were to be created, the bill would even then appropriate less than it was supposed to grant when it was first reported. We then believed that, under its provisions, there would be granted to our State some 1,800,000 acres. But we find, by calculation, that it does not now appropriate quite 1,500,000 acres. If the Senator from New York will shape his amendment so as to give us a branch road from Burlington to Fort Des Moines, leaving the rest of the bill as it now stands, I shall not object, because we propose to get an appropriation for that road, if it is not passed now. The design of our Legislature was to get roads running from east to west, and from north to south through our State. Objections may be made to the courses and particular termini of these roads. But our State is a Union State; we wish it to be ⚫ fastened with bands of iron, both to the free States on the east, and to the slave States on the South; and we like one as well as we like the other. We wish to have our roads made as the Legislature and the people of our State have proposed to have them. But if there is any desire on the part of the Senate to give us more than is embraced in the bill, we are not too modest, at least I am not, to accept it most thankfully.

Mr. CASS. I merely wish to remark that all these propositions have been before the Committee on Public Lands. That is the tribunal which, in the first instance, examines them; and they examine them more thoroughly than any Senator can do in his individual capacity. This bill has been examined by that committee, and, indeed, reported by them; and it is safest, in my opinion, to

As to the suggestion of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] that this proposition ought to go to the Committee on Public Lands, it seems to me that we have got beyond that stage of the business. We know well enough what that committee will do. They will give just as much as is asked for; and I for one feel under deep obligation to the Senator from Iowa for so modestly consenting to take three hundred thousand acres over and above the fifteen hundred thousand proposed to be given by this bill, without rendering it necessary to go through the formality of applying to a committee. [Laughter.]

With respect to the remarks made by that Senator, in regard to the stability of the Union, I had thought from the speech of the honorable Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. BORLAND,] delivered here yesterday, that all agitation in regard to the durability of the Union was to be henceforth concentrated in the question of the durability of the foundations of the Capitol.

These legitimate issues, which have been before the country so long, are, it seems, according to the Senator from Arkansas, now disposed of; and henceforth the policy of the country is to be decided and discussed on the question of the foundation of the Capitol. I make this suggestion because I think that if this amendment is now modified in the way proposed by the Senator from lowa [Mr. DODGE-Some gentleman may think I am joking, but I tell them I never was more sober in my life -I should be glad, as a matter of economy of the public time-not of the public lands, sir, for we have got beyond that-I say I should be glad if this amendment could be modified in the manner suggested by the Senator from Iowa, in such a way that they would take three hundred thousand more acres without troubling the Senate and occupying its attention some eight or ten weeks with another bill. And, sir, if this bill could be laid aside for five minutes, to put it into that shape, I would certainly vote for it.

Now, sir, I want to say one word in explanation of my not voting for the bill when it was called up. I was not in my seat when the question was taken on calling it up. I was in the gallery, and I observed that several gentlemen explained that they had paired off with Senators. I was applied to by a Senator, not now present, to

know whether I would pair off with him. I refer to the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] who is absent, and who is friendly to the bill, he supposing that I was opposed to it. When he made this application, I told him that I was not sure that I was in that category; that I did not know how I should vote. And I have been in a somewhat doubtful state. I have not been here to be enlightened by the speeches which have been made; and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at if I entertain some doubts. But, sir, as it happened that the Senator from Indiana was kind enough to pair off with me on a question on which I did feel some interest, and as he and his colleague are both absent, I thought it would be quite fair, considering the doubtful state of my mind, to pair off with both of the Senators from Indiana. [Laughter.] That is the reason why I did not vote for calling up the bill. I have no opposition to it, but I hope the amendment will be carried.

Mr. BORLAND. A single word in reply to the Senator from New Hampshire, as to his allu sion to the wings of the Capitol. I think his mind may be quieted now, and that the Senate and the country may be to some extent quieted, when I inform him that I disposed of the "free-soil" in that wall the other day by removing it with the toe of my boot; and we learn upon pretty good authority that the people of New Hampshire are about to dispose of their Free-Soil representative here in a way almost as summary.

But I rise, as a member of the Committee on Public Lands, to say, such an amendment as that proposed by the Senator from New York, if referred to the committee, could not be reported upon favorably for this very reason: When this Iowa bill, and the others like it, were before the committee, the first question we considered was, wheth er the principle they involved was a sound one; and then, whether it was good policy to act upon it. Having decided this in the affirmative, we next determined the number of roads each State should have. And this settled, we, for reasons of obvious propriety, and without hesitation, left the routes of the road and the selection of their ter mini to the Senators from the States respectively. That seemed to me at the time to be a proper course on the part of the committee. And I find no reason to think otherwise now. No Senator living at a distance from the roads, as the Senator from New York does from those in Iowa, can possibly determine this matter so well or so properly as the Senators. This is a grant to the State of Iowa for public works within her own borders. It is for her to determine where and how she will dispose of it. Her decision, as the one most enlightened and most reliable, necessarily must be conclusive with us. So, also, we know and hear her here only through her own and most compe tent and faithful Senators. To us, their voice, their decision, their judgment, is hers. In my opinion, therefore, every consideration of propri ety requires the rejection of the amendment proposed by the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD.]

Mr. HALE. I have not a word to say about the taste of the Senator from Arkansas in his per sonal allusion to the Senator from New Hamp shire; but I would remark that it has been the misfortune of myself, and of those with whom I have acted, that when those who would assail us failed in argument and intellect, they have used their boots, and when they succeed their success may be because they have more boots than arguments. With regard to the fact stated by the Senator from Arkansas, that when he had kicked out the mortar from the wall the pointers went right to work and replaced the mortar and repaired the wall, I will tell him that is the way .we do. When an assault is made upon us, we put the pointers to work immediately; and I think the Senator will find before long that those who have been met with such arguments as he has suggested, are increasing very fast. I know that there are more boots on the side of those that kick at free-soil than there on the other side. I yield that point, sir; but when you go up from boots to head I think we have a pretty fair chance, but the boots we give up entirely. (Laughter.)

Now, in regard to the allusion to the victory that has been achieved, I am perfectly willing that the victors should crow and enjoy the spoils of the conquest; but I can tell the Senator, from experience, that he will find it will be better to take

defeat in homeopathic doses. It may come by and by too thick and too overpowering for those who have been accustomed to meet argument with boots. And, besides, they may receive it with a better grace if they have been disciplined in the school in which they take it in homeopathic doses. Sir, I am accustomed to defeat. I was defeated in the House of Representatives some few years ago, and it was a sort of boot game then; but I yielded with such grace as I could, and abided my time. I expected to be defeated again; I expected that the Senate would be deprived of my services, as it has been of the services of the Senator from Mississippi also, [Mr. Foote.] When that Senator was here he did intimate-though I have no doubt it was in an unguarded moment, and contrary to his usual kindness of heart-that if I should be found in the State of Mississippi, it might become necessary for him to administer a severe infliction upon me. He is now in the State of Mississippi as its Executive head, and though he has not been the death of me in Mississippi, he has in New Hampshire, because as he happened to be out of the Senate, the people there thought there was no need of my services here any further. [Laughter.]

Mr. BORLAND. I am sorry that the Senator from New Hampshire should have taken anything I said as either serious or unkind. I assure him that what I said was intended for pleasantry-said in playful reply to the hit he made at me about the wings of the Capitol, &c. I could not mean any unkindness in my remark or allusions; for, as he well knows, that however much I may differ with him in his political views-however much I may object to his public course, I entertain for him, personally, the kindest feelings. He now alludes to what I said about the mortar in the walls of the Capitol yesterday. In the same spirit of kindness, I will tell him that I apprehend there is, indeed, some resemblance between the process alluded to and the procceedings of the Free-Soilers whom he represents. The mortar was shown to be unsound. What did the architect do? He did not rid the bosom of the work of "that perilous stuff;" but proceeded to cover it up-to hide from public view-to plaster it over by applying a little sound mortar to the surface. And so, sir, I think it not unlikely that, when Free-Soilers find themselves defeated-the people having weighed them and found them wanting-will change their colors for the time, and seek to regain their position with a new face, made up of a little of this new mortar on the surface.

The PRESIDENT. This discussion is entirely

out of order.

Mr. BORLAND. I have no more to say, sir. The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. SEWARD; and it was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I stated some time ago, that I thought the first section of the bill could be amended in a manner to improve the character of the bill very much. I allude to an amendment that I intend to propose, beginning in the eleventh line at the word" provided," and striking out all down to the word "surveyed," in the thirteenth line, and insert what I send to the Chair.

The amendment proposed to strike out the following words: "Provided, That the right of way shall not exceed one hundred feet on each side of the line of said roads, and a copy of the survey," and to insert the words:

Provided, That in locating the railroads aforesaid, and assigning the limits to the easement, no more land shall be taken from the United States than is necessary for a convenient construction and use of said roads or public ways for transportation, including stations, with the usual buildings of all kinds, turn-outs, and such other appurtenances as are usually enjoyed by railroad companies, and a copy of the location.

So that the proviso, thus amended, will read as follows:

Provided, That in locating the railroads aforesaid, and assigning the limits to the easement, no more land shall be taken from the United States than is necessary for a convenient construction and use of said roads or public ways for transportation, including stations, with the usual buildings of all kinds, turn-outs, and such other appurtenances as are usually enjoyed by railroad companies; and a copy of the location of said roads, made under the direction of the Legislature, shall be forwarded to the proper local land offices respectively, and to the General Land Office at Washington City, within ninety days after the completion of the same.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I hope that the amendment will be adopted. It is a practical amend

ment and embraces a matter which we overlooked in the details. I trust it will be adopted. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. In order to carry out the purpose of that proviso, another amendment in the seventeenth line is necessary. It provides that a copy of the survey of said roads, made under the direction of the Legislature, shall be forwarded to the proper local land offices respectively, and to the General Land Office at Washington city, written ninety days after the completion of the same. The amendment which I propose is to add

the words "to be recorded" to the end of the section.

The PRESIDENT. The clause of the proviso thus proposed to be amended will then read: "And a copy of the survey of said roads, made under the direction of the Legislature, shall be forwarded to the proper local land offices respectively and to the General Land Office at Washington city, within ninety days after the completion of the same, and to be recorded."

Mr. DAVIS. I should like the proviso still better-but gentlemen can do as they please about it-if the location were recorded in the register of the counties where the land lies. It would be a great convenience to the public if this were so. But I do not propose to amend in that way, and I simply propose that their returns to the land office shall be recorded.

The question being taken, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GEYER. I have an amendment which I propose to offer, to come in at the end of the third section of the amendment reported by the committee. It is to add the following:

Which lands shall, from time to time, be offered at public sale to the highest bidder, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and shall not be subject to entry until they shall have been so offered at public sale. So that the section will read—

"That the sections and parts of sections of land which, by such grant, shall remain to the United States within six miles on each side of each of said roads shall not be sold for less than double the minimum price of the public lands when sold, which lands shall, from time to time, be offered at public sale to the highest bidder, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and shall not be subject to entry until they shall have been so offered at public sale.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That appears to be a very important amendment. I hope we shall have the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. There are several gentlemen here who say they do not understand that amendment. I want to know if I understand it. If I do understand it, it is to the effect that the lands surveyed at the price of $2 50 per acre for the Government, are required to be advertised and sold at action. Is that the purpose of the amendment?

Mr. GEYER. It is, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then I hope it will be adopted, and let everybody have a fair chance, when these lands come into market.

Mr. GEYER. The object is not to change the minimum price, but to prevent the absorption of these lands by entry, and to give to the United States the advance, if any, in price of the lands, when they shall be sold.

The question was then taken, by the yeas and nays, on the adoption of the amendment, and resuited-yeas 34, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Borland, Bradbury, Brodhead, Brooke, Cass, Clarke, Clemens, Cooper, Davis, Fish, Foot, Geyer, Hamlin, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Stockton, Underwood, Upham, Wade, and Walker-34. NAYS-Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Gwin, and McRae-6.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I stated yesterday, somewhat in detail, the reasons why I could not vote for these railroad bills, and why I preferred the policy of graduating the price at which the public lands should be sold. I think these railroad bills, relating to internal improvements in the States, are local and partial in their character; and that Congress cannot properly decide whether a railroad should run east or west, or north or south. It is said that the object of these railroads is to increase the sale and settlement of these lands, and that is the proper policy for the country to pursue. I think that a graduating policy is better, and therefore I propose a substitute, if it be in order, and if it will not embarrass the Senate in their votes, for the present bill, in order to provide for the graduation of the price of the public lands.

The proposed substitute was read, as follows: That from and after the first day of January next, all the public lands of the United States, then subject to private entry, shall be arranged into six classes, in the manner following, namely: Lands which have been in market, subject to private entry, ten years or less, shall constitute the first class; those which have been in market, subject as aforesaid, more than ten years and not exceeding fifteen years, shall constitute the second class; those which have been in market, subject as aforesaid, more than fifteen years, and not exceeding twenty years, shall constitute the third class; those which have been in market, subject as aforesaid, more than twenty years, and not exceeding twenty five years, shall constitute the fourth class; those which have been in market more than twenty-five years, and not exceeding thirty years, shall constitute the fifth class; and those which have been in market more than thirty years, shall constitute the sixth class; the classification to be made under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury: Provided, That in fixing those classes, the fraction of the year between the date of offering and the commencement of the next calendar year thereafter, shall not be computed: And provided further, That whenever lands subject to entry at private sale are withdrawn from market for any cause, the time they may be thus kept out of market, if it exceed one calendar year, shall be excluded from computation in fixing the several classes.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the minimum price of the lands, in the first class, shall be one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; of those of the second class, one dollar per acre; of those in the third class, eighty cents per acre; of those in the fourth class, sixty cents per acre; of those in the fifth class, forty cents per acre; of those in the sixth class, twenty cents per acre.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the public lands of the United States, which now are, or may hereafter be, brought into market, and become subject to private entry, shall be subject, as the periods indicated by this act shall arrive, to the scale of graduation herein provided, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and be open to entry and purchase agreeably thereto.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That upon every reduction in the prices of said lands which shall take place by the graduating process of this act, the occupants or settlers upon any of the said lands shall have the right of preemption at such graduated or reduced prices, which right shall extend to a period of six months from and after the dates at which the respective graduations shall take place; and any land not entered by the respective occupants or settlers within that period, shall be liable to be entered or purchased by any other person until the next graduation or reduction in price shall take place, when it shall, if not previously purchased, be again subject to the right of preemption for six months and so on from time to time as said reduction shall take place: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to interfere with any right which has accrued, or may accrue, by virtue of any act granting preemptions to actual settlers on the public lands.

The PRESIDENT. It is now proposed to strike out all that has been adopted, and insert what has just been read.

64

Mr. BADGER. I desire to suggest a single verbal amendment to that amendment, if it meets the approbation of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I observe in one place that the expression, more than one calendar year," occurs. We have, I believe, but one kind of year now, that which has three hundred and sixty-five days. I therefore suggest that the word "calendar" be stricken out.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I accept the modification. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will again state the question, in order that Senators may understand it. This bill was originally referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and was reported back by that committee to the Senate with an amendment, which is to strike out the original and insert what is printed in italics. That amendment has been agreed to by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the bill has been reported to the Senate and undergone several amendments. The proposition now is to strike out all that amendment as amended, and insert what has been proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GWIN. I am in favor of this graduation, and I will go even further than that. I am in favor of giving donations to actual settlers, but I am not in favor of incorporating that bill in this one. I will vote for the bill before the Senate as it is, and hereafter for the other one, if it should come up. I will vote for both of them.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I offer this as a substitute for the bill before us. We must adopt one meassure or the other. We must either take this railroad policy, by which the public lands are to be absorbed, or we must agree to a graduation and reduction of prices of the public lands. I prefer the graduation policy for the reasons which I stated yesterday. I believe it more equitable and more just and general in its operation, and more easily understood. It prevents monopolies by a tendency to centralization, and I therefore think it altogether preferable. I offer it, not to be incorporated in the bill, but as a substitute for it.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has so stated.

Mr. GWIN. I am in favor of both bills. I shall vote for this bill as it is reported by the committee, and I shall also vote for the other bill when it comes up.

Mr. PRATT. If I can be heard, I desire to make a suggestion, and inquire whether or not the substitute offered by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania is in order? The bill upon your table is one to aid in the construction of a railroad in the State of Iowa. The substitute is for the graduation of the price and sale of the public lands. Now, although the railroad in lowa is to be made by an appropriation of a portion of the public lands, yet the object of the original bill is the railroad, and therefore it does not seem to me that this substitute is germane to this original subject, and consequently it is, as I think, out of order.

The PRESIDENT. There is no rule on the subject. The question under discussion is the disposition of a certain portion of the public domain. An amendment has been made to the bill by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, which amendment is now under consideration by the Senate, and it is therefore open to amendment. The proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania is to strike out the greater portion of that amendment, and insert a substitute, which is another mode of disposing of the public lands.

Mr. DOWNS. Will it be in order to propose an amendment to the substitute, by proposing that instead of striking out the whole bill, the proposition of the Senator from Pennsylvania shall be added to it?

The PRESIDENT. It would not be in order at this time.

Mr. DOWNS. I suppose we can do it by voting this proposition down as a substitute, and then add it to the bill.

The PRESIDENT. If the Senate think proper to vote down the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania as a substitute, they can do so, and it will then be in order to offer it as an addition to the bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. As the object of the Senator from Pennsylvania unquestionably is to carry out his favorite policy of graduating the price of the public lands, I have no doubt that he will find that he can accomplish his object much better by bringing it forward in a separate bill. I confess I have a great inclination to go with him in his favorite policy of graduating and reducing the price of the public lands; and I have no doubt that large numbers from the new States will join him in that policy, and probably be able to pass his bill for him if he will bring it forward as a separate proposition, untrammeled by any objections to it as an amendment to this bill. If he will bring it forward separately, I have no doubt that he will find many earnest and zealous coadjutors in the representatives of the new States. I fear that there is some hazard in attaching it to this bill; I fear that by offering it as an amendment to this bill he will lose his graduation policy. I would therefore suggest to him the propriety of bringing it forward as a separate measure, free from the embarrassments hanging around it as a substitute for the bill.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. President, I have debated in my own mind whether I should offer this graduation bill as an amendment to the bill under consideration, because I feared it might embarrass gentlemen in their votes here. But ifl adopt the suggestion of the honorable Senator from Illinois and withdraw it now, and subsequently bring it forward as an independent proposition, this railroad grant to Iowa may be passed in the meantime, and then we should have to make other grants. I think, therefore, we had better decide now whether we will adopt the graduating policy, or the railroad policy. You cannot adopt both, in my judgment. I am opposed to this railroad policy for the reasons which I stated pretty fully yesterday. I do not desire to embarrass gentlemen in their votes. I would be very sorry to do so. But I fear, that if I withdraw the amendment now, these railroad bills will all be passed; and then there will be no necessity for, and permit me to say, no propriety in, the adoption of the graduation policy. It would then be left to operate only on the alternate sections.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I appeal to my friend from Pennsylvania to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. MANGUM. Mr. President, we are com

ing to be an extremely wise body. We act on the very largest subjects with all the aids of intuition. Now, I would distrust the ablest man this country ever produced, coming from an old State, who could have but very little knowledge of the land system, or of matters connected with the public domain, who would get up here, and in five minutes, at the end of a tedious session, propose a system of disposition for the entire public domain of the country, without even subjecting it to the investigation of a committee. I understand that the amendment is offered as adversary to the bill under consideration. I hope it will be easily disposed of; and, as the gentleman who has offered it has not been courteous enough to withdraw it at the request of his friends, I trust it will be immediately rejected. I hope we will vote upon it now. Mr. BRODHEAD. I shall not now withdraw the amendment, but I ask for the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SOULE. Mr. President, I must oppose the proposition of my friend from Pennsylvania; and yet I am free to admit, that if it were presented as a distinct and separate measure, from the general features which I have been able to discover in it, I would readily give it my concurrence. But it is very clear that we are in no way prepared to act now upon a matter of such vast importance. It would be assuming, as has been very properly remarked by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, the possession of such great powers of intuition, that I can hardly believe a Senator here would claim. I shall vote, therefore, against this substitute proposed by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania.

I had intended to explain at some length the vote which I mean to give in favor of this Iowa bill; but as I understand that a bill of the same nature concerning the State of Ohio will soon be presented to the consideration of the Senate, and that I shall then have an opportunity to express my views on the subject, I have resolved to give a silent vote in favor of the present bill.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa. I wish to make an appeal to the Senator from Pennsylvania on this subject. I would say to him that I am as anxious as he can be for the passage of his bill at a proper time; but I would take it as a great favor to me and to my State, if he would withdraw his propo

sition.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I wish to renew my appeal to my worthy friend from Pennsylvania to withdraw his amendment. I think I have a right to request it, for if there is one sincere friend on this floor of the graduation system in all its scope and bearing, I claim to be that one. The principle has grown with my growth and strengthened with my strength, and, therefore, I shall be rejoiced to cooperate with him at a proper time and in a proper manner to effect the passage of that great measure. But I trust the Senator will not, and I know he does not desire to, embarrass our bill and force us to vote down, as we will certainly do, a proposition to which we are as friendly as he

can be.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I stated when I first offered this substitute that I did not design to embarrass gentlemen in these votes. I can say to the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] that this proposed substitute of mine was not prepared or drawn by me. It is a well-matured measure, one which has been under the consideration of this body before, and which was brought forward by a gentleman from one of the land States. As there seems, however, to be a great desire that I should withdraw this substitute and subsequently offer it as an independent proposition, I think it better for me to do so. I desire that gentlemen shall be unembarrassed in their action here. I was sincere in bringing this proposition to the notice of the Senate. I hope that the original bill will be voted down for the reasons which I stated yesterday, and then I shall bring forward this measure as an independent proposition.

The PRESIDENT. With the permission of the Senate the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr. PRATT. As the yeas and nays have been called, I desire to record my vote against the proposition.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Have I not the right to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. PRESIDENT. Not except by unanimous consent. Does the Chair understand the Senator

from Maryland to object to the withdrawal of the amendment?

Mr. PRATT. Yes sir; I want to have a vote upon the proposition. As the yeas and nays have been called, I believe it is my privilege to require that the vote be taken.

The PRESIDENT. Most assuredly. If the Senator insists on it, the vote must be taken.

Mr. MASON. I understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania, in offering this amendment, declared distinctly that, in his judgment, on ecount of the former action of this body on a like proposition, there remained no alternative now but to choose between the policy of giving away these public lands, or a large portion of them, to the States within which they lie, or of adopting an opposing policy of providing for their immediate sale, or their speedy sale, by graduating their price. It was in that view that he offered this proposition as an amendment, and a substitute to that of gir ing public lands for railroads. I am not prepared to say at present whether I should be disposed, if the option were left to me, to change the existing policy of the Government to that which is pro posed by the amendment which the Senator offers.

mean, that I am not prepared to say whether! should be disposed to change the existing laws offering the public lands for sale at a minimum price, for a system of reducing them with a view of speedy sale; but between the two propositions of graduating the price of the public lands and selling them rapidly, and that of giving them away to the States within which they lie, I prefer the former. I shall therefore vote for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, though I should acquiesce cheerfully in allowing him to withdraw it.

Mr. BELL. Mr. President, I would like to hear from the honorable Senator from Virginia, or the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, what security this amendment that is proposed will give to the country, if it should pass, that the land wil not still be given away to railroads?

Mr. DOUGLAS. This may obviate some gentleman's objections to the land bills.

Mr. BELL. It seems to me that there will be no security whatever, but that we shall just go on, and whenever we think it is liberal and proper towards the new States, give them additional appropriations for internal improvements. I do not understand that the proposition of the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania proposes to afford any security on that head, but proposes to hasten the sale of the public lands. Now, it is said that there is a large amount, such an amount as 250,000,000 acres of public land in the market. If that is so, if we reduce them to forty cents an acre, it would take years and years before they could be appropriated; and in the meantime they would remain open to applications to the liberality and justice, if you please, of Congress, in making these improvements. I desire to ascertain whether there be any security contemplated on that point.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would beg leave to interrupt the Senator for a moment. On turning to the rule, which he will read, the Chair is aware that it is in the power of the Senate, even after the yeas and nays have been ordered, to permit the withdrawal of a proposition. The 10th rule is:

"When a motion shall be made and seconded, it shall be reduced to writing, if desired by the President, or any mem ber, delivered in at the table, and read, before the same shall be debated; and any motion may be withdrawn by the mover at any time before a decision, amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays, except a motion to recapsider, which shall not be withdrawn without the leave of the Senate."

"Leave of the Senate" is given by the action of a majority. And therefore the mover of a proposition, even after the yeas and nays have been ordered, (though the Chair just now was under a different impression,) can withdraw it, if a majority of the Senate decide to grant leave.

Mr. BADGER. 1 move, then, that the honor able Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] have leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. MASON. I wish to say a word in answer to what fell from the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.] I understand that Senator to inquire what security the country will have against thus giving away the public lands, even if we should adopt the policy of graduating and reducing their price. Now, sir, I would answer the Senator by saying that, from my experience in this Govern

« AnteriorContinuar »