Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ment, which has been much less than his, I am afraid the people will have no security whatever, and can get none, against the action of Congress. In this very instance, what do we see? Why, in 1847, a law was passed to borrow money. We were then engaged in a war with Mexico. And to establish, or rather to improve the credit of the country, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands were pledged to the payment of that debt. Here is a bill brought in to give them away, at the rate of some 3,800 acres per mile. There is no restraint, then, by the legislation of the country, to the extent that the public faith may be involved by the hypothecation of the proceeds of the public lands.

But I will go further than that. I have seen an instance, in my judgment, and in the judgment of the section of the Union from which I come, in which the action of Congress has not been restrained by constitutional bounds. I am afraid, therefore, when the Senator asks what security we can offer, that we can offer none.

Mr. ATCHISON. I do not propose to offer any security, nor do I suppose that a solitary Senator from one of the land States on this floor proposes to offer any security. Not one.

It has been said time and again, by all the Senators opposed to this bill, or opposed to anything like justice, in any form of a bill which may be presented, to the new States, that they are giving a way lands. Now, there is not one of these bills upon the table of any Senator, presented at this or at any former session, that has for its object the giving away of the public lands, for the purpose of making railroads or other improvements. Let the Senator from Virginia propose to strike out that clause of this bill which doubles the price of the public lands upon the alternate sections reserved; and if that is done, then the remainder will be a donation. But until that is done there is no donation. Besides this, there is a clause in the bill providing for the transportation of the troops of the United States, and of the mails of the United States. That, I suppose, may be considered as an equivalent for the right of way through the public lands. If the Senator from Virginia, or any gentleman, can show that this bill, or any other land bill now before the Senate, gives directly or indirectly one cent.-one acre of land, or the fraction of an acre of land, to the new States, then I am ready to abandon the whole sys

tem.

I do not say that the Senator from Pennsylvania offers this amendment as an expedient to defeat this bill; but it will operate as an expedient to defeat this and all the other land bills. I tell that Senator-and I believe every gentleman representing one of the new States on this floor will tell him the same thing-that we will vote for that bill separately, I prefer that bill; I prefer a graduation bill, upon almost any principle, to this or any other land bill. When this bill was first taken up for discussion, I avowed, and I avow now, that you are giving nothing to the new States. You are conferring no direct favor on the State of Missouri or the State of Iowa by these grants. They have a moral influence, and a moral influence alone, on our own people, inducing them to step forward and advance their money for the construction of these roads. This is all the influence, all the effect they have. We do not draw upon the Treasury of the United States for one cent, or for one acre of land, for which we do not pay an equivalent. I trust that gentlemen will change their phraseology somewhat when they speak of granting lands or of donating lands to the new States. I trust that my friend from Virginia par ticularly will change his phraseology, or demonstrate that it is a gift.

Mr. BRODHEAD. My friend from Tennessee asked me, what security we have that Congress will not contrive to donate and give away these lands after we shall adopt a graduating policy? In answer to that question, I have only to say that we have this security: We deprive the advocates of this and the other land bills of the principal argument they advance in favor of them. They say they desire to induce the sale and settlement of the public lands We adopt the policy; and if, to carry it out, we adopt a graduation system, it will be a substitute for what they propose. You cannot have both. As a representative of one of the old States, I beg leave to say that I cannot go for both these measures I cannot go

for the various railroad bills granting some ten, or fifteen, or twenty millions of acres a year, and then go for a graduation policy also. I offer a compromise here. I offer the same measure to the gentlemen from the new States which they have been urging upon Congress for years past, and I ask them now to adopt it in lieu of these various railroad projects.

Mr. RUSK. I would inquire what is the question before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT. The proposition is to give permission to the Senator from Pennsylvania to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. RUSK. I hope gentlemen will confine themselves to that point.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I rise to make a remark or two, in reply to my friend from Missouri. I think it lamentable that, after months of discussion, we cannot agree upon the facts, but are diametrically opposed as to the facts which exist in the case, and cannot understand them alike. My friend from Missouri says, that if it can be shown that any lands are given away, he will go against the whole system. I have, over and over again, stated that lands are given away by this system. He denied it positively. The question between us is, which of us understands the bill correctly? Now let me state the case in such a clear light that nobody can controvert it. This bill says that the State of Iowa shall receive every alternate section for six miles on each side of the line of the road. The grant, then, is equal to six sections on one side; for, if they get alternate sections for six miles on both sides, it is equal to six miles on one side. That is clear. Nobody can deny that. Now, suppose that by the private entries which have been made, there is left only four sections out of which the selections can be made, what is the consequence of that state of things? Instead of having your whole twelve sections on both sides, out of which to select six, you have only four sections; from which, of course, only two can be selected. Then the bill says the State may make up that deficiency more than six miles from the line of the road. You can only get the half of four, or two sections, within six miles. Then the other four sections to which you are entitled, you get at a distance greater than six miles from the line of the road. Can the gentleman from Missouri deny that those four sections, which you take from more than six miles from the road, are a pure donation to the State without a cent's equivalent in return? Why, it is capable of mathematical demonstration, that the four sections selected more than six miles from the line of the road are given away absolutely and the United States does not receive a cent from them. There is no doubling of the price for those four sections at all; you only double the price upon the half of the four sections which are within the six miles. That is, you double the price upon the two sections selected within the six miles of the road, and do not double the price of the other four sections, selected at a distance of more than six miles from the road.

- Mr. DOWNS. Suppose you sold two sections, instead of one before, would not that be doubling? A SENATOR. It is dinner-time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Some gentlemen say they want their dinners; and I dislike, just upon the eve of the vote, to detain them. I am sorry that we do not agree as to the facts of the bill. When there are only four sections within six miles of each side of the road, the Government is entitled to one half, and the State to the other half. The Government reserves two sections, and the State two sections, within six miles; and then, in the case supposed, if the State makes up the deficiency of four sections, from lands lying more than six miles from the road, beyond the extent of the two sections taken within six miles of the road, it is a perfect and pure donation.

Now a word or two to my constituents, and then I shall have done with this subject forever, I think. I want to say to them, through the Senate, that my liberal (as I think) and enlarged idea of duty, under the Constitution of the country, has carried me for internal improvements upon great national principles. I think we have the whole control of this subject. Although I am not sure but the vote, which I shall give in favor of this bill, will subject me to a very severe responsibility at home, I shall not shrink from it; for I have been accustomed to meet responsibility. All its terrors have no dread for me. I may say with my friend from

New Hampshire, that I have no political hopes or aspirations. I retire to private life; but I intend to carry with me the approbation of my conscience, and the conviction that I have done what I believed to be right. I have heretofore voted for all these bills, upon those high principles which I have advocated before this Senate. Seeing no chance to get that justice which I believe we ought to have, and would have had, under the provisions of the amendment which I had the honor of offering-seeing no prospect, under the present state of things, of having the land fund inure as a common benefit to all the States, I will not act the part of the dog in the manger, I will not refuse to do good for evil. I will act upon the principle, that the day is coming when justice will animate the hearts of the American people. I act upon the principle, that truth is omnipotent, and will ultimately prevail. I believe that, if the people of the United States will take this great subject into consideration, they will see that the old States are entitled to some participation in this great fund; that the new States are not entitled to all its benefits. Although I think I have been pretty harshly treated in the course of this discussion, in some respects, yet I cheerfully give them what I think they are entitled to, in these bills; hoping, that when that public reconsideration takes place, which I hope may take place, not only the old States, but the new States, will see the propriety of acting upon the principle that I have advocated here, and upon which I intend to stand. With these views, I am ready to vote.

The motion to grant leave to withdraw the amendment of Mr. BRODHEAD was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is, on the amendment that has been made in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BRADBURY. I do not propose to detain the Senate, but I happened accidentally to be out when the vote was taken on the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, and when the Senator from Iowa [Mr. DODGE] made some explanations with regard to the bill. I wish to know whether he understands the bill as restraining the State of Iowa from taking alternate sections, that were reserved by the Government when the grant was made for the improvement of Des Moines river.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I so understand it.

Mr. BRADBURY. I do not see any such reservation in the bill; but I wish to make a single remark in reply to the Senator from Missouri. He pledged himself that he would abandon the bill, if it could be shown that one acre of the public lands granted for these purposes was a gift. He further remarked that if we reduced the price of alternate sections, it would be a gift; but that inasmuch as the price of the alternate sections reserved was increased or doubled, that prevented the grant from being a donation; and he proceeded to remark that he was ready to vote for the graduation bill presented by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, if it were brought forward as a separate proposition. That graduation bill reduces the price of the alternate sections not only to the amount which they now are, but to a much less amount than that now asked for them. declaration of the Senator was, that such a reduction would constitute this grant a gift; and in that event, he said he would go against the bill. Believing that he will vote, as he pledged the Senator from Pennsylvania that he would, for a bill for the reduction of the price of the public lands, we have a right to claim that he will vote against this bill. I think he stands so pledged.

The

The amendment made in Committee of the Whole was agreed to by the Senate.

I

Mr. BELL. Some of my friends have said that I would be acting somewhat inconsistently if I voted for this bill. I do not propose now to go into an explanation of the grants. Perhaps some other occasion will arise when I can do so. said in my remarks on this subject, that whatever might be the fate of the amendment, I would give my vote for the bill. I think I can reconcile it with the vote I have given for similar bills heretofore; but if the Senate will allow me to ask the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] one question before they vote, I shall be very much obliged to them. It is an explanation with regard to the vote upon a bill for an appropriation to Alabama and Mississippi of public lands connected with the Illinois railroad; and this I connect (to show

that I am not out of order altogether in my remarks on this occasion) with the grounds which I assume, in part, for voting for this bill in favor of Iowa and other new States, as I have voted for Illinois, for the Southern States, Mississippi, and Alabama, and would have voted for Michigan and Wisconsin, had they been up, and do expect to vote for them, and as I would have voted for appropriations made in behalf of the public improvements in the State of Indiana.

Mr. BELL. That is the precise way in which
I understood the honorable Senator.

Mr. DAVIS. I was desirous of saying some-
thing upon this subject, but I do not propose do-
ing so this evening, and relinquish my purpose
because of the state of my health. But I wish,
before the vote is taken, to put myself in a posi-
tion so that I may not be hereafter deemed incon-
sistent in whatever course I may pursue in regard

to it. I have seen it stated that there are now
bills before the two Houses of Congress for roads
to be constructed by a grant of alternate sections
through the public lands, sufficient in number and
sufficient in amount to take some 30,000,000
acres of the public lands to satisfy the proposed
grants.

[blocks in formation]

But, sir, while I am throwing out these sugges tions-and I do not mean to continue them-I am willing to vote for any of these enterprizes that shall promote the public good, leaving each to stand upon its own merits. But I am rather grieved that gentlemen should rise here and repudiate the idea that they are receiving any benefit from them; holding out the idea, while they insist on having the land, that nothing is bestowed. It seems to me to be a false assumption, and to smack a little of ingratitude. I probably shall give my vote for this bill; but I wish to say one word more in regard to it, and then I shall have done.

There is one portion of it, of which I approve very much; and there is another portion that is not, to my mind, so plainly of public utility. I do not see why it is expedient or necessary that there should be a road to run parallel with the Mississippi river, unless the navigation and im provements of that river are to be abandoned. Now, I do not suppose that the building of this road involves that question. I take it that the Mississippi river is to go on and be a public highway, and that we are still to be asked to make grants for its improvement. If we are, then I do not see my way clear to vote for a road which runs par allel, or nearly parallel, with the river. But still, Iowa thinks it ought to have the privilege of fixing these roads as it pleases. If it had been content to take a little less, to run its road from the river into the interior, opening new sources of commerce, I should be very well satisfied with it. I do not know whether I am perfectly satisfied a my own mind, whether the objection I now raise is not such as ought to induce me to vote against the bill; but I wish to throw out these ideas before I vote, that I may not, for one, be considered as committed to this immense system in prospect, by voting for this bill.

Now, sir, what I wish to state is, that when that bill was up two sessions ago, I assumed the same principle in argument that I did the other day, and that was, that if there be anything in the principle of Congress having the power to give a portion of this estate to improve the remainder of it, they could give lands lying in Illinois, in Mississippi, or in Alabama, to construct a railroad through Kentucky and Tennessee; that the principle was the same, if by connecting these two roads you improve the whole body of the public domain on each extremity, or wherever it exists on the line of the railroad. And I wanted to state, that when the bill appropriating some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of acres, I presume, to Alabama, Mississippi, and Illinnis was up, I made the proposition directly that a fair, ratable proportion of the lands proposed to be appropriated by that bill to those States, should be applied, when sold by them, to the completion of the connecting link between Cairo, at the mouth of the Ohio, and the southern boundary of Tennessee, going through a part of Tennessee and Kentucky; but I was advised by the friends of the measureI had always been in favor of liberal appropria--is the protest which is made in terms of tions of the public lands to the new States-that if I pressed my amendment, it would inevitably defeat the whole measure. Upon consultation with the Senator from Illinois-and this is the point to which I wish to call his attention and upon which I want his statement-he said to me that his judgment was the same with regard to pressing my amendment; but he thought that a proper and fair construction of the bill, then, as 1 had the impression until recently, did make the lands or the proceeds of them liable to be appropriated ratably, according to the terms of that act, for the construction of the road through Tennessee and Kentucky. I must be mistaken in that impression, because, on looking over the bill, I do not see any clear pretext for stating that the lands appropriated in Illinois should be thus applied; but I rather think the lands appropriated to Mississippi and Alabama do bear that construction. What I want now, is for the honorable Senator to state what is his recollection of that conversation, and of his impression at that time as to the proper construction of that act, in justice to myself for having forborne to press that amendment, although I was expected to do so, by some friends of that connecting link in Tennessee and Kentucky.

If I vote for this bill-and I believe I have generally voted for measures of this character when they have appeared to be sanctioned by a sound discretion and by a promise of usefulnessI do not wish that it shall be hereafter under stood that I commit myself to a system like that; I do not wish it to be understood that I bind myself by any obligation to vote for these various measures as they may be successively presented for the consideration of Congress; for when we come to a point like that, where thirty millions, or any great quantity, be it greater or less, of the public lands is to be disposed of by bills of this character, it strikes me that it is a proposition of a very grave import, that it deserves the very deliberate consideration of Congress, and that it should be understood in all its bearings. One of the objections which I oftenest hear raised here fervent expostulation against speculators. They are everywhere denounced in the halls of Congress, as persons the most prejudicial and injurious to the public interests with regard to the public lands. Well, what do we see occurring here among those who raise this objection? One of the first grants, the entering wedge of this great sys- Mr. DOUGLAS. I have but a word to say. I tem, is made to the State of Illinois, of some cannot understand these gentlemen who argue to 3,000,000 acres, or perhaps a little short of that; us that the alternate sections, which are reserved and now we are advised, by gentlemen in their to the United States, will not be worth $2.50 per places here, that it is arranged to pass that proper-acre, while at the same time they turn round in ty out of the hands of the State of Illinois into their arguments and charge that these large grants the hands of a private company; so that a com- to us for making railroads are worth $10 per acre. pany of speculators, if you please, shall become Mr. DAVIS. I hope the Senator does not mean the possessors of 3,000,000 acres of land in the to intimate that I said any such thing. State of Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have not a distinct recollection of the conversation to which the Senator from Tennessee refers, although I have a very strong impression upon my mind of having had my attention called to that provision of the bill by some one-probably the Senator from Tennessee-and of the impression resting upon my mind at that time. The Illinois bill, when written by myself, only extended to the State of Illinois, and did not contemplate the construction of any road beyond the limits of that State. When an amendment was offered-I think by the present presiding officer of the body-to extend that road from the mouth of the Ohio to Mobile, and to grant to the States of Mississippi and Alabama lands on the same condition, to the same extent, and with the same privileges as the other road, it did not occur to me that that language would make any grant for making a road in Tennessee and Kentucky, but simply be confined to Mississippi and Alabama. At a subsequent period, my attention was called to the language used in the amendment, and I confess it was my impression then, and it is yet, that the language employed in it does not bear the construction that the lands were to be selected in Mississippi and Alabama, not only for a road in those States, but for one from the line of the State of Mississippi up to the mouth of the Ohio river. That is still my impression of the fair construction of that language, although at the time the measure was brought forward, it had never occurred to me that any such construction could be put upon it.

Again: it is deprecated, and has been deprecated this morning in very solemn and apparently anxious terms, that a State should not be a possessor of public lands within a State; and yet, sir, it is the very gist of every one of these measures that a State should be the owner of the public lands, and become the competitor of the United States in the sale of public lands; and I notice when a State is to profit by it, delay of sale constitutes no objection. Then, again, we are really treated with some degree of scorn and contempt when we suggest that this is a benefit to the States; for a gentleman has just taken his seat who says that we give nothing to the States. Does not Illinois get the land-and land owned by the United States? And does not Illinois propose to make a railroad out of the land? And are not all these schemes founded on the idea that money and funds are to be raised out of the lands by which the enterprize is to be carried into effect? Nobody disputes this; and is this nothing? Can the money be obtained or the road made without the land? But the gentleman assumes, because he puts down upon paper that the alternate sections reserved to the United States shall not be sold for less than $2 50 per acre, that the consequence is, that the United States realize just as much funds as if they had parted with none of the land. Now, will the Senator from Missouri, will the Senator from Illinois, will any of the gentlemen who take the benefit of these lands guarantee to the United States $2 50 per acre? Will they put a provision in the bill that the United States shall realize that sum? That is the precise point of difficulty that I have in the whole matter. All the assumption and all the reasoning is found ed upon the idea that the United States are, with certainty, to realize $2 50 per acre for these lands. If you go to past experience, I think the matter will turn out quite otherwise; that the United States, when they have granted alternate sections, have realized nothing but the minimum price. That is the result of my observation in relation to it, and I confess myself disappointed in regard to

Mr. DOUGLAS. No, sir; I only say that those who act with him argue thus. For instance, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. DawSON] the other day, in an argument against the Illinois bill, went on to prove that the 2,700,000 acres granted to Illinois were worth twenty odd millions of dollars; and he went on to prove that every acre of land granted by that act of Congress to the State to aid in making the road, would be worth ten dollars in consequence of the making of the road; and after summing up these enormous figures against Illinois, and Alabama, and Mississippi, to show how many millions these three States had made out of the Federal Government by getting this quantity of land, he turned round and said the Government lands are not one farthing enhanced in value. How is it then? If you benefit Illinois twenty odd millions, do you not benefit the United States twenty odd millions more, by reserving the alternate sec tions to yourselves which are to be enhanced in value by the construction of the road? I think if you benefit us that much, you benefit yourselves to the same extent. I care not whether it is twen ty-one millions, or ten millions, or five millions, or how much it is. You must admit either that you have enhanced the value of the public domain belonging to the Government of the United States by the grant, or else that these lands granted to us were worth but $1.25 per acre. But it seems that one rule of computation prevails when you count the advantages of the State, and a ditier

ent one prevails when you compute the advantages to the United States. My opinion is, that the Senator from Georgia made an over-estimate when he put them at $10 per acre. My opinion is, that when you put them at $2 50, it is an under-estimate; and, therefore, that it is a fair argument to assume that the one half reserved to the United States is worth more than the whole of the lands would have been if the grant had not been made, and if the road should not be constructed. That is the view we take; and when we say that you are giving us nothing, we do not mean that the grant is not beneficial to us; but we assert that it

PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

is also beneficial to the Government of the United States. Is it any argument against it, that it benefits us while it benefits you to the same extent ? That is the only point on which we base this.

FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1852.

that running a railroad through a section of country, has a tendency to increase the value of lands. And if it were not a fact that the quantity of land brought into the market is immensely increased One word about our transferring these lands to every year; and if it were not that the territory a company. I did not suppose it was a matter of exposed to sale was not so vastly extended, it any consequence to the public, or to the Govern- would have a very serious influence. But so long ment of the United States, whether the State of as there is good land to be obtained in any quanIllinois sold these lands and made the road her- tities, in portions of the country where it is desirself, or whether she gave them to a company to able to settle, at the minimum price, so long will make the road by disposing of the lands, provided the price of land be kept down. There may be that we comply with our contract with the Gov-particular places and particular points, having a ernment-provided that we make the road within value from contingent causes, that will command the time specified, and carry the mails as we agreed larger prices. But the general price of land for to do-and provided we comply with all the stipu- agricultural purposes, according to our experience, lations which you choose to impose. But I in- does not justify any hopes of extravagant prices, tend to show to the Senator from Massachusetts even where improvements go. that there is a wide distinction between our passing an act of Congress vesting the titles of lands lying in the State of Illinois, in the State of Massachusetts, or in any other State, and giving the title to the Illinois Legislature, and allowing that State to provide for the making of the road. When you give lands to the States within which they lie for the purpose of making a road, the State will make such arrangements with regard to taxationwith regard to the time for selling the lands-with regard to the construction of the road-with regard to preemption rights and settlement-as for itself each State shall deem wise and proper with reference to its own interests; but if Congress here makes a grant of land to a foreign corporation, the State has no such power over that corporation to provide these conditions-to provide for the protection of its own citizens. There is the great point of distinction. The distinction we have is in accordance with State-rights. We wish to reserve to each of the States the power to protect its own interests against any of these speculations. If Illinois has made a bad contract, she has only to blame herself. She cannot blame the Federal Government. We are content with the contract which we have made, and so ought| you to be content, because you will find that we will make the road which we stipulated to make within half the time you allowed us for making it. If we give you the road in five years instead of ten years, as was stipulated, we think it should not be a matter of complaint urged against us; and if we make more money out of it than you expected, it ought not to be any objection when you make just as much as we do; and when you, therefore,pected to realize $10 per acre on the lands received have been benefited more than you expected to be when you made the grant.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I am not aware of having expressed any opinion, or entertained any sentiment which would authorize the construction that I urged any such argument as the Senator suggests several persons have urged-that is, that the lands granted to Illinois are worth $10

[blocks in formation]

I have made no complaint of the State of Illinois for undertaking to make her railroad through a company. I think she is a little unjust towards us, if she condemns the United States for retarding settlements by sales at the minimum price for settlement, and when the lands are given to her, holds them up for higher prices, or puts them into the hands of private companies, raising expectations that they, in time, may realize more. She insists that we shall encourage settlement; but takes to herself the right to speculate. She disapproves of individual proprietors, if they are speculators or corporations, as prejudicial to her interests, if they buy of the United States; but when they buy of her, it is quite a different matter, and quite a wholesome good policy, though it may not promote settlement. The practice of the United States to hold land at $1 25 per acre is oppressive; while Illinois may hold it at twice that, without objection. I placed these conditions in contrast with each other. This is all I intended; and let the argument pass for what it is worth. It is growing late, and I will not detain the Senate.

Mr. RHETT. Mr. President, I wish to say
but a few words in defense of the Senator from
Georgia, [Mr. DAWSON,] who is not now here.
Neither of the Senators from that State is now on
this floor. I think the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS] has not to-day done, and I think the
Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS] did not yes-
terday do, entire justice to that Senator. I under-
stand his position to be this: that, according to
the statement of the company to which the State
of Illinois had turned over all her lands, they ex-

by them. They had organized their company
upon that supposition, and the Senator from Geor-
gia took it as being a fact, and therefore thought
it a fair position for argument before the Senate.
Is it not so? The Senator from Georgia did not
mean to say that alternate sections may not ap-
preciate up to the amount of double the previous
price, when they were capable of being brought
into market at any time, and as soon as purchasers
wanted them; but he intended to say that the State
of Illinois, by making a contract by which she
turned over these lands to a company, to be held
by them indefinitely, and without any limitation
whatever, gave to the company the power of real-

position; and does anybody doubt but that that
position is true?

Mr. DAVIS. I am not acting against the bill. I was addressing the Senate on the policy gener-izing $10 per acre on these lands. That was his ally. I announced that I intended to vote for the bill. But I wish the whole subject to be spread before the Senate. I wish now to say, that I think there is no inconsiderable share of delusion on this subject; and that the hopes and expectations which are put forth in regard to these lands are destined to be disappointed. That there is to be no such sum realized as was suggested by the Senator from Georgia, is quite apparent, unless there is a change in the state of things. All our experience leads us to a different conclusion from that of the honorable Senator from Georgia. All our experience shows us, that no such hopes and no such expectations have hitherto been realized; and that is what makes me doubt very much whether we realize even the $2 50 per acre. Perhaps the Senator [Mr. DOUGLAS] participates in the same doubt, as he takes no notice of the guarantee which I I do not mean to proposed of $2 50 per acre. deny the proposition which the Senator states,

When the proposition was made here the other day, that lands should be given to the old States, to be located in the new States, did not my friend from Iowa [Mr. DODGE] speak of it in terms of indignation? Why, he nearly looked, if he did not entirely use, the word "Nullification." I felt pretty sure that he would almost favor nullification to prevent it. If I understood his views and temper on that subject, he would not allow the old States to have a great mass of land in Iowa, to be controlled by them, and kept out of market just so long as they pleased for speculating purposes. Yet, what has the State of Illinois done? What do these new States do, which thus rebuke with such force and such anger, the proposition to consolidate large masses of land in them, beyond what are needed by their settlers? Illinois has made a contract with a company to build the road,

NEW SERIES....No. 49.

and not an acre of land, I believe, is to be sold, until the road is made; and after the road is made, the company is to have entire control of the land. That I understand to be the nature of the contract between the State of Illinois and the company to which she has granted these lands. I believe I am correct in this. If I am not, I should like to

be put right.

Mr. SHIELDS. road progresses.

The land is to be sold as the The land still belongs to the State, and is only given to the company conditionally, and is to be appropriated gradually for the construction of the road, and for no other purpose.

Mr. RHETT. But if they construct the road, do they not get the land? Do they not get it as they go along, in sections? Do they not then appropriate the land, and keep it as long as they choose?

Mr. SHIELDS. They receive the land as they go on with the work.

Mr. RHETT. But they get the land, and can use it, and keep it in market as long as they please.

Mr. SHIELDS. The Senator is mistaken in one thing. They are bound to sell the land. They cannot retain it. There are terms imposed on them for the construction of the road. The land is given to them for that purpose. They cannot speculate upon it, and hold it up.

Mr. RHETT. That is only going round the path. The company get the land for making the road; and when they get it, they can hold it as long as they please. They are not bound to convert the land into money within any specified time. That is the practical operation of it; and so I understood from a certain gentleman with whom I conversed on the subject.

was,

Now, what I wish to say is this: that the position of the Senator from Georgia was based upon the fact that this company in Illinois had the power of holding lands there, and that the practical effect of the arrangement made with the State of Illinois that the company could hold these lands as long as it pleased, and realize from them what it pleased. The company estimated these lands to be worth, to it, $10 per acre; and on that supposition the Senator from Georgia came forward, and said that this company expected to realize that amount according to its own statement. And that it will do it, appears to be very reasonable. I have no doubt it will be done. It may take some time to accomplish it, but it will eventually be done. I think, therefore, that the Senator from Georgia, in his view of it, steers entirely clear of the position taken by the Senator from Illinois. The Senator from Georgia did not say that the United States would not realize that amount from their lands; but he said that if you allowed any proprietor of lands, either a company or a State, to hold them as long as it pleased, it could appreciate them up to $10 per acre. That is all he did assert. It seems to me that there is no incompatibility between the position taken by the Senator from Georgia, and that taken by the Senator from Illinois.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

On motion, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, March 16, 1852.
The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer
by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The SPEAKER stated, as the first business in order, the reception of reports from the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. HOUSTON moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of taking up the deficiency bill.

Mr. ALLISON asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous notice had been given.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will say to the gentleman

.

from Pennsylvania, that I have had at least a dozen applications from gentlemen having similar requests to prefer to the House. The gentleman knows the very great difficulty I have had in arriving at the point which I have now reached, and I hope, therefore, he will withdraw his request, and let us go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and take up the deficiency bill.

Mr. ALLISON. Very well, sir. I will not press my request.

Mr. CHANDLER. I have a similar request to make; but, under the circumstances, I will withhold it.

Mr. ORR. I was desirous of making a report or two from the Committee on Public Lands, but I have no objection to withhold them.

Mr. COBB. I have no objection to the motion of my colleague, if it is understood that, as a matter of course, the deficiency bill will come up in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HOUSTON. It is by universal consent agreed, I believe, that the deficiency bill should be taken up.

Mr. COBB. Very well, sir. Then I have no objection to my colleague's motion.

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

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

THE DEFICIENCY BILL.

On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, the committee proceeded to consider House bill No. 207, "to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1852."

to transact the public business, the House did confine itself literally to the rule, because it found it utterly impossible to debate the real question under consideration if it did not so confine itself. It will be impossible hereafter to debate any matter of public business whatsoever, unless upon some bill like this the House will confine itself within its rules.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. This question is not debatable.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is not debatable; but if the gentleman from New York wishes to get the sense of the committee, he can take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. Mr. BROOKS. I feel it my duty, from the imperious necessity of transacting the public business, to take an appeal.

Mr. EVANS. I am perfectly aware that the Chair has decided in conformity with what has latterly been the practice of the House.

Mr. JONES. It is not in order to debate the appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is out of order in debating this question. The Chair will state the question. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] raises the point of order that the gentlemen from Georgia and Virginia are out of order in debating any other proposition than the deficiency bill, now before the committee. The Chair has decided the gentlemen from Georgia and Virginia to be in order, in conformity with the practice heretofore observed by the committee. From that decision the gentleman from New York appeals, and the question now is, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?"

Mr. EVANS. I respectfully call the attention of the Chair to the note to the second rule, and also to the 35th rule. I think if the Chair consults those rules, he will not decide me to be out of order in debating this appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of

Mr. HILLYER obtained the floor and said: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the committee to a remark made by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. McMULLIN, some weeks ago, in re-order, in the opinion of the Chair. He can take ply to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. CABELL,] in which the honorable gentleman from Virginia took occasion to say of the Union party of Georgia, that it was composed of factions of all parties, and he saw proper to apply to that honorable and patriotic association, the term "piebald."

Mr. McMULLIN, (interrupting.) I did use the word attributed to me by the honorable gentleman, but I used it under the excitement of the moment. I intended nothing disrespectful to that party; for the gentleman is, perhaps, not aware that I acted and coöperated with it during the last Congress.

But, sír, with the permission of the gentleman from Georgia, I will make one further remark, for I do not expect to trespass upon the House again. I did feel somewhat sensitive upon the subject of the Union party

Mr. BROOKS. I rise to a point of order. If the House chooses to permit this latitude of debate to the delay of the public business, so be it; but I feel it my duty to make the point of order. I ask for the reading of the 31st rule.

Mr. McMULLIN. I would inquire of the gentleman from New York, whether he makes his point of order on the gentleman from Georgia or on myself?

Mr. BROOKS. On both of you.

The Clerk then read the 31st rule, as follows: "When any member is about to speak in debate, or deliver any matter to the House, he shall rise from his seat, and respectfully address himself to Mr. Speaker ;' and shalí confine himself to the question under debate, and avoid personality."

Mr. BROOKS. Now, with the greatest respect for both of the gentlemen opposite, but from the imperious necessity of transacting the public business, I make this point of order, that in a debate on the deficiency bill, it is not in order to discuss matters relative to party.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the rule, construed literally, would preclude the remarks of the gentlemen from Georgia and Virginia; but under the uniform practice of the House, the Chair cannot now undertake to rule them out of order; and therefore rules the gentleman to be in order.

Mr. BROOKS. With the permission of the Chair, I will remark that I am well aware the Chair has decided according to the practice of the House this session; but during the last Congress, in three or four cases, when it was imperiously necessary

an appeal from that decision, if he desires it. Mr. EVANS. I cannot take an appeal, for there is one already pending.

Mr. HOUSTON. The gentleman from New York has taken an appeal from the decision of the Chair; does the Chair decide that that appeal is not debatable? It seems to me that if there are

any cases in which appeals are debatable, this is clearly one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the appeal is not debatable. Is an appeal taken from that decision?

Mr. HOUSTON. You cannot pile appeal on

appeal.

Mr. BROOKS. I must ask for tellers on my appeal.

Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. CHANDLER and BEALE appointed.

The question was then taken, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?" and it was decided in the affirmative ayes 79, noes 42.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained, and the remarks of the gentlemen from Georgia and Virginia were ruled to be in order.

Mr. HILLYER resumed his remarks. He had

no objection to excuse the gentleman from Virginia; but the same principles and opinions had been avowed by others with reference to the Union party of Georgia. He was proud to say this day, on this floor, that, instead of being composed of factions of all parties, from the mountains to the seaboard, and all along the line, there is not in it one Abolitionist, not one Free-soiler, not one man for a tariff for protection, and, so far as he knew and believed, there was not one bank man, not one internal improvement man; but all within that mighty host are for a strict construction of the Constitution, and for the sovereign rights of the States.

He then vindicated the Union party of Georgia, showing the causes which led to its formation, which was from necessity, founded in patriotism, and under circumstances beyond their control; and towards the conclusion of his remarks, he favored the sending of delegates to the Baltimore Convention, conceiving that the principles of the Democratic party are coevil with those on which our Government is established.

Mr. GIDDINGS next addressed the committee against the fugitive slave law, slavery in the Dis

trict of Columbia and the Territories, and the coastwise slave trade. Thosecwho sustain the compromise, he maintained, vote to continue the slave trade; and as to a fugitive slave, the people in the States are no more bound to seize and deliver him to the person claiming to be his owner, than they are to deliver up a runaway horse in the streets. He denied the constitutional right to the Federal Government to legislate for the maintenance of slavery. The curses, and blessings if there be any, of it, belong to the South, and with which the North wish to have nothing to do, and should not be required to sustain the burdens in conneetion with it.

Mr. JACKSON next obtained the floor. He defended his own course and the State-Rights party of the State of Georgia, one of whose representatives, he said, he had the honor to be. If the people who sent him to Congress are disunionists, the inference is that he had forgotton his duty to his country, and is a disunionist; but in his political course of twenty years he had never felt the first desire to see the Union of his country dissolved. Although a Union man, according to a strict construction of the Constitution, he had always been a Democrat; and he would permit no constitutional Union man, or Southern man to cut him off from his connection with the Democratic party.

[These speeches will be found in the Appendix.] Mr. APPLETON, of Maine, here obtained the floor, but yielded to

Mr. ORR, who moved that the committee rise; which motion was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Speaker having resumed the chair, the chairman of the committee reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had the Union generally under consideration, and particu larly House bill No. 207, and had come to no con

clusion thereon.

PROPOSITION TO CLOSE DEBATE.

Mr. HOUSTON. I desire to offer to the House a resolution to terminate debate upon the bill which has been under discussion to-day. It must be ev dent to the House that all of the debate which is pertinent to the propositions contained in this bill must be had under the five-minutes rule, or else we must change the mode of speaking. Not a word, not an allusion has been made to-day to the bill under consideration. I propose, therefore, a resolution terminating debate on it to-morrow at four o'clock; and on Thursday we can carry on the five minutes debate, and finish up the speaking.

Mr. EVANS. I do not intend to object to this resolution, but I do trust that upon a bill of such importance gentlemen of the House will see the necessity of its being debated.

The SPEAKER. Gentlemen must be aware that this is not a debatable question.

Mr. HOUSTON. I want to suggest to my friend from Maryland [Mr. EVANS] the fact that we shall have no debate upon the merits of the bill, in all probability, until we have the five-minutes rule, and I want to get to the debate upon it in that way. These speeches have no relation to the bill whatever, or to its provisions.

Mr. EVANS. It is true, as the gentleman states, that the debate here has been upon every thing inappropriate to the subject under consideration, and I think that it is a warning to the House

to enforce its rules.

Mr. HOUSTON. We have tried that.

Mr. EVANS. I do not wish to speak against the wishes of the House, and if it is the sense of the House that I shall not say anything I will sit

down.

Mr. ORR. I wish to make a modification of the resolution.

Mr. EVANS. I will give you an opportu nity.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. Mr. EVANS. I am proceeding by unanimous consent, if not I will take my seat.

Mr. KING, of New York. If the gentleman is asking that the rules be enforced, I hope he will observe them himself. I object to the discussion. Mr. POLK. Is it proper to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question? The SPEAKER. It can be done only by unanimous consent.

Mr. POLK. I merely wish to ask him the amount of the deficiency which this bill proposes to appropriate.

Mr. HOUSTON. It is about $3,000,000.

Mr. POLK. Then I ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, if he desires this House to consider, under the five-minutes rule, a proposition appropriating $3,000,000?

Mr. HOUSTON. I will reply to the gentleman from Tennessee. I suppose the House will allow me to do so. If any legitimate debate had been proposed upon this bill, I should not have asked a termination of it. As long as gentlemen should legitimately debate the provisions of the bill, I would not propose to stop it. The gentleman talks of five minutes. That is the only legitimate debate that I expect to have, and I want as much time to appropriate to five minutes debate as possible.

Mr. POLK. I hope that the House will indulge

me a moment.

Mr. STUART. I cannot, and I object. The SPEAKER. Debate cannot be had, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. POLK. I wish to ask another question. Mr. ORR. I propose to amend, by striking out "four o'clock," and insert "Saturday, at three o'clock."

Mr. EVANS. I move to amend the amendment, so as to provide that all debate not upon the merits of the question, after to-morrow at two o'clock, shall be out of order. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLEVELAND. I move the House adjourn.

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

So the House adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

NOTICE OF A BILL.

Mr. THOMAS M. HOWE gave notice that he would, on to-morrow, or some subsequent day, ask leave to bring in a bill granting to the State of Pennsylvania 1,000,000 acres of the public lands to aid in the construction of the Pittsburg, Kittanning, and Warren railroad.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions, memorials, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. CURTIS: The petition of Benjamin Betford, an assistant marshal in Erie county, Pennsylvania, praying for extra compensation in taking the census.

Also, a petition of like import of Wm. Campbell, assistant marshal of Jefferson county, Pennsylvania.

By Mr. AVERETT: The petition of citizens of Henry county, Virginia, against the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

By Mr. ASHE: Papers in relation to the claim of Lieutenant Edward Cantwell, for property lost during the war with Mexico.

By Mr. GORMAN: The memorial of assistant marshals of Morgan county, in the State of Indiana, praying additional compensation for taking the census.

Also, the petition of inhabitants of the town of Lawrenceburg, in the State of Indiana, praying the enactment of a law for the organization of companies of military colonists, to be settled in the western territories for the protection of the inhabitants against Indian aggressions.

Also, additional papers in relation to the claim of James W. Carter against the Post Office Department.

By Mr. JENKINS: The petition of the inhabitants of the city of Utica, New York, for the speedy passage of a law to protect American inventors.

By Mr. SCHOONMAKER: The petition and accompanying papers of the heirs of Captain Frederick Schoonmaker, of New York, for the payment of their claim as such heirs against the United States for moneys paid and services rendered in the war of the Revolution.

By Mr. LANDRY: The memorial of the New Orleans Seamen's Home Association.

Also, the petition of citizens of New Orleans, creditors of the late Republic of Texas.

Also, the memorial of Augustus S. Phelps, of Louisiana, administrator of the estate of Albert G. Phelps, praying Congress for relief.

By Mr. DOTY: The memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin in favor of a mail route from Waukesha to Fond du Lac.

By Mr. BOWNE: The petition of Frederick Morris, Wm. M. Muchmore, and Francis B. Spinola, a committee on the part of the Common Council of Brooklyn, New York, praying the release of Smith O'Brien and his companions in exile.

By Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania: Resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania in relation to the release of Smith O'Brien and his associates.

Also, resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania recommending a navy-yard, depôt, and dry dock on the lakes. By Mr. McMULLIN: The memorial of John J. Winn, assistant marshal of Albemarle county, in the State of Virginia, praying additional compensation for taking the cen

sus.

By Mr. CHURCHWELL: The petition of F. M. Pryor, assistant marshal for Franklin county, Tennessee, praying extra compensation for taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi: The petition of Monette & Carvu, of Mississippi, praying compensation for surveying done by them for the United States in the year 1841.

By Mr. DAVIS, of Indiana: The petition of Jared C. Joscelyn, United States assistant marshal for Floyd county,

Indiana, praying extra compensation for taking the Seventh Census.

By Mr. TUCK: The memorial of Ichabod Goodwin, James N. Tarlton, and others, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in favor of granting aid to the Collins's line of steamships.

By Mr. JONES, of New York: The memorial of 107 citizens of Onondaga and State of New York, against the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

By Mr. GOODENOW: The petition of Samuel Odiorne and others, inhabitants of Kittery, York county, Maine, and residents on an island in Piscataqua river, praying for leave to connect a bridge from their island with Navy-yard Island, and for a right of way across Navy-yard Island.

Also, the petition of Mark Dennett and 92 others, in aid of the same.

By Mr. McNAIR: Eleven petitions of the Democratic citizens of Montgomery county, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying a modification of the tariff on iron.

Also, the petition of Isaac Lane and 50 others, citizens of Delaware county, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying the extension of the Woodworth patent for planing boards, &c.

By Mr. BABCOCK: The petition of 204 citizens of Oswego, New York, for a marine hospital at the port of Oswego.

IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, March 17, 1852.

Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN.

NEW SENATORS.

Mr. GWIN. Mr. President, I have been requested to present the credentials of the Hon. JOHN B. WELLER, elected a Senator of the United States from the State of California.

The credentials were read.

Mr. McRAE. I ask leave to present to the Senate the credentials of the honorable STEPHEN ADAMS, recently elected by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the honorable Jefferson Davis, which has been for a short time humbly filled by myself. I presenting these credentials, I take my leave of you, Mr. President, and of the Senate, with the most cordial good feeling towards all the Senators, for the uniform courtesy and kindness they have shown to me, from the time I took my seat here until the present moment.

The credentials were read, and the honorable Messrs. WELLER and ADAMS came forward; and he oath prescribed by law having been administered to them, they took their seats.

LEGISLATION OF OREGON.

The PRESIDENT pro tem. laid before the Senate copies of the Journal and acts of the Legislative Assembly of Oregon, of the second session thereof, begun and held at Oregon City, December 2, 1850, transmitted to him by the Secretary of that Territory, in obedience to law; which were ordered to be referred to the Committee on Territories.

RELIEF OF AMERICANS ABROAD. The PRESIDENT. The Chair has received a memorial from Mr. John Randolph Clay, our Chargé d'Affaires at Lima, setting forth that there are numerous American citizens thrown upon the shores of that country in very destitute circumstances. He states that the Consul of the United

States there and himself have exhausted all their

means in endeavoring to relieve these unfortunate men. There is no provision of Congress for it. The only act of Congress on the subject relates to seamen, and provides that when they shall be in destitute circumstances abroad, they shall be relieved and sent home by the consuls of the United States. The memorialist asks that some provision may be made by which these destitute men may be furnished with bread, which they are unable to obtain in a foreign land.

Mr. HAMLIN. This memorial, it seems to me, involves a question somewhat of a commercial character. It also has some connection with our consular system. It might, perhaps, appropriately be referred to the Committee on Commerce; but I am inclined to think it has a more intimate connection with our foreign relations, and therefore move that it be referred to the Committe on Foreign Relations.

The motion was agreed to.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Mr. BADGER presented the memorial of Rhoda McRae, praying the appointment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico; which was referred to the select committee appointed on that subject.

Mr. SOULE. I am requested to present to

stances.

the Senate the petition of A. Boyd, praying the reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by him in taking the census in the parish of Iberville, Louisiana. In presenting this petition, I wish to say, that this individual performed the duty of taking the census under the most trying circumThe parish in which he had to exercise his jurisdiction was overflowed by the Mississippi, and, in consequence of that, he had to incur expenses which were not contemplated when he was appointed. He now applies to Congress in order to be compensated for those expenses. I recommend the petition to the serious attention of the Committee of Claims, to which I move that it be referred.

It was so referred.

Mr. SHIELDS presented a petition of merchants and other citizens of Savannah, Georgia, praying that further aid may be extended to Collins's line of steam-ships; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, the petition of Edward Milton, late a sergeant in the Army, praying an increase of pension, which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Also, a memorial of officers of the army stationed at Fort Monroe, Virginia, praying that the quarters of officers at the permanent military posts may be furnished; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, the memorial of the widow of John Balster, who was killed at Charleston arsenal while in the discharge of his duty; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. NORRIS presented a petition of citizens of Hinsdale, New Hampshire, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. BRODHEAD presented the petition of Emily H. Plummer, widow of Samuel M. Plumlate an officer in the Army, praying a penmer, sion; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, ten petitions of citizens of Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, praying a modification of the tariff; and a petition of iron workers of Norduties on iron; which were referred to the Comristown, Pennsylvania, praying an increase of the

mittee on Finance.

Also, a petition of citizens of Middletown, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. BORLAND. I present the memorial of Lieutenant Raphael Semmes, of the Navy, praying an extra allowance, at the rate of $700 a year, for services in the Coast Survey. In presenting it, I think it proper to state what is the ground of the application. A survey of the coast between Appalachicola Bay and the Mississippi river was ordered a few years ago, and Lieutenant Powell, of the Navy, was directed to make it. Before Lieutenant Powell had completed the survey, he was superseded by Lieutenant Semmes, who completed it. Lieutenant Powell applied to the Department for the usual extra allowance as commander of the expedition. The Department being unable to pay it, for want of authority, application was made to Congress, and an appropriation of money ($10,000) was voted to pay all those extra and incidental expenses. The appropriation was in part expended in the payment of Lieutenant Powell and the men under his command. After Lieutenant Semmes had completed the survey, he also made application upon the ground upon which his predecessor had been paid. He was informed that the appropriation which was made exceeded the amount which Lieutenant Powell and those associated with him had claimed, but that the surplus had been transferred to another fund, called, I believe, the surplus fund; and hence he could not be paid, as a specific appropriation for that purpose was not then at the disposal of the Government. But the Fourth Auditor, who examined the claim of Lieutenant Semmes, states to him, in a letter, which I present along with the memorial, that the claim stands on precisely the same principles as that of Lieutenant Powell, which has already been paid; and that Lieutenant Semmes would have been paid but for the transfer being made prior to the application. He comes forward now and asks Congress to make him an appropriation to cover his claim, which rests on

« AnteriorContinuar »