Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Tennessee is mistaken in regard to that communication.

partment for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1852; which was read, and referred to the Com

Mr. BAYLY. I rise to a privileged question.mittee on Finance. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] has already submitted a privileged question.

Mr. HOUSTON. I think that the estimates from the Navy Department were sent in in the

correct manner.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Then I will withdraw my motion, and move now to reconsider the vote on the motion to lay that last communication upon the table, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

Mr. BAYLY. I hope the House will not lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. (Cries of "Order!") Gentlemen are acting under a mistake.

The SPEAKER. No debate is in order. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, demanded the yeas and nays upon his motion; and they were ordered. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, moved that the House adjourn.

Mr. HOUSTON. I appeal to the gentleman

from Arkansas to withdraw that motion for a little while. We can then pass by this question of reconsideration, and refer the bills upon the Speaker's table, many of which have been there for nearly a month, and ought to be referred.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I withdraw my motion for that purpose.

Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee, renewed the motion that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LETCHER, on that motion, demanded the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. Mr. BAYLY demanded tellers; but they were not ordered.

The question was then taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-ayes 97, noes 52.

So the House adjourned until twelve o'clock

to-morrow.

NOTICES OF BILLS.

PETITIONS.

Mr. WADE presented the petition of Sarah Flinn, praying compensation for supplies furnished the United States Army in Florida; also the petition of David Osburn, in relation to the same subject; both of which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SEWARD presented the petition of Andrew Rassmussen, praying compensation for services rendered under an appointment from an New York, in 1812; which was referred to the inspector of the customs for the district of Oswego, Committee of Claims.

Mr. COOPER presented the petition of citizens of Pennsylvania, praying Congress to pass a law to prohibit absolutely the deportation, banishment, or immigration from foreign countries to the United States of any and all convicts, felons, and paupers, publicly recognized as such at home in their mittee on the Judiciary. own countries; which was referred to the Com

Also, the petition of Joseph Rodney Croskey, American Consul at Cowes and Southampton, England, praying remuneration for expenses incurred in entertaining the officers of the United Kossuth; which was referred to the Committee on States ship St. Lawrence, and in the reception of

Naval Affairs.

Wisconsin Territory, and sureties, reported back the same without amendment, accompanied by a report, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BRADBURY, from the select committee to whom was referred the bill to provide for the ascertainment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French previous to the 31st of July, 1801, reported it back without amendment, accompanied by a report, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. FELCH submitted the views of the minority of the above committee, adverse to the allowance of said claims; which were ordered to be printed.

Mr. GWIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Mrs. Mary Walker, widow of Major George P. Walker, submitted an adverse report; and in concurrence therewith it was

Ordered, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Emily C. B. Thompson, widow of Commodore Charles Thompson, imous consent, and, in concurrence therewith, submitted a report; which was considered by unan

Ordered, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

Mr. HAMLIN, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred a resolution of the Legislature of Michigan relative to the construcAlso, the petition of Lieutenants Thomas Bing-tion of a ship-canal around the Falls of Ste. Marie, ham and William A. Hammond, officers of the submitted a report; which was considered by United States Army serving in New Mexico, unanimous consent, and, in concurrence therepraying for themselves and in behalf of the sol- with, diers under their command, an increase of pay; which was referred to the Committee on Military

Affairs.

Mr. BORLAND presented the memorial of the Arkansas Central Railroad Company, praying a grant of land and right of way, to aid in the con-|| struction of a railroad from Memphis, on the

Mr. CABELL, of Florida, gave notice of the following Mississippi river, to the boundary of Texas; which

bills:

[blocks in formation]

Also, a bill to authorize and require the survey of the public lands in the State of Florida, now occupied by the Seminole Indians, and for other purposes.

Mr. MARSHALL, of California, gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill for the relief of sufferers by fire in the city of San Francisco in the years 1849, 1850, and 1851.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, gave notice that he will on to-morrow, or at some subsequent day, ask leave to introduce a bill to amend the tariff act of 1842.

By Mr. YATES: A bill to grant to the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, the right of way and a portion of the public lands to aid the said States in making that portion of the Northern Cross Railroad in the State of Illinois, lying between the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, and in extending said road from Springfield, Illinois, to the eastern line of said State, and thence through the States of Indiana and Ohio to Toledo, on Lake Erie.

PETITIONS, &c.

The following petitions and memorials were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. SMITH: The petition of John Baird, praying to be reimbursed in certain moneys spent for the Govern

ment.

Also, the petition of John Hargrove and others, praying the establishment of a post road from the city of Tuskaloosa via Hardy Clemens's Cotton Factory, to Scottsville.

By Mr. FAULKNER: The memorial of sundry citizens of the county of Morgan, State of Virginia, praying an amendment of the act of Congress of the 28th September, 1850, granting land bounty.

Also, the memorial of Benjamin Moor, late master armorer at the Harper's Ferry National Armory, praying compensation for certain inventions and improvements in machinery used by the Government.

Also, the petition of Samuel W. Brady, of Frederick county, Virginia, a disabled soldier of the Mexican war, praying to be placed on the pension roll.

By Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania: The memorial of John F. Dumas, of Philadelphia, asking the appointment of a Committee on Claims of his father against the Spanish Government.

IN SENATE. WEDNESDAY, January 14, 1852. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, with estimates of appropriation necessary to meet deficiencies in the service of that De

was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, presented the petition of citizens of Iowa, praying a donation of land to that State for the construction of a railroad from Burlington, on the Mississippi river, to some point on the Missouri river; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. BERRIEN presented the petition of members of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, praying an increase of the salary of the United States district judge for that State; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Ordered, That the memorial of Philip F. Voorhees, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

On motion by Mr. PEARCE, it was

Ordered, That the petition of Frances E. Baden, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

On motion by Mr. BRADBURY, it was Ordered, That the petition of Tobias Purrington, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, it was Ordered, That the petition of the heirs of William Grayson, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

On motion by Mr. GWIN, it was Ordered, That the petition of officers and soldiers of the Army who served in California, on the files of the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

NOTICE OF A BILL.

Mr. BORLAND gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to grant to the State of Arkansas the right of way and a portion of the public land to aid in the construction of a railroad from a point on the Mississippi river, opposite the town of Memphis, Tennessee, via Little Rock, to some point on Red river, on the border of Texas.

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. Mr. SEWARD, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill for the relief of Thomas H. Leggett, reported it without amendment, accompanied by a report, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BRIGHT, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the joint resolution for the relief of Alexander P. Field, late Secretary of

Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

On motion by Mr. H., it was
Ordered, That the report be printed.

Mr. BERRIEN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill to increase the salary of the district judge of the United States for the southern district of Florida, reported it without amendment.

Mr. FELCH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill declaring the assent of Congress to the State of Missouri to impose a tax on lands hereafter sold by the United States therein from and after the day of sale, reported it without amendment.

Mr. DOWNS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the bill to grant the right of preemption to settlers on the public lands known as the Maison Rouge Grant, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report on the subject, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill to aid the State of Louisiana in reclaiming the overflowed lands therein, and for other purposes, reported it without amendment.

Mr. HAMLIN, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill to admit a certain vessel to registry, reported it with an amendment, and on his motion the Senate proceeded to consider the bill as in Committee of the Whole.

The reported amendment having been agreed to, the bill was reported to the Senate, and the amendment was concurred in.

Ordered, That the amendment be engrossed and the bil read a third time.

Mr. GWIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of William D. Acken and Julia Acken, reported a bill for the relief of Julia Acken; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. FELCH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom the subject was referred, reported a bill to authorize the construction of railroads through the public lands in certain cases; which was read and passed to the second reading.

Mr. UNDERWOOD, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a resolution explanatory of the act approved September 28, 1850, entitled “An act granting bounty land to certain officers and soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States," reported it back with an amendment.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution as in Committee of the Whole, with the amend ment reported thereto; and,

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

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

On motion by Mr. HUNTER, it was

Ordered, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until to morrow, and that it be the order of the day.

BILL INTROduced.

Mr. BORLAND, agreeably to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill granting to the State of Arkansas the right of way and making a donation of a portion of the public lands,

to aid in the construction of a railroad from Helena to Fort Smith, in Arkansas; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

WIDOW OF BRIGADIER GENERAL BELKNAP.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. SEWARD the 6th instant, instructing the Committee on Pensions to inquire into the expediency of granting a pension to the widow of Brigadier General Belknap; and the resolution was agreed to.

TONNAGE DUTY ON SPANISH VESSELS. Mr. SEWARD, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following resolution for consideration; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury communicate to the Senate such information as he may have in relation to the expediency of repealing or modifying the act of * June 30, 1834, concerning tonnage duty on Spanish vessels. THE STEAMER EDITH.

Mr. SEWARD submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to furnish the Senate as early as practicable, with a copy of the proceedings of the Naval Court of Inquiry in relation to the loss of the United States steamer Edith in 1849, together with copies of the correspondence which formed the ground of the order given to constitute said court, and of all the papers referred to in the record of proceedings; also, copies of all reports or charges made to the Department against any member composing said court in reference to conduct while attached to the Pacific squadron; copies of all correspond-ence between the Department and Commodore Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, relating to the said steamer Edith; copies of the correspondence with Richard W. Meade, late a heutenant in the United States Navy during the year 1851; copy of the charges and specifications preferred by Lieutenant Tunis A. Craven against Commodore Jones in 1849 and 1850, with the reasons of the Department for not acting thereon; and copies of the correspondence between the Department and the commanders of the Pacific squadron, and all other officers of the Navy, in relation to the erection of a steam circular saw-mill in Califorma, and the expenditures thereon.

ARSON IN THE District OF COLUMBIA.

A message was received from the House of Representatives by Mr. FORNEY, their Clerk:

Mr. PRESIDENT: The House of Representatives have passed a bill to amend an act entitled "An act for the punishment of crimes in the District of Columbia," in which they request the concurrence of the Senate.

Subsequently it was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE BILL.

The engrossed bill for the relief of Thomas Snodgrass was read a third time and passed.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE CLERKS.

Mr. RUSK. I laid upon the table yesterday morning a resolution to authorize the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads to employ a clerk. I ask that it may now be considered.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was read, as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be, and they are hereby, authorized to employ

a clerk.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1852.

formed by that committee. I am not aware that such labor is to be performed now, and the chairman of the committee has not so stated. If a clerk is now allowed to each of these committees, Senate, and will hereafter be just as regularly they will become permanent appendages of the employed as the clerks under the Secretary of the consuming the time of the Senate, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Senate. Three are now asked for. But without

Mr. RUSK. I desire to say a word or two upon the subject. A clerk has been employed by this committee for the two last sessions of Congress, and he was fully employed during that

time.

There is not, perhaps, a committee of this Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. body on whom more labor is devolved than on the The post office machinery extends all over the country; and everybody in the populous and sparsely settled portions of the country is equally interested in the manner in which that machinery is worked. The laws regulating that Department are in confusion. They run over a period of fifty years. Constant changes are required in these laws to meet the wants of our country; and it will require a vast amount of labor for the purpose of meeting those changes, which will necessarily come before and ought to attract the attention of that committee. Rules which would apply to a densely populated portion of the country will not apply where the population is sparse. There are some eighteen or twenty thousand post offices, many millions of miles of transportation of mail matter, and there are now many complaints of confusion in the machinery of the Post Office Department. Once or twice it has been recommended that we should revise all the laws relating to the Department, which are now in great confusion. It is the object of the Department to make it what it should be for the benefit of the whole community. Under such circumstances, if the labor is devolved upon us, we cannot be expected to perform it at all, satisfactorily. I am very willing to labor as far as I can in the discharge of the duties which may devolve upon me as a member of that committee; but of one thing I am very sure, which is, that the Senate cannot employ a clerk with more general benefit to the community than in the service of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

NEW SERIES.... No. 18.

[ocr errors]

move to amend the resolution by adding the words 'during the present session of Congress. The amendment was adopted.

The question then recurred on the adoption of having been ordered and taken, they resulted— the resolution as amended; and the yeas and nays yeas 34, nays 7; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Bradbury, Cass, Cooper, Davis, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Downs, Foot, Geyer, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, McRae, Mallory, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Spruance, Stockton, Sumner, Upham, and Wade-34. NAYS-Messrs. Bright, Brodhead, Dodge of Iowa, Hunter, King, Underwood, and Walker-7.

So the resolution was adopted.

CLERK TO COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS. lution relative to the appointment of a clerk to the Mr. GWIN. I now move to take up the resoCommittee on Naval Affairs, and I move to amend it by adding the words "during the present session of Congress."'

The PRESIDENT. The question will first be on taking up the resolution.

to.

The motion to take up the resolution was agreed

The resolution was read, as follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be au-

thorized to employ a clerk.

Mr. GWIN. I now move to amend by adding the words "during the present Congress.'

Mr. CASS. I desire to say one word, Mr. President, on this subject, and it is simply this: We are to be called upon to appropriate hundreds of thousands-nay, millions of dollars-for the estimates of the various Departments; and it does seem strange to me, that if five of our colleagues in this body, who may be appointed as a committee, come and tell you that they are not able to do their duty satisfactorily to themselves without the aid of a clerk, that we should make any objection to it.

The question was taken on the amendment; and it was agreed to.

The question then recurring on the adoption of the resolution as amended, it was decided in the affimative.

CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.

Mr. HAMLIN. I ask that the resolution which I submitted this morning may be taken up for consideration now, that we may dispose of all these matters at the same time.

The PRESIDENT. It cannot be taken up without unanimous consent. If there be no ob

No objection was offered.

Mr. GWIN. As I understand the opposition
to be equally made to the employment of a clerk
by any committee of this body, and inasmuch as
I offered a resolution yesterday for the appoint-jection it will be taken up.
ment of a clerk for the Committee on Naval
Affairs, I wish to give the reason that induced
that committee to ask for a clerk. I will very
briefly state some of the labors which that com-
mittee is expected to perform. They are expected
to prepare:

1st. A code of laws for its energetic government and
administration."

2d. "A furlough or retired list."

The resolution was accordingly read:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be authorized to employ a clerk, from and after the first proximo, at the usual rate of compensation, during the present session of Congress.

Mr. HAMLIN. I desire to state that I offer that resolution by the unanimous approval of the Committee on Commerce. I wish to state, in ad

To ascertain what additional legislation, if any, dition, that we have before that committee fully is necessary to ensure,

3d. "A fair, stringent and active system of administration by the Secretary of the Navy, equalization and impartiality in service afloat and ashore, and a strict and positive obe. dience to, and enforcement of, all orders, without favor."

4th. "An invariable rule, that in the selection of officers for commands afloat, their physical abilities, morals, standing and fitness, should be first clearly ascertained before they are intrusted with the important duties attending foreign service."

Every member of the Senate must perceive that, to enable the committee to discharge the duties imposed upon them satisfactorily to the country, it must have a clerk.

Mr. HALE. I would suggest to the Senator from Texas whether it would not be better to modify the proposition. As the resolution now stands it is unlimited, and might be construed to mean that this committee should have a clerk in all time to come-forever, sir. I would suggest to the Senator to limit his resolution to the present session of Congress.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I suppose the fight
may as well commence upon this resolution as any
other. I think we have it pretty evidently shown
that every committee of the Senate will, in future,
have to be provided with a clerk to perform the
labor of the committee in part. I apprehend that
we have gone as far with that matter as we have
ever gone, with the exception of the clerk asked
for by my friend from Texas. We accorded a
clerk to that committee at a time when it was sup-
posed, from an amendment of the Post Office laws, Mr. RUSK. I am quite willing that the reso-
there was some unusual amount of labor to be per-lution should be so modified. I will, therefore,

one hundred questions relating to internal improvements, connected with our harbors, lakes, or rivers, in almost every State in the Union. To act intelligently, there should be a synopsis filed, with each one of these cases, showing what has been done by the Government, and a complete and accurate statement of the cases presented, so that the committee and the Senate may act intelligently. Senators will recollect how much we were at fault

at the last session, as to what was the true situation of the works alluded to. Besides this, there is scarcely a day passes when there is not some subject comes up which requires correspondence, or an interview with a Department, and to do these subjects justice is beyond the power of that committee. I believe there is no committee in this Senate which has so varied and extensive subjects committed to it as the Committee on Commerce. The resolution was adopted.

FLOGGING IN THE NAVY. Mr. GWIN. The memorial offered some time ago by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.

[ocr errors]

BRODHEAD] in relation to corporal punishment in the Navy, is yet undisposed of. When the question was last under consideration, the Senator from Florida [Mr. MALLORY] had the floor. It is, as I understand it, unfinished business, and I hope it will be taken up now.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator from California is right; this is the unfinished business: The memorial was postponed to a day certain; that day has passed, and it comes up now in its

order.

Mr. DAVIS. Does this take precedence of the compromise resolution? I understood the Chair that the compromise resolution followed the business to which it gave way yesterday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WEDNESDAY, January 14, 1852.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BUTler.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

AFFAIRS IN UTAH.

that I have a matter of interest connected with the public printing, to bring before the House at the earliest opportunity.

The question was then put, and the House agreed to reconsider the vote by which the message from the Secretary of the Interior was ordered to lie upon the table.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The motion now pending is one made by myself on yesterday, to send this communication back. I will, if there be no objection, withdraw that motion; and then the motion made by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] to refer the message to the Committee of Ways and Means, and to have it printed, will be in order.

The SPEAKER. The recollection of the Chair is, that the gentleman from Tennessee yesterday withdrew the motion to which he has referred, and substituted the motion to lay upon the table.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Then I propose to withdraw the motion to lay the document on the table.

Mr. BERNHISEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I find that the report (as printed) communicated to this House by the President of the United States, containing the report of the three United States officers returning from Utah, is not the same as the copy furnished me from the Department of State. I was as much surprised at the appearance of the official printed Mr. GWIN. I hope the Senator from Masreport, as I was at the publication of a like report sachusetts will permit that subject to pass over a few days before in the New York Herald, both this morning. The Senator from Florida was on of which are different from the report furnished to the floor, and had delivered a portion of his speech me, or a copy thereof, from the State Department, when the question was postponed until last Mon-though bearing the same date. I must protest day. This matter has been postponed from day against the change or alteration of an official reto day, and I hope it will now be taken up and port, containing such serious charges against the disposed of. Governor and people of the Territory which I have the honor to represent; and without saying more at this time, I now move the House, on pre- The question then recurred upon the motion subsenting the copy of that report which was fur-mitted by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Housnished to me by the Department of State, that the TON,] to refer the document to the Committee of same be printed and laid before this House. I Ways and Means, and to print. have not carefully compared any of the reports, and know not which to rely on as authentic and official, except it be the one on file at the State Department and furnished me by that Department. shall hold this to be the true copy of the indictment, and trust that this House will so order it after it shall be printed and laid before the House. Mr. CARTTER. I rise to a question of order. I do not think that this matter can be considered a question of privilege.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that the first special order is the resolution offered by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. FOOTE,] which was postponed to Monday, the 5th of January, The question in relation to the memorial presented by the Senator from Pennsylvania, was postponed until January 12th, and can now be taken up on motion, if the Senator from California thinks fit to make that motion.

Mr. GWIN. Then I make that motion, and hope the Senate will sustain it.

Mr. DAVIS. I am not impatient to address the Senate. All I desire to say is, that I have a few remarks to make on this compromise resolution. If it is more agreeable to the Senate to hear them at another time I am quite willing to postpone them for the present. I perceive that the Senator from Florida has a number of books and papers on his desk, and appears to be ready to address the Senate. I would not, therefore, be willing to keep him in suspense, for I know that it is a very painful condition to be in. I am not in that state myself; but if I can only understand from the Senator from California-that is, if he knows-when this resolution can come up, and not be in the way of other business, I will move to postpone it till that

time.

Mr. GWIN. Very well; say next Monday.
Mr. DAVIS. Why not say to-morrow?
Mr. GWIN. Because for to-morrow there is a
special order.

Mr. HUNTER. The special order for to-morrow is the bill making land warrants assignable.

The PRESIDENT. This resolution will be the first special order, to the exclusion of the bill making land warrants assignable,

Mr. DAVIS. I do not speak for myself altogether in this matter, or rather, I should say that I do speak with regard to my own views. But then I know that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. MCRAE] is anxious to address the Senate on this subject, and I would be glad to have the thing put in such a shape as to accommodate his feelings and wishes as well as my own. If it can be taken up to-morrow morning, I am content to have it postponed till that time; but I would be glad to have it understood by the Senate that it may come up to-morrow morning.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will state to the Senator from Massachusetts that it comes up as a matter of course, being the first special order, unless it should be postponed to take up some other subject. The question now is on taking up the memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania on the subject of flogging in the Navy.

The question was taken on the motion to take up the memorial, and it was agreed to.

Mr. MALLORY. Let the memorial be read. Mr. BRODHEAD. Oh it is unnecessary; it has already been read three or four times.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Florida asks for its reading, and it is obliged to be read. The memorial, as it has already appeared in the columns of the Congressional Globe, page 218, was then read.

Mr. MALLORY then addressed the Senate until the hour of adjournment, in favor of a restoration of corporeal punishment.

Without concluding, Mr. M. gave way to a motion to adjourn,

And the Senate adjourned.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is unable to perceive any question of privilege. The gentleman from Utah can only proceed by the unanimous consent of the House."

Mr. CARTTER objected.

Mr. ORR. I move that the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. BERNHISEL] have leave to proceed.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that
this is not one of those cases which would allow
the gentleman to proceed on a motion of that char-
acter. If the gentleman had been called to order
on the ground of irrelevancy in debate, or for other
disorder, it would then have been in order for the
gentleman from South Carolina to submit a motion
that the gentleman from Utah be allowed to pro-
ceed in order. But, in the opinion of the Chair,
the gentleman from Utah is not entitled to the floor,
and therefore the gentleman from South Carolina
cannot submit the motion which he proposes,
The Chair decides that the gentleman from Utah
cannot proceed without the unanimous consent of
the House.

ESTIMATES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR.

The SPEAKER then stated that the first busi-
ness in order was the proposition to reconsider the
vote by which the communication from the De-
partment of the Interior was laid upon the table.
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] had
moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the
table, and upon that motion the yeas and nays
had been ordered.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. By the consent of the House I desire to withdraw my motion to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. I will also state-though it is not strictly in order-that I hope the motion to reconsider will prevail, and that this question may be fully examined. It is a new one, and is, at least, worthy the considera

tion of the House.

There was no objection, and the motion to lay on the table was accordingly withdrawn.

The question then recurred upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the document was ordered to lie upon the table..

Mr. HOUSTON. If this question is not likely to give rise to additional debate, and it is the intention of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] to merely refer it to some committee, I am willing that it should be reconsidered.

The SPEAKER. It is not now in order to debate the question.

Mr. HOUSTON. I understand that it is not debatable now; but if the reconsideration takes place, it will then be debatable. I desire to say

There was no objection, and the motion was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. HOUSTON. Does the gentleman propose to debate it now?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Yes; but I will not occupy the time of the House more than five min

utes.

I made the motion yesterday to lay this communication upon the table because it is an infraction of custom and a violation of the law. So far as my opinion goes, and so far as I have been able to investigate the question, it is the first time any Department, other than that of the Treasury, has submitted to this House estimates for appropriations and asked for the enactment of laws to make those appropriations.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I rise to a question of order. The question now before the House is the disposition of the Executive documents upon the Speaker's table; and the rule says they shall only be taken up in regular order. The only opportunity for debate would have been upon the privileged motion to reconsider. But that motion having been withdrawn, of course the communication lies upon the Speaker's table, and can only be taken up in its regular order.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. This question comes legitimately before the House this morning, upon the motion to reconsider. This leaves the question to refer it to the Committee of Ways and Means just where it was yesterday, when that motion was made.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ten-. nessee is correct.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. The SPEAKER. The regular order of business during the morning hour, is the call of committees for reports. The first business in order, therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, is the report of the select committee on the joint resolution explanatory of the act of September 28, 1850, entitled "An act granting bounty lands to certain officers and soldiers who were engaged in the military service of the United States," and the subject of amending and extending the bounty land bill.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. There is another question why this matter is before the House. I know that it was uniformly held by the Speaker of the last House, that when any proposition was before the House at the time of adjournment, and an amendment pending to refer it to any committee, it kept it off the Speaker's table, and brought it up as the unfinished business.

The SPEAKER. The Chair admits that it is unfinished business to come up in its order. The call of committees for reports being first in order, the unfinished report of yesterday will take precedence of the other unfinished question.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I am very certain that is a change of the practice of the House.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is upon the motion to refer the report made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. BISSELL. Upon that question—

Mr. HOUSTON. I appeal to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] and ask that he will permit me to bring to the attention of the House the condition of the public printing.

Mr. BISSELL. I am sorry to disoblige the gentleman, but I cannot yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. HOUSTON. I hope the gentleman will allow that subject to be brought now before the House, as the subject upon which he proposes to speak will consume the balance of the day.

Mr. BISSELL. I should be glad to oblige the gentleman, but it strikes me that this question of printing will consume not only this day, but many days in succession, if we lay aside other business to attend to it.

Mr. HOUSTON. I rise to a question of order. It is this: Whether I have not a right, under the rules of the House, to make a report from the Committee of Ways and Means, stating the reasons why the appropriation bills have not been reported within thirty days from the announcement of the Committee of Ways and Means by the Speaker?

The SPEAKER. The Chair knows of no rule of the House giving the gentleman that right.

Mr. BISSELL. Mr. Speaker, upon the question of referring the report submitted yesterday by the chairman of the select committee upon the bounty land question, I wish to say a few words. I was gratified that the chairman of that

assigned in Maine according to the mode in
which deeds are executed and acknowledged
there. How is this same register in Oregon, nine-
ty days afterwards when the warrant is pre-
sented to him, to know what are the laws of
Maine in relation to deeds conveying land? And
further still, how is any register or receiver ex-
pected to know the laws of all the States and
Territories and of the District of Columbia, regu-
lating this subject, so that he may know, when
the warrant is presented to him at his office,
whether the assignment upon it is legal or not?
Why, it would require a lawyer, indeed, and one
of much reading, too, to be enabled to act under-
standingly under such a law as you propose for
the guidance of registers and receivers.

Mr. DUNHAM. Has the gentleman always
been of that opinion, or has he recently embraced
it, and since the committee acted upon it?

Mr. BISSELL. Personally, I have always preferred a different mode of assignment from that provided by this first section, yet I did not object to this mode in committee, willing, if the balance of this bill should suit me, to indorse the whole; but as I have said before, when I came to see the frightful disproportions of the other parts of the bill, I was disposed to have it nearly all modified -this section as well as others.

Now a far more simple, better, and wiser plan, is that which was provided for in the bill before us originally; and I now call the attention of gentlemen to that better mode. The first section of that original bill provides that the warrants for military bounty lands, which have been, or may hereafter be, issued under any law of the United States, shall be assignable in such form, and pursuant to such regulations,as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Now the Commissioner has constant communication with all these local offices, and the moment you may pass this original bill, he will send his circular containing this law and the prescribed form to each of the registers and receivers, and they will have all the required information before them in plain and simple language, directly from the Department here. Thus that provision of law regu

committee made the motion to refer the bill to the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, but I regretted very much that he after-
wards announced to us that he had made that
motion with the view of subsequently withdraw-
ing it, and of putting this bill upon its passage
here, under the operation, as I suppose, of the
previous question. Now, sir, I hope no vote will
be taken upon this bill under any such strategy.
It will be most manifest to every man who will
pay the least attention to the provisions of this
bill, that it is one that requires, perhaps more than
any other one that has been before us during this
session, that deliberation and attention which it
can only receive in Committee of the Whole.
Sir, he is a bold man who, understanding the pro-lating the assignment of warrants, will pass into
visions and foreseeing the operation of this bill,
votes to-day that it become a law. And he is a
rash one, who votes for it without that under-
standing and foresight. No, sir; this bill should
go to the Committee of the Whole; and I hope
the members of this House are prepared at once
to reject it altogether, or, at least, that they will
see the propriety of letting it take that course
which bills of far less importance than this gener-
ally do. To some portions of the bill I have no
objections whatever. To other parts of it, I
think a large majority of the members of this
House will object. Of some portions of it I have
no language sufficiently strong to express my dis-
approbation.

The first section proposes to make land warrants assignable. That is very well; but I think, upon mature reflection, that the mode of assignment provided for in this first section is by no means the best one; and my reasons for thinking so can be given in very few words. The section provides that these warrants shall be assignable, the assignment to be executed and acknowledged, or proved, in the same manner and with the same formalities that deeds for the conveyance of land are executed, acknowledged, or proved in the State or Territory in which the assignment may be made. Now, at first blush, that seems very well; and I am not so much opposed to that mode of assignment as that I would go against the bill on account of it if it suited me in other respects. But I think the bill must be essentially modified in nearly all of its provisions; and, while we are about it, I am for having this one perfected also. Look at the effect of providing this mode of assignment. A land warrant is assigned, for instance, in Florida; executed and acknowledged there in accordance with the laws of that State regulating the execution, acknowledgment, and proving of deeds for the conveyance of land: Now, how is the register or receiver of a land office in Oregon expected to know, when the warrant is presented at his office, what are the laws of Florida upon that subject? and, without such knowledge, how can he know that the assignment is legal or valid according to the provisions of the law we are now about to enact? Another one is

us see how this matter is got over by the chair-
man of the select committee, [Mr. DUNHAM.]
After providing in this comprehensive bill for
paying officers who shall hereafter locate these
warrants, he tells you that those who have been
engaged in locating them heretofore, can come to
Congress, each with his individual claim, and get a
bill through here for his compensation. Is not
that a most extraordinary proposition? Is it not
a most unreasonable one, so far as the present,
and late incumbents of these offices are concerned
This bill provides for paying officers who perform
these services hereafter, and invites those who
have performed them heretofore-some of whom
are in office now, and some not-to come to Wash-
ington by dozens, and scores, and hundreds, and
present to Congress, each his individual claim, in
the form of a private bill, for the purpose of obtain-
ing his pay, as register or receiver, for locating these
land warrants heretofore. That, sir, is an improve-
ment upon the General Land Office system, which
is as ingenious as it is just to retiring land officers.
Why, the land office system is designed to be,
and should be, complete and perfect in itself. The
claim of these officers for compensation should be
adjusted, now and always, not by Congress but by
the head of that Department here. If, pursuant to
the invitation of the chairman of this committee,
fifty or a hundred of these land officers come up to
Washington and present their claims to Congress,
I should like to know when they may reasonably
expect their bills to be all got through? How
much of the time of Congress would be consumed
in passing them, and how much of the money
of these honest claimants be expended, in employ-
ing agents and in personal attendance, session af-
ter session, till their bills are passed? How sim-
ple, how sensible, how right would it be, to pro-
vide in preference for those who have already
located these warrants, just as we do for those who
shall locate them hereafter! Provide that those
registers and receivers who have heretofore located
these warrants shall receive a certain percentage
on each warrant so located by them, under regu-
lations of the Department, the whole amount al-
lowed to any one in no case to exceed the maxi-
mum of compensation now allowed by law. There
is no difficulty in regulating this, none at all. The
head of the Land Office Department here knows
how much pay each land officer has received,
year by year

all the local land offices, and all other public offices
where business of that kind is transacted by offi-
cers or individuals. Every man may then see
and easily understand, what is necessary to con-
stitute a legal assignment of a bounty land war-
rant. Now, which of these plans is the better
one? Nay, I would ask, indeed, if the one re-
ported by the majority of this select committee is
not almost utterly impracticable? So much for
the first section of the bill, which is to be forced
through the House under the operation of the pre-locating Mexican land warrants?
vious question.

Mr. DUNHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

The second section of this bill-and I ask those gentlemen who have not given it particular attention to attend to it now-provides, that for locating warrants hereafter, registers and receivers shall receive fifty cents upon each one located. Now, gentlemen, you are all aware that the location, by these warrants, commenced some three or four years ago. Since that time so many locations have been made under them, that probably not one fourth part of those originally directed to be issued now remain unlocated. The officers who have located them, have never received one single cent, except a small pittance, originally provided for locating such as had been assigned. The subject of compensating these officers for their services comes before this House; is referred to a select committee, and they report in favor of compensating such officers as may render the same services hereafter, and wholly neglect to provide the same equal and just compensation, or any compensation at all, to those who have performed these services up to this time. Is there justice in that? If the location of these warrants hereafter to be made is a service, fairly and justly entitling the registers and receivers to compensation, why not compensate those who for three years have devoted nearly all their time to that labor without receiving so much as one hundred dollars, over and above clerk hire, office rent, and other necessary expenses? Why, the very fact that the committee proposes to pay for locating these warrants hereafter, shows them to be aware of the fact that there is justice in the claim of those who ask compensation for having located them heretofore. Why provide for payment only to future officers? Let

Mr. BISSELL. Certainly.

Mr. DUNHAM. I should like to know, in settling those accounts at the Land Office, how you are to ascertain the amount they are entitled to for

Mr. BISSELL. In the easiest possible way, I assure the gentleman. I will turn to the records of the General Land Office here, or introduce that gentleman to a clerk who will do it, and show, in less time than I have been speaking, precisely how much each land officer has received for each year, during the whole time in which entries have been made by these warrants.

Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman will find himself very much mistaken, or else my inquiries have resulted in a wrong answer, for my

Mr. BISSELL. The books of the General
Land Office show whether a warrant was located

by the original holder, or by his assignee. If by
his assignee, the Department knows that the re-
gister and receiver has received fifty cents.
If by
the original holder, the Department knows that
the local land officer has received nothing. There-
fore it is entirely practicable to obtain the necessary
information on this point. When that informa-
tion is obtained, the Department should be author-
ized to allow each register and receiver a percentage
upon entries by warrants, under the restriction or
limitation as to amount, which I have already
suggested. This is exactly what the majority of
the select committee propose to do for registers and
receivers who may perform this service in future.
Is there any more difficulty about the past? This
whole thing ought to be settled in this bill. We
want no future legislation on the subject, We do
not want these registers and receivers nor their
widows and children-here in mournful procession
with their private bills for compensation, year after
year, till our patience and their spirits shall be
worn out. Regulate the compensation to which
they are entitled now, when it can so easily be

done; and save to them the time and the money they may otherwise expend hereafter in successful or unsuccessful efforts to obtain delayed justice. Let not the honorable chairman of this select committee say they are not entitled to anything, for by the fact of proposing to compensate officers for the same services hereafter, and by the further fact of virtually inviting the retiring registers and receivers to come here and present their claims to Congress, he is estopped from denying the justness of their claim.

Now the fact is, that some of those officers have not received more than one or two hundred dollars in the last year, over and above their clerk hire and other expenses, because nearly all the entries in their districts have been made by these warrants; whereas in other districts in which most of the entries have been made in money and in which not one fourth as much labor is required as in the case of entries by warrants, have received very nearly or quite the maximum sum allowed by law. Is this equal justice?

There is another argument upon this subject, which I address to the exclusive consideration of my Democratic friends round about me, and I know they will appreciate it. My friend from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] proposes to pay officers who shall locate these warrants hereafter; and proposes, in the same bill, to issue a very large batch of new warrants to another class of our citizens; but, to those who have been engaged in locating warrants without pay for the last three years he has nothing to say, except that they had better come up to Congress at some future time, and get the pay allowed them, each by a separate bill. Now, we Democrats all know very well who will hold these offices for the next four years. We know-do we not, my Democratic friends?that there is to be a change in the Administration, and that, after a little time, good Democrats will fill these offices for some years to come. Well, these Democratic registers and receivers to be are provided for-very properly, of course-in this bill. They are to receive pay for each warrant they may locate. But these poor Whigs, who have performed the labor of locating all these warrants for I believe they have all been located since the commencement of General Taylor's administration, and who are about to retire, I mean at the incoming of the next Democratic Administration are to be turned off without pay. They are told to whistle for their pay, or, which is the same thing, to come up and apply to some future Congress for it. Now, I ask my Democratic friends if this is just? I do not say we ought to be magnanimous to our Whig friends who are to go out of office, but we ought to be just to them. If it is just to compensate Democratic officers, who will fill those places during the next Administration, I think it equally so to compensate those Whigs, who, by an extraordinary streak of good luck, have been in office for the last three years. I admit, very cheerfully, that our Whig friends, in the general, deserve a good deal of scourging, but let it be visited upon them in a different way by keeping them out of office. But in pecuniary matters, let us not fail to give them their full dues. Now, I have proofs before me, but I will not detain the House by reading them, showing that the necessary, unavoidable labor of locating a tract of land with a military bounty land warrant, is more than four times as great as in locating the same tract with money. There is proof, also, that in some of the land districts nearly all the land has been located for the last year or two with these warrants. As a consequence, the percentage which officers receive upon cash sales, has been lost to the receivers and registers in such districts. This quadrupled their labor and diminished by three fourths their pay. There is proof, also, that in other land districts the sales have mostly been made for cash, and the officers in such districts, though performing comparatively little labor, have, through the percentage to which they are entitled on cash sales, realized more than four times the compensation received by the less fortunate class I have already referred to. I ask the majority of this select committee-for I would have the House bear in mind that it is composed of five, and that it was by a bare majority that this bill was reported-if there is any principle of even-handed justice discernible in their whole proceeding? If any gentleman is of opinion that the salaries of land officers are too

Now

high, let him move to cut them down. Perhaps I will go with him; but let us make them equal. If you reduce the pay of one man, reduce that of all others; and at any rate do not put additional labor upon one and give him less compensation than another gets for his labor.

Again: this bill provides that a man entering one hundred and sixty acres of land with a land warrant shall pay fifty cents to the receiver and register. Do we consider how much the Government pays for having that same one hundred and sixty acres of land entered with cash? It pays two dollars. A speculator appears, loaded down with land warrants which he has purchased at sixty to ninety dollars each, and with each one of which he buys one hundred and sixty acres of land. For entering that one hundred and sixty acres which really has cost him less than a hundred dollars, he pays to the register and-receiver fifty cents, and no more. A poor emigrant who has managed to raise two hundred dollars in specie, goes to a land office in Minnesota, Iowa, or Illinois, purchases one hundred and sixty acres of land with that two hundred dollars of genuine Jackson currency. For receiving his money and giving him a certificate of entry the register and receiver are allowed each a dollar. Such inconsistencies will every day arise under the operation of this bill. It is considerations of this character that compel me to say the bill ought not to pass. It should go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and be there thoroughly investigated and essentially modified. It ought not to become a law unless entirely changed in nearly all its essential features.

[A message was here received from the President of the United States, informing the House that he had attached his signature to certain bills.]

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have dwelt long enough upon the monstrous injustice and inequality proposed by this bill in reference to the compensation of land officers. That it will work the grossest injustice I think I have shown. I think I have also shown, that this proposition, taken in connection with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] on yesterday, proposes a change in the land office system which members of this House will be slow to sanction, to wit, in the mode of compensating land officers for entries heretofore made with

warrants.

Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman misunderstands me upon that point. I stated on yesterday, that I considered, as a general thing, they had been amply paid for the services they rendered in the location of land warrants; but that there might possibly be instances where their compensation was inadequate. In such cases their claims should be presented to Congress.

Mr. BISSELL. Then I ask, if as a general rule they have been amply paid, why provide additional payment to those who shall perform the same services hereafter? That will not do. If they have been amply paid under that system, those who shall come into office after them, and render the same service, will be paid in the same way. If the compensation is sufficient for those who are about to go out of office, why not for those who may succeed them? Why not strike out the provision compensating officers in future? The plan that we, the minority of the committee, propose, will prevent those who have received compensation already from getting any more, as it authorizes the Department here to pay those who have not received what they are entitled to by law, (their maximum salary and percentage)

so much as will make up that amount, and no more; so that if any officer has received ten dollars less than he was entitled to, he will be paid by the Department that amount (if his locations by warrants would entitle him to so much) on the adjustment of his accounts here. Or, if another has received $1,300 less than he would have been thus entitled to, he may, on the same principle, receive that amount from the Department, when his accounts are adjusted. We see how perfectly that equalizes the matter, dispensing even justice all around.

I will now ask the attention of the House to the third section of the bill. It reads as follows:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the act of which this act is explanatory, shall be so construed as to include all commissioned and non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of militia, volunteers and rangers, who were mustered into the service of the United States for the

suppression or prevention of Indian hostilities, or whose services of that character were recognized and paid by the United States prior to the passage of said act, and who served the length of time required by said act.

I like this section very well, and, in view of its comprehensive grasp, I am very much inclined to suggest that the title of the bill should be "An act extendatory," instead of "amendatory" "of a previous act. I will ask the chairman of the select committee, if he will allow me, whether he has any approximate knowledge as to the number of persons who will be embraced in this section?

Mr. DUNHAM. As a reply to the gentleman's interrogatory, I might refer to his own knowledge of the matter. On certain occasions he has mani-" fested considerable anxiety upon the subject, and it was mainly through his efforts that this section

was introduced into the bill.

Mr. BISSELL. Do not misunderstand me. I am for the section; and I am also in favor of the bill of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JoHNSON which proposes to give land to every actual settler who will live upon and cultivate it. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNHAM] and I cannot be at issue on this section. I thought it right, however, that the House should have some infor

mation as to the number that will be embraced under this section. It provides for all those who have been mustered into service for the suppression or prevention of Indian hostilities, or whose services of that character have been recognized and paid by the Government. I am for the section, but wish that it was still more comprehensive. So, as I said before, I am in favor of the bill of the gentleman from Tennessee, which one of these days I hope to help him to pass-so far as my vote goes at least. I think that it is a sensible and equitable bill, and I think this would be an equitable and sensible section were it carried further. But I suspect that the House will not vote it a law until they have more information than I possess as to the number and class of persons embraced by it.

Ever since the settlement of California there have been rumors of Indian disturbances there

and expectations of Indian outbreaks. Are all those who may have been mustered into the service to prevent these outbreaks provided for by this section? I read in this morning's paper an item of news brought by the last steamer from California, to the effect that Major Jack Hays, whom we all recollect and admire, had proceeded towards San Diego with volunteers to prevent an apprehended rising of the Indians. Are he and his men included in this section? If they are not I insist they shall be. I have also a petition in my drawer from citizens in New Mexico, asking for land for a battalion of four companies raised there in 1849, by Colonel Washington, who are excluded by the present law. I would like to know whether that class of our New Mexican citizens-for I believe

they were all New Mexicans are embraced under

this section. They served some six months, and so far as I learn their services have not been recognized and paid by the Government. If they

are not embraced in this third section I will have none of it. A section so comprehensive as that might be extended a little further, so as to do justice all around. How many does it embrace of those who were called out by State authority, at various times, to prevent Indian hostilities in the Creek country-in Florida, and elsewhere in the South and West? The more that is included, I say the better, and yet I should like to have some knowledge as to the number whom we might finally embrace. A more general bill, a friend near remarks, would be more equitable.

Such important provisions as those contained in this bill, I repeat, should not be adopted by us liberation the whole subject should go to the Comwithout mature deliberation-to receive such demittee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

To the 4th section of the bill I have no objection. The 6th section is the only other one to which I will direct the attention of the House. It provides:

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

I will tell you what I think will be the practical operation of this section as indicated by past experience.

These warrants which are now issued, and which by this bill you are to issue, depend upon it, will very soon pass into the hands of specula

« AnteriorContinuar »