Mr. FELCH. I would inquire what particular case that is intended to meet? What effect, in that regard, the laws now existing have?

Mr. DODGE. I will insert in the amendment after "September 28, 1850," the words "or of

this act.

Mr. HUNTER. I hope this amendment will not pass. I fear that we are overloading the original bill with amendments, and are exposing it to hazard in sending it back to the other House. This amendment proposes to alter the principle of the original bill

Mr. DODGE. I will relieve my friend by withdrawing the amendment. It is one in which I have not much interest.

Mr. DAWSON. I have not proposed any amendment to this joint resolution; but I suggest to the friends of this measure-and I profess to be one-an amendment which I think is neces

Mr. HUNTER. The only remedy for that is to punish the man who applies fraudulently; and that remedy ought to be provided for in another act, not in this.

Mr. DAWSON. That would not get the land back to the Government.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. This is purely a legal question, and I rise for the purpose of making a few suggestions in response to my friend from Georgia, [Mr. Dawson.] In all cases of assignment, the general principle is, that the assignee stands precisely in the same condition with the assignor. If that principle is carried out in reference to these land warrants, the assignee will occupy no better condition than the person who fraudulently obtained the warrant. If the Government, therefore, discovers the fraud before it makes the grant, it can suspend the issuing of the grant, because it has the same equity against an assignee that it has against a fraudulent holder of a warrant. In that case, the Government would withhold the grant of the patent, and refuse to allow this fraudulent warrant to be carried into a grant. That is one remedy.

Now, can no plan be adopted by which the Government can be protected from this kind of imposition? A warrant is issued. It is transferable. A gets it to-day, and transfers it to B tomorrow, without any knowledge on the part of B that it is fraudulent. B applies for a patent. It is granted to him. How are we to investigate this? Can any amendment be offered to this joint resolution, in order to relieve it from these consequences? If it cannot be done, you see at once that the Government is in a position in which it is liable to be defrauded.

I have a case of the kind of which I have spoken in my mind now. A man by the name of King, of the State of Georgia, enlisted in the service during the Mexican war. He died at Sullivan's Island, in South Carolina. Immediately after the passage of the law authorizing bounty lands to be given, two females in the city of New Orleans applied, as the surviving sisters of this man, for a warrant, and the papers were made out and submitted to the office here. A warrant was issued. It was transferred to a gentleman, I believe a sonin-law of a Senator upon this floor, innocently, and he got a patent. I am now applying in the name of the true representatives of the person that died. I shall get a patent for them, and thus there will be two for the same service. I make these suggestions; and if any gentleman, who has been looking into this matter, can form an amendment by which the Government can be protected, I shall vote for it. For my part, I can at present see no way to avoid the difficulty.

Mr. HUNTER. If I understand the difficulty to which the Senator from Georgia refers, it is this: two persons claim to be the real assignees of the warrant. A patent issues to each of them. Is that the difficulty?

Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. It seems to me that it would effect the Senator's object if it was provided that no patent should issue except to the last assignee whose name was upon the face of the warrant. The warrant then would show to whom the patent ought to issue, and the Government would not have to look into the question of the ownership of

the warrant.

Mr. DAWSON. That is not the point. It is this: Persons fraudulently representing themselves to be the next of kin of a deceased officer or soldier, impose upon the Government testimony which goes to establish that fact. A warrant issues, and is immediately transferred to an innocent purchaser. The innocent purchaser will be protected, and a patent will have to issue under the warrant thus fraudently obtained; and yet the rightful person will apply and he will get a proper warrant, and thereby there will be two patents for the same service.

The difficulty would arise in this way. Before may be located, and a patent may then issue. If the patent issues, and the Government thereby parts with its title, the title is passed into the hands of an innocent holder by that transfer. But how are you to get clear of that fraud? The innocent holder will say if you attempt to deprive him of his land, that it is your own fault to have brought this title into market whereby it came into his hands innocently, and that he should not be the loser by it. The question is, can you have any remedy for that state of the case? You have but one remedy, and the question is, would it be politic to apply it? What is the remedy? There is but one, and that is to declare that all grants and all warrants issued in fraud of these acts shall be void. You cannot reach it any other way than by declaring, that whenever a warrant is issued in fraud of the law, that the warrant and all subsequent steps taken to perfect it and every subsequent act are wholly and utterly void by law, and passes no title from the Government to the fraudulent holder of the claim. That would be a complete remedy if a proposition of this sort should be offered and adopted.

But then the question is, would it be politic to apply that remedy? Would it be proper to provide by law that the patents which issue upon those warrants shall be void? If that is done, it will embarrass to a very considerable extent the sale of this property in the market; and you are making these land warrants assignable with a view of benefiting the old soldier. When you adopt such a remedy as that, the purchaser of the warrant will say to the soldier, I can give you so much for it, and no more, because I am not sure but that half a dozen other warrants have been issued before this, fraudulently, for this identical service. When a tract of land patented is offered to be sold, the speculator and the purchaser will say to the seller, I can only offer you so much for it, because I have to risk the fact whether half a dozen other patents have not been founded on this same service; five out of which half dozen must be fraudulent. By an attempt to prescribe a remedy in a case of the kind, you embarrass all the titles and all the tracts, and produce the state of things which I have anticipated.

let things go on as they are, and make these land warrants assignable without making a provision in this bill to cover the fraudulent cases which my friend from Georgia supposes may exist. That there will be frauds practised on the Government to some extent, we may well imagine from what has already taken place. If the officers of the Government would keep such an alphabet as that to which I have alluded, and would look into that before multiplying warrants, then there would never be two warrants issued upon the same claim.

Mr. BELL. You would have to issue the rightful one whenever it was claimed.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may be as my friend says, that you would have to issue the rightful. warrant whenever it was claimed, but it would be done upon full deliberation, and in that way you would find that you had issued one warrant fraudulently, and there would not be more than two issued. But in the case which my honorable friend from Georgia puts, there may be half a dozen, and perhaps a dozen, fraudulent warrants issued, unless officers of the Government will work in the way I have mentioned. I have had occasion before this, to remark that I considered it to be the absolute duty of Congress to have all the executive offices, and the books in those offices, examined from beginning to end, in order that we might know how the executive departments conduct their business and keep their books. We could then see what frauds were permitted. I do not know that this has ever been done. It has not been done since I have been a member of Congress. I do not know that it has been done since the foundation of the Government to this day, but I believe that there is not a State Legislature in the United States that does not do the same thing annually.

I have thrown out these remarks by way of answer to the suggestions of the honorable Senator from Georgia. I do not see that there can be any remedy, unless you will provide, as I have suggested, that everything that does issue without sufficient legal warrant shall be void. That would reach the case, but the question is, whether it would not be impolitic.

The PRESIDENT. No amendment has been proposed by the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. DAWSON. None at all. I would have proposed an amendment, such as is suggested by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, but for the fact that I thought it would depreciate the value of the warrants in the market, and thereby injure the old soldier, whereas it is the object of the bill to benefit him.

Mr. DAVIS. I am inclined to think that this difficulty may be met in two ways. It may be met by declaring that a warrant issued on fraudulent evidence shall be void. That might embarrass some people it is true; but if this is not done there will be an innocent holder of every fraudulent warrant that is issued, and you can never reinstate yourself. But if there be one or more fraudulent warrants issued in the name of an individual, you will have to issue the true warrant after all. Now, I apprehend that if you go a little behind this, there must be some defect in the proceedings. I regret that the honorable Senator from Georgia did not tell us by what kind of evidence this heirship of which he spoke was established. The falsity of this thing lies in a person's coming forward and pretending to be heir to a soldier when he is not an heir, and establish

I am sorry to say that I believe this is not the fact; I have had occasion to inquire into matters of this sort, and it is almost impossible to get that direct information which would be easily obtained if these alphabets were kept in such manner as to obtain at once the full information which ought to be had.

Sir, I am inclined to think that we had better

Supppose, now, that you should require that whoever undertakes to establish heirship, shall establish it in the locality by evidence before a judge, and that that judge shall place the seal of the court to it, how is it then to be fabricated? There is no difficulty in requiring that information atall. How, then, is it to be fabricated? Why a man may forge the seal of the court. But that interposes another difficulty, for there is a severe punishment annexed to that crime. I apprehend that by some such provision as that, either adopted voluntarily in the bureau, or if not adopted there made com pulsory by law, would put a stop to fraudulent pretensions of this sort. It would not, under such circumstances, be a very easy thing for a person falsely claiming to be heir to establish that fact before a judge in the vicinity who, upon satisfactory evidence, should put his seal of office to the testimony. I do not see a great deal of difficulty in it.

It seems to me an amendment might be easily drawn up which would meet the case.

The substitute reported by the Committee on Public Lands as amended was agreed to.

The bill was then reported to the Senate, as amended in Committee of the Whole.

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on concurring with the amendment made in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. WALKER. I suppose this would be the proper time to offer an amendment to the amendment?

The PRESIDENT. It is now open to amend

ment.

Mr. WALKER. Before the amendment of the committee is adopted by the Senate, I have some amendments which I propose to offer. I look upon this measure as being effectually an abandonment of our present land system, but at the same time, seeing it to be evidently the determination of the Senate to pass it, I wish to offer my amendments, and shall simply ask of the Senate to give me a recorded vote on them, by yeas and nays. The first amendment which I propose to offer is to insert after section 2, as section 3 of the amendment reported by the committee, the following:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That where any person, being a citizen of the United States, or having declared his or her intention to become such according to existing laws, and being of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, or the head of a family, shall settle upon any of the public lands of the United States not reserved for forts, arsenals, doek-yards, navy-yards, or other needful buildings or speetal purposes, or appropriated for other special uses, except such as are known to contain mines of the precious or gross metals, or precious stones, and shall reside upon and cultivate the same, or a part thereof, for the term of five years, such person shall be allowed to enter, without charge, in legal subdivisions, at the proper land office, the land so settled upon and occupied not exceeding in quantity a quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres, the said settlement and occupancy to be manifested and proved according to such regulations as shall be adopted and promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That when the settler shall not be a citizen of the United States, but shall have declared his intention only as aforesaid, he or she shall not be allowed to make the entry aforesaid until he or she shall have perfected his or her naturalization according to the laws of the United States.

Mr. President, the proposition which I have offered does not fully embrace my views in regard to the disposition which should be made of the public lands. I have heretofore submitted a proposition which I believed to be the correct one; and I have heretofore had hope of a favorable vote of the Senate upon it. They have, however, as often as they have voted upon it, voted it down. This amendment is going to some extent in conformity with my own individual view, but not to the whole extent. It will be perceived that this is but simply a proposition to grant to five years' actual settlers one hundred and sixty acres of the public lands without charge. It is a proposition which has been heretofore submitted to the Senate in the form of an original bill. I remember that the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DoUGLAS,] in the last Congress, offered a proposition of the kind. Mr. Webster, formerly a Senator from Massachusetts, when in this body, offered a resolution embracing a proposition of this kind. There was no final vote taken upon either of those propositions. I now bring forward this proposition; and I offer it not in competition with this bill for the assignability of land warrants, but as additional thereto.

The proposition under consideration, as reported by the committee, is not, it is true, one which proposes to grant land warrants, but one which proposes to make them assignable. However, it does propose to authorize the issue of land warrants to a certain class of soldiers, who have heretofore not been entitled to them. I think it but fair, but just, and but in keeping with the correct policy of the country, that if this class of individuals is to be permitted to have the public lands gratuitously, he who occupies the soil, who cultivates it, who contributes to the wealth of the country by the payment of taxes, should also be permitted to re ceive lands gratuitously. But I shall make no extended speech on this subject. I shall make no argument in advocacy of it. It is a proposition upon which every Senator must have long reflected; and the mind of every one is probably made up in regard to it. I will merely ask that the vote upon this amendment be taken by yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BORLAND. Before the vote is taken, I

a

desire to say that I have no objection to the proposition contained in this amendment, and as separate proposition I think I should vote for it, but as an amendment to this bill I shall vote against it; because I think it is presenting a new question, and one which must defeat the passage of the bill. I am very anxious that the bill, in its present form, should pass. For that reason I shall vote against the amendment; but I will say to the Senator, that as a separate proposition I should be favorably disposed towards it.

Mr. FELCH. I merely wish to remark, that this proposition involves a question of very great magnitude, and one which was discussed at some length at the last session of Congress. The proposition contained in this amendment, if I understand it correctly, goes further than any of the propositions which have been heretofore submitted for the attainment of the object of the Senator from Wisconsin. Most of the other propositions have provided for some compensation to the General Government for the amount expended by the General Government in procuring the title to the public domain. According to the statistical accounts upon that subject, if I recollect rightly, the cost of the public domain to the General Government is something like twenty-two cents per acre. These expenditures are constantly going on. That is, we are constantly proceeding with the surveys of the public lands. We are constantly keeping up a system of administering the public lands-land offices, surveyor's offices, &c., so that these expenditures are constantly accumulating. Former propositions proposed to remunerate the Government to a certain extent-some to a greater and some to a less extent for these expenditures. This proposition, however, abandons that entirely, and provides simply for granting a portion of the public domain to every person who shall settle upon it without any compensation therefor. The other bills always provided for carrying out the details of the new system. If I understand the reading of the amendment correctly, we are to require that there shall be five years' occupancy before any title can be acquired by the settler. It is perfectly obvious if we are to provide for a system of that kind, we need further legislation upon that subject.

The Senator from Wisconsin proposes the adoption of a new and complicated system. When I say he proposes a new system, I do not mean by that that we have never had any laws which required a settlement of the lands before certain rights were acquired; but I mean new as applied to the general distribution of the public domaina great and important interest as every man must see; and so it has ever been regarded. The little experience which we have had in this matter, is that which relates to Florida-to the armed occupation of Florida, as it was called. We required a settlement for a certain length of time to acquire certain rights. The legislation upon that subject is most instructive. From the time we passed a law giving certain rights of this description, and providing for a certain manner of proof to show a compliance with the law, almost up to the present time, there has never been a session of Congress in which there has not been more or less legislation on that subject. I cite this for the purpose of showing that this amendment involves grave and important questions.

If it is the will of the Senate, and of Congress, and of the country to change the administration of the public lands, let us never forget that we are dealing with a great and momentous question; and that there is connected with it, and must be connected with it, a vast machinery, so complicated, that unless our legislation upon the subject shall be carefully matured, unless we shal Ihave recourse to the lights of experience upon the subject, unless we resort to a careful observation of the results of what we have done, we shall never be able to adopt such a system as will accomplish the objects of those who desire to see it carried into elect.

Sir, I have my own views in regard to the administration of the public domain; and whatever others may think of it, I cannot regard it in any other light than as a great and momentous question. For my own part, though I am ready to take up and examine it—and I desire to examine it in a view of liberality and with a wish to afford every facility for the speedy settlement of the public domain which can be afforded-yet I certainly shall regret to see any hasty legislation on the

subject. Before a proposition of this kind should be adopted, I would wish again to express my views in regard to it. If they are modified by experience, very well. If they are the same as they were last year, very well. Other gentlemen, I know, stand in the same position. And to dispose of the matter by an amendment offered to a bill, to the subject-matter of which it has no relation, and to dispose of it by a silent vote in this manner, it seems to me would be asking almost too much. Of course, I am prepared to cast my vote on the subject, if that vote must be cast. But if we are to think of the subject maturely; if we are to act upon it, I think it would be better to take it up in a separate bill, and to act upon it by itself, and let it receive the investigation which it deserves a full consideration by the Senate. I hope we shall not dispose of the subject in this summary manner. I shall not be in favor of adding it to this bill, nor should I be in favor of it if I agreed in the propriety of the proposition to the fullest extent. I wish to see the details of the new system.

Mr. BADGER. There is great force and wisdom in the observations of the honorable Senator from Michigan, who has just taken his seat. We seem to be complicating this measure with a great variety of things which have no connection whatever with the main scope and purpose of the bill. The object of the bill is to make these land warrants assignable, so as to put them upon the same footing with all other property in this country. That is to say, at the disposal of the owner. I have always been in favor of that object; and for one I am indisposed to add any proposition to the bill which shall not have some reasonable connec tion with its main object and purpose.

But I confess that so many amendments, and amendments to amendments, have been proposed, that I, for one, am incapable of understanding the operation and effect they are to have upon our general land system to which the honorable Senator from Michigan has referred. I hope, therefore, that this amendment may be allowed to be printed, and that the Senate will adjourn. I move that the amendments be printed.

Mr. BORLAND. I would suggest that the bill as amended, with the proposed amendments, be printed.

Mr. BADGER. I adopt the suggestion and make that motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. FELCH. I understood the Senator from Wisconsin to suggest that there were some other amendments which he wished to offer to the bill. I would suggest that he had better submit them all informally, and let them be printed.

By unanimous consent the amendments were ordered to be printed.

And then the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, January 19, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. L. F. MORGAN. The Journal of Friday was read and approved. The SPEAKER stated that the first business in order was the motion made upon Monday last by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. ALLISON,] to suspend the rules to enable him to offer the following resolution:

Whereas the Superintendent of the Census has published -in the Globe of January 1st, 1852-a clear and condensed report of the Census, containing a large amount of valuable information:

And whereas that information, now desired by the people, cannot be had, in the ordinary course of printing, for a long time to come, and then in limited and very inadequate quantities; therefore

Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be instructed to order 100,000 copies of that report for the use of this House, provided the cost shall not exceed one cent per copy. On this question the yeas and nays had been ordered. Mr. SWEETSER moved to lay the resolution on the table.

The SPEAKER said that the resolution was not now before the House. The question was upon the motion to suspend the rules to enable the gentleman from Pennsylvania to offer the resolu

tion.

Mr. RICHARDSON. That resolution refers, I believe, to a publication that was made in the Globe. I do not know myself what it is, and I

The SPEAKER, said that the article could only be read by unanimous consent.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, objected. The question was then taken, and there wereyeas 132, nays 38; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Charles Allen, Willis Allen, Andrews, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Bell, Bibighaus, Bocock, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Burrows, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Cobb, Colcock, Cullom, George T. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Doty, Duncan, Durkee, Eastman, Edmundson, Ficklin, Fitch, Florence, Fowler, Freeman, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gentry, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Green, Grow, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Hart, Haws, Hascall. Haven, Hebard, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Holladay, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ingersoll, Ives, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Landry, Lockhart, Mace, Martin, McLanahian, McNair, Meade, Miller, Miner, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morehead, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Powell, Price, Richardson, Robinson, Ross, Russell, Schermerhorn, Schoonmaker, Scudder,Origen S. Seymour, Smith, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, Stuart, Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Geo. W. Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Tuck, Walbridge, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Alexander White, Wilcox, Williams, Woodward, and Yates-132

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Barrere, Chastain, Clingman, Daniel, John G. Davis, Edgerton, Gaylord, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Hendricks, Houston, Thomas Y. How, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Letcher, Humphrey Marshall, McCorkle, McDonald, John Moore, Murphy, Olds, Orr, Penn, Phelps, Polk, Robbins, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Scurry, Alexander H. Stephens, St. Martin, Sweeteer, Venable, Wallace, Walsh, and Addison White-38, So the rules were suspended.

Mr. ALLISON then submitted his resolution. And the question being on its adoption,

Mr. STUART moved the previous question; which was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put, which was upon the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. POLK called for the reading of the resolution.

The resolution was again read.

Mr. ORR. Will not this resolution, if adopted, break the contract of the public printer?

The SPEAKER. It is not for the Chair to determine what will be the effect of the resolution. Mr. ORR. Well, that will be the result of it. If it is adopted, we shall have the public printer coming to this House for compensation.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. Mr. ORR moved to lay the resolution on the table, and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. DUNCAN. Is the question debatable? The SPEAKER. It is not.

Mr. BOCOCK. Has the previous question

been ordered on the resolution so that it cannot be amended?

The SPEAKER. Yes.

The question was then taken, and there were— yeas 49, nays 127; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Barrere, Bocock, Brooks, Lewis D. Campbell, Churchwell, Clingman, Colcock, Daniel, John G. Davis, Disney, Dunham, Edgerton, Florence, Hall, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Haws, Hendricks, Houston, Thomas Y. How, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Landry, Letcher, Mace, Humprey Marshall, McMullin, Millson, John Moore, Murphy, Olds, Orr, Outlaw, Penn, Phelps, Polk, Price, Robbins, Sackett, Scurry, Stanly, Alexander H. Stephens, St. Martin, Sweetser, Venable, Wallace, Walsh, and Addison White-49. NAYS-Messrs. Charles Allen, Willis Allen, Allison, Andrews, John Appleton, William Appleton, Ashe, Averett, Babcock, Bartlett, Bibighaus, Bissell, Bragg, Breckenridge, Brenton, Briggs, Buell. Burrows, Busby, Caldwell,

Thomson Campbell, Cartter, Caskie, Chandler, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Cobb, Cullom, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Dimmick, Dockery, Doty, Duncan, Durkee, Edmundson, Ewing, Ficklin, Fitch, Fowler, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Gentry, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Green, Grey, Grow, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Hart, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Holladay, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jackson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Kurtz, Lockhart, Martin, McCorkle, McLanahan, McNair, Meade, Miller, Miner, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Morehead, Morrison, Murray, Newton, Andrew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Porter, Rantoul, Robinson, Ross, Russell, Schoonmaker, Scudder, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton,

[Mr. BARRERE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as correctly enrolled the bill to admit the vessel called the Eltwan to registry; and it received the signature of the Speaker.]

the House, and let them abrogate the contract system; but I object to the giving the public printer a pretext to come here and demand com. pensation from this House for a supposed violation of the contract, and declaring it void. If he has failed to perform his obligations, do not give him the excuse to come here and say “that you have violated the contract as well as I have, and hold me to a strict accountability." The public that therefore the right does not exist in you to printer has already began to make complaints. I saw, a day or two ago, a memorial of his addressed to the Senate in reference to the census printing. He states that he has made large outlays, that he has purchased some five or six presses, brought hands here and a large amount of type, for the purpose of doing the printing. In my own opinion he has taken the contract at less prices than the work can be executed for. It will, least pretext to come here and demand compensation by the passage of this or a similar resolution, you will settle upon yourselves the necessity of paying for the breach of contract $40,000 $50,000 or $100,000.

Mr. ALLISON. With the consent of the gentleman, I will reply to the interrogatory he has addressed to me. I certainly had no such intention; I had no purpose that the publication should be made at the office of the Globe. The only desire that I had was, that we should be permitted to disseminate the information contained in that publication throughout the country. There was no design to have it published at any particular office, but that the Committee on Printing should have the entire direction of the matter, as it certainly has by the language of the resolution.

Mr. ORR. With the permission of the gentleman, I will ask him another question. Why is it resolution to the publication in the Globe? then that reference is made in the preamble to the

Mr. ALLISON. I shall answer that by saying that I did not know how I should designate the particular matter I desired to have published better than to indicate the time that report was published in the Globe, to wit: the 1st of January, 1852.

Mr. ORR. One other question, if the gentleman will favor me with an answer.

Mr. ALLISON. Certainly.

Mr. ORR. It is proposed to give to the Committee on Printing, by virtue of this resolution, the power to contract with any other person than the public printer, if they see proper to do so. Is it intended to confer that authority?

Mr. ALLISON. In answer to the gentleman, I have to say that the authority or direction 1 intended to give in the language of the resolution was, that the committee should merely contract to have printed one hundred thousand copies of that report-not that they should have power to go to this office or that office, or to divert it from the office to which it rightfully belonged.

Mr. ORR. The effect of it is necessarily to take this printing from the public printer and give it to some one else. The public printer has already entered into a contract by which he obligates himself to do the printing for this House, and has entered into bond for the faithful execution of it. The terms of the resolution, by conferring upon the committee the power to go and make a contract, contemplates the taking away of this printing from the public printer. I do not object to that particularly, but only to the result that will grow out of it; and gentlemen who have any experience here will bear testimony to the fact, when I declare it, that the slightest pretext will be seized upon by the public printer to claim indemnity from this House for an alleged violation of his contract. We have had experience already upon this subject. What will be the result if the printer fail to discharge his duties? A motion will be made to bring him before the House or the Committee on Printing, to whom he will reply, that Congress has violated their contract by voting to another a portion of the public printing which legitimately belonged to him. He will bring in a memorial here claiming indemnity. It has been charged that the public printer has thus far failed to do his duty. I have nothing to say for or against him, until that becomes manifest. Let the Committee on Printing report to

Mr. INGERSOLL. I ask the gentleman from South Carolina, whether it is within his knowledge that, if this matter goes to the Committee on Printing, they will give it to some other office than that to which it properly belongs?

Mr. ORR. My reason for assuming it to be so, is based upon the preamble of the resolution, to which I desire to call the attention of the gentleman. It reads:

Whereas the Superintendent of the Census has published-in the Globe of January 1st, 1852-a clear and condensed report of the Census, containing a large amount of valuable information:

And whereas that information, now desired by the people, cannot be had, in the ordinary course of printing, for a long time to come, and then in limited and very inadequate quantities: therefore, &c.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I understand there is a condensed report published in the Globe, and that there is also an elaborate report to be published hereafter. It is proposed by this resolution inasmuch as there is a condensed report, and that it will take a long time to print the elaborate report, that the report as contained in the Globe be published. It does not seem to me that the resolution indicates that the printing shall be done by the Globe office.

Mr. FULLER, of Maine. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR,] if the motion to reconsider prevail, whether the resolution could not be amended so as to authorize the purchase of one hundred thousand copies of the Globe, and thus obviate all the difficulty suggested by the gentleman?

The SPEAKER. If the vote be reconsidered, it would bring the resolution back under the previous question.

Mr. ORR. I was about to remark, that by adopting the course suggested, it would obviate the objection T-have stated. I am opposed myself to printing any of these copies at all, but there is evidently a majority of the House in favor of it. If the vote be reconsidered, and the resolution reached, gentlemen may move to amend it by ordering the purchasing of one hundred thousand copies of the Congressional Globe. Then it would not interfere with the public printing at all.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. In the ab sence of the chairman of the Committee on Printing, I will make a statement in reference to this matter, so that the House may understand the provision in the contract. Some time ago there was a resolution introduced into the Senate, directing the printing of the census to be given to the editors of the Union. That resolution was referred to the joint Committee on Printing of the two Houses. The committee met, took the mat ter into consideration, sent for the public printer received from him a statement of his claim to that particular portion of the printing, which he presented in writing. That claim was examined at tentively by the committee of the two Houses together with his contract; and they came to the conclusion, I believe, unanimously, that both b the terms of the contract itself and by the law Congress which directed the census to be taken the public printer was not entitled to this print ing. The contract itself excluded it, and the lav reserved to Congress the right to print this matte as they should think proper.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

Mr. ORR. That was altogether a different matter, I suspect, from what is contemplated in this resolution. It is an abstract of the census, as I understand it, and a contract is to be made for its printing. The very fact that the resolution contemplates the necessity of making a contract, shows that it is to be taken from the public printer, and as such I think it gives to him the right to come to this House and claim damages from the House for a violation of the contract with him, inasmuch as they contracted to give him the public printing.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I will ask the gentleman a question: I believe he is on the Committee of Printing?

Mr. ORR. I am not.

Mr. STEPHENS. I will not then put the question to him I intended. I will wait until he gets through.

Mr. ORR. I am through.

Mr. STEPHENS. The public printing of this House, Mr. Speaker, is now regulated by law. We have got a joint resolution of the two Houses passed some years ago, providing for the letting out of all the public printing to be done for the Senate and House by contract. Here is the resolution. I will not detain the House by reading it. The different kinds of printing are specifically provided for: the reports of committees at parucular rates; the acts of Congress at particular rates; printed bills at particular rates; and then "all other kinds of printing ordered by either House" are provided for in a general clause. This is a public law of the land, passed by the Senate and House. In pursuance of this law, all the various classifications of printing have, at certain rates set out in the contract, been let out by contract. Now, I ask this House, how can we go and make a contract with anybody else touching any printing that we may want done, and how can we ask the present contractor to do it for less than the rates set forth in his contract? This resolution (the one now before the House) says, "provided we can get the work done for one cent per copy." The public printer has already got your bond that he shall have all the printing, classed and specified at fixed rates. That is his

contract.

One word on another view, presented by the gentleman from South Carolina. He says that it would not violate our existing contract with the public printer for the House to purchase a certain number of the copies of the Globe containing this census matter from Mr. Rives. If the gentleman will look at it, I think he will see that such a course would be as much a violation of the contract as the one now under consideration, because how can you get the printing from Mr. Rives but by a bargain or contract with him to furnish you with so much printed matter of a particular kind which you want? and that is just what the present public printer has already contracted to do.

Mr. FULLER, of Maine. Suppose Congress order a number of extra copies of the life of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton to be printed: does that come within the contract for the printing?

Mr. STEPHENS. I am not prepared to answer that question of the gentleman at this moment. If Congress were to make such an order, it would have to be done by law-by the joint action of the two Houses and by bill or joint resolution. Not being on the Committee on Printing, and not very familiar with all the limitations of the present contract, I am not prepared, this moment, to give an answer to the gentleman, and to say whether the present contractor would be legally entitled to the execution of such an order or not. But he must know, when we order an extra number of any document in this House, or any printing for the use of this House, the contractor for the printing is certainly entitled to it. That is the very object of the contract. It is by throwing all the work into the same hands to get it done at the lowest rates. And if we were to give any of this printing to any other person, the

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1852.

contractor might justly complain. That is all I have to say to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. FULLER.] I consider that it would be a violation of our contract with the public printer, as it now exists, for us to order any nuniber of any document from Mr. Rives or anybody else but the contractor. I am entirely opposed to this House taking the initiative in the violation of that contract. I am for holding these contractors to their bond. Both Houses of Congress have been very much imposed upon in the public printing.

Besides this, sir, I am opposed to sending out this abstract of the census at this time. I want such a compendium of the census as we intend to publish as soon as possible. I want it printed as soon as possible. And I trust the Committee on Printing will look to it, and if there is unnecessary delay, that they will bring the subject before the House, so as to give us an opportunity to apply the proper remedy. If we print this abstract, we shall have to reprint it in the compendium. I want but one job of printing; and I want nothing but a succinct and complete compendium.

I am utterly opposed to the publication of this large work which they are now discussing in the Senate, for it will cost us six or seven hundred thousand dollars. I believe we have already spent for the printing pertaining to this census near half a million of dollars. The exact amount I do not know, but the sum is large. How much more are you going to spend? Let us not send out these partial returns or abstracts. Let us get an accurate compendium of the whole and make one business of it. Let us wait until what we want is finished, and then have as many copies of it printed as we may think proper. I am for a reconsideration of the vote by which the resolution was passed.

Mr. DUNCAN. I am entirely at a loss to account for the sensitiveness of many gentlemen upon this floor in regard to the publishing of this very useful document. I hope the House will not be alarmed by any bugbears about the public printing or printer from ordering this publication. The resolution does not propose to take it from the public printer, if it belongs to him. It places the matter at the disposal of the Committee on Printing, who are to judge in relation to it. If they decide that this printing belongs to the public printer, they will give it to him. They are limited to be sure in the price, and if the public printer cannot print it under the limitation-one cent per copy -the committee will so report to the House, and the House will take due order upon the subject. For myself I have no great solicitude about the House being so particular to live up to their contracts with the public printer. Ever since I have been here the public printers have been violating their contracts from day to day.

Mr. ORR. The gentleman first says that this matter is to be intrusted to the Committee on Printing, and if they decide that it belongs to him, they will make the contract. Have we not a contract with the public printer which embraces this and every other description of work? How will you set aside that contract and make a new one?

Mr. DUNCAN. The answer will be this: By the resolution the cost is limited to one cent per copy. If the committee decide that the job belongs to the public printer, and he will not execute it at the price stipulated in the resolution, they come to the House for instructions. It cannot be the cost of the printing of this document that alarms the gentleman. The whole cost of the one hundred thousand copies, if my arithmetic is right, is but $1,000. I recommend it as a measure of economy, because, in my humble judgment, it will prevent the necessity of printing one thousand copies of the full returns of the cen

NEW SERIES....No. 20.

order will be taken for printing the returns of the census in full until near the close of this session. We will be fortunate if we receive them by the close of the present Congress. This compendium will furnish all the information in regard to the census which nine tenths of the people of this country require.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Let me ask the gentleman if it gives the white population of each State?

Mr. DUNCAN. I believe it does.
Mr. STEPHENS. It does not.

Mr. DUNCAN. Then I am greatly mistaken. So far as it goes, it seems to me to be a very lucid abstract of the returns of the census, and furnishes precisely that information which will be satisfactory to nine tenths of the people of this country. I hope, therefore, the House will not hesitate to order the printing.

Mr. CARTTER. I voted for the suspension of the rules for the introduction of this resolution. I so voted with the distinct appreciation of the fact that in the act of doing so, we might be, or we might not be, trampling upon the nominal terms of the contract. It is suggested here, as a matter of serious apprehension to the opponents of this resolution, that the contractor with the Government for the printing of Congress may demur to this diversion of the printing of the House to the hands of other printers. He would be a pretty subject to do it-a man who has day by day and hour by hour since his undertaking lived in a series of violations of his contract.

Mr. ORR, (interposing.) I do not propose to defend the public printer. I do not know him at all. I do not know how he has discharged his duty. But I will call the attention of the gentleman from Ohio to this fact, that of the public printer has failed thus far to discharge his duty, the Committee on Printing have not discharged their duty, by reporting that fact to the House.

Mr. CARTTER. I am not a member of that committee, and will not hold myself responsible for their short-comings of duty. But this I do know, and this fact is known to every gentleman upon this floor, that from the opening to the close of the last Congress, and from the opening of this Congress down to the present time, this contractor has lived in violation of his contract and existed upon the mercy of this House. I hesitate not to declare that upon every occasion I will vote to send the printing where it can be had.

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky, (interrupting.) I desire to say, in response to the inquiry made a few moments go by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR.] that the Committee on Printing have had this matter under consideration, and that no later than last Friday we sent for the public printer and had a long interview with him. We inquired of him how far he was prepared to go, in the faithful and honest execution of his contract; and he gave us to understand distinctly that he could not comply with his contract, and did not expect to do it, in this respect, that he was not prepared to furnish such a description of paper as the contract required. The contract requires a description of paper which weighs fifty pounds to the ream, while the paper now used weighs only from thirty-eight to fifty pounds per ream. He says that the reason is, that he cannot purchase the paper required by the contract, because he has no money to pay cash for it and cannot get it on credit. In reference to the manner of executing the work already ordered, he says that the Presi dent's message cannot possibly be ready in less than two weeks, but that nearly all the bills and reports sent to him have been printed and furnished to the House.

Mr. STUART. While the gentleman from the Committee on Printing is explaining this matter to the House, I would be glad to learn what measure is in contemplation for the relief of the contractor?

Mr. ORR. And how long it will be before they submit a report on the subject?

Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky. 1 mentioned that matter to the committee, and they thought it

was necessary to have some direct action on the part of the House. The honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means was appealed to, to offer a resolution instructing the Committee on Printing to take this matter into consideration and make a report upon the subject. We were ready to act, and would have acted that very day, if the resolution had been adopted, but when the honorable gentleman presented his resolution it was objected to all over the House. Whenever the House shall authorize the committee to take the subject into consideration, we shall be ready to act, and to act promptly.

Mr. CARTTER. I am very glad to learn that this public printer had honesty enough to confess to the Committee on Printing, the truth which I was stating when I was interrupted-that he never has complied with his contract, and the history of his connection with this House, has been a continued and living violation of his contract. I care nothing about it so far as he is concerned individually, but inasmuch as it encumbers, and embarrasses, and arrests the proceedings of this House, we have a right to complain. The remedy must consist either in a report from the Committee on Printing, or in the direct action of this House, in procuring the publication of the matter that it sends forth. The power to do it is here; the will to do it is here; and the duty to do it is also here. I am indisposed to await the crooked, tortuous delay experienced by the last Congress through the action of the Committee on Printing. In the first place, we are encumbered by a set of rules, under which we can do nothing except out of order; and in the second place, we are encumbered with an insolvent contractee, who holds back the printing that we order, under the pretext that he cannot do it, and then this very insolvency of the contractor is held up by honorable gentlemen as a solemn obstacle to the publication of our documents.

poses to travel through the formula of a report, instead of taking a confessed fact and acknowledged truth.

Mr. KING, of New York. There is one point which has not been alluded to in this discussion, to which I desire to call the attention of the House for my own information, and for theirs.

I understand that in case of the refusal or neglect of the public printer to do the work suitably and conveniently for the House, there is authority by the contract itself to procure the printing to be done elsewhere.

Mr. TAYLOR. Who is authorized to do it? Mr. KING. Why, the parties who made the contract under the authority of the House-the clerks, I suppose. I ask that the Committee on Printing should communicate to the House whether what I have stated is the fact or not. understand that it is so.

I

Mr. CARTTER. My view of the subject presupposes that there is no such express alternate in the contract, but that the House has the alternative that every party to a contract that has been violated has, in virtue of the violation itself, and that is clearly our condition. This printer has neither conformed to his contract in time, ink, paper, or any of the essential elements of his undertaking; this has been a confessed truth through two long years; and here we are now, starting off in a new Congress with the same promises of infidelity to the contract, and yet we are arrested when we attempt to pick up a little abstract of the census, with the plea that we are endangering the integrity of our contract with this party. For one, I am prepared to do it. The result of this census, if dependent on the administration of this contract and the disposition of the Census Department or Bureau--whichever you call it-will not be published until we are called upon to take another Census. The Census Office is assuming the Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, (interrupting.) character of a permanent bureau, and all the agenI would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio, that cies and appliances about that office have in their if we have an insolvent contractee, it would be tendencies the object of making it a fixed Departwell for us immediately to impeach those officers ment of the Government. And, therefore, instead who made the contract with him. Let us be bound of having a prompt and punctual publication of by our laws. The law requires that those who the results of the census, which is only valuable make the contract, shall take good security for for present purposes, except as an historic docuthe faithful fulfillment of it. Now if it be true ment, it is being delayed for years. It is an abuse that this has not been done-and I do not know of the Government to tolerate it. It is an abuse whether it is true or not-let us commence rightly, of the public mind to tolerate it. What with this by bringing those who made the contract to judg-printer and the tendency of the Department to proment and punishment.

Mr. CARTTER. The gentleman from Georgia differs from me in an important particular. He proposes to stay the hand of Congress, to delay the action of the House, and deprive us of this printing until we can try a collateral question, and impeach collateral officers. Now, I am for impeaching these officers, if they have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, but I would disregard the

contract too.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. The gentleman would not do it without a hearing.

Mr. CARTTER. Not at all. I would give them from now till the day of judgment, but I would have the printing done in the mean time.

Mr. STEPHENS. Let me make another suggestion. Would it not be better for us this day to instruct the Committee on Printing to inquire into the condition of the public printing before we violate the contract?

Mr. CARTTER. I think not. It is against my whole view of the subject to do any such thing. According to my understanding of the legal obligation of a contract, when one party finds the other in default, and especially in default in a precedent undertaking; he is at liberty to disregard the obligation, and the laches on the part of the precedent obligee furnishes a legal foundation for his doing it. Now, this contractor has, in conversation with our committee, acknowledged himself to be in that position, and still the gentleman from Georgia suggests that we had better delay. Mr. STEPHENS. The joint Committee on Public Printing have made no such report.

Mr. CARTTER. That is very well understood by the House.

Mr. STEPHENS. Let us call for a full report. Let the committee announce to this House, in pursuance of law, that the contract has been forfeited, and then I will assist the gentleman to provide a remedy.

Mr. CARTTER. The only difference between the honorable member and myself is, that he pro

tract its action in connection with the census, you will drag along through this Congress without enlightening the public in reference to the results of the last census.

One of the important designs of the last Congress, in giving the details of statistics imbodied in that census, was to enlighten the citizens of the United States and our public officers with regard to the resources and current condition of the country. That object-which was the primary object in relation to the statistics-is completely voided and defeated by this delay. I am in favor of compensating for it as far as we are able; and this bugbear about violating the contract of this man, whose very existence is a violation of his contract, will not deter me from giving such votes as I think proper. I now move to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered-ayes 27,

noes 84.

A MEMBER. What is the state of the question?

The SPEAKER. The proposition was made by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] to reconsider the vote by which the House has just ordered 100,000 copies of a census document to be printed. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER, moves to lay that motion on the table. Upon the latter motion the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question was then taken, and there wereyeas 112, nays 57; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Charles Allen, Allison, Andrews, John Appleton, William Appleton, Averett, Babcock, Bartlett, Bibighaus, Bragg, Brenton, Briggs, Albert G. Brown, Buell, Burrows, Busby, E. Carrington Cabell, Caldwell, Thompson Campbell, Chandler, Chapman, Chastain, Clark, Cleveland, Cobb, Conger, Cullom, George T. Davis, Dawson, Dean, Diminick, Dockery, Duncan, Durkee, Fitch, Fowler, Freeman, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gaylord, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Green, Grey, Grow, Harper, Hart, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Horsford, John W. Howe, Thomas M. Howe, Hunter, Ives, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, John

|

Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kuhns, Kurtz, Lockhart, Martin, McNair, Meade, Miller, Miner, Molony, Henry D. Moore, Murray, Nabers, Newton, An drew Parker, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penn, Porter, Price, Rantoul, Robinson, Ross, Russell, Savage, Scher merhorn, Scudder, Origen S. Seymour, Skelton, Smith, Benjamin Stanton, Frederick P. Stanton, Rickard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, Stuart Benjamin Thompson, Thurston, Townshend, Walbridge, Ward, Washburn, Watkins, Welch, Wells, Wilcox, Williams, and Yates-112.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Barrere, Bell, Bocock, Brooks, Church well, Clingman, Colcock, Daniel, John G. Davis, Disney, Doty, Dunham, Edgerton, Ewing, Ficklin, Florence, Hamilton, Isham G. Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Houston, Howard, Thomas Y. How, Jackson, James Johnson, George W. Jones, Letcher, Mason, McLanahan, McMullin, Millson, John Moore, Murphy, Olds, Orr, Outlaw, Phelps, Polk, Richardson, Robbins, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Schooninaker, David L. Seymour, Stanly, Alexander H. Stephens, St. Martin, Strother, Sweetser, Taylor, George W. Thompson, Venable, Wallace, Walsh, Addison White, Alexander White, and Woodward-57.

So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

THE ELECTION OF THE DELEGATE FROM UTAH.

Mr. BRIGGS. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution, viz: Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be instructed to inquire into the election of John M. Bernhisel, the present Delegate from the Territory of Utah-whether said election was held according to law, and whether any bribery, corruption, or other illegal means were made use of by said Bernhisel, with Brigham Young, or any other persons, to secure the said election and return; with power to send persons and papers.

for