Whatever my sentiments and opinions may be in regard to the merits of the proposition contained in the amendment, he will compel me, if it is offered here, to vote against it. I hope, therefore, he will see that he places us in a false position, and withdraw his amendment. two years, provided you can then pay me two hundred dollars for the warrant, with twelve per cent. interest." Well, in very many instances the two years pass over, and the settlers are without the ability to pay according to their bargain; and thus the man who has located the warrant allegedly for the benefit of the settler, gets not only his land, but the benefit of all the labor which he has bestowed upon it for years. That is the operation which the production of these land warrants has produced in the Western country; and it is not a fact, that in that region they furnish any facility for the location of lands. It is rarely that they do otherwise than result in injury when they get amongst us. It is true, that sometimes a solitary individual from the West, when in New York, may purchase a land warrant for a little less than the Government price of the land, and may, when he reaches home, go and locate it; but these cases are by no means common. If, therefore, you seek to make this bill a facility for the location of lands, you will fail, and the result will be that the settler will not only lose his location, but his improvements also. I think, then, that there are reasons why Western men should make the most strenuous opposition to the assignability of these warrants. A gratuity to the soldier is not the thing that is wanted. The design, indeed, may be good, but the result is not so. You give him an assignable warrant which he sells for half or one third of its value, and which finds its way into the hands of speculators. These speculators locate the warrants, and, as I have shown, by flattering prospects held out, frequently possess themselves of improvements which are the result of years of labor. The whole system, in all its operations, is prejudicial to the interests of those who are professedly most to be benefited; and as the representative of one of the Western States, it is a plan which I cannot support. Mr. WALKER. I would if it were in my power; that is, if I could do so without violating my duty to those whom I represent, I would accede to the request made by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. But I am no at liberty to do it; I feel myself under the fullest obligations to urge this subject upon every suitable occasion. But if we take the argument submitted by the Senator from Kentucky, and that submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts, and compare them with each other, I think we shall see that they are a most singular and astonishing fallacy. The honorable Senator from Kentucky says that this proposition, of which he claims to be the father, is one to give a mere gratuity to those who have fought the battles of the country. Why,'| sir, that gratuity was given in the bill which this proposes to explain; and that gratuity, it turns out, was a gratuity which the old soldiers do not want. It provides for a class of people who have fought the battles of their country, and now it turns out that they do not want the grant; and then the Senator from Kentucky makes a great merit of it, that when he has given what they do not want, he provides a way by which those who wish to speculate in the land can obtain it at one half or one third of its real value. That is the argument. A gratuity is given, and when it turns out that it is a failure, the actual settler must be injured in order that the speculator may be benefited. And there is so much merit in that, in the estimation of the Senator from Massachusetts, that it must be held up before the Senate as a preeminent matter of consideration, and we must exclude all other classes of mankind, and all other classes of grants of land, and suffer nothing to be interposed between it and the consideration of the object which he has in view. I believe there is more merit in the amendment than in the proposition before the Senate. There are vast numbers who would like to have a piece of land on which to settle; and if there be those of the old soldiers who will not go to occupy these lands which are granted to them, it is no good reason why those who desire to have a home should not have one; it is no reason because they will not go and avail themselves of the home which is offered to them, that nobody else shall go. It is said that the old soldier does not need the land himself. But what does he want? The Senator from Kentucky proposes to give him, after he refuses to take the land, what will be worth to him perhaps fifty dollars. You then give him the privilege of selling his warrant for fifty dollars, by which the holder of the warrant will get land worth, at the Govern-ulator. He is the speculator's friend on this floor, ment price, $200, and the Government will be wronged out of $150. The speculator will be indefinitely benefited by imposing upon the holders of warrants in this way. Mr. UNDERWOOD. When I was up before, I did not intend to utter an expression which could elicit debate. I merely remarked that this amendment was to perfect the system which Government had pursued toward these old soldiers. I did not intend to be driven into a discussion. Time is valuable, and I think voting is better than discussion. If I were to consume time in debate, I think I could demonstrate, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the policy of my friend from Wisconsin, in refusing to make these warrants assignable, helps the speculator, and enables him to double and treble his profits, and make the whole out of the pockets of the old soldiers. Those who now purchase these warrants, make the fact that they are not assignable a pretext for a reduction of the price to be paid for them. I could demonstrate that the system which the gentleman advocates, while it ruins the old soldier does not benefit the country, and operates in favor of the specgiving him a profit daily and hourly. But I have said I will not be driven into a discussion on this subject. I merely wish to say that I disclaim much that the gentleman has imputed to me. Mr. DAWSON. I wish to say a few words in proposition? Here we have a bill proposing to give one hundred and sixty, or eighty, or forty acres of land, as the case may be, to the old soldiers for their toil, trouble, and dangers in the service of the country; and by the amendment proposed, we say to every foreigner in all the world, "You may just step over into the United States and settle on one hundred and sixty acres, and you will have all the rights and privileges with the old soldiers who have fought the battles of the country. Now it was urged here yesterday that the assignment of land warrants would operate bene-reply to my friend from Wisconsin. What is his ficially to the actual settler, and the Senator from Louisana [Mr. Downs,] asked if the settler is to buy his land and pay for it, and can buy it with a warrant for which he has paid only a hundred dollars, will not that be reducing the price of land to actual settlers?" It would indeed, if it could be done so; but whatever may be the case in other States, this practice has not obtained in Wisconsin. Land warrants are chiefly purchased at the agency offices in New York, and Philadelphia, and Buffalo, and in Washington and other places. These warrants, when thus purchased, are sent in large numbers to Milwaukie and other places in Wisconsin, and are located. Now if the settler whose preemption is about to expire, goes to the agent to purchase a warrant for the purpose of securing his title to his land by payment with the warrant, the chances are a hundred to one if the agent will sell him one. The agent will reply, "I have no warrants for sale. What do you want with a warrant?" And the applicant will reply, "I desire to save my preemption." "Well," says the agent, "I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll locate your land and improvements in my own name, or in the name of the company who own the warrants, and I will give you an instrument, providing that you shall have your farm clear in Mr. WALKER. I knew that would be the argument of the Senator from Georgia, if he spoke at all; for it is the fourth or fifth time he has introduced it when he has spoken on this subject. But I wish to reply to the honorable Senator from Kentucky, and say to him that I am not the speculator's friend either in the operation of my amendment or in intention. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I do not say it is his intention to befriend the speculator, but his arguments lead to it. WALKER. I will ask the Senator from Kentucky if he knows of an office in any city for the purchase of these new land warrants? I know there are agencies in every city in the country for the purchase of the warrants given to the soldiers Mr. WALKER. I yield the floor. Mr. UNDERWOOD. In my section of country, I know a young man to have been employed to go out and locate these warrants. He makes his contracts in this manner: "You give me so much for my trouble in visiting the States where the public lands are to be found, and locating your warrants"-making a handsome profit upon that -" and then I will pay you so much, if you will convey your claim to me when the patent is obtained." That is the way in which the bargain is made, and the sum which is received by the original holder of the warrant is not half of what he will get if you will make the warrants assignable at once. Mr. WALKER. That is the case given by the Senator from Kentucky of a young man who contracted to locate these land warrants, and with the prospect of securing a title to the land. That is very indefinite. I do not know what he is to get, neither what he is to receive for his compensation, nor what he is to pay for the land. But I will make this assertion, that if you make these land warrants assignable, without affixing to them a given cash value, they will come down to a price which will be merely nominal. Sir, I know of agencies established, not to purchase these warrants, but to locate them in the best places for the benefit of the large holders. There is an agent in the city in which I live who will agree to locate a hundred and sixty acres for ten, and eighty or forty acres for five dollars, and who will guaranty its quality. And, sir, if any land is worth $1 25 an acre to the General Government, that land is worth that much to the proprietor when the warrant is located. I am quite aware that in many instances land warrants have brought their full value; but if you make all this new batch assignable, there will be so much competition that the price will come down to a mere fraction of what it ought to be, as was the case with the Mexican lands. If the soldiers, in whose favor these land warrants were issued, would employ men who would honestly discharge the duty of locating the warrants, they would obtain the full value of them, and we should hear nothing more of the clamor about this gratuity of the Government to the soldiers having gone into the hands of others than those for whose benefit it was exclusively designed. I know an instance in this city of a man who had two warrants which he offered for $210, and the man to whom they were offered refused to take them at the price; but he located them for the individual, and since that time he has sold this land-the whole of the three hundred and twenty acres for $4 an acre, thus realizing $1,280 for what, a short time before, he had offered for $210. Now, that is an instance that I know of, and yet it is urged by those who are interested in speculating in these warrants, that they cannot be made available to the holders at this time. That is an argument which has been urged out of doors, and Senators are made to believe that there is no way of benefiting the soldier but by making the warrants assignable. It is, however, a false argument-one which is made to bear upon those who control the newspaper press, and is reechoed here by Senators who do not, I admit, intend to reflect the interests of men engaged in these speculations, but who do it completely in effect. That is, however, the effect; and I repeat that it is an argument which is unsound and false, to say that the warrants cannot be made to benefit the holder to the full extent, if they would take the proper means to avail themselves of such benefit. I will venture to say, that if the holders of the warrants will locate them for themselves, or will employ proper persons to do it for them, the lands will be worth double the price which they will get for them if they are made assignable. My opposi tion, then, to the assignability of land warrants is friendly to the holders. It is not because I am inimical to the interest of the old soldier that I oppose this bill; but I believe that, when the warrants are made assignable, his interests will be sacrificed sooner and with more 1 E certainty than by any other system. But you may say that is his own business: he is a freeman, ad can do as he pleases with his own property. I know there is some force in the objection that we give lands and then tie it up in the hands of the holders of the warrants. But that you should have considered in the first place, and not have taken a course to throw away the benefit which you propose to bestow. Now, when it turns out, according to this outside argument which we hear, that the soldier does not want the land, it is taken for granted that the only other manner in which you can benefit him, is to make the warrants assignable. It is not so; and the holders of the warrants will see that it is not so, if they will take into consideration their true interest, and they will locate their warrants themselves when they understand that the assignment of them will be of very small pecuniary benefit to them. Mr. DAWSON. I have been somewhat surprised at the observation of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. WALKER,] as to his having heard the argument that I made, used before by me. I recollect that when the subject of the distribution of the public lands was before us heretofore, the Senator erected a platform, and presented himself upon it in such a manner that no one could fail to have his attention drawn to it. Since that time it has been understood that his mode and manner of disposing of the public lands formed a sort of platform for some purpose or other, which I cannot say now. If I were so unkind or ungenerous s to retort upon him, I might say, how often have I heard the same argument from him, not only in the Senate, but in other places, which he has used on this occasion? But I have nothing to say against his doing that. It is the principle advocated which I oppose, and the manner which he assumes to himself to control the action of this hady, and express his views, somewhat indigntly, against the views of all others. He says that these public lands ought to go-to whom? To the people. What people? I agree with him that they should go to the people of the United States; that they should be the property of the country upon certain terms; and whenever we make donations to them it should be according to the bill of my friend from Kentucky, || [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] giving them to the old soldier. But when, Mr. President, I see propositions made to favor people who are not now within the limits of our country; who never paid a dollar of tax into the Treasury; who never shouldered a gun in defence of the country, and to place them on a footing with the citizens and soldiers of our country, it looks a little strange to me at least. Because I draw a distinction between men who served the country in every capacity, and men who never served it at all, it is presented here as a strange and extraordinary argument. Shall I say to the Senator from Wisconsin that his course of policy is just of a character to cause the whole country to be settled by a foreign population? His plan is to make a gratuity to every man who will come from any section of the world, and settle on the public lands. At whose expense is this to be done? Who paid for the extinguishment of the title of the aborigines of the country to the soil upon which you reside? The whole people of the United States paid for it in and through taxation. And who gave you the power of taxing? The men who fought the battles of your country and sustained your Government. Yet they are to be disregarded, and cannot get any of these advantages upon the same terms as those who may have fought against us. Because I expressed an opinion of that kind, the Senator says he expected to hear it again. Why hear it again? Because it is founded in truth, in justice, in principle, and in patriotism. It is not advanced as a mere scheme to gain public applause, or to throw myself upon an elevated platform by which to gain the applause of parts of the community. The plan of my legislation is to act upon principles of equality and justice; to do justice to every section and to every man belonging to the country, according to his service. And because I express my opposition to giving the public lands, which my constituents assisted to pay for, to men who never paid a dollar into the Treasury, it is looked upon as something exceedingly strange. If ours was a Government not subject to the principle of the elective franchise, if it was governed differently, it might be done. From our local positions, and from other circumstances, we are led to adopt certain views, and become attached to them. I do not blame the Senator from Wisconsin for holding his views. But the lands in Alabama and Mississippi have been disposed of, and the proceeds have gone into|| the Treasury; and now because there are lands in other sections of the country, the people who go there are not to be subjected to the same proceeding, and are not to pay the same money into the Treasury as others did. There is a want of justice, of equity, and equality, in that. There is no principle about it at all. Why should we pass a law here to seduce our people to leave the old States and settle in the limits of other States? At whose expense will you be doing this? The States of Georgia and Kentucky are called upon to vote for a measure which will induce their population to go off and settle elsewhere, because by it property in other States will be given to them. Is it wise and politic-is it to be expected that the old States will give their support to a measure which will lead their population to leave them, and thereby diminish their own strength? The Senator from Wisconsin will in a moment see the impropriety of it. How is this to be done? Not by the money of the General Government merely, for it is the money of the people. And if the money of the people, which is now in the Treasury, or which has gone into the public lands under your control, is to be divided, to whom should it go? To the people who paid and fought for the land, and not to those who never gave a dollar or an hour of service to the Government. The principle advocated by the Senator from Wisconsin would give the lands to those who never advanced a dollar to the country; while mine is to give them to men who fought our battles and paid taxes into the Treasury. I was not desirous of going into this matter. Whenever the time will come to rally for the rights of the citizens of this country, native and adopted, against this plan of giving land away, or any other analogous to it, you will find that the people will rally for them. It is right that they should do so; and because I referred to it, I am held up here as repeating an argument. No better argument can be made. When I suggested the condensed argument, it was because a mere repetition of it supplies the whole argument, and there was no necessity of going into an extension of it. Every man comprehends it. I would not have made a reply to the Senator, but for what I consider an unkind and unnecessary remark, that he expected the argument from the Senator from Georgia, for he had heard it from him the fourth or fifth time. I have seen my friend more than four or five times standing upon the platform which he erected two years ago; and when he stood up so high, because I paid my respects to him, he ought to have felt grateful, instead of being excited, at what I said. These are my views. Mr. WALKER. Mr. President Mr. CLEMENS. I rise to a point of order. I believe the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken on this subject more times than the rules allow, and I have the preference for the floor. Mr. WALKER. I will give way with great cheerfulness. Mr. CLEMENS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive business. The PRESIDENT. The motion cannot be received while this question is under consideration. Mr. CLEMENS. As I think it important that we should proceed to the consideration of Executive business, I move to postpone this subject until we have more time to hear speeches upon it. At the suggestion of Senators, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. WALKER. I hope no one will suppose that I am going into an extended argument The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama make his point of order? in this bill. It was the Native American tendency of the argument to which I intended to make a reply. I said that I expected, if I heard anything from him upon that branch of the amendment, that it would be just what he had said. Upon a previous occasion I offered a proposition in the Senate, to the bill authorizing the issue of land warrants, which amendment proposed to give to those who had declared their intention to become citizens, the rights and benefits resulting from it; and then the Senator objected to this feature of my proposition. He objects to it again. But now, will not the Senator allow me to pay him a compliment? It was that very argument that he thus made, objecting to that feature in my amendment, and a similar argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, that induced me to make the change which is made in the proposition which I have brought before the Senate-to require citizenship before an entry should be permitted. I intended to compliment the views of the Senators from Georgia and Kentucky, by the change which I have made in the proposition since I offered it upon a previous occasion. The Senator will perceive that naturalization must be perfected before the entry is permitted, according to the amendment. I have no disposition to keep off this vote. I know that the joint resolution will be adopted, but I still wish to discharge my duty. It is what every Senator desires to do when he knows that his constituents feel anxious that he should make head against it if possible, and when he feels a reciprocal interest and anxiety to discharge faithfully his duty and meet the wishes of his constituents. I hope I have done nothing more. I do not wish to force my peculiar views upon the Senate. I wish not to tire the patience of any. I wish not to be offensive. If you wish to pass the measure, pass it. I can see the evil consequences which will result from it. My constituents see them, and they wish me to resist the measure to the last. They wish me to resist this last measure of oppression to them in their young settlements. I do believe it will result in that. Take your vote and pass it; and if the consequences to the Western States which I have prophesied and pointed out do result, and if hereafter Western members see that I did point them out, let them thank themselves and bear in mind that I warned them upon the present occasion. The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 8, nays 35; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Gwin, Seward, Summer, Wade, Walker, and Whitcomb-8. NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Clarke, Clemens, Davis, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foot, Geyer, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, King, McRae, Mallory, Mangum, Miller, Norris, Rusk, Sebastian, Smith, Spruance, Stockton, Underwood, and Upham-35. So it was rejected. Mr. WALKER. I have another amendment, which I shall offer as a proviso to the first section of the amendment, as follows: Provided, That not more than two land warrants of the denomination of one hundred and sixty acres each, or the equivalent thereof in warrants of a less denomination, shall be located by or in the name of the same individual upon any of the public lands. The amendment to the amendment was not. agreed to. Mr. WALKER. I will have completed my duty when I shall have offered the following as a proviso to the first section of the amendment: Provided, That no land warrant shall be located within six miles of any proposed railroad line or route, unless such locatien be intended for purposes of actual settlement, to be ascertained by the oath of the party proposing to make the location. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GEYER. I have an amendment which I wish to offer to the first section of the amendment. It is to insert after the words "are hereby de Mr. CLEMENS. I do not make any motion,clared to be assignable," the words "by deed or as there seems to be a desire to vote upon the question. But I want to get into Executive sessiont I will not press my point of order. Mr. WALKER. I will detain the Senate only while I make a single observation, in reply to the Senator from Georgia. When I said that I expected to hear the argument from the Senator, if he said anything, I spoke entirely of his reference to the foreign population who might be embraced instrument of writing made and executed after the taking effect of this act." I will explain in a few words the object of it. It is to prevent past assignments, that are prohibited by law, from being set up in any form. There are many instances in which assignments have been made by individuals holding these warrants, and of course they have been subject to large deductions on account of the risk. The design of this amendment is twofold: to afford an opportunity to those individuals to reëxamine the subject before they make a new assignment, before they transfer their warrants; and also to prevent parties setting up a prohibited assignment. The PRESIDENT. The first section as proposed to be amended will read "That all warrants for military bounty lands which have been, or may hereafter be, issued under any law of the United States, and all valid locations of the same which have been or inay hereafter be made, are hereby declared to be assignable by deed or instrument of writing made and executed after the taking effect of this act, according to such form," &c. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Perhaps it is due to the committee to say that, in their deliberations on this subject, nothing occurred which would sanction the idea that we intended to ratify past assignments and contracts in reference to these warrants, made in violation of the law. I suppose that the object of my friend from Missouri is to prevent any such inference from being drawn, and to make it positive that those contracts which were illegally made before, can only be legalized by an instrument of writing made after the taking effect of this law. I have no objection to that; I suppose no member of the committee will object to it. It was not the intention either of any member of the committee or myself to ratify any such illegal warrants. Mr. DOWNS. I have no objection to the object of the amendment. I think it a very good one; but I have some doubts whether perhaps a different construction might not be put upon it. Could it not be more simply expressed? I suppose the Senator means by his amendment transfers made in the ordinary way. But the public officers might understand it differently. Some States may give a different interpretation to the words "deed or act." Mr. UNDERWOOD. The word "act" is not used. It is "instrument of writing.' Mr. GEYER. The words which follow in the bill explain it. The deed or instrument of writing is to be made according to such form, and pursuant to such regulations, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office." Mr. UNDERWOOD. That shows it. The amendment to the amendment was then agreed to. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I have an amendment which I wish to offer to the amendment. It is to insert in the 4th section, after the words "of any State," the words "or Territory," so that the section may read: "That in all cases where the militia or volunteers or State troops of any State or Territory were called into military service, and whose services have been paid for by the United States," &c., I presume there will be no objection to it. to. The amendment to the amendment was agreed Mr. GWIN. I have an amendment to propose as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That every actual settler, being an American citizen or having filed a declaration of intention to become such, whether the warrantee or assignee of a military bounty land warrant, shall be allowed to locate the same upon any public land inhabited and improved by such settler (provided the same be not mineral land) not exceeding in quantity one hundred and sixty acres, whether such land be subject to private entry or not, upon making proof to the satisfaction of the register and receiver, of actual inhabitancy and cultivation of the tract or tracts thus sought to be entered: Provided, That such locations shall not be permitted upon any land the price of which exceeds $1 25 per acre, unless the difference in cash be first paid. Mr. GWIN. I will briefly give the reasons why I think this additional section should be incorporated in the bill. There are a great many persons in the State which I represent entitled to bounty land warrants who could not claim a preemption on the lands upon which they are living, because they have left their farms in the States from which they emigrated. These parties cannot use these warrants. They are now settlers there on the public lands. They cannot claim the privileges of preemption because the law limits and excludes certain persons, and they are of that class. But they are the parties to whom these warrants are to be issued. All I wish is, that they may be permitted to locate them on the lands upon which they have settled. There is another important matter which seems to have been overlooked in this bill, and it is this: In extending the location of these bounty land warrants the mineral lands of California have not been excluded. They should be excluded from location in express terms in this bill. There should be a clause in it by which Mr. UNDERWOOD. I really think that there Mr. GWIN. Oh, yes! There is a Surveyor General for California, and the lands are being surveyed, and are open to preemption claims. friend from California, that he proposes the intro duction on the spur of the occasion, of a very important matter, which has not been deliberated upon by the Committee on Public Lands; and i strikes me that it will lead to consequences which we are not perhaps prepared to meet. I am not certain that there is any law granting preemption rights in California. Mr. GWIN. The general land laws have been extended there. Mr. UNDERWOOD. The chairman of the Committee on Public Lands [Mr. FELCH] is much more familiar with this subject than I am; for, for the last two years I have not been a member of that committee, and I would defer to his superior information on this subject. I do not know that there is any law in force in reference to the public Mr. UNDERWOOD. That may be; but the lands in California which grants preemption rights public lands in California have not yet been brought there, or states how much land the settler can into market by proclamation of the President of have. I recollect very well that provisions have the United States. No sales have yet been made. been made in regard to the public lands in the Steps have been taken, I know, to have the public || Territory of Oregon, but I have no recollection lands in California surveyed, but none of these now of any specific legislation which embraces warrants can be located on lands unless they are the public lands in California; and I doubt whether subject to entry by private individuals; and they the public laws in reference to the preemptive cannot be subject to entry by private individuals rights in force in the rest of the United States beuntil they have been offered for sale in the market, fore the acquisition of that territory will apply, under the proclamation of the President of the unless they have been expressly extended there. United States. That is the operation of the law These matters are sprung upon me just upon the as it now stands. So far as relates to the use of spur of the occasion, without having any opporthese land warrants in securing the home of the set- tunity of examining the statutes, without any optler, we made provision for that by an amendment portunity of ascertaining whether my ideas upon which we adopted when the bill was up yesterday. the subject are right or wrong. I am not prepared It does, therefore, seem to me, that the amend- to adopt any amendment of this kind in such a ment of my friend from California cannot have hurry, without its having gone through an inves a beneficial, but must have an injurious effect. tigation by the Committee on Public Lands. I I hope it will not be adopted. It is merely pro- would like to hear from the chairman of that comviding for that which is already provided for. mittee on this subject. If the Senator intends to enlarge the use of land warrants for settlers, so as to allow the settlers who have them to enter on the public lands, and locate them before the lands have been offered at public sale under proclamation of the President of the United States, I think it would be a bad policy to adopt any such provision. I hope, therefore, that on reflection, my friend from California will see the propriety of not pressing his amendment. Mr. GWIN. In reply to what the Senator from Kentucky has stated, I will say that these lands are now being surveyed, and unless we legislate on this subject during this session of Congress, before the next they may be offered for sale, or open to entries under the preemption laws; and therefore the very same process that exists in other States in regard to the public lands will be in operation there. Whenever the public lands in California are surveyed, a settler can claim a preemption right in that State, under existing laws; and if a settler on the public lands, there or elsewhere, has served in the war, and is entitled to a bounty land warrant, I propose that he shall have the privilege of locating his warrant on the land upon which he lives, whether he is or is not entitled to a preemption. That is the whole point of the case. There is, however, another provision in my amendment which I think a very important one, and that is, that none of the mineral lands in California shall be subjected to the provisions of this law. I consider that as of the very highest importance. The public lands in that State are being surveyed, and I have no doubt will be speedily offered at public sale, because the wants of that country require that they should be soon disposed of. Hence I think that this is of very great importance, for before we can pass another law upon this subject, these lands may be brought into market. All that I wish is, that every individual who has a bounty land warrant in his own right, now living on and cultivating the public lands in California, or any other State, when those lands shall be surveyed and brought into market, shall have the privilege of locating his warrant, instead of going to somebody else to sell it. Many of the citizens of California, emigrating from other States, have left a quantity of land undisposed of, that excludes them from the advantages of the preemption laws, and these individuals will be forced to sell their warrants, although they are now living on the public lands. I wish that every person in California, to whom a warrant is issued, shall have the privilege of locating it on the land on which he resides. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would say to my Mr. GWIN. At the last session of Congress a clause was inserted in one of the appropriat bills extending the land laws to California, providing for the appointment of a surveyor general, and making appropriations for the purpose of surveying the public lands in that State. The Committee on Public Lands had reported a land bill for California, which was elaborately prepared, and debated in the Senate; but owing to the discussion which arose upon the river and harbor bill it was not acted on. In order that the State which I represent should have the benefit of the land laws, and for the purpose of commencing the surveys of the public lands, an amendment was made to an appropriation bill of the character I have described. Under it a surveyor general has been appointed, and is now actively engaged in the performance of his duty. The Secretary of the Interior has estimated for a large amount to be appropriated for the survey of the public lands in California-an appropriation of some three hundred thousand dollars. The preemption law, as well as the general land laws, has been extended to California, as well as to other States where the lands are surveyed and brought into market, as the lands in California will very soon be. But here is the point in this case: There are persons in that State who, technically, are not entitled to the benefits of this general preemption law, because they have emigrated without having disposed of the lands they lived on. They are entitled to bounty land warrants as soldiers in the Mexican war, but cannot locate their warrants on the lands upon which they now reside. I simply wish that they shall have the privilege, if they are actual settlers and cultivators, of locating their own warrants to include their present homes and improvements-provided those locations shall not be made on mineral lands. That is the whole case. Mr. FELCH. It is perfectly manifest that this provision cannot be adopted and carried out without breaking in upon the whole system of the Government with regard to the public lands. The lands in California are not yet in the market; and although an appropriation was made for a surveyor to commence the surveys there, yet the system, as a system, is not to be extended in its practical operation to that portion of the country. The provision of law, under which the Surveyor General of California was appointed, makes an appropriation for the surveys in the ordinary manner, and under the general law of the United States; but there is not one acre of land in California which can be purchased by anybody for money or in any way. There can be no pur chasers of land there, and no entries of land, by land warrants or anything else, unless there be established land offices. There is neither land office nor land district in that portion of the country. settle on the land before it is ready to be brought into the market under any circumstances. We throw into the market every year a much larger amount of the public lands than is demanded for the ordinary sales of the year. Further provision of this kind, therefore, at the As I remarked before, formerly we restricted present time, is entirely inapplicable to the state preemption rights to a very small portion of terriof the case. It does not appear, as yet, what tory. Now, we have extended them; and a permay be done in regard to the lands in that coun- son may go to any portion of the public lands try. What we have hitherto done is this: We where surveys have been made and acquire a prehave provided for settling claims of all Spanish emption right. This proposition is to allow perand Mexican settlers, who claim by virtue of sons not only to go on the lands after the surveys grants from Spanish or Mexican governments. are made, and the boundaries are understood, and We have done nothing more. There was a bill the monuments affixed, and the locations are debefore the Senate, to which the Senator from Cali- fined, so that a man can know on what land he is; fornia has referred, extending the general system but it is proposed to allow people to settle on the of the land laws to California, and granting cer- lands and acquire preemption rights before anytain preemption rights and donation rights; but thing is done to make the landmarks, before anythe bill did not become a law. We have, there-thing is done to fix the locations. There is great fore, scarcely started upon the system of disposing liberality in the law which now prevails in referof the public lands in that country. All we have ence to the granting of preemption rights; and I done is to send a surveyor there, who may or heartily concur in the principle which has been may not have commenced the surveys. I am not adopted. But it seems to me that we could informed upon that point. scarcely carry it further without doing it great injustice, and at the same time making great confusion in the administration of the public domain. Mr. GWIN. He has commenced the surveys. Mr. FELCH. If this provision should be adopted, it will be impossible, under the bill, to commence proceedings in favor of any one man having a warrant there. He cannot locate it there, as there is no land office where he can locate it. There is no authority to allow him to locate. That is the state of the case at the present time. Preemption rights cannot, of course, apply to California, because the preemption right applies only to cases where the lands have been surveyed and are ready to be brought into market. Formerly those rights did not attach until the land was offered for sale. A more liberal law now prevails; and after the surveys are made with a view to sale, within the land districts where purchases can be made, there preemption rights may accrue. But settlers who have gone on the public lands in California, even if they have land warrants, are precisely in the same condition as men who have money in their pockets. Neither of them can take up lands there. They stand precisely on the same footing. Unless we are disposed to go beyond the principles which have heretofore been adopted, it does not seem to me that this provision could be of any practical effect, even if incorporated into the bill. Certainly it does not seem to me to be wise, at the present time, to adopt it. Mr. GWIN. From the statement which has just been made by the Senator from Michigan, it is perfectly evident that this bill is to have no bearing at all in California. That State is to be entirely excluded from its operations. I am astonished that when we are legislating upon so important a question as this, that there is no provision in this bill applicable to such a vast amount of lands as there is contained in the State of California. We all know that registers and receivers will very soon be appointed for that country; and then the general law of preemption will certainly be in operation. All I wish is, that the land laws may be extended, in every particular, to the people of California as they are to other sections of the Union. If we adopt this amendment now, it will not be necessary to legislate upon this subject again when the California land bill comes up for consideration. I am opposed to the passage of this or another law that will have to be altered hereafter, and adapted to laws to be enacted for California; for I know the difficulty of getting any special legislation for that State. I wish this to be a general law, and when we do adopt a land system for California, and carry it out by the appointment of proper officers, the citizens of that State will have the same rights as the citizens of other States under the same land laws. It is evident that in a short time we shall extend the land system into California, and appoint registers and receivers. Then why not have a provision in this law giving to the citizens of that State the same rights which citizens of other States are to have? Mr. FELCH. It is not California alone to which the principle applies which the Senator states. It applies to Oregon, where we have sold no lands; it applies to New Mexico; it applies to Utah; it applies to most of the new States; it applies to a portion of my own State; it applies to all the unsurveyed lands. It has never been the policy of the Government to induce persons to come and Mr. GWIN. We know perfectly well that in all of the new States settlements are made on the public lands before they are surveyed; and when the lands are surveyed, the settlers have the rights and privileges of preemptors. The public lands are now being surveyed in California. We have asked for a large appropriation for their survey. Surveys in that country are made with great rapidity if ample means are placed at the disposal of the Surveyor General. It is expected that in twelve months there will be a large quantity of our public lands open to the preemption laws. With regard to Oregon, it is true the preëmption laws have not been extended there-but why? Because you give the lands away there. You give them donation privileges, and they do not want preemption rights. In regard to New. Mexico and Utah, I know that the preemption laws have not been extended there. No Surveyor General has been appointed for these Territories. They need legislation, and they need it badly. But it is my duty to endeavor to bring into active operation in California the provisions of the preemption laws, and to give every person entitled to a bounty land warrant, and an actual settler and cultivator of the public domain other than mineral lands, the right of locating his warrant on his own home. This is the only object I have in view. Mr. SHIELDS. I would suggest to the Senator from California, that when the land system shall be extended to his State, this law will apply to that State. I am for the general principle of our preemption law. I understand the matter perfectly; and I say that the gentleman, by his amendment, will accomplish nothing whatever. Mr. GWIN. The amendment will accomplish this: it will permit an individual living on the public lands in California, after the lands shall have been surveyed and opened to preemption, to locate his own warrant on the land on which he resides and cultivates. That is certainly a new principle, and a very important one. Citizens of every State in the Union, who served in the war with Mexico, have emigrated to California, and I want to give them the privilege of locating their own warrants to include their new homes, whenever the public lands shall come into market. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The amendment made in Committee of the Whole as amended, was agreed to. The PRESIDENT. The question now is: Shall the amendment be engrossed, and the bill be read a third time? Mr. WALKER. On that question I ask the yeas and nays. eration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened,,and The Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, January 20, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. MORGAN. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the joint resolution No. 1, heretofore reported from the select committee, to which the same was referred, with an amendment explanatory of the act of 1850 granting to certain officers and soldiers bounty land, &c.; the pending question being on the motion submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DUNHAM,] to commit the said joint resolution and pending amendments to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and on which question the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FITCH] is entitled to the floor. Mr. HOUSTON. I should like the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union this morning, and take up the Mexican indemnity bill, if the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FITCH] would yield the floor for that purpose. Mr. FITCH. I am not particular as to the time' of resuming the consideration of this joint resolution, but my object is, that whenever it does come up-and upon which I have the floor-to make my objections to it known. If occupying the morning hour in the consideration of that report will interfere with the business of the Committee of Ways and Means, I have no objection, so far as I am concerned, to give way to the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HouSTON.] Mr. HOUSTON. I wish to state to the House, though I do not know it, other than from rumors, aside from the fact that the House possesses the knowledge, that there is a strong necessity for acting upon this bill at an early period. I understand there is a communication upon the Speaker's table from the President of the United States, urging that we shall act upon it speedily. I will, therefore, move that the communication be first read, and then I will propose to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. AFFAIRS OF UTAH. The SPEAKER (there being no objection) proceeded to lay before the House a communication from the President of the United States, in regard to the affairs of Utah. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. That is not the message referred to. Mr. HOUSTON. Never mind. Let it be read, and I will move that it be laid upon the table and printed. The communication was accordingly read, as follows: To the House of Representatives: I transmit a copy of a letter which has been addressed to me by the Secretary of the Territory of Utah since my recent message to the House of Representatives, in answer to its resolution requesting information in regard to the affairs of that Territory. MILLARD FILLMORE. WASHINGTON, 16th January, 1852. To the President of the United States: SIR: Among the official papers relating to affairs in the 1851. Territory of Utah, as published in "The Daily Globe" of the 10th instant, is a letter from Governor Brigham Young to the President of the United States, dated September 29th, In this letter the following paragraph occurs, to wit: "Mr. Harris informed me, in a conversation which I had with him, that he had private instructions, designed for but his own, to watch every movement, and not pay no eye out any funds, unless the same should be strictly legal, ' according to his own judgment." 6 I beg leave to say, that the statement contained in this taken resulted-yeas 35, nays 3; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Bradbury, Brodhead, Clarke, Davis, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Downs, Fish, Foot, Geyer, Hale, Hamlin, Hamer, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, McRae, Mallory, Mangum, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Soulé, Spruance, Stockton, Sumner, and Underwood-35. NAYS-Messrs. Gwin, Wade, and Walker-3. On motion, the Senate proceeded to the consid I had private instructions, designed for no eye but my own, to watch every movement," &c., has no foundation in truth, and is so very improbable in itself as to excite astonishment that Governor Young should have made it. I had but one conversation with Governor Young, within my recollection, in which official instructions were mentioned at all, and that conversation was in substance as follows: Governor Young was striving to induce me, by argument and persuasion, to disburse the public money then in my possession, in payment of the mileage and per diem, and the contingent expenses of the last Legislature of the provisional government of the State of Deseret. I informed him that I could not comply with his wishes. "But," said he, "suppose the Territorial Legislature, about to as semble, should so appropriate the money, and direct you to pay it; you would of course comply?" I replied that I could not; that I had instructions from the Treasury Department to guide me as disbursing agent, and that I would not be permitted to plead an act of the Legislature in excuse for the illegal disbursement of the money in my hands." I had no other conversation with Governor Young which could possibly have suggested to his mind the idea of making such a charge against me. There are other misstatements in the letters of Governor Young and Mr. Bernhisel equally gross and untrue; but as they do not relate to me alone, I do not deem it proper to refer to them more particularly in this communication. I have the honor to be, with the highest regard, your most obedient servant, B. D. HARRIS, Secretary of Utah Territory. WASHINGTON, January 12th, 1852. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, the communication was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. MEXICAN INDEMNITY. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the President of the United States, covering a letter from the contractors for paying the installment of Mexican indemnity due on the 31st of May next. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, the communication was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HOUSTON. I move that the rules be sus pended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, in the chair.) The CHAIRMAN. The first business before the committee is the annual message of the President of the United States. Mr. HOUSTON, (interrupting.) But I think that under the rules of the House governing the committee, I have the right to move to take up any appropriation bill, or any bill for the purpose of executing a treaty. The CHAIRMAN. That is the rule. MEXICAN INDEMNITY BILL. Mr. HOUSTON. I move, therefore, to take up the bill to provide for carrying into execution, in further part, the twelfth article of the treaty with Mexico, concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo. The bill is as follows, viz: Be it enacted, &c., That the sum of $3,180,000 be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the payment of the installment and interest which fall due on the 30th of May, 1852, under the twelfth article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, made and concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d of February, 1848. Mr. McMULLIN. It is, perhaps, unfortunate for me that I am entitled to the floor, particularly as I have not given this subject that consideration which its importance demands; and I shall not occupy the time of the House but a very few moments. I have already effected the object with which I originally set out-that of calling the attention of the House and of the country to this particular case. At the last Congress this subject, or rather a bill providing for the payment of the Mexican indemnity, was before the House. It was my misfortune then to differ with several gentlemen, and with my honorable colleague, [Mr. BAYLY,] who was then the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and with whom it is at all times painful to me to differ. I am sure I need not say one word to my colleague with a view to reconcile him to the course which I have taken in reference to this matter. That gentleman knows full well that there are but few men, if any, upon this floor, whose capacity and efficiency as a legislator I appreciate more highly than his. But thought then, as I think now, that there was something wrong in relation to the payment of this Mexican indemnity. I understand, sir, that this subject will be discussed at some length, and my object is simply to call the attention of the House to the fact, that in the payment of the last Mexican indemnity, there was a loss to this Government of some sixty or eighty or one hundred thousand dollars, because of the manner in which that payment was made; in other words, if the payment had been differently made-made by agents who proposed to make it, other than Corcoran & Riggs, and those British bankers, there would have been a saving to the American Government of some sixty or eighty thousand dollars. Now, it is not my purpose to reflect upon the Committee of Ways and Means of the Thirty-first Congress, nor is it my purpose to cast any reflections whatever upon the Confmittee of Ways and Means of this Congress. But I wish to say, sir, that it is a subject worthy of the consideration of the Committee of Ways and Means, and of their investigation, to see whether or not a saving could be made to this Government in the manner of payment of this indemnity. But, Mr. Chairman, I hold also, that if it is practicable to negotiate this payment, so as to save the sum, which I presume can be saved to the Government, and at the same time accommo. date Mexico, it is the bounden duty of this Government to do it. My understanding was, during the last Congress, that the Mexican Government desired the payment to be made to them otherwise than through this channel by which it was proposed to be made. I presume, if you look into the facts of the case, you will find that the Mexican Minister, then in the city of Washington, protested against the payment of the indemnity in the manner proposed. I shall not stop, sir, to inquire into the amount which was made heretofore by these British bankers and Corcoran & Riggs. That is a matter with which I have nothing to do; but there is one point of view in which I desire to examine this subject. It was contended by the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress, and by you, sir, as one of that committee, and also by my honorable colleague, [Mr. BAYLY,] then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and perhaps by others, that Congress had no right thus to negotiate the payment, without another treaty. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not profess to be versed in constitutional law, nor do I profess to be versed in laws growing out of treaty obligations and stipulations. But I do profess to know a little something about ordinary and common-place transactions. Sir, will you tell me, or will my honorable colleague, or any other member upon this floor, tell me, and stake his reputation upon that issue, that if the Mexican Government, through her duly-constituted agent in the city of Washington, indicates her purpose to receive the payment of the indemnity, or the amount due to her, from the legallyconstituted agent of the American Government, and that a payment thus made at the instance of the Mexican Government, through the agency and instrumentality of the Mexican Minister, would not be valid in law? I know that such an opinion is entertained. Now, with due regard to the opinion of my colleague, [Mr. BAYLY, and others, who differ with me upon this subject, I undertake to say that if you submit this question to the American people, as a practical, plain, commonsense people and this being a common-sense view of this question-they would decide that if the payment had been thus made, there would have been the end of it. In reference to the assaults made upon my colleague [Mr. BAYLY] through the newspapers, I have nothing to do. In I now desire, Mr. Chairman, to address myself more particularly to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. HoOUSTON.] I desire that gentleman and his committee to investigate this point in the case. Has the American Congress the authority, by the sanction of the Mexican Government, and her legal agent and representative here, the right to direct how this payment shall be made? In the investigation of this subject we are met my my honorable colleague [Mr. BAYLY] and others with this view of the case: If you undertake to direct the payment of this indemnity otherwise than as provided for by the treaty stipulations, you will throw a responsibility upon an irresponsible source. other words, it was contended, as it is contended now, that the Executive Department of this Government, as the treaty-making power, must see to the payment of this money. Now, I ask the gentleman at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, if the Mexican Government shall agree to receive this indemnity by means of any other agent or agents than Corcoran & Riggs, and those British bankers, by which the Mexican Government shall save one or two hundred thousand dollars, and the American Government some sixty or eighty thousand dollars, whether it is not competent, without calling for another treaty, thus to provide for the payment of the money? To my mind it is competent for the Government to pay off that indemnity in the manner suggested, without any other treaty. Mr. HOUSTON. I will give the gentleman my opinion. I have no question of the power of Congress, if they shall see proper, to instruct as to the mode and manner of making this payment. I have no question but Congress has the power to direct the President in the manner the payment shall be made, if they shall see fit so to act. The position I took was, that unless some gentleman will say that the President of the United States, or the authority making the payment, has done so improperly, corruptly, or fraudently, we have nothing to do with the manner of payment. We ought to do our duty by passing the appropriation, and leave to the Executive the responsibility which, under the law, rests upon him, in executing fairly the laws passed by Congress. I have no doubt about the power of Congress. Charges are talked about without there being anything brought forward, anything tangible. If the gen tleman will say that the President or Secretary of State are guilty of fraud or corruption, then it is not only in the power of Congress, but the duty of Congress, to control their action. Mr. McMULLIN. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has conceded a little more than I expected he would have done, but still he desires that some gentleman shall come forward and do-what? Charge that there is corruption or impropriety on the part of the Execu tive Department of the Government. Can the chairman of Ways and Means tell me that that is the duty of every member of this House, unless they are satisfied that corruption really exists? No, sir; but any member of this House has the right to ask that payment of the indemnity shall be made differently than that proposed by the Executive, if it shall go to the saving to the Government of the United States of a large amount of money, without charging corruption. Mr. HOUSTON. With the permission of the gentleman from Virginia, I will say this much further in illustration of the position I have takenthat if the President of the United States, in the execution of the law which we may pass for appropriation, shall fail to protect the Government of the United States and all its interests in making that payment, or if he shall put it into the power, by the manner in which the indemnity is paid, of the bankers of this country, of England, or of France, or anywhere else, to impose upon México, then I say he has not acted properly in the discharge of his duty. That is what I mean. If the case is presented, that the President of the United States could have saved by a different mode of payment, or that he could now save any amount of money to the Treasury which he otherwise would let go into the hands of private individuals or companies, or has made his arrangements understandingly so as to enable Mexico to be fleeced by American citizens or others, then the President of the United States has not discharged his duty. Mr. McMULLIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, such have been the charges preferred against the President of the United States outside of this House through the papers, and also against the Cabinet, who are concerned in this matter. It demands investigation. Mr. CABELL, of Florida. I will ask the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. McMULLIN] to state by whom these charges have been made here to justify the action of this House. Mr. McMULLIN. I did not state that they had been made upon the floor of the House of Representatives, but I stated they have been preferred in the newspapers. Mr. DISNEY. With the permission of the gentleman from Virginia, I would like to address a word to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. HOUSTON.] Mr. McMULLIN. Certainly, sir. Mr. DISNEY. As I understand it, this whole affair is simple in its character and easily to be arrived at. Charges have been made in the public prints of this city, that while the Mexican Government, through its accredited Minister here, expressed its willingness and desire to have this money paid here upon the draft of the Mexican Government, and thus to consult at once the wishes, interest, and policy of the Mexican Government, as well as the pecuniary interest of the United States, it was the pleasure of the Executive De |
