of the Senate proceedings and debates published in the Daily Globe, at $7 50 per column. Mr. NORRIS. I suppose that the Senate understands fully this whole subject; but still I will make a very brief explanation. As long ago as 1846, a proposition was made in the Senate that the then editors of the Globe, Messrs. Blair and Rives, and the editors of the National Intelligencer, should publish reports of the debates in the Senate. By that resolution twelve copies were authorized to be taken by each Senator, of both publications. The editors of the National Intelligencer refused to publish so small a number at the price proposed. The price was six dollars per copy for the long session, and three dollars per copy for the short session. Messrs. Blair and Rives accepted the proposition, and the work was published by Blair and Rives, and subsequently by Mr. Rives, up to this time. Those publications at that time, as I understand, contained merely synopses of the debates, except the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, in which were published speeches at length, revised by those who made them. In 1847, the Senate employed Dr. Houston to make full reports. He went on throughout the long session of 1847-'48, and then his contract was given up. In 1848, the Senate made a proposition to the editors of the National Intelligencer and the editors of the Union, to publish the debates in full at $7 50 per column. Those papers continued to publish the debates in full up to the close of the last session of Congress. At that time the editors of the Intelligencer gave notice that they would no longer, on their part, continue the contract; and they have abandoned it altogether. It was then understood that the editors of the Union would likewise abandon the contract on account of the price which the Senate paid not being sufficient, as was alleged. Mr. Rives, at the commencement of this session of Congress, employed a corps of reporters to make up these reports, and they are now published daily in the Daily Globe, and laid upon our tables. Of the manner in which these reports have been made, the Senate is able to judge. I presume that no more efficient corps of reporters can be found anywhere. So far as I have examined them, they have been made with great accuracy and promptness. It is necessary that these reports should come from some source, in order to enable Mr. Rives to fulfill his contract for the supply of the Congressional Globe. Mr. Rives commenced the undertaking at this session, without any authority on the part of the Senate, and I have introduced this resolution to test the sense of the Senate, whether they will continue the reports which he has been making. I hope they will; for I believe it important that the reports of the debates in the Senate should be faithfully made, and put in a form to be preserved. I hope the resolution will be adopted. Mr. WALKER. If I understand the proposition, it is to do nothing more in regard to the Daily Globe than we have heretofore been doing with regard to the National Intelligencer. Mr. NORRIS. Nothing more. Mr. WALKER. I am in favor of it; and I think that if we have ever had good and prompt reports of debates since I have been here, they have been in the Globe during this session. The leading Reporter for that paper for this session can perform almost a miracle in the way of reporting, for he can report me literally when I speak in my most rapid manner. I have been astonished at the correctness of the reports for the Globe, and I should regret exceedingly to see them discontinued. Mr. HALE. I concur in everything which has || been said in favor of these reports; but there is one thing which I wish to see corrected. We hire reporters to report what is done and said in the Senate; but we shall never have precisely that so long as the practice is tolerated of allowing members to revise their speeches. In these revised speeches I frequently find omitted things that were said, and I find put in things that were not said. This offer has been very kindly made to me by the reporters; but I told them to take what I say just as I say it. I do not want to make a speech afterward. If it is nonsense, let it be nonsense. I decidedly object to this revising of speeches to go out as speeches that are made; and I hope some mode will be adopted by which the very faithful and accurate reports we do have when they are not revised or corrected, will be allowed to go as they are reported; and that Senators will not be permitted to send out as said what is not said. I hope the resolution will pass. Mr. GWIN. I wish to say a single word upon the point raised by the Senator from New Hampshire. It is highly probable that that Senator may be so distinctly heard as to be reported accurately on all occasions, but I say very candidly that I cannot be; and I have found it necessary to add to the reports of my speeches that which I intended to say, whether I said it or not. I do not speak for display; but if I did not sometimes revise, as I have intimated, I should be put in a wrong position before my constituents. The Congressional Globe is an official work. It is to be put into the archives of the country, and I have found it absolutely necessary, when speaking on questions of importance to my own constituents, to see that I am put right. The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that according to the rules, the resolution must have three readings. The rule of the Senate is, that all resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution, or to which the approbation and signature of the President of the United States may be requisite, or which may grant money out of the contingent or any other fund, shall be treated in all respects in the introduction and form of proceedings on them in the Senate in a similar manner with bills. This is a resolution to provide for auditing and settling accounts, and therefore appropriates money, and must have three readings. Mr. BADGER. I wish merely to say that hope this resolution will pass, and expressly for the benefit of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE.] I know of no gentleman who, it seems to me, is pursuing a course more adverse to his own interests and public reputation, as deservedly high as his is, in opposing this resolution. Mr. HALE. I do not oppose the resolution. I am in favor of it. Mr. BADGER. I understood the Senator to oppose so much of the proposition as authorized the revision of speeches. Mr. HALE. There is no such proposition in the resolution. Mr. BADGER. The Senator from New Hampshire so commonly speaks to the subject before the Senate, and so seldom wanders from it, that I really supposed that something of the kind was up for the consideration of the body. I think it is very much to be regretted that the Senator has not taken the pains to revise some of his speeches. I will not say that they need any addition; but some of them very much stood in need of the inverted stylus: and I know no gentleman in this country, considering the large fame which he enjoys, who has suffered more from want of the expunging process, in some of the speeches which he has made in this Chamber. My regret for him on this account is so great, that, if he is not willing to take the labor of striking out unnecessary passages for himself, I would be almost willing to take that labor on myself, though I very rarely do it in my own speeches. Mr. HÁLE. In answer to that I would say, that I do not, like some other young gentlemen, come here to make a display of myself by talking. When I talk it is for the country. Let those gentlemen who are anxious for a rhetorical reputation, pore over the midnight lamp, and put prepositions into their speeches, and add other ornaments of rhetoric; but do not let them find fault with the practical business-men of the Senate who come here to do the business of the country, because they have not been able to run a race with them in rhetorical declamations. I am perfectly willing that the Senate should set apart a day when these gentlemen shall come in and display themselves. Saturday afternoon might be a very convenient time. [Laughter.] I am perfectly willing that a corps of reporters should be here and understand that they are only to make the skeletons; and that the ornaments are to be put in afterwards by the gentlemen themselves. Though I have no objection to that, what I want is, that when we have a corps of reporters to keep a record of what is said, we should have what is said. I do not want to trust to the fertile imagination that may be licked into shape over the midnight lamp afterwards, and put in as being said on the spur of the moment. I am but a plain blunt man. I speak what occurs to me at the time I speak. If it is not in the ornate form in which the elaborate productions of the eloquent Senator from North Carolina appear, perhaps it is my misfortune. I do not make speeches for schoolboys to declaim at academical exhibitions, and to have a star affixed, and "J. P. Hale "put against the piece. I have no desire for anything of that sort. I merely speak for my constituents and for the country. I speak the suggestions of my own heart in the plainest way in which they occur to me. I am not desirous of any reputation, which the honorable Senator thinks I have jeoparded by not looking over my speeches after they have been delivered. That is all I have to say. Mr. BADGER. Why, here is a most eminent example of the propriety of the honorable Senator's revising his speeches. What would the honorable Senator himself, what would any other man of taste think of what he has just said about "licking a fertile imagination into shape?" I hope he will correct that anyhow. [Laughter.] But the honorable Senator compels me, which did not desire to do before, to assign an additional and much stronger reason than I did assign, why I wished he would look over and expurgate his speeches. I mentioned a reason which affected him personally, and it was a very grave and serious one. But there is another and higher reason. I wished it for the sake of the country, for a great many inflictions have been imposed upon it by the honorable Senator, which, I have no doubt, in his calmer and more judicious moments, if he ever has any such, he would have stricken out. Mr. HALE. One single word more. The reason the honorable Senator assigns, shows that he supposes that the country reads my speeches, and, therefore, he thinks that they ought to be expurgated. He would, therefore, seem to imply, that some speeches are made here, which the country does not trouble itself about, even so much as to read. That I regard as a compliment. [Laughter.] Mr. BADGER. I would say that I do not wish to continue this contest with the honorable gentleman for the last word. His wit is getting low, and there is nothing left of the wine but the lees. That is all I have to say. Mr. HALE. You had better not have said that. Mr. CASS. I desire to say but one word. It will be recollected, that at the last session this subject was before the Senate, and a proposition was distinctly made that no Senator should revise his speeches. Well, if by not revising is meant, that a Senator is not to look over the notes of the reporters, and correct them where errors can be found, it is a species of tyranny to which no Legislature in the world would submit. I am precisely in the same condition as the honorable Šenator from California. It is difficult for the reporters to report me. It is not their fault; it is mine. From some defect, or owing to my hasty enunciation, I cannot be heard as distinctly as many Senators. I know from experience, that I cannot be exactly reported on this account. If a Senator was not to be allowed to look over his remarks and correct an egregious mistake when he found one, no one would submit to it. If mistakes can be found, are these reports to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable? Cannot I put myself right, if I find an error in regard to my position? How far a Senator should go in the operation of revising his remarks, must depend upon himself. He ought to put in nothing concerning anybody else, or anything which would convey a false idea of what he said. But to say that a Senator shall not revise or correct to any extent the notes of the reporters, is to put him in a position that no one would submit to. The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been read a first time. Shall it have a second reading? Mr. HALE. I do not want to put myself in a false position. I have no sort of objection to a Senator's looking over his speech and making right that which he said. What I object to is erasing what he did say, and putting in what he did not say. Mr. BADGER. Does any one do that? Mr. GWIN. Name the Senator who does it. Mr. HALE. I do not suppose that it is a criminal matter; I suppose it is a matter which every Senator thinks he has a right to do. I may be mistaken in fact, but I have looked over the last long speech made in the Senate, the speech of the honorable Senator from Florida, [Mr. MAL LORY,] with some care, to find a remark in it to which I had replied; but I could not find a word of it in the speech of the honorable Senator. The poor remarks which I made were published as a reply to something which, by the reports of the Senate, did not appear ever to have been said. That is one instance, but it is not a solitary inI do not mention this as a matter of stance. reproach to the Senator from Florida, because it is a thing which is frequently and commonly done. What I complain of, and what I think ought not to be done, is, that Senators are allowed to erase what they said, and substitute what they did not say. I do not complain of anything to which the honorable Senators from California and Michigan allude, to make correct what they did say; but what I complain of is, that our reports show things to be said which are not said. The resolution was then ordered to a second reading, read a second time, and the Senate proceeded to consider it as in Committee of the Whole. No amendment being proposed, it was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. RAILROADS IN IOWA. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, re sumed the consideration of the special order, which was a bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the State of Iowa in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State. To this bill there was an amendment reported by the Committee on Public Lands, and the question at the adjournment yesterday was on the adoption of the amendment. Mr. FELCH. There are one or two verbal amendments which I wish to make. In the ninth line of the first section, speaking of the right to take timber, stones, &c.," I wish to strike out "&c.," and insert "and" between the words "timber, stones," so as to make it read "timber and stones. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. FELCH. I wish further to amend the amendment by inserting in the nineteenth line of the second section the word "right" after the word "preemption." The word "right" is an omission of the printer. The amendment was agreed to, and the bill was then reported to the Senate. Mr. ATCHISON. If the Senator from Iowa [Mr. DODGE] will not object, I will move to strike out all after the word "States" in the sixth line of the fourth section-that is "free from toll or other charge," &c. I make this motion because I believe that this imposition on the line would be wrong in itself that it would be an imposition of a burden upon this road that should not be required. There is no equivalent in this bill for any such reservation-at least none that I am aware of. If there is any such, I would be glad if the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, or some other gentleman, would point it out. Now, sir, it is well known that a large quantity of Government stores in the Quartermaster's Department and the Department of the Commissary is now transported by the Missouri river to the western frontiers of the States of Missouri and Iowa, for the supply of the army, not only on the frontiers of Missouri and Iowa, but upon the upper flat on the whole route to California and New Mexico. These supplies are transported by the Missouri river, and thence across the plains of New Mexico; and at various points military posts are to be established on the route to California and Oregon. They can receive supplies from no other source; and I cannot therefore but think that this immense amount of stores to be transported free of all cost and charge is an imposition on this railroad for which no equivalent whatever is provided in the bill. For these reasons I move to amend by striking out the words which I have designated. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I appreciate the motives of my friend from Missouri in offering the amendment to which he has alluded. I concur with him in every word that he has said in reference to that provision, but I am so anxious for the passage of the bill that I would rather take it with some defects than risk it by pressing such an amendment. We have been working to get this bill for two or three years past. Our State has held convention after convention on the subject, and our Legislatures have again and again instructed us to press it, and to give it all our attention, and for that reason I shall have to oppose any amendment which may retard its passage. Mr. ATCHISON. Well, I am not particular about the amendment. I will withdraw it. Mr. DAWSON. I regret that the Senator from Missouri has withdrawn his proposed amendment, as this is a question which is to go before the country, and I wish that the principle upon The which we act may be fully understood. principle first laid down by the Senator from Missouri is, that the grant of land which is made really confers no favor on the State of Iowa, and but for the moral influence which might result from giving this land to that State, he would not accept it. Mr. ATCHISON. I said no such thing as the Senator states. Mr. DAWSON. The proposition is, that it will be of no advantage. I want to place this subject properly before the country. The principle is this: that giving alternate sections of land for the purpose of aiding in the construction of these railroads, increases the value of the other sections one hundred per cent., and that the land will be sold for $2 50 per acre. If the Government lands appreciate to that extent, the lands belonging to the State of Iowa will increase in value also to the same extent. The price of the public lands to be given by this bill will amount, at $2 50 per acre, to four and a half millions of dollars; and of course the railroad company will be reimbursed lions of dollars by this bill. to that extent; they will get four and a half mil The question I propose is this: is not such a grant a decided benefit to the State of Iowa? Will not her citizens receive an appropriation equivalent to $4,500,000, and have a railroad built extending from Keokuck to Dubuque? This result, then, will arise, that the State of Iowa will receive, out of the public lands, a revenue annually for all the transportation over that road, equivalent to the necessary expenses of supporting her government, and the people of lowa, by a proper administration of the proceeds from this road, will be exempt from State taxation. And how? By appropriating the proceeds of the gift of the public lands. And while she is thus relieved from taxation, the other States will be left without any aid whatever. But, Mr. President, gentlemen say we are merely throwing ourselves upon a principle without being controlled by it. From Keokuck to Dubuque, in Iowa, is the finest section of the State, and all the public lands are nearly taken up upon the route directly between these two points. As the Senator from Missouri [Mr. ATCHISON] said, the citizens have already gone on in anticipation of these railroads being constructed according to the routes surveyed, and taken up the public lands. This bill is discussed upon the principle, that the whole of the lands between the two extremes of the road belong to the public lands, and that when you give away one section to aid in constructing the road, you increase the value of the rest, while the fact is, all the land is taken. What will be the next proposition? Why, at the next Congress, perhaps, there will be an application similar to the one made by Illinois, and one made by another Senator. They say you intended to give alternate sections on the line of the proposed road or canal; but the public lands are all taken up; we have got about one third or one fourth of the one million eight hundred thousand acres of land granted, and now we call upon Congress-to do what? To decide, as we did yesterday, to authorize them to select their lands anywhere in the State. Now, that is the principle on which you stand, that you increase the price of the public lands; and what is the consequence? You get two thirds, if not three fourths of the lands distant from the railroads. Is it not aban doning the principle on which we first started, when we give away the public lands to make roads from them. I do not suppose that my opposition will avail anything. I have been here long enough to apprehend that the bill will pass. I know there is a most extraordinary complication of interests in favor of the principle of giving away these lands. While some wish the lands to be given to the States in which they lie, there are those who wish to see the revenue of the country derived from taxation; and because they desire to justify the increase of a tariff for that purpose, these two interests com bine, and will always control this question. And what becomes of the public lands? They go to the new States, and are used up by the States where they lie, and their prosperity is greatly increased. Now, there are railroads through all that country, and the whole country is going on to prosper more than ever before. I do not regret that; but what I say is, amidst their prosperity, whilst they go on so finely, let them remember this, that the proceeds of the public lands, and the public lands themselves, belong equally to all the States of this Union; let them, while we act liberally towards them, act liberally towards us who belong to the old States. If you are determined to take the course you are pursuing with respect to the public lands, do it in a spirit of magnanimity and kindness and liberality. Say to the old State of North Carolina, Every one of your railroads has been built with your own money; say to her, that although she has thousands of acres of barren land,' and her people are sparsely settled over the State, yet the people of North Carolina have carried a railroad through a pine country immediately in the neighborhood of the sea-shore for hundreds of miles, and this by the labor of their own hands. And when you go to the fine rich lands on the waters of the Missouri, what do you find? You find railroads everywhere all taken from the public lands, and not a dollar from the pockets of the citizens, for which land, taken for the purpose of building the roads, North Carolina contributed as much as other States. I say to my younger sisters, Take this property, but at the same time do it with magnanimity; feel some regard for, some attachment to, the old States which gained your independence and gave you birth, and gave you the liberty to control and manage these lands today. Say to them, with magnanimity, We will divide honestly and fairly with you, and we will not combine with the Representatives of the new States, or others who favor that particular interest which desires that the avails of the public lands, up shall never go into the treasury of the country. If you will come to that, you will have no opposi tion from me. I appeal to the Senate if I have uttered an illiberal expression with regard to the public lands; and I believe that my friend from Iowa, [Mr. DODGE,] if he were in my position, would occupy the same ground that I do on this question. Why? Because I stand upon the principles of truth and equity. I stand upon the ground that these lands belong to the people, and that the people, either in their individual character, or their representative character, as the people of the different States, are entitled equally to the lands and the proceeds of the lands. Is there a Senator here who can lay his hand on his heart and say it is not true? Is there one? Not one. I wish to be understood. I have been opposed to the distribution of the public lands. I was opposed to it when I was in the House of Repre sentatives; but my opinions have changed, and I am willing to divide these lands among the States for purposes of internal improvement and the education of the people; and I maintain that when we go upon that principle, every part of this country is entitled to the same share. Let this bill pass, and let the impression of justice be made upon the Senate, and say that we are all entitled, that we will adopt a plan by which old Virginia and Massachusetts, and every State in the Union, shall come in for her proper share. Mr. HALE, (in his seat.) And New Hampshire. Mr. DAWSON. Yes, and even New Hampshire. These are my views about this matter, although I make these remarks with no hope that this bill can be defeated. If the number of acres were five millions instead of eighteen hundred thousand, I suppose it would be given. And some of the States have got seven millions of acres, and they say the property is increased in value, so as to be worth double the Government price, which makes the whole value given to one State, about $18,000,000. And yet my friend from Missouri, when he was making that liberal speech yesterday, and saying in his fine, manly voice, that he considered this as conferring no very great favor, and talked about the public property being transported free of charge, and seemed perfectly indignant that Congress should ask any compensation for the public lands, knew the very great advantage that Missouri would derive from it. He is laughing in his sleeve at the habits of the people of the old States, and at their sleepy condition. We are divided in the old States; and why? There are Two interests the tariff and anti-tariff-and the question is, whether we will hold on to the public Fands to derive a revenue from them or not. Some say, let the lands go, and then we will have tariff: and our Democratic friends in the Western States, who are so anti-tariff, are favoring the tariff party. Why? Because they get the benefit of the public lands, and consider them of more benefit than the injury they will receive from a Lariff. Interest is at the bottom, and controls every one of them A SENATOR. More or less. bill he complains so much. And yet, if he will look to what has been given, and to what is asked to be given, of the public lands for internal improvements in the shape of railroads and canals, he will find that we have given and are continuing to give a very great deal. I will not refer to what has been given heretofore for the construction of canals, because I do not propose to enter into the matter in detail; but I will just look to see what it is that the gentleman calls nothing, by referring to what has been done in relation to railroads, and what is proposed now to be done. Last session of Congress we passed an act similar to this for the construction of a railroad in Illinois, and we were told that we had granted more land for the Mr. DAWSON. Yes, more or less. Why do building of that road than is now asked for by I oppose this bill? Not that I expect the bill will this bill. We have this act which will require be defeated. All I ask is this: I want Congress from fifteen to eighteen hundred thousand acres to to be brought up to the point; because I intend to satisfy its provisions, and we have another grantmove, at a particular day, for a division of the ing the right of way to the State of Missouri and public lands among the States-that the lands them- a portion of the public lands in aid of the construcselves may be divided, and not the proceeds of the tion of a railway from Hannibal to St. Joseph, in Lands. And why will I do this? That the public said State. These are all bills which are destined Fds may be fairly settled, and the proceeds be to pass if this bill should pass in the Senate. We divided among whom? Among those who are en-have, also, a bill granting the right of way to the Litled to them, the people of these States, and not Florida, Atlantic, and Gulf Central Railroad Comthe people of any particular portion of them, and pany through the public lands of the United States, under a general division. And in making that and appropriating lands to the State of Florida in division, I will be liberal to the younger members aid of the construction of the said railroad and of this Confederacy, as we have always been, by branches. giving them all reasonable advantages; and at the same time say to them, we do not desire them, because we are thus liberal, to strip us of every zight, and then remind us, when the Indian treaties come up, and we are paying annuities year after year to the Indians, that we pay them to get more Jand to make railroads, while the lands are paid for out of the taxes imposed upon the whole people. Sir, if the people understood this subject, they would not submit to it, because you tax them annually, and throw the money into the Treasury to buy lands from the Indians, to give to particular States to make railroads, thereby making the people of the whole country pay for these railroads, and not the people who own them. I regret that I have detained the Senate so long. I have made these remarks, not with the expectation of defeating the passage of this bill, but that the object of it might be made known to the country, and that the people may understand what we are doing. Mr. ATCHISON. I will say but one word on this subject. The Senator from Georgia admits that this grant is right and should be made, but that Georgia must have her share of the public lands. That is the sum and substance of his argument. Let him bring forward his bill for that purpose, and then we will discuss it. Mr. DAWSON. That is not the question. We are for the promotion of the interests of the whole country. I see that by the arrangements you have made, you have determined on this course; but it is in violation of the rights of the old States of this Union. You have the power to pass this bill, but if it is done I consider it as done by force; and I say if you do this in the use of the power you have, exercise that power with becoming justice and propriety towards the other States. Mr. HUNTER. I have very little to say on this subject, for I feel assured, as the Senator from Georgia has expressed himself, that this bill is destined to pass. And yet, sir, I am so strongly impressed with the necessity of adopting some system in relation to the disposition of these public lands, that I feel bound to say a word or two in relation to the bill before it passes. I have listened to the arguments of gentlemen who have spoken in favor of this bill, not only yesterday, but on prior occasions, and they have failed to convince me that we are doing equal justice to all the States of the Confederacy when we make such a disposition of the public lands as is here Proposed. My friend from Missouri endeavored yesterday to prove that we were giving nothing away when we were disposing of from fifteen to eighteen hundred thousand acres of land to the State of Iowa; and I was really afraid that before he was done he would endeavor to prove that we had brought ourelves into debt, and would ask that we should relinquish the remaining alternate sections for the purpose of paying for the transportation of those troops and stores for the provision of which in this Then, again, we have a bill to grant to the State of Missouri a right of way and a portion of the public land for the purpose of aiding in making a railroad from St. Louis to the western limits of the said State. bills, we shall still hear it said that we have granted nothing. And what is to come into the public Treasury from the public lands when all these bills shall have passed? Sir, every dollar which would be available from these lands will in this way be granted on a partial system in the distribution of the public lands. I say " partial," because very large amounts of land are distributed to those States in which they lie, while nothing is given to the old States. But, sir, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. SMITH] used another argument in favor of the bill. He said that everybody was aware that the construction of such improvements added to the wealth and developed the resources of a community and increased their capacity to pay taxes. Certainly that is the case. But what is the result of the argument? The same argument would apply to the construction of railroads in Virginia, and in Massachusetts, and in Connecticut. Sir, if we are to use this argument we might as well go broadcast into the general system of internal improvements. I will admit, however, that there is to a certain extent a principle on which a discrimination may be made between railroads passing through the public lands in relation to which the United States is interested as a land-owner and railroads of another description; but these projects have long since departed from that principle, for they are not confined to the location of lands upon the lines of these railroads, but are allowed to go into the State and select them elsewhere to the distance of fifteen miles. No longer ago than yesterday we passed a bill in relation to the grant formerly made to the State of Illinois, and allowing that State to locate a certain portion of such grant anywhere within the State. And, sir, this will be the end of it. We shall have ap And a bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the States of Florida and Alabama, to aid in the construction of a railroad from the waters of Pensacola Bay, in Florida, to Mont-plications for permission to locate lands in any gomery, in the State of Alabama. Also, a bill granting to the State of Wisconsin the right of way and a donation of the public land for the purpose of locating and constructing a railroad from Milwaukie to Prairie la Crosse, in Wisconsin. And another bill granting to the State of Wisconsin the right of way and a donation of public land for the purpose of locating and constructing a railroad from Fond du Lac to Janesville. Then we have another bill granting to the State of Alabama the right of way and a donation of public land for making a railroad from Selma to Tennessee river. Also, a bill granting to the State of Mississippi the right of way and a donation of public land, for the purpose of locating a railroad from Brandon to the eastern border of said State, in the direction of Montgomery, Alabama. Then we have a bill granting to the State of Michigan the right of way and a donation of public land, for the purpose of constructing a canal or railroad across the peninsula of Michigan. Then we have another bill granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the State of Arkansas, in aid of the construction of certain railroads in said State. And yet another bill, sir, granting to the State of Arkansas the right of way and making a donation of land, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Helena to Fort Smith; and there is still a third bill granting to the State of Arkansas the right of way and a portion of the public land to aid in the construction of the Arkansas Central Railroad, from a point on the western bank of the Mississippi river opposite the town of Memphis, by way of Little Rock, to a point on Red river, on the border of Texas. Mr. BORLAND. The Senator is surely mistaken. There is only one bill reported. Mr. HUNTER. There is only one bill reported, but there are others under consideration. Mr. BORLAND. No, they are not under consideration, for I believe that they have been reported upon adversely. Mr. HUNTER. And besides all these bills which I have named, there is still another, proposing to grant lands and the right of way to the States of Indiana and Illinois, in aid of the construction of a railroad from a point on the Ohio river opposite to Louisville, in Kentucky, to a point on the Mississippi river opposite to St. Louis, in Missouri. These are all bills which have been introduced during the present session; and yet, sir, when we shall have passed all these portion of the States where these lands lie, for the purpose of making railroads. Some gentlemen, too, have complained that we are allowed to charge double price for the alternate sections which remain to the Government. But, sir, how long is that to last? Suppose that these lands should prove unsaleable at that price, how soon will we have applications here to reduce the price? And it will be done, sir; and, if necessary, other sections will be granted in order to continue these improve ments. But, sir, I have admitted that there is a principle upon which some discrimination may be made. How are we to test that principle, and how are we to apply it properly? Why, we are to suppose the United States Government to be as in the situation of any other land owner. What would any other land owner do when such a proposition as this was made to him? Would he give away the alternate sections and have no stock in return for it? If he acted on the principle of ownership, would he not be entitled to as much stock in the company as this land is worth? Is it not, to the extent to which this subscription goes into the value of the railroad, a pure donation to the new States? Is the stock which represents the value there any principle by which they are entitled to it, any more than the old States? All that the owner would be called to do, would be to subscribe his share, and when you depart from that principle you make an absolute donation to the new States, and you cannot deny that the same principle would require you to make a similar donation to the old States. If gentlemen mean to confine themselves to that principle they should confine the grants to lands lying along the line of the railroad, and give Government whatever stock they are entitled to on account of the donation. Then it would come within that principle. But at present these bills do not come within that principle. Now, Mr. President, our Democratic friends in the new States are pressing us rather hardly in the old States. We have resisted the system of the distribution of the public lands; we desire to do so still; we wish to stand upon the old Democratic Republican ground in relation to this matter. And yet how long can it be done if our opponents are enabled to point to such appropriations and say here they are distributed partially, that some States get what they want and others get none. How long can we in the old States resist such appeals as these unless something like justice and equity is resorted to? I am willing to consider the public lands as a public trust, a public fund to be administered for the act of the last session, granting lands to Illinois. benefit of all, not merely with reference to revenue, bear the expense of the transportation to market. whether there is a man within the sound of my voice who does not believe that the construction of this road through these lands would more than double their value, and enable you to sell them quicker at that price than the price you now ask for them without the road. But, sir, with regard to this bill, and others of a like nature, the argument is stronger than in the case of the Illinois bill. It is this: The road will not only run through your public lands and increase their value along the line, but in this case it will run from the Mississippi river to the Indian territory, and thereby open a market for all the lands which you have west of the Missouri river to the Rocky Mountains. And I insist that the construction of a railroad through the State of Iowa to the Missouri, would enhance the value of your lands west of that river more than ten times the value of the lands granted in aid of the road. The same would be the result in regard to the east and west lines through the State of Missouri, and also in regard to the Arkansas road, and I presume generally in regard to the other bills which have been referred to by the Senator from Virginia. These bills, however, are not now under consideration. It will be time enough to judge of them when they come up for action. Besides, sir, more than one half of your transportations on account of your army and the Indians, is aiming to go to that Indian territory west of Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas. These roads run through the very section of country over which your supplies and munitions must be transported. The Gorernment, therefore, has a peculiar interest in the And there is another thing to be looked to. The question, then, is, "What are you to do to But the Senator from Virginia has told us that the question would stand in a different position in his view, if we were to be confined to the lands which lie on the line of the road. Why, sir, this is the very proposition of the bill. The grant is confined to the line of the road. It asks for alter Mr. President, we insist that these grants in aid on which we defend this policy; and if it is not Mr. DOUGLAS. The State of Illinois has been referred to in the course of this debate, and therefore I feel bound to say a word or two in explanation. The allusion to the bill passed yester-policy is entirely valueless. This is the ground day for the State of Illinois, authorizing a selection of lands away from the line of the canal to which it applied, is not at all applicable to the bill under consideration. The reason why these lands were to be selected elsewhere than on the line of the canal, was that Congress had granted them nearly twenty years ago to the State of Illinois for making a canal, and the United States afterwards sold a part of the lands thus granted, received the money, and put it in the Treasury. And now you only give us refuse lands elsewhere, less valuable than those originally granted, and that, after we had made the work in compliance with your own act of Congress. With regard to the bill granting lands to the State of Illinois at the last session, I have also a word to say. That bill involved the same principle as the one now under consideration. Hence it was perfectly fair to refer to that bill in illustration of this. But I deny that what has been said in regard to donations, special favors, and partial distribution of the lands to the new States, has the slightest foundation in the bill before us, or the Now take this particular case. Here is a proposition to make a railroad through the centre of the State of Iowa. If you make this grant you will double the value and double the price of the alternate sections; and you will thus obtain for one half all that you pretend to ask for the whole. Now, I submit to the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] whether, with a road running through them, the lands are not better worth two dollars and a half per acre than they are now worth a dollar and a quarter without such road? But he will, perhaps, reply, that experience will show in the course of time that they will not be worth two dollars and a half, and that then applications will be made to reduce the price. But if they are not likely to be worth two dollars and a half per acre with the road, will they ever be likely to yield the Government a dollar and a quarter per acre without it? If, then, the road doubles the price of your adjacent lands you lose nothing; and I doubt nate sections of the width of six miles on either side, with a stipulation that you shall not go beyond fifteen miles, in the event that any of the land has been sold in the sections to which you would be entitled by the bill. I ask, then, if the construction of a railroad in a country distant from market does not enhance the value of all land within fifteen, or even thirty miles? Are not the beneficial influences felt to the extent of even fifty miles? If, then, we select the land no further than the benefits extend on each side of the road, the principle applies with its full force. We might extend this limit from fifteen to fifty miles, and then find ourselves clearly within the circle of the beneficial influences resulting from the road, in enhancing the value of the remaining lands. But we wished not to go into extreme cases; we wished to confine ourselves to the principle, that the United States is in fact receiving more benefit from the granting of the lands than they are likely to lose by the grant, and that the public domain, as a common fund, will thus be enhanced rather than diminished in value by reason of the grant. In reference to the remark of my friend from Virginia in regard to the great number of bills proposing similar grants, I have only to make the same answer which Mr. Calhoun once made on this floor to the same objection. He then said, that the principle being right, and it being the true policy of the Government to make grants in aid of the construction of railroads through the public lands, the longer the road the greater the benefit to the Government; and hence, the objection was an argument in favor of the grant. Now, sir, if the principle is right, if the line of the road conforms to the wants and interests of the Government and the country-if the Government is to derive more advantage than injury by aiding in its construction-the fact that the State is also to be greatly benefited, is no argument against the passage of the bill. But, as I have already remarked, we will judge of the bills for other States when those bills come up for consideration. So far as I have examined them, I think the Committee on Public Lands have exercised a wise discretion in preparing and reporting them. I have not examined them all, but so far as I have been able to investigate the subject, they have exercised a sound discretion, both with regard to the lines themselves, and the benefit to be derived by the Government of the United States. But the whole difficulty in the way of these bills is this: While we have not the slightest Trouble in demonstrating that the Government of he United States is to be the gainer by these grants, still it is said that the States also are to be gainers. Gentlemen do not seem to be able to Comprehend how it is that two parties can make contract by which both parties will be benefited. Why, sir, it is only upon that principle that the world is benefited by the exchange of different productions. The whole system of exchange and of commerce is predicated upon the principle that the exchange is beneficial to both parties. If one party must necessarily be cheated while the other is benefited, it would do away with all trade and commerce at once. It is true, that while these grants are beneficial to the United States by enhancing the public domain and bringing a larger amount of money into the Treasury, they do at the same time immensely benefit the States to which they are made. Is it any objection, that while the General Government promotes its interest, it thereby confers peculiar benefits upon the new States? We do receive advantages-peculiar advantages-which the balance of the Union do not participate in to the same extent. But is that a valid ground of objection? The same objection would apply to the millions expended at Norfolk and Old Point Comfort—to all large public works -to the navy-yards and fortifications throughout the country-wherever the public money is expended for public uses. These fortifications and navy-yards are constructed for the public benefit. Yet the immediate localities of these vast works and expenditures derive a peculiar benefit which is not common to the other portions of the country. Is it any argument against the establishment of a navy-yard, that it confers a local benefit in addition to the public interests which were the objects of its establishment? The same argument may be urged against all custom-houses and public buildings which have been erected for national purposes in different parts of the country, and even against the location of the capital of the Union here. Would it be a sound argument for the remote and border States to say that, because the national capital is located upon the banks of the Potomac, where millions of money are annually spent and squandered, and because the people all around are receiving peculiar advantages which do not extend to the Pacific, or even to the valley of the Mississippi, nor to the great lakes or the St. Lawrence, the capital must be removed for no other reason than that its location necessarily confers local and peculiar advantages upon a few in its immediate vicinity which cannot be participated in by all portions of the Union? Or will you pull down your public buildings and destroy all the public works which have been erected for great national uses, upon the same leveling principle? It is impossible to construct public works for purely national objects without producing local benefits. So it is with these grants of land in behalf of railroads. The national pecuniary benefit results from the speedy sale of these lands at a price which could not otherwise be obtained. The States receiving the grants, not only participate equally in this national advantage with their sister States, but in addition derive a peculiar and special benefit, as a consideration for making the roads which produce all the advantages, both national and local. It is on this principle that the friends of this policy justify and defend it. We are firmly convinced, that if there were no local benefits resulting from the passage of these bills-if their merits depended solely upon the fact, that they enhanced the value of the public domain and increased the revenue, we would have no difficulty in defending them. T I feel at liberty to speak more freely on this subjeet now, for the reason that my State has no longer any peculiar or special interest in this systen. Illinois has been well served; she asks no ore. If you make any more grants to Illinois for railroads, you will do it on the application of delegations from other States, for the purpose of Connecting the great line of roads to the east and the West of us, and not as a special favor to Illinois. claim, therefore, to be entirely disinterested in y advocacy of this bill. No delegation can be ore unbiased by local and selfish interests. We wave seen the practical workings of the system, and desire to see it extended to other States, beCause we approve of its application to our own. We wish to repay the Federal Government the I || service she has rendered us, as well as herself, by extending the system to lowa, Missouri, and Arkansas, and every other State, where the same principles and reasons will apply. no public lands, you abandon the principle which sustains and justifies this bill. When the Senator from Georgia desires to secure lands to his own State to make railroads where the Mr. DAWSON. I would ask the Senator a United States have no public lands to be benefited question. How much has Illinois been provided or enhanced in value by the roads, he thereby adfor? How many acres of the public lands has she mits that his objections to the system would be received? very soon removed if his State could participate Mr. DOUGLAS. The grant last year, accord-in what he denounces as a system of plunder. ing to my recollection, although the precise amount The argument which he has submitted would be has not been ascertained, because the lands are not conclusive if directed against a bill to make grants definitely located, amount to about two and a half to States where there are no public lands; but the millions of acres in round numbers. That is the argument entirely fails when applied to a bill for whole grant. I will remark, therefore, that Illi- Alabama or Arkansas or Mississippi or Louisiana nois has been benefited to that extent. The Senor any other State where there are public lands to ator from Georgia wishes it to be understood, that be doubled in price and value by the construction because we have got two and a half millions of of the roads. acres of the public lands, and thus have been benefited; therefore, the Government has been cheated to that extent. I have shown the argument to be unsound. We admit that we have been benefited; but that does not prove that the Government has been cheated. We prove that the Government has been benefited by the same operation. I would like to see him answer that position, instead of repeating the objection that one party must have been the looser, merely because the other was the gainer. In regard to this policy, I would say that I do not wish to carry it to any extravagant extent. I only wish to apply it where we can show that it comes fairly within the principle which I have so often stated. But gentlemen say we must have a general system; and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. DAWSON] wants a system to reach his State. If he complains of this being partial, and wants one that will apply to Georgia, I will make him a proposition. We will extend the same principle precisely, in hæc verba, of this bill to Georgia, and enact that all the lands belonging to the Government of the United States within fifteen miles of all the lines of the Georgia railroad are hereby granted to the State of Georgia. Mr. DAWSON. If the Senator will then allow me to introduce a bill like the one he did yesterday, that where there are no lands belonging to the United States on our railroads, we may go into all the public lands and locate, I will accept the proposition. Mr. DOUGLAS. 1 will adhere to my proposition, and give him the benefit of the bill to which he refers. The bill which we passed yesterday granted lands to the State of Illinois in lieu of those which you had taken from the State after having previously granted them in aid of the construction of a canal which we have completed at a cost of nine millions of dollars. Whenever you will show that the United States owned lands in Georgia, which they granted to the State, and afterwards took possession of and sold a part of them for the benefit of the United States, we will pass an act of Congress to make up the deficiency from lands elsewhere, according to the bill of yesterday. Mr. DAWSON. Very well. Mr. DOUGLAS. Therefore I think the Senator from Georgia and myself will come to an amicable adjustment of the question. The fact is, the Senator from Georgia, and gentlemen from other States where there are no public lands, forget that they once had a proprietary to the use of every acre of the lands within the limits of their respective States. We do not complain of that. It was their legal right, and we were willing that they should appropriate all the lands within their limits. But after having thus appropriated to their own use all the lands within their own States, we do not deem it generous in them to deprive us of this pittance to the new States, when we can show that they are not injured by the act which benefits us. When we bring forward a bill which benefits us at the same time that it promotes the public interests, the Senator desires a fair division by extending it to Georgia. How can the principle be applied to Georgia, or any other State where there are no public lands? How will the Senator contrive to double the value of and the price of the alternate sections so as to make value of the remaining half equal to the whole, if you donate lands in the distant Territories to make railroads in the State of Georgia? Will the Senator explain how he will bring his case within the principle of this bill? The moment you apply the provisions of the bill to a State where there are The system proposed by the Senator from Georgia would apply all public lands and their proceeds to railroads in other States, and thus cut off entirely from the National Treasury that source of revenue. Such a system would produce the necessity for increased burdens and taxation upon the people to supply the deficiency in the revenue. That is the precise result which the advocates of this bill wish to avoid. We in the western country are opposed to any increased taxation, and to any system of measures which would produce such a necessity. We wish to husband and enhance the value of this land fund, and derive all the revenue from it which a wise and just policy would bring into the Treasury. We wish to see the public lands sold, peopled, and cultivated. Where a trial of twenty, thirty, or forty years has shown that the lands will not sell, in consequence of the distance from markets and from timber, we wish to make railroads through them, and bring markets and timber into the center of those vast prairies, and thus render them valuable, and cause them to be sold and cultivated. We believe this to be a wise and just policy, and wish to see it prevail, until Congress shall consent to donate the lands to the actual settlers. I am sorry that I have been compelled to detain the Senate so long; but I have thought it due to the occasion, and to the part I have heretofore acted in promoting these grants of public lands in aid of railroads, to make this explanation of the views and principles upon which the policy rests, although my own State no longer has any special interest in the system. We only wish to do to our neighbors what has been generously done to us, in sustaining a policy by which everybody will be benefited and nobody injured. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am a member of the Committee on Public Lands, and have had these railroads under consideration in connection with the subject generally. I have been thinking a great deal as to what was the proper mode of administering this great fund, and I have come to the conclusion that I would, as speedily as I could, prepare and present, by way of amendment to some of the railroad bills which we have under consideration, a proposition to grant to the old States of the Union so much land for the purpose of internal improvement within their respective States as may be necessary. If I submit a proposition of that sort, as I expect to do, I intend to make something like a distribution among the old States, in proportion to their federal population, of an amount of these lands that will bear some proportion to those which are granted to the new States for railroad purposes and purposes of internal improvement. I think that this is a suitable occasion, after the remarks which have been made by other gentlemen, to bring to the attention of the Senate some considerations in respect to the proper mode of administering the public lands. And first, I wish to notice the proprietary idea which is advanced here as being the legitimate foundation upon which we can appropriate the public lands for works of internal improvement. If you will recollect the past history of appropriations of this sort for purposes of internal improvement connected with the idea of ownership on the part of the United States as the proprietary of these lands, you will discover one remarkable peculiarity, and that is this: That this proprietary idea limits the appropriations for the purposes of internal improvement to the States within which the lands lie, and does not allow you to appropriate lands for internal improvements when those improvements are situated out of the State in which the lands lie. Now, sir, I never |
