under the contract, a certain extra compensation of one or two months, according to the law? Although it may not be in the body of the contract, yet such was the law. I have no doubt about the fact; the law constitutes a part of the contract in this case. I desire further to know whether the contractor could not get the month's extra pay after the suspension of compensation for his services?

Mr. OLDS. The gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] I think, mistakes the nature of the contract upon which this bill is predicated. The law is, that where, in the opinion of the Department, it becomes necessary to suspend a contract of the character made, it provides for the allowance of one month's, or perhaps three month's extra pay. But this is not a suspension of a contract for carrying the mail. It was a contract to carry a daily mail, if I recollect right, from certain points. The Post Office Department became embarrassed under the administration of Mr. Barry. This contractor was a special friend of Mr. Barry. The Postmaster General sent his special agent, Mr. Brown, to this gentleman, and requested him to consent to an abatement of the service-that is, carrying the mail twice a week, instead of daily, promising him that if he kept his stock upon the road, as he actually did, or if he made sacrifices in disposing of his stock at a most unsaleable season, that so soon as the temporary embarrassment of the Post Office Department should be removed that he should be relieved and paid the full price of his contract, or full remuneration for all losses sustained in this abatement of service.

This gentleman received from the Department pro rata pay for the service performed under this pledge, given by the Department to pay in full, after the embarrassment of the Department had been removed. When, however, Mr. Kendall came into office, he held these contractors to the strict letter of the law. There was no evidence upon the books of the Post Office Department as a matter of course of this agreement made between O. B. Brown and this contractor for carrying the mail. Mr. Kendall refused to make any allowance, but held him to receiving his pro rata pay, which would bring this contractor some $900 in debt to the Department. This contractor asked that the suit should be commenced against him for the $900 in the United States court for the District of Columbia, and the Department was represented by the District Attorney. The evidence was adduced, and O. B. Brown was put upon the stand, and testified fully that he had been authorized by Mr. Barry to say to this contractor that he should, so soon as the temporary embarrassment of the Post Office Department was removed, receive his full compensation, in accordance with the terms of his contract. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial, and under the instruction of the court, a verdict was rendered; and upon that verdict this bill is predicated. It does not allow the interest allowed by the jury on the trial from 1837 to the time of rendering the judgment; but it is merely for the payment of the money which was found to be due upon the trial, and to which this contractor, under the express arrangement between him and Mr. Brown, was entitled.

Mr. FICKLIN. With the permission of the

honorable chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, I wish to propound this question: Whether this contractor receives, by the bill, the full amount that he would have received if he had carried the mail regularly all the time?

Mr. OLDS. He did not get paid in full; but this bill provides full payment, abating the in

terest.

Mr. HOUSTON. With the permission of the chairman on the Post Office and Roads, 1 understand from the report that the service was stopped entirely. That was the reason why I propounded the question I did. The report says that the service was suspended.

Mr. OLDS. You have mistaken the language of the report.

Mr. WASHBURN. I am acquainted with this case, and with the parties to it. There was, as I understand it-I may be mistaken, but I think not a suspension of the service; but inasmuch as that could not be done by the contractor without total ruin to himself, he kept the route going, and I believe, in reality, carried the mail for the whole time, although not under a contract with the Gov

ernment. He did this upon assurances made to him by Mr. Brown, that when the Department should be disembarrassed, they would pay him The Department was very much embarrassed at the time, and found it necessary to make the change.

I will state further, that in order to enable Colonel Thomas to go on with the contract, he borrowed money of this petitioner, Dwinel, and other gentlemen in that section, and he was in fact nearly ruined by reason of the non-fulfillment of its contract by the Government. Mr. Dwinel receives, by this bill, no interest upon the money which he has advanced for this object; and in consequence of the non-fulfillment of its contract by the Government, the original contractor has been embarrassed and nearly ruined. It is a very just case, and I think there can be no doubt about its merits.

The bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. FOWLER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

The following House bills, reported from a Committee of the Whole House, without amendment, were then taken up, and ordered to be engrossed; and being engrossed, were read a third time and passed, viz:

No. 139. A bill to authorize the issuing of a register to the brig America;

No. 140. A bill for the relief of William S. Payne;

No. 142. A bill to authorize the registry of the brig Kossuth; and

No. 148. A bill for the relief of Andrew Smith. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following messages heretofore received from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

edgments in certain cases," was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Senate bill No. 63, being an act to grant to the city of Burlington, Iowa, the land heretofore reserved between that city and the Mississippi river, was next taken up and read a first and second time.

Mr. CLARK. I ask that the bill may now be put upon its passage. It concerns only the people of the town of Burlington. Beyond the original line of the town, between the town and the Mississippi, there is a strip of land reserved which has become greater by accretions. The people of that city now ask that they may have leave to sell the land. That is the sum and substance of the bill, and I presume no gentleman upon this floor will object to it.

Mr. FOWLER. Will the gentleman from Iowa tell us how much land it is proposed to grant? Mr. CLARK. The quantity is very small indeed.

Mr. FOWLER. A thousand acres?

Mr. CLARK. Not half of that I presume. It is a mere local question in which no one has any interest except the people of that city.

Mr. KING, of New York. I think bills of this character ought first to go to committees. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

The question was then taken, and the bill was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

DEAF AND DUMB ASYLUM IN KENTUCKY.

Senate bill No. 182, being an act to extend the time for selling the lands granted to the Kentucky Asylum for teaching the Deaf and Dumb, was taken up, and read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. WARD. I desire to have that bill acted upon immediately. The limitations upon that grant, provide that it shall revert back to the General Government, unless disposed of sometime during the present month. I hope the bill will be acted upon and passed immediately. The trustees of that institution have attempted to sell the land,

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. I move that the bill be referred to the Committee on Public Lands. I will state that the grant of land, the time for the sale of which this bill proposes to extend, was made to the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, in the State of Kentucky, in the year 1826. They have had from that time to this to sell the land, but they have not done it; and they hold them to the detriment of the people of my own State. The people of Florida are very anxious that they should sell them. The Government have extended the time for selling the lands, for five years and ten years at a time, down to the present time. As a Representative from

Ordered, That the said message and accompanying documents be referred to the Committee on Commerce, and printed.

Also a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury asking an appropriation to pay the salary of D. V. Whitney, Esquire while acting as Secretary of the Treasury of the Territory of New Mexico; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a communication from the Engineer Department enclosing a conditional cadet appointment for Halder B. Lyon; which was referred to the proper committee."

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a

memorial, and the proceedings of a meeting of the citizens of Detroit in relation to the Irish patriots, O'Brien, Mitchell, and others.

Mr. STUART. I move that that communication be laid upon the table, and be printed. Mr. HAVEN. I move to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, without printing.

The question was first taken upon the motion to lay upon the table and print, and it was not agreed to.

The communication was then referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED. Senate bill No. 27, being an act to amend an act entitled "An act to authorize notaries public to take and certify oaths, affirmations, and acknowl

of this bill. At all events, I hope it will be referred to the appropriate committee, and be properly considered, before the House take any final action upon it. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. WARD. I hope and trust that the proposed reference will not be acceded to. I acknowledge that the grant was made in 1826. But the failure in its sale was not the fault of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum. The grant was made in 1826; but in the mean time, Florida was in a condition that no one was willing to buy lands in that State; But those lands have now become somewhat valuable. Now, I hope and trust that for an object of charity so universally acknowledged as that, no member of this House will refuse to vote for the passage-and the immediate passage-of this bill.

Mr. CABELL. These lands have been held by the trustees of that institution, and the reason why they have not been sold is, that they have been held at an exorbitant price. They have held them at an enormous price, while the people of Florida have sold their own lands and the lands of the Government have been sold at half the price, or at least, for very much less.

But it is not stated what is the quantity of lands proposed to be granted by the bill; yet, the House is asked to make this further extension, although it has already extended for nearly thirty years. This we are asked to do without any information as to the quantity of lands involved in the ro

posed extension, or as to the time which it has been already extended. I protest against the passage of this bill at this time, and most earnestly hope it may be referred to the appropriate committee, who will investigate it, and inquire into its expediency. Then, if they find, after a full investigation into the interests of all parties concerned, it expedient to pass this bill, I shall make no further opposition to it.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I am somewhat surprised at the course the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CABELL] has seen fit to pursue in relation to this subject. He says this bill does not state the number of acres contained in the original grant. Why, sir, when that grant was made, it specified the number of acres; and it seems to me it cannot be a matter of much importance whether the number be stated now or not.

The very best reason why the grant should be further extended, is that given by the gentleman from Florida, to wit: that the holders of the land want to sell it out at a higher price than the people of Florida are willing to pay. Why, the people of Florida come here with a great deal of disinterestedness, as it seems to me, through their Representative, and undertake to force a grant to the Deaf and Dumb Asylum in Kentucky into market in order that they may be able to get it at a lower price. According to the statement of the gentleman from Florida, the trustees of this Asylum are true to their interests, to hold these lands at such a price as not to compete with the lands in the possession of Florida around them. I can conceive no reason why this bill should be referred, or why it should not pass immediately.

Mr. CABELL. If the gentleman from Kentucky will allow me, I have only stated this: we do not ask these people to hold their lands upon the same terms with the people of Florida; we only ask that they should sell them for what they are worth. We do not ask them to sell them for less than their value, but only to sell them at a fair price.

Mr. MARSHALL. I ask if it is the custom in Florida to compel people to sell their lands at whatever price the purchaser may choose to give for them?

Mr. CABELL. This was a mere gratuity upon the part of the Government; and it has been against the policy of this Government, as has been proclaimed in speeches upon this floor, from time to time, to aid corporations who hold large bodies of land in such a manner as to prevent settlement. It is against that which I protest. It is against this corporation in the State of Kentucky holding, I think, some 40,000 acres of land, granted to them in the State of Florida. They will not sell the lands, they say, because they cannot get the price they want for them, and yet they will not hold them at a reasonable price, or at the price at which other people are selling their lands. They are asking us to keep settlers from settling upon these lands. It is that to which I object.

Mr. MARSHALL. If these people asked more for their lands than they were worth, or more than they considered them worth, they would be the most curious proprietors ever seen in this country.

Mr. BISSELL. If I am rightly informed, this grant was made in 1826.

Mr. CABELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BISSELL. Well, I think in justice to Florida, this company ought to have disposed of its lands before this time. They might have been settled in the thirty-odd years which have elapsed since that time. I do not know at what price they are held now, or at what price they have been held, but I am very sure the State of Kentucky might have sold them, and realized something from them.

Mr. MARSHALL. The State of Kentucky has nothing to do with them. They were granted to the deaf and dumb in that State; and gentlemen certainly do not desire to make that asylum part with their lands, without proper consideration, for the benefit of the people of Florida.

Mr. BISSELL. The deaf and dumb asylum have had already twenty-six years; and if this bill shall pass giving this extension for five years, application will be made to extend the time five years longer, and so on from time to time.

Mr. CABELL. Let the bill be referred, and then we can get at the proper state of facts.

Mr. WARD. The deaf and dumb of Kentucky

have not lost those lands at all. By the act of Congress, the time for disposing of these lands has been extended to the first of next month. The title of the lands is vested in trustees; and I hold it a strange and unheard-of species of morality, that on account of default-if any has taken place at at all of the trustees, that these men, the deaf and dumb, shall suffer the loss.

Mr. BISSELL. I do not suppose there has been any default anywhere. I think there has been liberality enough shown to the trustees of these deaf and dumb, and to all others interested in this grant, when it is considered that they have had twenty-six years in which to dispose of these 40,000 acres of land lying in the State of Florida. I think something is due to a young and feeble State like Florida. It is something to Florida that these lands should be opened up to settlement, and it is a very serious thing-—as every man from the new States knows-when lands are held, from year to year, by speculators, by companies, by corporations, and by States, and thus kept out of market. It is a serious inconvenience and drawback, and it is unjust. I am for making liberal appropriations of this kind. I am for making appropriations of land for the benefit of the insane and for the deaf and dumb-in which respect I believe I differ from some of my Kentucky friends. But at the same time

Mr. GENTRY, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman allow me, as I wish to understand this question, to direct his attention to one view of this subject. I understand that the condition upon which these lands are at present granted to the deaf and dumb asylum in Kentucky, is that they may be sold by the first of next month. Suppose Congress fail to legislate, will not the grant be forfeited? I think that if the gentleman will remember the state of things which have existed in Florida for many years past, he would find in that state of things a sufficient excuse for the trustees in not disposing of these lands up to the present time. I do not desire to have this grant forfeited by failure to legislate. The question is one of time in which these lands shall be disposed of.

Mr. CABELL. I will state that these lands are not within five hundred miles of the Indians.

Mr. WARD. I cannot. Mr. BISSELL. I am opposed to the bill. I think it would be wrong to allow them five years more, especially when they cannot show that they have put them in market, and offered to sell them at reasonable prices, or $1 25 per acre.

Mr. MEACHAM. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois, whether all the lands offered at a reasonable price, namely, the Government price, in Florida have been sold? If not, then there is no reason, lying against the Kentucky lands, why they have not been sold, on account of any unreasonable price which may have been asked.

Mr. BISSELL. In reply to the gentleman's question, I would simply observe, that if he is disposed to act upon the principle which he indicates, then, instead of allowing them five years, he should say that they should have time until the Government has sold all its lands in Florida. Will he do that?

Mr. JENKINS. Will the gentleman from Illnois [Mr. BISSELL] allow me to offer an amend ment?

Mr. BISSELL. I was going to make a sug gestion to the gentleman from Florida, that if he will withdraw his motion to refer, I will move to amend the bill by striking out five years and inserting one year, and in that form, understanding that it will satisfy the gentleman from Florida, I will vote for the bill.

Mr. CABELL. I will withdraw my motion, with that understanding, after having replied to the suggestion of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM.]

Mr. STUART. I must protest against this mode of discussing the question.

The SPEAKER. It is competent for one gentleman to yield the floor to another for explana tion.

Mr. COBB. I merely wish to say

Mr. STUART. I object to this mode of discussion, unless the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BISSELL] loses the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois has one hour to occupy the floor, and the practice of this body has been for the gentleman occupy

Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. STUART. But the point that I make is this, that he cannot give the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CABELL] the right to answer the argument of another gentleman who has taken the floor in the meantime.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gen tleman has not transcended the practice of the House.

Mr. CABELL. I wish merely to say, that the argument of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MEACHAM] is this: that because the General Government has not sold the 16,000,000 acres of surveyed lands in Florida at $1 25 per acre, therefore there is no force in the argument that these

determine.

Mr. BISSELL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? At what price have these lands been held?

Mr. WARD. I have never heard.

Mr. BISSELL. Then, for anything that appears here, the reason why these lands have not been sold, is because they have been held at an exorbitant price. I ask any gentleman interested in this question, if he can tell me at what price these lands have been offered for sale?

trustees have refused to sell their lands at reason

officers of this asylum had the selection of their lands from all the lands in Florida-out of the 16,000,000 acres of surveyed lands we had-and it is unreasonable that they should hold up these lands at high prices. They have sold some of these lands at $6 and some at $10 per acre. That is a sufficient answer to the gentleman's argument. Now, I have already stated that I am perfectly willing to acquiesce in the proposition of the gen tleman from Illinois, [Mr. BISSELL,] and give the trustees one year's extension of time.

Mr. BISSELL. Is the motion to refer withdrawn?

Mr. CABELL. For the present. Mr. BISSELL. I move, then, as an amendment to the bill, that the word "five" be stricken out and the word "one" inserted in its place.

Mr. JENKINS. I offer as an amendment to the amendment the following:

"Provided said lands shall be sold for a price not exceed ing $125 per acre."

Mr. GENTRY. Why not let the deaf and dumb get as much for their lands as they can? The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was disagreed to. The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. BISSELL.

Mr. WARD. I do not want to trespass upon the time of the House, but it is impossible for the

Mr. STUART. I have listened to the argument of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BisSELL, I confess, with some little surprise. I know the views of the gentleman upon subjects of this character. He has partially avowed them this morning. He favors liberal donations of the public lands for the benefit of the insane, deaf, dumb, and blind. It is one of the most meritorious propositions that can address itself to the Congress of the country. It has been carried out partially in this donation to the institution in Kentucky.

There are reasons, sir, why this donation has not yet been exhausted. Congress, from time to time, has extended the operation of the law under which the grant was made. Now, we know that the history of the State of Florida is such, in regard to its settlement, as sufficiently to answer any objection that can be made in point of time. The State of Florida does not yet contain a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle her to more than one representative upon this floor. It comes nowhere near the population of many single districts in this Union. It results from commercial as well as political causes, and it does not become this House, nor the Congress of the country, to insist that a donation for charitable purposes shall now be forfeited, and that the grant shall revert to the Government of the United States-which lands may fall a prey to worse speculation than ten shillings an acre. I am in favor of the bill as it stands, and for the purpose of bringing the House to a direct vote, I move the previous question.

The previous question received a second; there being, on a division, ayes 109-noes not counted. The main question was then ordered to be put. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. CоBв to the amendment, and it was rejected.

The amendment of Mr. BISSELL was rejected. Mr. CABELL. Is it in order to move to refer the bill?

The SPEAKER. It is not. The House is voting under the operation of the previous question.

Mr. CABELL. It is perfectly well known to the House that I withdrew my motion to refer upon the express condition that the amendment inserting "one year," in the place of "five,"

would pass.

[Cries of "Order!" "Order!"] Mr. CABELL. Upon that condition it was that I was asked to withdraw it, and I did so. Mr. CABLE, of Ohio. Is it in order to move to lay the bill upon the table?

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. CABLE. I then make that motion. Mr. GENTRY. Why not take the question upon the bill now?

Mr. CABLE demanded the yeas and nays; which were not ordered.

Mr. CABELL, of Florida. Under the circumstances upon which my motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Public Lands was withdrawn, I ask the general consent of the House to be allowed to renew it, that a vote may be had. The House will recollect

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I object, and call the gentleman to order,

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1852.

Mr. CABELL. I only request that a vote may be taken upon the motion to refer.

Mr. BISSELL. Move to reconsider the vote ordering the main question to be put.

Mr. CABELL. I move that the vote ordering the main question to be put be reconsidered. Mr. MARSHALL. Did the gentleman vote in the affirmative? The House divided upon his motion.

The SPEAKER. Not upon ordering the main question. It was upon the seconding of the call for the previous question that the House divided.

The question was then taken upon the motion to reconsider; and it was disagreed to.

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

Mr. MARSHALL. I move that the vote by which this bill was ordered to be read a third time be reconsidered, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. MARSHALL. I call for the previous question upon the passage of the bill.

Mr. CABELL. Is it engrossed?

The SPEAKER. It is a Senate bill, and of course, engrossed.

Mr. CABELL. Well, I give it up now. [Laughter.]

The call for the previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered to be put. The bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. MARSHALL moved a reconsideration of

the vote by which the bill was passed, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.

CHARLES A. GRIGNON.

Senate bill, No. 212, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles A. Grignon," was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

DRAWBACKS.

Senate bill No. 165, entitled An act extending the like privileges to those conferred by the act entitled An act allowing drawback on foreign merchandise exported in original packages to Chihuahua and Santa Fe, in Mexico, and the British North American Provinces adjoining the United States,' approved 3d of March 1845, to foreign merchandise exported to Mexico by certain indicated routes," was read a first and second time by its title.

Mr. ROBBINS. I move its reference to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. HOUSTON. From the reading of the title of the bill, it strikes my mind that it should have another direction than the one moved.

Mr. ROBBINS. It emanates from the Committee on Commerce of the Senate.

Mr. HOUSTON. That may be; but I understand from the title of the bill, that it proposes to refund a portion of the revenue under certain circumstances. If that is true, it is very evident that it should not go to the Committee on Commerce. I do not care to which committee it is referred.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I will state, in reply to the suggestion of the gentleman from Alabama, that the general import of the bill is to allow the same privileges of drawback upon goods which shall be taken into Mexico through the south part of Texas, as has been allowed by previous laws to goods taken in by the way of Santa Fé; and also to the North American provinces. It is for the purpose of facilitating the commerce of the Committee on Commerce, as indicated by the mocountry. I suppose it ought to be referred to the tion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

NEW SERIES....No. 44.

relief of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Company, was read a first and second time by its

title.

Mr. MEADE. I would be glad if the House would consent to put that bill upon its passage. This is a railroad leading from the Roanoke river to the capital of North Carolina. It went down a few years ago. The road rotted, and a company has now been formed for the purpose of reconstructing it. It connects with the town of Petersburg and the city of Richmond, enters the interior of North Carolina, and at Raleigh connects with the Central railroad, which goes westward towards Tennessee and Alabama. That road is now about being reconstructed-the company are laying the iron rails, and have progressed some twenty or thirty miles. They ask Congress to give them a credit on the duties upon their railroad iron, similar to that which was granted to the Wilmington road, which connects Roanoke with Wilmington and Charleston, South Carolina, being the connecting lines stretching from New York to New Orleans. At present, on many parts of the track, there is not a particle of iron, and yet the cars travel upon the road. I have heard gentlemen say that they believed that the engines upon the Raleigh and Gaston road go a fox hunting upon the beach, such is the condition of the road. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a company actively engaged in reconstructing that road for the purpose of connecting these important links, and they only ask a short credit for the duties upon the imported iron, which will soon be paid by the amount the Post Office will pay that road for carrying the mail. These amounts, of course, will be deducted every year as they become due, if I understand the bill. At any rate, the company will pay the duties at the expiration of the credit which this bill proposes to give it.

Mr. ROBBINS. I would suggest to the gentleman to move the reference of this bill to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. HOUSTON. This bill involves, so far as it involves a principle at all, precisely the principle of the bill that the House have just ordered to be referred to the Committee on Commerce. Certainly, if the bill which the House have directed to go to the Committee on Commerce was properly referred, this bill ought not to go to the Committee of Ways and Means. One proposes to take part of the revenue out of the Treasury of the country, and the other proposes to give a credit upon duties which have or may accrue to the Treasury. From the reading of the title of the bill, it seems to me that it should go to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, for the duties which have accrued or may accrue upon this railroad iron will be turned over to the Post Office Department.

Mr. WOODWARD. I wish to express briefly my approbation of the proposition before the House. We are inconsistent in declining to extend these facilities to railroads. The construction of railroads, with their machinery, is a part of the manufacturing business of the country, and those who will consult our revenue system will find that we have legislated upon the principle of admitting raw material free of duty. There is another inconsistency. We are donating lands, in large roads, and at the same time are putting an enoramounts, to encourage the construction of railmous tax upon the indispensable and most costly material in the business of constructing them. There is a gross inconsistency in this discrimination. Now, it is much more according to principle, and much more consistent with the appropriate powers of this Government to encourage railroads by not taxing them, than to encourage them by donating public lands. We know certainly what is to be the fruit of this donation. As to what is to become of these lands, we do not know. Besides, we do not give them to meritorious companies who have already invested their own means in roads, but we give them to prospective and possible roads-roads that may or may not be made, and to an administration that may be judicious or injudicious. In remitSenate bill No. 185, entitled "An act for the ting these taxes there is no question about the

Mr. KING, of New York. The law this bill proposes to amend originated in the Committee on Commerce, and the whole subject relates to commerce rather than to finance. It certainly should be referred to the Committee on Commerce.

The question was then taken, and the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

RALEIGH AND GASTON RAILROAD.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is inclined to think the amendment is not in order, on the ground of irrelevancy.

Mr. NABERS. Idesire to give notice of my intention to offer that amendment at the proper time. Mr. MEADE. I rise for the purpose of mak

country.

Mr. CARTTER. Before we act upon the remission of duties upon this railroad, I think it is well enough for the House to consider the subject. I agree with the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. WOODWARD,] that if there is any article which ought to be imported into the United States at this time free of duty, it is railroad iron. This bill does not propose to relieve railroads, but the railroad in question, of the incumbrances of the tariff upon railroad iron; and it is a proposition to foster a road which it appears from the confessions of its own friends has not cleared enough upon experiment to sustain itself by its own business. The honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MEADE] said, that in process of time this railroad will be able to restore the amount of revenue that is suspended. What evidence have we of this, where a road having been once constructed upon the basis of its own business has gone into rui? I am willing to relieve railroad enterprises of all imposts upon railroad iron, and I think, with the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. WOODWARD,] that it ought to be done, but

Mr. CLINGMAN. Will the gentleman allow me to make a short explanation? I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] and the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. WoODWARD,] that railroad iron ought to be left free of duty; but that question need not be discussed now. My purpose in rising is to say to the gentleman from Ohio that the circumstances under which this road failed to sustain itself were these: The company originally subscribed $700,000 or $800,000 of stock. That was not sufficient to build the road, and they borrowed more than $1,000,000 in addition. It was the borrowing of this money which obliged them to have the road sold. The company could not meet its liabilities, and the State, being endorser for the company, purchased the road. The State has subsequently given permission to the company to become owners of half of the stock, provided the company relay the road with heavy iron. The company are now relaying it. The road would have been always good stock and have paid well, had it not been in debt; and the company was so heavily in debt that the road was obliged to be sold in this way. The only question, therefore, at present, is one between the Treasury and the road. It is said upon all hands that the Treasury does not need the money. Why not give the credit therefore? There is no doubt whatever that the money will be paid. The road will be amply good for the money. It is a mere question of time in regard to the payment of the duty. As the company have had some difficulty in raising money sufficient to buy $500,000 worth of iron, it will be a matter of great advantage to them to be relieved from the payment of the duty upon that iron at the present time. They will get the means of paying those very duties in the course of three or four years for transporting

the mail.

Mr. NABERS. Is the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of Ways and Means? The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. NABERS. I wish to ask the gentleman to amend it by instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the duty altogether upon railroad iron. I offer that amendment.

Mr. HOUSTON. I rise to a question of order. It is that the instructions proposed are inconsistent with the bill. The bill proposes one thing, which is to allow a credit upon the duties; and the instructions an entirely different thing, and that is, to repeal the duty generally upon railroad iron.

Mr. ASHE. The carrying of the mails has more than paid the Government. The Government is now in debt to the road.

Mr. CARTTER. That I supposed would be the case. The Government will always be in debt to any company under such circumstances. It is a poor corporation that cannot contrive to make out a balance sheet against the Govern

ment.

[Mr. CARTTER,] in consideration of the circumstances of this road, to make that question upon some other bill. I ask the attention of the House It appears, then, that the advances made to this for a moment, in order to urge every man who is a company upon their railroad iron have been more friend to his country and its agricultural interests than paid by the carriage of the mails. If you not to make that fight upon this bill, which may follow that practice, you will find your Governhave the effect of delaying it for months, and defeat- ment in debt to every one of these corporations. ing the object of its introduction. As I stated to the I have no doubt this company too will pay it, by gentleman before, this road is already constructed carrying the mails. I do not object to the remis It is already graded, being an old road. The rails sion of these duties. All I ask is, that the same are being laid from Roanoke river to Raleigh, so as rule shall be extended to every portion of the to connect with the road leading from Petersburg Union, and that the railroads that every member and Richmond. Railroad iron is being imported, in this Hall represents in other portions of the and it is arriving every day in the ports of Norfolk, Union, shall come on to a common platform of Petersburg, and Richmond. The length of the exemption. If you are going to patronize corroad is about eighty miles, probably eighty-five.porations, let them all be patronized. If you are Let me answer the objection of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] urged just now. It was a very plausible and reasonable one, and I was not astonished he should take that view. This rail

road was built at a time when the cost of such a work was very high. It cost about $1,600,000. It goes to a town that does not have much trade, in the interior of North Carolina; and although it passes through a very fertile country comparatively speaking, yet at the same time, being an agricultural country, it cannot furnish much profit. There was very little travel along the road, except that which was local, no through travel, and hence the receipts from that source were very small. I am sorry I am so hoarse that I cannot make myself better understood, and more perfectly heard by the House.

I will now tell the House that, in consequence of the vast amount of money which this road cost, the company got very much in debt, especially to the State of North Carolina. The road was sold to pay those debts, and North Carolina became the purchaser, becoming responsible for the debt. In a spirit of generosity she proposes to put in this road-which cost $1,600,000-$400,000, provided individuals living along the line of it will raise $400,000 more, for the purpose of laying down the rails.

We believe that this road, which will cost $800,000 to complete it, will pay a dividend of five or six per cent-a dividend sufficiently large to induce those who feel an interest in the road to invest their money in it. I trust that the gentleman from Ohio, if he is determined to test the question raised by the gentleman from South Carolina, will not do it upon this bill.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi. I desire to ask if the morning hour has not expired?

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has not yet commenced. We are now, by unanimous consent, at the business on the Speaker's table.

Mr. CARTTER. I have no animosity to this road. The picture drawn by the gentleman from Virginia commends it to my sympathies. If I thought that we ought to discriminate between one road and another of the same kind, most certainly the description he has drawn would induce me to do it in favor of this road. It is not antagonism to the road which prompts me to protest against this measure. But here it is sought by a private enterprise to repeal our revenue laws. It is no less a proposition than that, and it cannot be regarded in any other light. Who is there here who believes the time will ever come when these suspended duties will be paid by these companies? It is merely a harbinger to a proposition to remit the duties altogether.

Mr. ASHE, (interrupting.) The gentleman says that this is a proposition, in effect, to suspend the revenue laws, and that these bonds will never be paid. Two years ago, this House passed a bill of a similar import, for another railroad in North Carolina, and the bonds in that case are all paid, and the Government is now in debt to the road.

going to patronize one district, patronize the whole. Let us all have the same rights here.

Mr. MEADE, (interrupting.) We are not asking an appropriation of money. Mr. CARTTER. No; it is merely a suspension of the payment of money.

Mr. MEADE. Before the question is taken on referring the bill to a committee, which would destroy and defeat it, I ask that the bill may be read; and before the bill is read, let me call the atten tion of the gentleman from Ohio and of the House to the facts.

I appeal to the Northern portion of this House to remember that their railroads, generally, were built between the years 1831 and 1842, and that during that time railroad iron was introduced free of duty. The railroads now being built in the South and West are recent enterprises. We did not progress with the same rapidity as our brethren of the North in these works of internal im provement between 1831 and 1842, and they built up their railroads with iron that was admitted free fo duty. All we ask now is, that they will give to the Raleigh and Gaston railroad a short time for the payment of the duty on the iron which they employ.

Mr. CARTTER. There does not seem to be any reason why this road should be distinguished from others. The objection which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. WOODWARD] takes to the donation of lands to these roads, applies with its full force to this description of patronage. I believe with him that in donating lands to build roads, instead of increasing population, you merely divert it, and that, instead of following the sug gestions of enterprise, you apply an arbitrary rule.

Mr. WOODWARD, (interrupting.) I did not mean to express any opinion as to the propriety of granting lands. I simply meant to say that to donate lands and yet lay heavy duties on the materials for making the roads, was a gross inconsistency.

Mr. HIBBARD. I rise to a question of order. The proposition before the House is, if I mistake not, to refer the bill to the Committee of Ways and Means. It seems to me that this debate is going far beyond that question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that a question of reference opens up the whole merits of the bill; practically it must be so.

Mr. CARTTER. I wish merely to add that I feel myself bound to vote against the special exemption of any particular railroad from the opera tion of the revenue laws; but at the same time I am ready, at any time, to vote to suspend the duty entirely upon railroad iron, for the purpose of encouraging the railroad enterprises of the country. That is my position,

Mr. OUTLAW. I hope that the proposition which has been made to commit this bill to the Committee of Ways and Means will not prevail. There are no facts connected with its consideration which are not already before the House; and there is no gentleman here who cannot be as well pregentle-pared to give his vote now as after it shall have gone to a committee. The reference which is proposed will entirely defeat the bill. It is ascertained that the cost of laying the iron will be $5,000 a

Mr. CARTTER. It may be that the bonds will be paid. The statement made by the man from North Carolina may be true. Mr. ASHE. I say it is true.

Mr. CARTTER, I have no doubt at all that

it is, but has that company paid anything other-mile, and that will take up the entire amount of

wise than in the carriage of the mails?

private subscriptions. The iron is now arriving

daily, but the company have not the means of paying the duties to the Government, and hence the result must be that the work will be impeded and retarded.

Sir, it seems to me a most extraordinary proposition that whilst the gentleman from Ohio is willing to repeal all the duty upon iron, he will not grant the small favor which is asked for this railroad. We of North Corolina come here to ask for very little. We make very few demands from this Government; and it passes my comprehension how gentlemen who are willing to vote millions of the public domain to build up internal improvements, can refuse this small aid for the construction of a railroad.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, (interrupting.) If I understand this bill, it proposes that the duty on the iron to be used on this road, shall be remitted?

Mr. OUTLAW. Not at all.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that it shall be suspended?

Mr. OUTLAW. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand, also, that a large portion of the iron for this road has been already introduced, and of course duty must have been paid upon some portions of it.

Mr. OUTLAW. It is in warehouses, in bond. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, is the duty on that portion already introduced to be paid or not?

Mr. OUTLAW. In reply to the gentleman from Arkansas I will state, that the iron which has been already imported is in warehouses, in bond; and it must necessarily remain there until the company can raise money enough to pay the duty.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then I ask why the gentleman from North Carolina, and the gentleman from Virginia, and other gentlemen who advocate the remission or suspension of the duty on this iron, and who would stop this money from going into the Treasury, are not willing to appropriate an acre of the public lands to aid in the construction of railroads?-lands, fourfifths of which, they know, cannot pay a cent into the Treasury for years, if at all? I am willing to go with the gentleman for the remission of these duties; but I do not see the difference, in point of principle, between voting for a bill of this kind and a bill to grant lands to railroad companies.

Mr. OUTLAW. If the honorable gentleman will turn to the records of the last Congress, he will find that I voted for the bill to give the swamp lands to Arkansas. I have not voted, and I will not vote, the public domain to particular States for their benefit, to the exclusion of my own constituents, but I am willing to appropriate the proceeds that may arise from the sale of that domain fairly, justly, and equally to all parts of the country.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand this bill proposes to permit this railroad in North Carolina to pay the duty on its iron in bonds which may be discharged in mail service. Is that the proposi

tion?

Several VOICES. It is.

Mr. JOHNSON. I intend to vote for this bill, but I wish to ask the gentleman from North Carolina, if he is willing to let the new States buy the alternate sections of the public lands along their railroad lines, and pay for them in bonds to be discharged in the same way?

Mr. OUTLAW. I am not here to be catechised; nor can it be expected that when a new proposition of this sort is propounded, I can answer it at

once.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I raise this question of order, that it is not competent for members of this House to rise publicly and make bargains with each other about their roads. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman is perhaps the first and the last one that would make bargains in this House, or out of it. No one here has proposed such a thing.

Mr. OUTLAW. The question propounded to me is one which I will consider when it shall be properly presented; but, in regard to the improvements of the new States, and in regard to the improvements of the western rivers and lakes, the honorable gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. JoHNSON] will recollect that I stood side by side with him, and voted for the river and harbor bill of the

last session of Congress But I am wandering from the point

Mr. MEADE. I find upon examination that this bill grants this privilege for four years to this company. It also provides for the payment of whatever may be due by the Post Office Department to the road at the end of each year, which is to be received in part payment. The balance is to be secured by the bonds of the company, and by good personal security, to be approved by the district judge; and let me say to my friend from Arkansas, and my friend from Missouri, that to make the cases parallel they should ask us to allow them to purchase the public lands upon a credit of four years, for the purpose of building their railroads, provided at the same time they gave good personal security for the payment of their bonds as they became due. Let them do that, and I will vote for the proposition.

Mr. OUTLAW. It seems to me that the only possible reason which can reasonably be urged for referring this bill is to ascertain the condition of the Treasury-to see whether it was in such a condition as to authorize this Congress to grant the credit which is asked at their hands. We all know what the condition of the Treasury is. We know that there is a surplus of money there, and we know that the public cannot, by any possibility, be injured by granting the credit which this bill provides. It may be that the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] might have some scruples in asking this credit for his own State; but we in North Carolina are in the habit of paying our debts, and we here offer to give good security to this Government that we will pay them when they become due. I move the previous question upon this proposition.

Mr. EWING. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw for a moment.

Mr. OUTLAW. I must insist upon it. Mr. FOWLER. I ask that the bill be read. Mr. JOHNSON. 1 object to its being read. Mr. FOWLER. Has the bill been read at all? The SPEAKER. Not by sections. Mr. FOWLER. I hope the bill will not be put upon its passage without giving us an opportunity of knowing what it is.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I submit whether we have not the right to order the reading of the bill?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it is in order to have the bill read. It was then read through. The main question was then ordered to be put. The question now being upon the motion to refer to the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. EWING demanded the yeas and nays; but they were refused.

Mr. OUTLAW demanded tellers; which were ordered, and Messrs. CHANDLER and CARTTER appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 66, noes 71.

So the bill was not referred.

Mr. MASON. Has the morning hour expired? The SPEAKER. There is no morning hour. Mr. GENTRY. What is the precise state of the question?

The SPEAKER. The question now before the House is on ordering the bill to be read a third time, under the operation of the previous question. Mr. SMART. I move that the bill do lie upon the table.

Mr. CLINGMAN. Upon that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MÁSON. Is it in order to move that the House go into Committee of the Whole? The SPEAKER. It is not; under the operation of the previous question.

The yeas and nays were then ordered. Mr. MASON. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that the motion is not in order.

Mr. COBB. What is the question before the House? The SPEAKER.

this bill for the purpose of offering an amendment extending the provisions of this bill, so far as can be made applicable, to the Charleston and Memphis, and the Selma and Gunter's Landing, and the Winchester and Alabama railroads, in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. If we intend such provision as the bill proposes, I cannot see why it should be confined to this road alone. The roads in my county are at this time importing iron, and have just as much right in equity, I think, to such provisions as are proposed in this bill.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. SMART to lay the bill on the table, and it was disagreed to; there being-yeas 64, nays 99-as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, William Appleton, Busby, Joseph Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Cartter, Chapman, John G. Davis, Dawson, Doty, Dùnhain, Edgerton, Evans, Ewing, Faulkner, Ficklin, Florence, Floyd, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Giddings, Gilmore, Goodenow, Green, Isham G. Harris, Hart. Henn, Hibbard, Thomas M. Howe, Ingersoll, Andrew Johnson, John Johnson, J. Glancy Jones, Kurtz, Humphrey Marshall, Mason, McCorkle, McDonald, McLanahan, McNair, Meacham, Morrison, Murray, Nabers, Newton, Andrew Parker, Perkins, Phelps, Rantoul, Robbins, Ross, David L. Seymour, Skelton, Smart, Snow, Benjamin Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stratton, George W. Thompson, Townshend, Washburn, Wilcox, and Wildrick-64.

NAYS-Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, Ashe, Averett, Barrere, Bartlett, Beale, Bell, Bennett, John H. Boyd, Bragg, Breckinridge, Brenton, Briggs, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, E. C. Cabell, Thompson Campbell, Chandler, Chastain, Churchwell, Clark, Cleveland, Clingman, Cobb, Conger, Cottman, Curtis, George T. Davis, Dockery, Duncan, Edmundson, Fitch, Fowler, Freeman, Gaylord, Gentry, Gorman, Grey, Hall, Harper, Sampson W. Harris, Haws, Hascall, Haven, Hebard, Hendricks, Holladay, Horsford, Houston, Howard, Ives, Jackson, James John, son, Robert W. Johnson, Kuhns, Landry, Lockhart, MaceEdward C. Marshall, McMullin, McQueen. Meade, Miller, Molony, Henry D. Moore, John Moore, Morehead, Murphy, Olds, Orr, Outlaw, Samuel W. Parker, Peaslee, Penniman, Porter, Powell, Price, Savage, Schoolcraft, Schoonmaker, Scudder, Scurry, Smith, Stanly. Stone, St. Martin, Stuart, Sutherland. Taylor, Benjamin Thompson, Wallace, Ward, Watkins, Welch, Addison White, Alex. White, Woodward, and Yates-99.

The SPEAKER. The question is now upon ordering the bill to be read a third time.

Mr. SEYMOUR, of New York. I wish to inquire if the previous question still applies to the bill?

The SPEAKER. It applies upon the proposition to read the bill a third time.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading; and having been read the third time, Mr. CLINGMAN. I move the previous question upon the passage of the bill. .

Mr. SMART. I ask the yeas and nays. Mr. EWING. Is it in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to a third reading?

The SPEAKER. It is in order.

Mr. CLINGMAN. How did the gentleman vote on that question?

Mr. EWING. I voted in the negative. Mr. CLINGMAN. The gentleman, then, cannot make the motion.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. EwING] voted with the majority, and he has a right to make the

motion.

Mr. EWING. I move, then, to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to a third reading, and I wish to state the reasons for the motion. It is in order to get the bill in a proper condition to refer it to some committee with instructions to

Mr. OUTLAW. I rise to a question of order. I submit whether this proposition is debatable? The SPEAKER. The proposition is to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to a third reading, and that proposition is debatable; and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. EwING] has a right to make a statement.

table.

It is to lay the bill upon the

Mr. COBB. Is the previous question still in operation?

The SPEAKER. It is.