Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES.

Mr. FISH, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the petition of Francis B. Stockton, praying the return of a certain sum paid by him, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill, for his relief; which was read and passed to the second reading.

The report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. UPHAM, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to which was referred the petition of H. N. Denison, praying payment for . a draft, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

it were located by the original holder, the amount was to be paid by the Treasury.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will ask leave to interrupt the honorable Senator. The Chair finds, on inquiry, that the bill is in the possession of the House of Representatives. The House must, therefore, first act upon the report of the committee of conference; and, until the bill is returned from the House, there can be no action of the Senate in regard to it.

Mr. SHIELDS. If the vote cannot be taken at this time on the report, I suppose it will hardly be necessary to explain the amendment. I move that the report be printed, and that will, perhaps, save me the necessity of making any explanation of the matter when it comes up again.

Mr. BADGER. I trust that the honorable Senator from Illinois will now give an explanation of

the amendments.

Mr. SHIELDS. As it may save trouble on Mr. FELCH, from the Committee on Public another occasion, I will state the purport now. Lands, to which was referred a memorial of the The bill, as proposed to be left by the committee Legislature of Alabama, in relation to extending of conference, gives compensation to the registers the time for selecting school lands, reported a bill and receivers, makes bounty land warrants asto extend the provisions of an act, approved Feb-signable in all cases, and enables either the origiruary 26, 1845, entitled "An act to amend an act nal holder or the assignee to locate them upon any to carry into effect, in the States of Alabama and land subject to private entry at the time of the loMississippi, the existing compacts with these cation, and they themselves pay the expenses. If States, with regard to the five per cent. fund and the warrants are to be located on lands where the the school reservations; which was read and passed minimum price is more than $1 25, as for instance, to the second reading. on the reserved land in Illinois and other States, where the price is $2 50, the person who holds the warrant can make the location by paying the residue in cash. With this exception, the bill is the same as it passed the Senate.

He also, from the same committee, to which were referred documents relating to the claim of John Newton, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the petition of citizens of Guthrie county, Iowa, praying for a donation of land for a county seat, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. BRADBURY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which were referred the papers in the case of Walter Colton, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Walter Colton; which was read and passed to the second reading.

The report was ordered to be printed.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS.

[ocr errors]

Mr. SHIELDS, from the managers on the part of the Senate, on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, entitled "An act to make land warrants assignable, and for other purposes,' reported that they have met the managers on the part of the House, and after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend to their respective Houses, to strike out the word "act," where it first occurs in the third line of the first proviso proposed to the first section of the bill by the House, and insert in lieu thereof the word laws. Insert after the word "located," in the said third line of said first proviso, the words, according to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and in one body. And with these amendments, they recommend that the Senate recede from their disagreement to the amendments of the House to the first section of the bill.

Strike out all after the word warrants, in the twelfth line of the second section, to the end of the section. And with this amendment, they recommend that the House recede from its amendment, striking out all of said bill after the first section.

JAMES SHIELDS,
ALPHEUS FELCH,
TRUMAN SMITH,

Managers on the part of the Senate.
GEORGE W. JONES,
GEORGE BRIGGS,
GRAHAM N. FITCH,

Managers on the part of the House.

Mr. S. I will state, for the information of the Senate, that the only change that has been made in the Senate bill is in regard to one principle. The report of the Committee of Conference leaves the bill precisely as it was when it left this body, including a provision for the compensation of registers and receivers-giving them the ordinary compensation for their services, only requiring that the holder of the warrant, whether he is the assignee or the original holder, shall pay the offi

cer himself. This bill makes the warrants very valuable; and hence we have made this change. As the Senate bill originally stood, the assignee paid the officers for locating the warrants; but if

The report was ordered to be printed.

STEAM FERRY-BOATS.

Mr. SHIELDS submitted the following resolution; which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending an act entitled "An act for the better security of the lives of passengers on board vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam," as to exclude steam ferry-boats from the operation thereof, so as to obviate the injury and detriment that have been occasioned to the owners of such boats, by including them within the regulations and requirements of such law. Also, to provide for the release of such ferry-boats as may have been seized under the provisions of such law, and dismiss all legal proceedings instituted against them, and repay all fines and penalties that may have been assessed or decreed against the owners of such boats for the violation of the provisions of said act; and to provide that the law shall hereafter be construed, as originally intended, not to apply to steam ferry-boats.

IOWA LAND BILL.

The engrossed 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, was read a third time. On the question "Shall the bill pass?" the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. BRODHEAD, and resulted as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Atchison, Adams, Badger, Bell, Borland, Brooke, Cass, Clemens, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Fish, Foot, Geyer, Gwin, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, King, Mangum, Morton, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Underwood, Walker, and Weller-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Bayard, Bradbury, Brodhead, Chase, Hamlin, Mason, Norris, Pratt, and Wade-10. WILLIAM SPEIDEN.

Mr. BADGER. I am directed by the Committee on Naval Affairs to ask the Senate to take up this morning, and dispose of, the bill on the prívate Calendar, for the relief of purser William Speiden. The reason for asking it is this: in the belief of the committee, this is a very plain case, in which the relief desired should be extended to the party. He has been ordered to sea, and expects soon to leave the United States, to be absent perhaps several years; and if the relief is to be extended to him at all, it ought to be before he goes away. I move to take up that bill; but if any unexpected difficulty should arise, of course it can be laid aside.

The motion was agreed to.

The bill was accordingly read a second time, and was considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the accounting officers of the Treasury to allow to William Speiden two and a half per cent. upon the amount of military contributions received by him, while acting as purser to the United States frigate Congress, and as paymaster and commissary to the land forces on the coast of the Pacific, during the Mexican

war-to be in full compensation for all extra services, expenses, and losses sustained by him daring that period, according to the spirit of the ac of March 3, 1849, to provide for the seulement ef accounts of public officers and others, who may have received moneys arising from military co tributions or otherwise in Mexico.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and was subsequently read a third time and passed.

STATUTES AT LARGE.

Mr. BRADBURY. I move to take up the jou resolution authorizing the purchase of the h volume of the Laws of the United States. I stated yesterday the reasons which required the early passage of this resolution; but I am desired by a Senator who was not here yesterday to recapit late the reasons why action on this resolution is necessary. It provides for the purchase of the ninth volume of the Laws of the United States for distribution, in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 8, 1846. The destruction f the Library by fire deprived the members of the House of Representatives of the use of the vol umes of the laws which were there. There is need of this volume now, for the accommodation of the committees of the House; and this volume is also needed for distribution, under the provisions of that act, to the heads of departments, and foreig Governments. I hope there will be no objection to taking up the resolution.

The motion was agreed to, and the joint resolu tion was read a second time, and considered as i Committee of the Whole.

It authorizes the Secretary of State, in compa ance with his request made to the Committee on the Judiciary, to purchase of the publishers of the Statutes of the United States one thousand copies of the ninth volume of the Statutes at Large now published, and to cause them to be distributed as the first and eighth volumes were distributed by the act of August 8, 1846.

Mr. BRADBURY. I beg leave to read a com munication addressed by the Secretary of State to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,! WASHINGTON, January 15, 1852. SIR: I beg leave, through you, respectfully to call the attention of the Committee on the Judiciary to the propriety of authorizing this Department to purchase one thousand copies of the ninth volume United Statutes at Large-L tle & Brown's edition-for distribution in the same manne as were the one thousand copies of the first eight volumes. under the act of August 8, 1846.

There appears to be a necessity for this purchase, from the fact that the index to the Statutes at Large, just published, and intrusted by the Senate to this Department for distribution, embraces the contents of the ninth volume. not in its serial or pamphlet form, but as a complete and d tinct volume, corresponding with those previously publisäed by authority of Congress.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedi ent servant, DANIEL WEBSTER

To Hon. A. P. BUTLER,

Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate.

The price which is fixed by the publishers of this volume is regarded as a very reasonable one, considering the manner in which it is got up and its size. I hope there will be no objection to the passage of the resolution.

The resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS-NON-INTERVEN

TION.

Mr. BRADBURY. Before proceeding to the consideration of the special order of the day, desire to call the attention of the Senate again to the bill providing indemnity to sufferers by Frea spoliations. I do not propose to take it up to-day but I desire that some day may be designated when it may come up. It was made the spe order for a day, more than a month ago. The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. FELCH,] I understand, desires to address the Senate on the subject, I hope we may fix on some day this week for its consideration; and I hope we will name the day now, in order that it may be understood when the bill is to come up. I hope it will not be postponed beyond this week, or at furthest not beyerd Monday next.

Mr. CLARKE. I would beg leave to ask whether the honorable Senator from Michigan w be ready to-morrow to submit his remarks to the

Senate? There is nothing very special after the consideration of these non-intervention resolutions to-day. Will the Senator be ready to speak, if this bill shall be taken up to-morrow?

Mr. FELCH. I was a member of the special committee to which this matter was referred, and being so unfortunate as to be in the minority of the committee in my views on it, I proposed to give the matter a full investigation, and to present some views to the Senate, when the question shall come up for consideration. I had commenced an examination of that kind. The papers and documents referred to in the case are very voluminous, and it is a labor of weeks to go through them. I have not been able as yet to pursue that examination on account of illness during the last two weeks. I shall now, perhaps, be ready to pursue it, and to consent to the matter coming up in a very short time. If the Senator will permit the matter to lie over, say for a week, it will accommodate me better than a shorter time. If, however, I should be able to conclude my investigation sooner, I would consent to its being taken up at an earlier day.

Mr. CLARKE. I move, then, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the special order of the day.

Mr. MANGUM. The honorable Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] has the floor upon the special order, but the condition of the Senate Chamber is such that it is impossible that he can speak to-day; and I think it is due to him, as he is now, for the first time, about to address the Senate at length, that the Senate should give him a fairer opportunity of being heard. With that view, I move that the Senate do now adjourn. Mr. BRADBURY asked for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. CASS. I would suggest to the honorable Senator from North Carolina that there can be no sort of objection to allowing this matter to lie over, to accommodate the honorable Senator from Tennessee; but there is no reason why we should adjourn.

Mr. MANGUM. I withdraw the motion to adjourn, and move that the special order be postponed until to-morrow at one o'clock.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator, probably, is not aware of the order in which the special orders come up. The Chair will call them over, so that the Senator may see. The first is a bill to improve the navigation of the Upper Mississippi.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I am much obliged to the honorable Senator from North Carolina for the suggestion which he has made on my behalf. It must be obvious to every Senator here that the room is uncomfortable. But, so far as I am concerned, if it is the pleasure of the Senate, I am willing to go on to-day. I feel that the Chamber is uncomfortable; yet if Senators prefer that the debate should go on now, I am ready, and I submit the question to the Senate. It is a matter of very great indifference to me. If the Senate wish me to proceed now, I can probably say what I have to say, as well to-day as at any other time.

Mr. ATCHISON. Although the Senator from Tennessee expresses entire indifference as to whether he shall go on now or not, I presume that the honorable Senator from North Carolina had some authority for saying that the Senator from Tennessee would prefer to go on to-morrow.

Mr. MANGUM. I do not suppose that any gentleman would like to speak at length to-day. Mr. ATCHISON. Certainly; and I am ready, as I presume every Senator is ready, to accord this indulgence to the Senator from Tennessee. I therefore move to postpone all the special and general orders prior to the bill granting the right of way to the State of Missouri, and a portion of the public lands, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Hannibal to St. Joseph, in said State.

The motion was agreed to.

RAILROADS IN MISSOURI. The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of the bill granting the right of way to the State of Missouri, and a portion of the public lands, to aid in the construction of a railroad from Hannibal to St. Joseph, in said State, which was reported from the Committee on Public Lands, with an amendment in the shape of a substitute, which the committee has adopted as a uniform bill for all such purposes.

On the motion of Mr. GEYER, several verbal

amendments were made in the substitute; also, amendments to make it conform to the Iowa land bill, which this morning was read a third time and passed. An amendment was also made, on his motion, by which two several bills were incorporated into one, so that this bill not only makes provision for a railroad from Hannibal to St. Joseph, but also for a railroad from St. Louis to the western boundary of the State of Missouri.

Mr. DAVIS. I would suggest to the Senator from Missouri, that in the proviso of the committee's amendment, the same amendment should be inserted which was made to the Iowa bill yesterday; and I therefore make the motion to strike out the words "provided that the right of way shall not exceed one hundred feet on each side of the line of said roads, and a copy of the survey,' and insert the following:

[ocr errors]

"Provided, That in locating the railroads aforesaid, and assigning the limits to the easement, no more lands shall be taken from the United States than is necessary for a convenient construction and use of said roads or public ways, for

transportation, including stations, with the usual buildings of all kinds, turn-outs, and such other appurtenances as are usually enjoyed by railroad companies, and a copy of the location."

to.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest that an amendment to the Iowa bill was made to insert the words "to be recorded," at the end of that proviso, so as to make it read, that

"A copy of the survey of said road, under the direction of said State, shall be forwarded to the proper local land officers respectively, and to the General Land Office, at Washington city, within ninety days after the completion of the same, to be recorded."

It would be proper to make that amendment to

this bill.

The suggestion was adopted, and the amendment as amended was agreed to.

Mr. BRADBURY. Before the bill is reported to the Senate, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Missouri what number of acres of land is appropriated by this bill, and what portion of the land will be found to be alternate sections on each side of the road?

Mr. ATCHISON. The Senator from Maine

makes an inquiry. He wants to know the quantity of land which is to be appropriated by this bill for these railroads. I am told that upon the Northern Railroad-from Hannibal to St. Jo

seph-there cannot be obtained, within the fifteen miles of that road, exceeding one half million of acres, and refuse land at that. The road is to be two hundred miles in length-or one hundred and eighty upon a direct line, though it is supposed that with the necessary curves it will be about two hundred miles. As to the road on the south side of the river, my colleague can, perhaps, give more information than I can; but I am told that it will not exceed two hundred and twenty

five miles, with alternate sections on each side. The Senator can make the estimate himself. I have not made a calculation of the exact number of acres.

Mr. BRADBURY. I would inquire further, whether any arrangements have been made by the State, by which this land is immediately to pass into the hands of railroad companies or specu

lators?

Mr. ATCHISON. No, sir. Each of these roads has a charter from the State of Missouri. That State has appropriated $3,000,000 to assist in the construction of the roads. Private stock upon one of them, I am told, has been taken to the amount of $1,200,000, and upon the other, from $800,000 to $1,000,000. The State of Missouri, I believe, has made no disposition of the lands, for whether the Government of the United States we have always considered it a doubtful matter, would grant anything, even the right of way. She has made no disposition of lands to be granted, as far as my knowledge extends, to railroad companies, or otherwise, for the construction of these roads.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, the amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

CUMBERLAND DAM.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I rise to ask the Senate to take up and act upon a bill, which I propose they shall decide without any argument on my part. It is a bill for the improvement of the Cumberland dam in the Ohio river. It was laid upon

the table at a very early period of the session; and I would just remark, that if Congress or the Senate intend to appropriate any money for that object, it is high time that it should be done, so that the Executive may be making arrangements to have the work go on before the warm season commences. It is a measure which has been discussed time and again in this body, and I do not propose now to resume the discussion upon it. I hope the Senate will take it up, and give a silent vote, one way or the other, without any discussion, unless some gentleman is anxious to be heard upon it.

Mr. CHASE. I wish to inquire of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] whether this bill relates to an improvement in the Ohio river, with respect to which there has been very serious disagreement among those who navigate that river, as to the propriety of the improvement, and what the location is?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is a dam which was put in the Ohio river by the action of this Government, just above Cumberland Island, so as to throw the water into a chute next to Smithville. It is now in such a situation that it must be either removed or repaired.

Mr. CHASE. There is a very great diversity of opinion with regard to the propriety of that repair, as I know very well from conversation with persons engaged in navigation upon that river.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on taking up the bill.

Mr. CHASE. I hope it will not be taken up at the present time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Why not take it up, and let the gentleman assign hi reasons for opposing the bill now? We can as well appropriate this afternoon to that object, as any other. This is a matter of pressing importance if anything is to be done at all. If we do anything, now is the time to do it, because the season is coming on when everything should be ready for the work. If you postpone the matter till June or July, the best part of the season will have passed away before anything can be done. It is a matter of some urgency that we should act upon it now.

Mr. CHASE. I should have no objection to taking up the bill now, but that we all came here this morning expecting that a different subject would be taken up, and supposing the usual time of the Senate would be occupied by another question. I wish for a little time to look at the reports that have been made concerning this subject. I am not certain that I shall oppose the passage of the bill, but I wish for an opportunity of informing myself more fully with regard to it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Very well, then, let it pass. I withdraw my motion.

RAILROADS IN ARKANSAS. Mr. BORLAND. As I do not think there is any other business pressing upon the attention of the Senate, I we ask that we take up the bill granting lands to the State of Arkansas for the same purpose as those granted in the bill which passed for the State of Missouri to-day, and that which passed for the State of Iowa yesterday is a bill of precisely the same character, resting on precisely the same principles, and I think it might be acted upon to-day as well as at any other time.

It

The motion to take up the bill was agreed to. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, accordingly proceeded to consider the bill granting to the State of Arkansas the right of way and a portion of the public lands, 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, Tennessee, by the way of Little Rock, to a point on Red river, on the border of Texas.

The Committee on Public Lands had reported the original bill, with the model substitute, as in other similar cases.

On the motion of Mr. BORLAND, the bill was amended to make it conform to the bills as amended

granting land for like purposes to the States of Iowa and Missouri.

Mr. BRADBURY. I desire to ask the Senator from Arkansas the same question, in relation to this bill, which I asked in relation to the Missouri bill; namely, what number of acres of land this bill proposes to appropriate? And, in the same connection, I would like to have the Senator inform the Senate, how many millions of acres of land were granted to the State of Arkansas last session?

Mr. BORLAND. I have not made any estimate of the number of acres granted to the State of Arkansas by this bill. The road runs from the Mississippi river, through the centre of the State, to the western frontier. The State is about three hundred miles in width, from east to west. The grant applies to land for six miles on each side of the road, giving the alternate sections. The estimate I have not made; it is not material that it should be made. I have not deemed it necessary, and therefore I have not sat down to make the calculation. I would say that along the line of the road a large portion of the land is in the hands of proprietors, so that perhaps not more than half will be given along the line of the road within the

six miles.

With regard to the question as to the amount of swamp land granted to Arkansas, I will say, that it is impossible to tell the amount, because the selections have not been made. But even if they were made, and amounted to millions, I would say, that they are not worth anything at all, until the State has expended all that she can ever receive for them, in converting them into good land.

The bill was then reported to the Senate, and the amendments made in Committee of the Whole, were concurred in. It was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

RAILROAD IN ALABAMA.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the consideration of the bill, granting to the State of Alabama, the right of way, and a donation of public land, for making a railroad from Selma to the Tennessee river.

This bill was of the same character as the bills making grants of land for similar purposes, in the States of Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas, and the several amendments adopted in regard to these bills, were incorporated in this bill. It was reported to the Senate, the several amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

NAVAL HOSPITAL AT NEW YORK. Mr. BADGER. I ask the Senate to take up a joint resolution, reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs, for the purpose of disposing of it at this time. It is a joint resolution, authorising the straightening of the boundary lines of the naval hospital at New York. We passed a resolution some time ago; and, in consequence of it, some difficulty arose, which renders this resolution necessary. I move to postpone the previous orders to take it up.

The motion was agreed to; and the resolution was considered by the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole.

The resolution was read. It proposes to authorize the Secretary of the Navy, on the part of the United States, to carry into full affect an arrangement made with the coterminous proprietors, whereby a certain part of the eastern boundary of the lands of the naval hospital at New York is straightened, as will appear by reference to a map, signed by the said proprietors and the commissioners for running the said line on the 28th of November, 1848, and approved by the Secretary of the Navy, on the 18th of December, in the same year, so that without any pecuniary consideration from the one to the other, the slips of land on the south and west sides of said line according to said plan shall become the property of the United States, and so much on the other side as now belongs to the United States, shall become the property of the abutting proprietors respectively.

Mr. BRADBURY. I would like to hear an explanation from some gentleman who is on the committee which reported this bill, as to whether it is to involve any considerable expenditure in the purchase of lands.

Mr. BADGER. If the Senator from Maine had listened to the resolution when read, he would have learned that it does not involve the expenditure of a single sixpence. The boundary is irregular, and the object is to make a straight line, and to make an exchange of small slips of land.

No amendment being offered, the resolution was reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

SELECTION OF LANDS IN WISCONSIN.

Mr. WALKER. Very early in the session I introduced a bill to authorize the State of Wiscon

sin to select the residue of the lands to which that State is entitled, under the act of the 8th August, 1846, to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. I desire that it may be taken up. I would not now make the motion but that our Legislature is in session, and if the bill is passed it will be necessary that it should be passed soon, in order to enable the Legislature to take some action on the subject at the present session. It is just such a bill as has been passed for the State of Illinois, and I hope there is not to be any distinction made between the two States.

The motion to take up the bill was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to its consideration as in Committee of the Whole.

The PRESIDENT. The bill is reported with an amendment. The committee propose to strike out these words:

"That the Governor of the State of Wisconsin shall be, and he is hereby authorized to select the balance of the land to which the State is entitled under the provisions of the act of 8th of August, 1846, to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, out of any of the unsold and unappropriated lands in the State."

And to substitute these words:

"That the Governor of the State of Wisconsin shall be, and he is hereby authorized to select, out of any unsold and unappropriated lands in that State, the balance of the land to which that State is entitled under the provisions of the act of 8th August, 1846, within the limits of the grant of land, to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, which could not be assigned to the State under the provisions of said act, in consequence of the same having been previously sold or otherwise disposed of.”

Mr. BADGER. There is a slight verbal amend

ment which I would suggest; which is to strike out the word "balance," and insert the word "residue."

The amendments were agreed to.

The bill was then reported to the Senate, the

amendments were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

MARINE HOSPITAL AT PORTLAND.

Mr. HAMLIN. I move that the Senate take up the bill making an appropriation for the erection of a marine hospital at Portland, Maine. I think it is a bill which will commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate. It will stand on its own merits.

Mr. BORLAND. That bill asks for an appropriation for building or continuing a marine hospital. I would like to inquire of the Senator from Maine, whether there is any reason why a different course should be pursued in regard to that bill than is pursued in regard to appropriations for other purposes? I know that heretofore appropriations for marine hospitals have been included in the general appropriation bills, and I recollect that on one occasion a long discussion occurred on a motion to strike out a similar appropriation from the general appropriation bill. Now, I wish to know the reason why a difference should be made in this case?

Mr. HAMLIN. I have stated that I was willing to let this bill stand upon its own merits, and not to have it depending on the general appropriation bill to bring it through. The only difference that I know of is, that I propose to bring it up and pass it in a bill by itself; and I do not know why it should not commend itself to the good sense of the Senate, because I am willing to trust it to its own merits. The other course named by the Senator was irregular. This is the correct and parliamentary course.

Mr. BADGER. I can suggest another reason, in addition to that suggested by the Senator from Maine, why it is proper that this bill should be acted upon now. I doubt whether the motion could be made to insert this bill in the general appropriation bill, unless the sense of the Senate had been taken upon it, under the restrictive rule which we adopted last session.

The question was then taken on the motion to postpone the previous orders to take up the bill, and it was agreed to.

The bill was then read a second time, and considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to purchase a suitable site in Portland, in the State of Maine, or in such place in the immediate vicinity thereof as he shall deem proper, and to cause to be erected thereon, under his direction, a marine hospital for the relief of sick and disabled seamen; and for that purpose the sum of $30,000 is appropriated.

Mr. HAMLIN. I would ask for the reading of the report which accompanies the bill, but that I think I can state the facts more succinctly than they are set forth in that report, and what will be satisfactory to the Senate. There has never been a marine hospital north of Boston, though we have a distance of coast of five hundred miles between Boston and the Province of New Brunswick. There are in the State of Maine near forty thousand seamen who at different times follow the sea for a living. We contribute to the seamen's fund somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 anrually. The severities of our climate and the large number of our seamen, are the facts upon which that report was based, and I think I need not say anything more. I have the facts before me for a full explanation, but I will stop unless some Senator shall desire a further statement.

Mr. BADGER. That is quite enough. Mr. BORLAND. Lest it may be supposed that I am opposed to the passage of this bill, in consequence of the inquiry I made, I rise to say that I cordially approve of it, and only wished to know whether there was any difference between this bill and those which have formerly been passed on this subject. Among the first things which I did when I came here, was to ask for an appropriation for the erectien of a similar hospital in my own State. I then went into an estimate of the amount which was held by the Government of the vast sums of money taken from seamen, which I held ought to be appropriated liberally for this and similar purposes.

forty thousand seamen in Maine. I say, then, that I think they are entitled to $100,000 a year; for they each pay $2 40 a year into the Treasury, not by a tax, but it is paid out of their wages, being twenty cents per month. And it is no matter what kind of a vessel or craft they go upon, even if it is a raft, each man so employed has dedacted from his wages $2 40 a year, so that these forty thousand seamen in Maine are entitled to $100,000 per annum.

The Senator from Maine says there are near

Mr. HAMLIN. 1 did not understand the inquiry made by the Senator from Arkansas as being dictated by a spirit of opposition, and if, from the manner in which I replied to him, he supposed that I did, he is entirely mistaken. The Senator from Arkansas will recollect that all persons in Maine who are seamen, do not follow the sea all the time, or at the same time; perhaps not one half. Besides, the amount of money contributed by the seamen of Maine, is paid mostly in other States. The seaman is entitled to relief wherever he may be. For that purpose these hospitals are erected all over the country, which are designed to furnish that very relief

Mr. FELCH. I would inquire whether the $30,000 is for the purchase of grounds, or whether this is the commencement of an operation which is to be carried out by further appropriations? I would like to know whether there is to be any limit to this appropriation?

Mr. BADGER. It will certainly require further appropriations.

Mr. HAMLIN. The bill, Mr. President, has no limitation, nor do I think it should have any. It may be that $30,000 will be found sufficient to complete the whole work, but it is hardly advisable to restrict it to that sum, for we shall then have but one single marine hospital north of Boston, and it should be made to accommodate a large number of persons. Let the matter be subject to the direction of the Treasury Department.

Mr. BADGER. If there be any doubt about the sum, you had better make it $50,000 instead of $30,000.

Mr. HAMLIN. No, no; let it go at $30,000. Mr. STOCKTON. I move to amend the bill by striking out" thirty" and inserting "fifty," so as to make the sum $50,000.

Mr. HAMLIN. If the Senator from New Jersey will allow me, I will ask him to withdraw that amendment. I know the feelings which prompt him to offer it; but the Department has suggested that $30,000 should be applied for, and I think it would be better to adhere to that sum. Let a further sum be appropriated hereafter when necessary.

Mr. STOCKTON. Well, well; I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BELL. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this bill, but I should like to know from

my honorable friend from Maine, why this bill is brought in as a separate measure? Heretofore, when we have established marine hospitals, the appropriations for them have been required to be incorporated in the general appropriation bill. Now, I do not ask this from mere idle curiosity to know the history of this bill, but because I feel myself charged here to do so. There is a strong necessity for something being done for that portion of the country which I represent on this floorsomething for the waters of the Mississippi. I think we should have a marine hospital there, where there is not unfrequently a great deal of suffering, and particularly during the last three or four years, when the cholera was prevalent. If gentlemen have not attended to the statements made in the public prints in regard to the suffering which has been endured on these waters, they can have no idea of them, much of which suffering, however, might be alleviated by the establishment of marine hospitals. I have no doubt that this bill is a very proper one; but I want to learn from the chairman of the Committee on Commerce whether | there are not to be other bills, general bills, for the support of hospitals, and whether they propose the establishment of any new hospitals in that general bill. I merely ask this question for information, not that I wish to obstruct the passage of the bill, but to know why this measure is to be passed now, contrary to the custom which has been adopted heretofore.

Mr. HAMLIN. There is now pending in the House-if I may be allowed to refer to that body-as we see by its proceedings, a measure for the relief of sick and disabled seamen. There is annually made, in the appropriation bills, an appropriation of a sum certain for that purpose, over and above the sum which arises from the payment of twenty cents per month from the seamen's wages. This bill has nothing to do with that. It is a bill for the erection of a hospital, not one making an appropriation for sick and disabled seamen, otherwise than erecting for them in Maine, where there is no hospital, a seamen's home. The subject-matter was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and they have reported the bill. There was also a memorial referred to that committee, for another hospital in the State of Louisiana. On that they have reported, or directed the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] to report, a bill. We have not sought to incumber the one bill by the other. While it is true, as I have stated, that many of our hospitals have been erected by attaching a specific appropriation to our appropriation bills, still, I think it is no objection to this bill that we seek for its passage in the ordinary way of doing legislative business, trusting to its own intrinsic merits for a favorable action of the Sen

ate.

Mr. BADGER. I suggested to my friend from Maine, that there was a separate reason why this bill should receive the support of the Senate. If gentlemen will attend to the alteration which was made, at the last Congress, in the rules of the Senate, in respect to the general appropriation bills, they will see the extreme importance of its being passed; for if a general appropriation bill should come here, and the Senate should not have passed this bill, or a resolution declaring the propriety of it, this appropriation could not be moved as an amendment to it. The 30th rule of the Senate is as follows:

"No amendment, proposing an additional appropriation, shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law, or some act, or resolution, previously passed by the Senate during that session," &c.

Now, if the Senate pass this law, although it should not be reached in the House, it will then be competent to move this appropriation in the general appropriation bills.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

Mr. BRADBURY. Before the Senate adjourns, I desire to come to an understanding as to when the French spoliation bill shall be considered. If some day next week--Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday can be designated, and we can have an understanding upon the subject, I intend not to press the Senate to consider it before that time. I hope some day will be named when, by common consent, we can take it up.

Mr. BADGER. I shall be extremely glad to have some day named when we can consider this bill; but I must say to the Senator, that the bill which has been reported from the Naval Committee for the establishment of a dry dock and navyyard in California, we of the Naval Committee think is entitled to the consideration of the Senate before the bill to which he alludes. After that shall have been disposed of, I shall join with him to take up his bill.

Mr. BRADBURY. I will name Wednesday for the consideration of the French spoliation bill. Mr. BADGER. Oh, no.

Mr. BRADBURY. The Senator from California [Mr. GWIN] says he has no objection to agreeing to that day.

Mr. BADGER. If he has no objection to it, I have not.

Mr. BRADBURY. If it is the common understanding that the bill will be taken up on that day, I am satisfied.

Mr. GWIN. On Monday we can take up the Calendar, and the bill to which the Senator from North Carolina alludes stands first upon it. If we do so, as I hope we shall, of course that bill will come up first for consideration.

Mr. FELCH. I do not wish to delay action upon the French spoliation bill; but if the Senate will set apart Monday of the week after next for its consideration, it will suit me much better than any other time. I am sure there are other bills which will require the attention of the Senate, and occupy their whole time, until that day. I therefore suggest Monday of the week after next. Mr. BRADBURY. When the subject was before the select committee, the making of the report was delayed some time for the accommodation of my friend from Michigan. The publication of the report was then delayed. At the time for calling it up for consideration, it was again postponed until February 16th, at the Senator's request. It has already been postponed some two or three times. I trust, therefore, the Senate will consent to have it considered on Wednesday next. The PRESIDENT. There is no motion before the Senate.

On motion by Mr. BADGER, the Senate then adjourned.

[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the motion made by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] on yesterday, to close debate upon the deficiency bill.

The gentleman

from New Hampshire asks the unanimous consent of the House to submit a motion that the House proceed to the business upon the Speaker's table, so far as communications from the Departments are concerned.

ASSIGNABILITY OF LAND WARRANTS.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I will state, for the information of the House, that whenever it is the pleasure of the House to receive the report of the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses upon the bill providing for the assignability of land warrants, they are ready to report.

MEMBERS. Let us have it now.

Mr. HOUSTON. I apprehend that the report of the conference committee, when made, will create considerable debate, and I therefore feel it to be my duty to object, if that objection will prevent its reception at present.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman will allow the Chair, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. PEASLEE] submits a motion that, by the unanimous consent of the House, the communications from Departments upon the Speaker's table be taken up, read, and referred to the proper committees.

Mr. PEASLEE. I appeal to gentlemen to let that be done, as it will occasion no debate. They have been on the Speaker's table for a long time. Mr. POLK objected.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee asks the unanimous consent of the House to make a report from the committee of conference, on the bill making bounty land warrants assignable.

Mr. JONES. I will merely remark that there is at least as much interest felt in the country, by that class of people who have received but little of the benefits of the Government, in regard to the land warrant assignment bill, as in the deficiency bill. It will take, I apprehend, but a short time to dispose of the report of the conferees.

Mr. HOUSTON. I feel as much interest in the enactment of a law to make land warrants assignable as the gentleman from Tennessee, or any other gentleman upon this floor. I have given my votes all through, without any consumption of time to attain that result. If I understand the condition of the report of the conference committee, it will consume much time in debate, unless the gentleman from Tennessee, after he has submitted the report, calls for the previous question upon it. If he will do that, so that the House may be brought directly to a vote, I will not interpose any objection.

Mr. JONES. I cannot make that promise, because I shall have to explain the report, and others may wish to say something; and could not be expected to move the previous question. The gentleman, or some one else, can obtain the floor, and call for the previous question.

Mr. STANLY. 1 object to the introduction of the report, unless the gentleman calls for the previous question after its submission.

Mr. JONES. I cannot promise to do that, if it is not passed from this to the end of the session.

Mr. HOUSTON. If the gentleman from Tennessee will make his explanation, and then move the previous question, I do not think it will be objected to.

Mr. STANLY. To that I will not object. Mr. JONES. If there be no objection, then I will do so.

Mr. FOWLER. I rise to a question of order. It is, whether the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] having been made at a late hour of the day yesterday, comes up under the morning hour.

The SPEAKER. It is a privileged question; and comes up as the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. FOWLER. I would suggest to the gentleman, and all others, to let that pass until the morning hour has transpired, and to allow committees to make reports, and permit the business upon the Speaker's table to be taken up and referred; then the House can proceed to the business proposed by the gentleman from Alabama.

The SPEAKER. The Chair again inquires whether the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] is objected to.

Mr. HOUSTON. I will not object, under the arrangement that the gentleman shall move the previous question after its report shall have been explained.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I object.

QUESTION OF ORDER.

Mr. JONES. I wish to submit a question of order. At what time is it in order for a committee of conference to report? There is nothing in the rules which specifies the time; there is nothing in parliamentary practice which prescribes the time; but I have no recollection, on any occasion, of a report of a committee of conference having been excluded by an objection. It seems to me, from the nature of the case, that it must be at all times in order, because it is business nearest to perfection, and business upon which both Houses are engaged at the same time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not recollect of any instance where objection was made to the introduction of the report of a committee of conference; and there is no rule giving the report of such a committee preference over the report of any other committee.

Mr. JONES. There is no time specified; when will it be in order, then, for them to make a report? I think that they can report at any time.

The SPEAKER. The report will be in order,

when reports from committees are called for. The recollection of the Chair is, that the practice of the House will show that reports of committees of conferences have never been objected to, but have been made at any time during the sittings.

Mr. JONES. As there seems to be no settled practice, and no time specified, when a committee of conference can report, I will, for the purpose of determining the question one way or the other, take an appeal to the decision of the Chair. The House can thus decide whether it is in order for them to report whenever they are ready, or not. Mr. STUART. I do not understand the Chair as deciding that question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does decide, being called upon to do so, that the business first in order, is the motion made by the gentleman from Alabama, to close the debate upon the deficiency bill. That is the opinion of the Chair. From this decision an appeal is taken.

Mr. HOUSTON. I trust that the gentleman who objected to the acceptance of the report of the committee of conference, will let it be disposed of this morning, in the way suggested, to save time; and that bills, which have been a long time before the House, may be disposed of.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would state to the House that, but for the pendency of the question submitted by the gentleman from Alabama, the Chair would be strongly inclined to decide, (as the practice, in the opinion of the Chair, has been that way,) that it would be in order for a committee of conference to report at any time. The Chair, however, is free to confess that he knows of no rule that would guide him in this matter; nor has he recollection of a case, during his services here, where objection was made to the report of a committee of conference.

Mr. PHELPS. I will suggest to the gentleman from Alabama that he withdraw his resolution for the closing of debate upon the deficiency bill, and let us dispose of this report. He can move his resolution again at any time.

Mr. HOUSTON. I dislike to do that, but with the hope that I will be able to get the floor again to move it, I will withdraw my resolution and allow the course suggested to be pursued.

THE REPORT OF THE CONFEREES.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Under the decision of the Chair I then submit the following report from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses with regard to the land warrant assignment bill:

The managers on the part of the House on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on Senate bill No. 146, entitled "An act to make land warrants assignable and for other purposes." have met the managers on the part of the Senate, and, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend to their respective Houses to strike out the word "act" where it first occurs in the third line of the first proviso proposed to the first section of the bill by the House, and insert in lieu thereof the word "laws;" insert after the word "ocated" in the said third line of said first proviso the words "laccording to the legal subdivision of the public lands and in one body ;" and with these amendments they recommend that the Senate recede from their disagreement to the amendment of the House to the first section of the bill.

Strike out all after the word "warrants," in the twelfth line of the second section, to the end of the section; and, with this amendment, they recommend that the House recede from its amendment striking out all of said bill after the first section.

JAMES SHIELDS, ALPHEUS FELCH, TRUMAN SMITH, Managers on the part of the Senate. G. W. JONES, GEORGE BRIGGS, GRAHAM N. FITCH, Managers on the part of the House. Mr. JONES. I ask now that the Clerk read the first proviso as proposed to be amended.

The Clerk read it, as follows:

Provided, That the warrants which have been, or may hereafter be issued in pursuance of said laws, or of this act, may be located according to the legal subdivisions of the public lands in one body, upon any lands in the United States subject to private entry at the time of such location at the minimum price.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. The first amendment proposed by the committee is to strike out the word "act," in the third line of the first proviso of the House, and to insert the word "law" in its stead That is done for the purpose of making the proviso conform to the first section of the act. The first section of the act provides that land warrants given under the laws of the United States, shall be assignable. That is the only effect of that amenement.

The second amendment to be inserted after the word "located," in the third line of the same proviso, is that the warrant shall be located in one body, and according to the legal subdivision of the United States. This, sir, was thought necessary by most of the committee, if not all, in order to prevent a person holding a one hundred and sixty acre warrant from locating it upon forty acre tracts in four different sections, or one holding an eighty acre warrant from locating it upon two forty acre tracts in different half sections. This is done in order to require the holder of a warrant to locate his one hundred and sixty acre warrant upon one section, and the holder of an eighty acre warrant upon a half section lying in one body. For instance: it is to prevent the locating of an eightyacre warrant upon the northeast quarter and southeast quarter of the same section, or forty in one section and forty in another. That is the only effect of that; and these amendments met with the unanimous approbation of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

Then we recommend this amendment, that the Senate shall recede from the disagreement to these two provisoes proposed by the House to the first amendment of the bill. The only other amendment we propose, is to strike out of the second section of the bill, after the word "warrants," the following:

"Where they have been transferred under the provisions of any act of Congress, and the regulations of the General Land Office; and to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States upon the adjustment of the accounts of such officers, where it will be shown to the satisfaction of

the Commissioner of the General Land Office that the warrant was located by the soldier or warrantee, or his next of kin, as provided for by law."

Mr. MEADE. I should like a further explanation about locating the warrants according to legal subdivision. Suppose the warrant is an eighty-acre warrant, I would ask my friend from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] could that eighty-acre warrant be laid upon the south half of a quarter section, or on the east or west half of the same section?

Mr. JONES. My impression is, and I think this is the universal understanding of the amendment, as proposed by the committee of conference, that you can lay it on the north half, the south half, the east half, or the west half of the section; but that you must take one of the halves laying broadside to each other; that is, that you shall not take one quarter from a corner in the southwest or the other in the southeast, so as to connect them by corners. You may, by legal subdivisions, select either the north, the south, the east, or the west half of a quarter section under an eighty-acre warrant. I do not know that I understand all the regulations about the Land Office, but it is very clear and distinct that the land must be located in one body, and according to the legal subdivisions of the public lands of the United States, subject to private entry. I understand from some of the gentlemen around me from the new States, that, according to legal subdivisions, they cannot take the north half or the south half of a quarter section with an eighty-acre tract, but that it must be either the east half or the west half

under the decisions and regulations of the Depart

ment.

However that may be, it is according to the legal subdivisions of the public lands in one body; and I think that will be found to be correct. As to the other amendment, the House will recollect, that by the second section of the Senate bill, they proposed to pay to the registers and receivers the same fees for locating all military bounty land warrants of every description that they would be entitled to if the same tract of land were entered and the money paid for it, estimating the warrant at $1 25 per acre; that is, one per cent. upon the amount to each of these officers.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I find it impossible to keep up with the gentleman's explanations, and understand them from the method which he pursues now. I would suggest to him, that he will permit the several sections to be read as he comments upon them. It is important to us all that we should understand what he means; but we cannot follow him in this way.

Mr. JONES. It is only one amendment. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not understand what this amendment is.

Mr. JONES. The Clerk will read the second section of the bill.

The second was then read, as below. The part in italics is proposed by the conference committee to be stricken out:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the registers and receivers of the land offices, shall hereafter be severally authorized to charge and receive for their services in locating all military bounty land warrants, issued since the eleventh day of February, eighteen hundred and forty seven, the same compensation or percentage to which they are entitled by law for sales of the public lands for cash, the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; the said compensation to be hereafter paid by the assignees o holders of such warrants, where they have been transferred under the provisions of an act of Congress, and the regula tions of the General Land Office; and to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States upon the adjustment of the accounts of said officers, where it shall be shown, to the sat isfaction of the Commissioner of the General Land Of, that the warrant was located by the soldier or warrantée, or his next of kin, as provided for by law.

Mr. JONES. That is the only amendment which the committee of conference propose to make to that portion of the Senate bill which was stricken out by the House. The second section of the Senate bill, as it came here, proposed to give to the registers and receivers, each, the same fees that they were entitled to if the land should be entered and paid for with money. The latter branch of it proposes that when the warrant shall be located by the original warrantee, the soldier or his legal representatives, then it shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. This amendment proposes to strike out that part which requires that the fees after locating to be paid out of the Treasury, and requires the locator, whether the original holder or the assignee of the warrant, in all cases hereafter to pay the fees himself. I con. curred with the committee of conference in striking out this part, and requiring the locators to pay the fees themselves; but I did not concur in that part of the amendment fixing the fees, because I think the fees are too large. They will be fifty cents to each officer, or, rather, one dollar for the location of a forty acre warrant, and two dollars for the location of an eighty acre warrant, and four dollars for the location of a one hundred and sixty acre warrant, or two dollars to each of the officers; when the labor for the forty acre warrant is exactly the same as that for the one hundred and sixty acre warrant. Then I concur in striking out that part which made the fees a tax upon the Treasury, and would have concurred in the balance of it, if the fees had not been as large as they are.

By the third section of the Senate bill, it is proposed to pay to the registers and receivers who have gone out of office, as well as those who are now in office, the same fees for the location of warrants heretofore located, as they would have been entitled to if the land had been entered, and the money paid for it. I was opposed to this section. We cannot tell exactly what will be the cost upon the Treasury. But there have been seventy-five thousand one hundred and sixty acre warrants is sued under the act of February, 1847, and upwards of six thousand forty acre warrants, making the aggregate amount of lands under that law something over 12,000,000 acres. There will also be be some five or ten thousand warrants more issued under that law. What proportion of these war rants have been located, it is impossible for any of us to tell at this time. But suppose that the whole of them have been located, then the fees or com missions upon them, according to this law, would be $302,304; one fourth upon the one hundred and sixty acre warrants, and one half upon the forty acre warrants having been paid by the locators of the warrant, except where the original warrantee located himself. None of those fees have been paid, and they are all to be paid out of the Treas

ury.

Mr. DUNHAM. I will state that out of the whole number of warrants issued under the Mexican bounty land law, something like seventy-five thousand, there have been located only six thousand by assignees.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. Does the gen tleman pretend to say that seventy-five thousand are all that have been issued?

Mr. DUNHAM. I say about that number has been located under the Mexican bounty land law. Sixty-six thousand of these land warrants were located by the original grantees of the warrants, and upon that number you have not to pay the full value, as provided for by this law. I have docu

ments to show it.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois. I should like to see the documents.

« AnteriorContinuar »