that implies or requires the necessity of any expenditure on the part of the Government?

Mr. PETERS. Not at all. The land was considered valueless, and given by the State of Pennsylvania to the present corporation. It has been feared it might injure the harbor, and the Pennsylvania Legislature has taken action. The Attorney General says it is necessary for us to accept the deed. It will cost nothing.

Mr. CONGER. It may cost nothing, but there is certainly connected with this acquisition by the General Government the necessity of closing a large breach which has been made from the lake into the harbor.

Mr. PETERS. I understand that this piece of land is covered with a grove, and there was a proposition to cut it down, but the engineers thought it would be injurious to the harbor to do so. The idea is to let the grove remain, and by resisting the wind it will have the effect of protecting the harbor. The question is whether we will accept the gift.

Mr. CONGER. I should wish that there was a distinct understanding on the point to which I have referred.

Mr. HOLMAN. Let the bill be again reported.

The bill was again read.

Mr. CONGER. I will only further say that when there is a demand for an appropriation from the Committee on Commerce next winter I shall call upon these gentlemen to remember what has been stated to-night.

Mr. PETERS. They do not ask for any money, and never will ask it.

Mr. SHANKS.

say so in the bill?

Mr. RANDALL. anybody.

Would it not be well to

That would not bind

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. PETERS] whether there is any objection to incorporate in this bill a provision that the acceptance of this grant shall impose no obligation upon the United States?

Mr. PETERS. Not the least objection in the world. Put it in.

Mr. HOLMAN. I desire, then, to add these words to the bill:

Which acceptance of said grant shall not impose any obligation on the United States.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Any lawyer would know that it could have no such effect.

Mr. SARGENT. There is au obligation on the part of the Government to receive it. The amendment would be meaningless, and if not meaningless, it would be mischievous.

Mr. PETERS The gentlemen around me think that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Indiana would be either mischievous or meaningless. I hope the gentleman will not insist on offering it. There is no obligation imposed on the United States by this bill; but if those words were inserted they might be construed to imply something that was not intended. Of course there is an obligation imposed on the Government to receive the gift. I call the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question was ordered.

The amendment offered by Mr. HOLMAN was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a third time; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. PETERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

OATHS OF OFFICE.

Mr. PETERS. I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously to report as a substitute for the bill H. R. No. 13, and the bill H. R. No. 521, a bill to repeal what is commonly called the iron-clad oath.

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection

the bill reported as a substitute will alone be read.

The bill (H. R. No. 2779) to repeal certain statutes prescribing an oath of office was received, and read a first and second time. The question was on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The bill was read. It repeals an act entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1862, and an act entitled "An act prescribing an oath of office to be taken by persons from whom legal disabilities shall have been removed," approved July 11, 1868.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. PETERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. CLAIMS OF MARSHALS, ETC., IN THE SOUTH.

Mr. PETERS. I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to report a joint resolution to amend the joint resolution approved March 2, 1867, as a substitute for a joint resolution referred to the committee.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The substi tute alone, if no objection is made, will be read.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 152) amending the joint resolution approved March 2, 1867, was received, and read a first and second time.

The question was on ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read a third time.

The joint resolution was read. It provides that the joint resolution prohibiting payment by any officer of the Government to any person not known to have opposed the rebellion, and in favor of its suppression, approved March 2, 1867, shall not be construed to apply to any sums due for services rendered prior to April 1, 1861. under contracts made with the Post Office Department for carrying the mail, nor to any sums due for services rendered before April 1, 1861, by marshals or enumerators in taking the eighth census; provided, however, no such sums shall be paid so far as compensation for the same may have been made to any claimants by the governments of the States lately in rebellion.

Mr. CONGER. I dislike to oppose this resolution now, because I dislike to call for a quorum, but certainly I do not feel satisfied that the resolution should pass. I hope the gentleman will withdraw it until the House is fuller.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, the United States owes certain marshals or census enumerators for services prior to the war, and they owe certain postmasters and mail carriers for services rendered prior to the war. The confederate government paid them in part, and perhaps largely, but there is a balance due them. It is for services performed before the rebellion and while they were loyal citizens; and the Committee on the Judiciary have come to the conclusion, without dissent, that old scores ought to be rubbed out; that the time has come to pay the bill which we honestly owe, whether to foreigners or citizens, to southerners or northerners, or anybody else. It is not a large sum that is involved; it is money due in a great many instances and in small sums. Mr. KILLINGER. What is the aggregate? Mr. PETERS. Between one and two hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. BUCKLEY. I can inform the gentleman that it will not exceed $70,000.

Mr. PETERS. During the war there was a resolution passed suspending the payment of such claims. It was right then and politic. It is not right now in the judgment of the committee, and I hope no gentleman will oppose the passage of the resolution. It is urged not

only by our friends on the other side of the House, but by all our southern friends on this side of the House.

Mr. CONGER. I have already expressed my regret that I feel it necessary to oppose this joint resolution; but I will say to the gentleman that if he will make an amendment providing that no payment shall be made to any person found to be indebted to the United States, I will withdraw my objection.

Mr. PETERS. Allow me to say that the rule of all the Departments is never to make payments to anybody without deducting what that individual owes the Government. The accounts are kept here and the offset is always made.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. PETERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

W. W. GRIFFITH.

Mr. PETERS, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 2780) for the relief of W. W. Griffith; which was read a first and second time.

The bill directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to audit and pay W. W. Griffith, of Santa Fé, New Mexico, the sum of $4,350, for services rendered as commissioner under the laws of the United States.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. PETERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to

ASIATIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY Mr. PETERS also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2209) to incorporate the Asiatic Commercial Com pany.

The bill was read.

Mr. WILLARD. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is substantially the same bill that was reported to the House some weeks ago from the Committee on Commerce; was considered by the House, and laid on the table by a decided vote. I notice that one or two sections are either stricken out or modified. The objections I have are not to the details of the bill particularly, although I think some of the details are open to objections. I was of the opinion then, and it is my judgment now, that whether Congress has the constitutional power or not to make a corporation of this sort, it is exceedingly unwise to do it. This is an act incorporating a company simply as a commercial company. It may just as well operate under an incorporation from the State of California, or the State of New York, or any other State, as to act under this. This bill gives them corporate powers; they can get those corporate powers by the legis lation of any State. Now, this is a step in the direction of using the Federal power to do all this class of legislation. If it is proper for Congress to pass such an act as this, it is entirely competent for Congress to pass an act to incorporate a railroad company in the State of Maine, and running wholly within that State. This company has, to be sure, or it may have, one of its offices in the District of Columbia. It is also provided here that it may have one of its offices in the city of San Francisco.

Now, it seems to me obvious that if the scope of the Constitution warrants such an act as this, it warrants, as I have just said, an act of incorporation for any purpose whatever.

In other words, we are extending, and vastly extending, the powers of the Congress by the passage of this bill. It will be remembered that in the last Congress a bill was brought in to incorporate an express company, which was doing business, I suppose, or intended to do business, between the several States of this Union. It was objected to that bill, and I thought very properly, that it was a business that Congress at least ought not to take in charge. Now, the only possible excuse that can be given here for such an act of legislation as this is that this is a commercial company, and in connection with other business proposing to do business abroad.

Well, any mercantile house in New York does business abroad. Mercantile houses in New York city trade with China, with Japan, with the East Indies, with the countries of Europe and Asia. They do not need acts of incorporation of this sort for that purpose; they get along just as well without it. So far as any protection to be given by the Government of the United States to its citizens trading with foreign countries is concerned, it would be or ought to be given just as much without such an act of incorporation as with it. In fact, it is an interference, and a decided interference, it seems to me, with the commercial business of merchants in San Francisco, of merchants in New York, of merchants in Philadelphia, who are to-day engaged in this foreign trade. It gives this company-if it gives them anything-some superior right, some superior advantage. And undoubtedly we shall find if this bill is to pass that in subsequent Congresses, and perhaps hereafter in this Congress, we will have applications from other parties to be incorporated for the purpose of carrying on commerce with these foreign nations. I know it may be said that it is very desirable to cultivate commercial relations with these countries. But this bill contemplates that this company shall do business abroad, that it may in connection with its business, "under the authority of the Governments of China, Japan, and of the other countries of Asia, engage in public works which may be necessary to develop and increase the business and commerce thereof, and to facilitate commerce between them and the United States."

In the last Congress there was a project before the House, or before some of its committees, to incorporate a monster company for the purpose of doing business in Mexico. We shall soon have applications to incorporate companies to do business in South America, in Russia, in England, in the East Indies. By and by, we may have a proposition to incorporate a monster commercial company for all the world.

Mr. PETERS. Do be short, if you please.

Mr. WILLARD. At the suggestion of my friend from Maine [Mr. PETERS] I will be as short as I can. I simply want to call the attention of the House to the scope of this bill. It seems to me that we are going very much too far; that this company can accomplish all that it ought to accomplish by an act of incorporation in the State of New York or in any other State.

Mr. PETERS. I have a word or two of explanation which I think will satisfy any member of the House. This bill in its present form was not before the House on a former occasion, but a bill was before the House reported from the Committee on Commerce. I have endeavored to subject this bill to every criticism made on the floor of the House in the debate upon that bill. In the first place, the gentleman from Massachu setts behind me [Mr. HOAR] thought they ought not to have any power to deal in real estate; I have stricken that provision out of this bill. The bill was killed before upon the proposition that it appeared in a certain section of the bill that they had banking powers; I have stricken that from this bill.

Then the objection was made that they could not be sued in the States; I have made this company expressly suable in any State and upon any notice that a court of competent jurisdiction shall say is sufficient. Then it was objected that there were some provisions in the bill that would be in conflict with some of the statutes of some of the States; in this bill it is expressly provided that the company shall be amenable to all the statutes of all the States.

Mr. HOAR. Where is the provision? Mr. PETERS. It is substantially in the last section of the bill.

Mr. WILLARD. They are made amenable wherever they are doing business.

Mr. PETERS. Well, if there is any place where they are not doing business, they ought not to be made amenable there. The last section of this bill is as follows:

That said company may be sued in any State where they may do business, and jurisdiction obtained by such notice as any court of competent jurisdiction in such State may order, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to grant exemption from taxation in any State wherein said company may do business, nor shall this act be construed to authorize anything in conflict with the laws of any such State.

In this bill there is no "cat under the meal." A gentleman by the name of Rice, who was a consul in Japan for seventeen years, and who is a citizen of the State of Maine; a gentleman of my acquaintance, (and that has given me my connection with this bill;) a gentleman known to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] who has been out to Japan and knows something of his associations among business men; a man of fine business capacity, who holds the confidence of that community, finds that the business of purchasing teas and transferring them to this country has become a monopoly in the hands of some German and English houses, and he thinks that by a combination of American capital he can subvert that business and get the possession of it under our flag.

No subsidy is asked for this company. Bills of a much more significant character have been passed by this House and Congress since I have been here. The proposition is a very simple one. These men ask to be allowed to do business between this country and that, and to do it there with permission of the local Government. We have been fast becoming the friends of the people and mercantile community of Japan. Here is a chance for American enterprise. Will you let this business be monopolized by German and English houses, or will you let American citizens compete for it and get it if they can? The constitutional provision giving Congress power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States' is sufficient authority for the passage of this bill. The Committee on the Judiciary, as I understand, had no question upon that point.

I wish to move an amendment in the first section to provide that the corporators and their successors shall be American citizens.

Mr. FINKELNBURG. The gentleman states that he has tried to obviate all the objections made to this bill when it was previously before the House.

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FINKELNBURG. One of the objections made was that it creates a perpetual corporation.

66

Mr. PETERS. I am perfectly willing that perpetual" shall be struck out and "for twenty years" inserted.

Mr. FINKELNBURG. I would never, under any form of government, create a perpetual corporation. I think it right that at certain intervals of time these questions should be submitted to the judgment of the people.

Mr. PETERS. Let the term of incorporation be twenty years. If the company cannot get rich in that time, let it be broken up. [Laughter.]

On the suggestion of the gentleman from Il

Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] I modify the amend

ment

"shall be citizens of the United States."

I wish to make but a single additional remark, as the committee is much pressed with other business in which gentlemen are interested. A charter from the State of New York or the State of Maine will not answer the purpose nearly so well. The people in tha country know that the English houses are incorporated by the British Parliament and that the German houses are incorporated under German acts. They have no idea of States. They would have no confidence in a company incorporated by State authority. Let us create a company which shall be sanctioned by the authority of the United States, and then see whether our flag cannot get a foothold on those seas.

Mr. WILLARD. I know that other Governments are very ready to create corporations of this sort; but the Government of the United States is constructed on an entirely different principle from any other Government. It exists for specific purposes; and whether it be technically true or not that the bill comes within that clause of the Constitution giving the Congress of the United States authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States," the bill is hostile to the entire spirit of the Constitution in every particular. It proposes simply to incorporate a body of men to do business in a foreign country. That is the whole scope of

the bill.

Mr. PETERS. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] wants to offer at amendment, after which I shall ask the previous question.

Mr. HOAR. I move to amend by adding to the bill the following:

Provided, That said corporation shall be subject to such amendments of this act or such general laws regulating their proceedings and liabilities as Congress may prescribe, and that this act may be repealed at the pleasure of Congress.

Mr. PETERS. There is no objection to that.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection, the amendment will be considered as agreed to. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. HOAR. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the object of this bill; but I believe the Judiciary Committee before making a precedent of this character ought to very carefully guard the public in one particular, and that is against the establishment of corporations which may acquire a false credit, a large credit, and whose stockholders shall not be restrained, or whose officers shall not be restrained by any individual liability. A corporation of this kind may get itself into debt $1,000,000. The corpor ators may divide that $1,000,000 among themselves and fail, and no law will reach their individual property. Knowing the character of this corporation and the honest reputation of the corporators, I do not insist that this corporation shall wait until a general system shall be enacted by Congress. I will vote for the bill, as the amendment reserves the right to Congress at any time to complete such regulations hereafter.

Mr. PETERS. I demand the previous question.

Mr. HOLMAN. I desire to submit an amendment.

Mr. PETERS. I will hear it read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Add to the first section the following:

That the stockholders of said company shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts and contracts of said corporation as joint partners would be.

Mr. PETERS. I do not admit of that amendment. There is no State in the Union which exacts such requirements. I insist on my demand for the previous question.

Mr. WILLARD. I move that the bill be laid on the table.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 48, noes 57.

1872.

Mr. HOLMAN. I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PETERS. I have no objection to consider pending the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HOLMAN. The motion is pending to lay on the table, and I demand the regular order.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 73, nays 54, not voting 112; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Acker, Ambler, Beatty, Beck, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, Bright, Buffinton, Campbell, Carroll, Cotton. Crebs, Critcher, Darrall, Davis, Donnan, Dox, Finkelnburg, Henry D. Foster, Getz, Giddings, Griffith, Haldeman, Hancock, Handley, Hanks, Harmer, Hay, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hereford, Herndon, Hibbard, Holman, Kendall, Kerr, Killinger, King, Manson, Marshall, McCormick, McGrew. McIntyre, McKee, McNeely, Merriam, Merrick, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morey, Morgan, Perce, Eli Perry, Price, Randall, Edward Y. Rice, Ellis H. Roberts, Robinson, Shanks, Shoemaker, Slater, John A. Smith, Stevens, Storm, Strong, Terry, Thomas, Turner, Tyner, Whitthorne, Willard, Williams of Indiana, and Young-73.

NAYS-Messrs. Barry, Bigby, Bingham, Boles. Buckley, Coghlan, Comingo, Conger, Cox, Duell, Duke, Dunnell, Charles Foster, Wilder D. Foster, Frye, Goodrich, Harper, George E. Harris, John T. Harris, Havens, Hawley, Hoar, Kelley, Kellogg, Lamport, Lynch, Moore, Morphis, Leonard Myers, Negley, Orr, Packard, Packer. Palmer, Isaac C. Parker, Peck, Pendleton, Peters, Rogers, Sargent, Sawyer, Seeley, Shober, H. Boardman Smith, Snapp, Thomas J.Speer, Sutherland, Taffe, Twichell, Walden, Waldron, Warren, Wheeler, and Jeremiah M. Wilson-54.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Ames, Archer, Arthur, Averill, Banks, Barber, Barnum, Bell, Beveridge, Biggs, Austin Blair, Brooks, Burchard, Burdett, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Caldwell, Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Conner, Creely, Crocker, Crossland, Dawes, De Large, Dickey, Du Bose, Eames, Eldredge, Elliott, Ely, Farnsworth, Farwell, Forker, Garfield, Garrett, Golladay, Hale, Halsey, Hambleton, Hays, Hill, Hooper, Houghton, Ketcham, Kinsella, Lamison, Lansing, Leach, Lewis, Lowe, Maynard, McClelland, McCrary, McHenry, McJunkin, McKinney, Mercur, Mitchell, Monroe, Niblack, Hosea W. Parker, Aaron F. Perry, Platt, Poland, Porter, Potter, Prindle, Rainey, Read, John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Roosevelt, Rusk, Scofield, Sessions, Sheldon, Shellabarger, Sherwood, Slocum, Sloss, Worthington C. Smith, Snyder, R. Milton Speer, Sprague, Starkweather, Stevenson, Stoughton, Stowell, St. John. Swann, Sypher, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tuthill, Upson, Van Trump, Vaughan, Voorhees, Waddell, Wakeman, Wallace, Walls, Wells, Whiteley, Williams of New York, John T. Wilson, Winchester, and Wood-112.

So the bill was laid upon the table. Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote and by which the bill was laid upon the table; also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ADVERSE REPORTS.

Mr. CONGER. If there be no business from the Committee on the Judiciary, I ask unanimous consent to report the aerial telegraph

bill from the Committee on Commerce. Objection was made.

Mr. ARCHER. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion that the House adjourn was not agreed to.

PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANIES.

Mr. BINGHAM. I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to report back the following resolution, which was referred to the committee, with the recommendation that the same do lie on the table, that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that the Secretary of the Interior be noti fied thereof.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution which was referred to the committee.

The Clerk read as follows:

Whereas under an act of Congress of July 2, 1862, a subsidy in lands and bonds was made, among others, to the now Kansas Pacific Railroad Company and to the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, and by the act of Congress of July 23, 1866, a grant of land was made to the State of Kansas for the use and benefit of the St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company; and whereas it is claimed by the Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company, now called Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad Company, that the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company made in 1865 an assignment to it of all its rights and franchises created by said act of Congress of 1862; and whereas it is claimed by the two other said companies that said assignment is absolutely null and void, and that it was fraudulently made, and that improper and corrupt means were employed to secure the making thereof; and whereas the said Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company, now known as the Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad Company, is now claiming a large part of the lands granted to each of said other companies, and demanding United States patents therefor from the Secretary of the Interior: Now, therefore.

Be it resolved, That the matters herein set forth are hereby referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for examination and report; that said committee is hereby empowered to send for persons and

papers, and to examine witnesses under oath; and is hereby directed to examine into all the circumstances touching the alleged assignment aforesaid; and further to examine into the question of the validity of the claim of the said Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company, now called Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad Company, to any of the lands as aforesaid, and report by bill or otherwise.

And be it further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior; and he is hereby requested to suspend any and all action within the Department of the Interior touching the issuing of patents to either of the aforesaid companies to any of the lands about the right of which any controversy exists until after the said Committee on the Judiciary shall have made its report to this House upon the matters herein specified and the report shall have been finally acted

upon.

The Clerk

The SPEAKER pro tempore. will now report the resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with reference to the House resolution just read:

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the said resolution, and that the same do lie upon the table, and the Secretary of the Interior notified hereof.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Will the chairman of the committee yield to me for a moment?

Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman for an inquiry. I do not yield the floor.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I want the floor for more than an inquiry. There will be something more than an inquiry before this is disposed of. I do not desire this land stealing to be transferred from Congress to the Interior Department.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not yield to the gen. tleman.

I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that the report concluding with the resolution which has just been read, that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the House resolution, which has also been read, that the same do lie on the table, and that the Secretary of the Interior be notified thereof, is the report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary. The decided some months ago, signified that they minority, at the time when the matter was might desire to make a minority report. course there is nothing in my motion to preclude them from doing that now, or any other time. I make the suggestion that they may make the minority report if they see fit now, and I yield for that purpose.

Of

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say that the minority propose to make a report which will bring before the House a very important question in regard to the railroad policy of the Government. That report was to have been drawn up by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. VOORHEES.] Upon inquiry why it was not drawn up, he informed me that the counsel of one of the roads had taken from the committee-room-inadvertently, I suppose; but the fact was, had taken from the committee-room-the papers, and when he wrote for them he had not been able Whether the counsel was to get an answer. from home, or where he was, I do not know. For that reason the minority are not ready to present their views, and I therefore move to recommit the report, and upon that question I will address some remarks to the House.

Mr. BINGHAM. I did not yield the floor to the gentleman to proceed with an argument. I wish to say to the House that if the minority of the committee are not ready to make their report, I know of no papers that have disappeared.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I shall have to make my remarks upon the question of recommitting the report.

Mr. BINGHAM. I informed the gentleman that I had not surrendered the floor to him to make his remarks at the present time. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I understood that you did.

Mr. BINGHAM. I yielded to the gentleman to make a minority report.

Mr.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Speaker, that is a question between you and the gentleman from Ohio. You told me that he had yielded the floor to me.

Mr. BINGHAM. I stated distinctly that I yielded to the gentleman to make a minority report if he thought fit.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. making it now.

I am

Mr. BINGHAM. A minority report is not made orally; it must be in writing.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts for the purpose of making a minority report.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I was stating the reasons why I could not prepare one, and the gentleman from Ohio knew very well that I had not a minority report to present.

Mr. BINGHAM. I knew very well that one of the members of the minority of the committee told me a month ago that he did not know whether they would make a minority report or not.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. was Mr. VOORHEES.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes.

That

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Well, he is here to speak for himself.

Mr. BINGHAM. I spoke to him on the subject nearly a month ago, and told him I was authorized to make a report, and asked if he desired to submit a minority report, and he said that he did not know whether he should make any minority report, and I heard no more about the matter until last night, when the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] asked me to let the matter lie over until this evening, which I did. I do not know what papers they wanted, but I desire to say this now and in this connection: that I had no desire to exclude them from making any report they chose to make. The majority of the committee have made a report which Covers a single page, and which states that the ground on which we rested the action of the committee has been decided by more decisions than one of the Supreme Court.

We We

The House has no business with this question. Now, as the matter stands, we decide nothing in favor of anybody except of the right of the country that the authority of the law shall be administered exactly in the mode and manner in which the law prescribes. As for the resolution, it affirms nothing in favor of any one of the conflicting parties. find nothing in favor of either party. refer the matter back to the Department, where the law places it; and we notified the Department that they can proceed with the duties prescribed by law in deciding the matters which are brought in question in this controversy, and if the parties are not satisfied with the decision of the Departments, they can go into the courts and settle it there, and finally they can carry the matter up to the Surpreme Court, and where the United States and all the parties can have their rights determined finally and forever.

But, sir, I wish to say in reference to certain papers which gentlemen claim have disappeared that I know nothing about it. I only know of a brief, a copy of which was handed to me, and I believe to each of my colleagues, the brief of one of the committee, Mr. Nichols; I had a copy of it here last night, and have it to-night. It is quite at their disposal; but, sir, I am not disposed to press this matter now if the House will agree to set apart some day next week after the morning hour for the consideration of the matter.

There is nothing in this question that I am not ready to meet on behalf of the majority of this committee, because I insist that everything that pertains to the duty of this House is settled already by the decisions of the court. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I suggest the first Monday in December next.

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman has not the floor yet to make that motion. And as the gentleman undertakes to be witty, I undertake to say that he is engaged here in an unseemly purpose to undertake to postpone indefinitely the question whether the law of the United States shall be administered in the mode and manner in which the law expressly requires it shall be administered. I am ready to make it appear here, as the majority of this committee have found, that there never was any paper before them or before this House

Mr. VOORHEES. If it is possible for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] to yield the floor for a moment, as he has made a statement in regard to me, I beg him to do so. Mr. BINGHAM. I have made no statement unkind to the gentleman; but I will yield to him.

Mr. VOORHEES. I do not complain of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] Occu pying all the time, last night and to-night, too, on the business of the Committee on the Judiciary, while the rest of us were sitting out yonder in the rear, with a few bills we would like to get clear of. I do not make any complaint on that score. But I do complain some when a statement is made calculated to make a wrong impression in regard to myself. When this question, which is one of great importance, one involving the interests of this Government-though I need not enter into the discussion of it now-when this question came up for consideration I was absent in the city of New York on important business. When I returned I found the question had been presented by a great array of talent on both sides. Mr. BINGHAM. On three sides.

Mr. VOORHEES. Well, on three sides, on all sides. I do not know but it is octagonal, for it has many sides. Among other modes of presentation, printed briefs and written statements had been resorted to. One side of this question had withdrawn its brief and written statement before I had any opportunity at all to examine them.

I

I addressed a note to the attorney present. ing that side of the case, asking for his brief and bis argument. I called the attention of the Committee on the Judiciary to the neces sity I was laboring under of having that argument before I could pass upon the matter. failed in every attempt to get it back before the committee, and there were reasons assigned by that interest why they did not wish to present their views again, but desired to recall them. From that hour to this I have never been able to get hold of that side of the ques tion.

When the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] Some weeks ago approached me upon the subject with his usual kindness to me-and certainly I reciprocate it all in our personal intercourse and asked me whether a minority report would be made, I told him that I did not know whether it would or not.

Mr. BINGHAM. That is all I meant to say.

Mr. VOORHEES. The reason I said that was because I did not know yet whether we would be able to get these papers or not; and if I did obtain them I could not say to what conclusion they would bring me. They have brought the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ELDREDGE] to a conclusion in favor of a minority report. I confess I am strongly prejudiced in favor of a minority report also because of the course that has been pursued.

I conceived it but justice to myself to make this statement. I now suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that the fair way upon this question would be either to recommit this matter to the Committee on the Judiciary or to leave it open with permission to file a minority report if we should deem it best for the public interest to do so when we get the papers.

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will please say to me whether the paper he refers to m the argument of Mr. Nichols, who appared in behalf of the central branch of the Unit Pacific railroad.

Mr. VOORHEES. It was.

Mr. BINGHAM. I tried to inform the gentleman last night that that argument was with my files.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. There is more than that.

Mr. VOORHEES. Yes; there were more than that. It was not merely the absence of the paper, but the desire on the part of the interest before the Judiciary Committee to suppress that view of the case.

Mr. ELDREDGE. There was the official correspondence between this attorney, Mr. Nichols, and the United States which was taken away.

Mr. BINGHAM. That is all accessible. Mr. ELDREDGE. It was upon that, I suppose, the gentleman from Ohio made up his opinion.

Mr. BINGHAM. Not at all.

Mr. ELDREDGE. It was upon that we ought to make up our opinion; it was put before the committee to enable them to make up their opinion.

Mr. BINGHAM. I never took away any of the papers.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I do not charge the gentleman with any such thing; he is incapable of anything of the kind. But these papers are gone; it was upon these papers that judg ment was expected to be pronounced by the committee, if any judgment at all should be pronounced.

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman from Indiana has done me entire justice in his statement. It is what I sought to say, and what I think the reporter's notes will show I did say. I only ask him to take notice that I did say I desired the minority should have an oppor tunity to make a report, and that, with the consent of the House, this case might be laid over until a future day of this session that such a report might be submitted; and I desire that argument may be heard upon it. I hope, however, that this question may not be postponed unti! December, for the reason (and I appeal to the gentleman from Massachusetts to consider it) that the case has been under exam.ja ation and argument in the Interior Department, in obedience to the express requirement of law, upon which examination, first and last, no matter in what order, all these parties contestant did appear. A decision was made by the Secretary of the Interior. Some of these parties, not satisfied with that decision, asked him to open the case for reargument or rebearing. That was on a Saturday in January last; and on the following Monday morning, without any notice to the House of this action between these parties or of the connection they had with it, a resolution was presented here (undoubtedly in perfect good faith) by an honorable member of the House. the resclution which has been alluded to, and which instructs the Secretary of the Interior for the time being to suspend action. Four months or more have passed since that was done. This case pending for hearing under your laws before the Interior Department stands suspended. The sugges tion of the gentleman from Massachusetts is to suspend it till next December.

I do not understand that to be the suggestion of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. VOORHEES.] He wants an opportunity to make a report if he should see fit after examining the papers. I say to him that I have here the argument originally presented by Mr. Nichols, and it is at his disposal. I will hand it to him; I have no need for it.

Mr. VOORHEES. I cannot examine it

now.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not expect that; but I ask the House now to adopt my proposition and let this inatter be set down for a hearing

1872.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

after the morning hour, say, on Friday of next week.

Mr. ELDREDGE.

Has the gentleman from Ohio in his files the official correspondence presented by Mr. Nichols as having passed between himself and the officers of the Government of the United States?

All that I remember ever Mr. BINGHAM. having anything to do with, or hearing anything of, I believe I have here referred to in my notes, though the papers may be on file in the Department.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Reference to the papers in the gentleman's notes is not what we want. Mr. BINGHAM. I cannot answer the gentleman otherwise than I have done.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I understand that the papers presented by Mr. Nichols as the official correspondence between him and the officers of the Government are not on the files and are not in the possession of the gentleman.

Mr. BINGHAM. There is no occasion at all for saying that there is anything wanting here which cannot within a reasonable time be procured.

Will my colleague anMr. ELDREDGE. swer me this question: does he know why it is that Mr. Nichols took those papers away and declines to answer the letter of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. VOORHEES,] and return the papers? What motive has Mr. Nichols?

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not know anything about that. I never had a word with him on this subject. I never heard of the matter except from the lips of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. VOORHEES.] I yield to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. PETERS.]

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Why not to me?

Mr. BINGHAM. I will after a while. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. There have been two speeches on that side and none on this.

I am not sure of that. Mr. BINGHAM Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. We must have a little fair play in this matter, or you will not carry this through to-night.

Mr. PETERS. I wish to make, very briefly, a statement of this matter as it appears to me. The resolution of inquiry was sent to the Committee on the Judiciary early in the session, and there was a prolonged argument by eminent and distinguished counsel in behalf of the two contesting railroads. The committee voted to ask the House to allow us to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject several months ago, since which time I have not heard a word about this matter in the committee from any source.

I have

Mr. Nichols, who has been alluded to, was one of the counsel who appeared for one of the railroads before the committee, and he read from a certain printed brief. I did not understand him to have submitted his brief to the committee, and he took it away. never seen it. That side of the case was argued by Mr. Nichols and ex-Attorney General Hoar, orally, and it was argued on the other side by a printed brief, which was read, and also by oral argument of ex-Senator Henderson, of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, the thing is in a nut shell. The question is, which of three railroads owns some lands, or does any of them own it, or is any of them entitled to it, or does it belong to the Government of the United States? As to the issue between those two railroads, it is a very nice question of law, which should be decided by a deliberate tribunal. It belongs to the decision of the Interior Department; and if either party is dissatisfied with the con clusion there, they can go to the courts. counsel for both of these railroads said to the committee, in so many words, they did not desire our investigation. They said in my hearing, and in reply to questions I put to them, both Mr. Hoar and Mr. Henderson, they preferred we should let them alone, and they would go before the Secretary of the

The

Interior, and if either party got an unsatisfactory result they would go farther. And I have been entreated, as one of the members of the committee, by counsel on both sides of the question, to make this report to the House and have an end of it; because the Interior Department will give it no consideration; they will hear neither party, until we discharge ourselves from its consideration.

Mr. BINGHAM, and Mr. BUTLER of Massachusetts, rose.

Mr. PETERS. Allow me to complete my statement; and I will yield to nobody while I make it.

Mr. Speaker, that is the position of these railroads. We are not fit up there in the committee-room, in the haste and want of deliberation, having a mass of business pressing upon our attention, to sit as a court and determine the nice question of law between these parties, nor do they want us to do it, but have besought us to take our hands off to let them go to the Department and the courts for their rights. In the beginning it was otherwise. Why? Because the Interior Department made a decision in the first place ex parte. They immediately receded from it on the request of the other party, and there is where they should have their status. It was rescinded on the application of Mr. Henderson.

Now, one thing further. Supposing, Mr. Speaker, the land does not belong to either of these corporations, but belongs to the United States, the view of the committee is that the Secretary of the Interior is able to take care of our rights. If they get the land from us without legal title, they will get it from ourselves with our Department of the Interior, with our officers, with our Attorney General and other officers acting for us in our interest. If I understand my friend from Massachusetts

You did

||

correct.

Sir, it appeared before the committee that there were three claimants to these lands, and each one of the three was a railroad company, and each one may be assumed to have or not to have friends either in this body or outside of this body. And each claimed the lands upon the ground that the first standing in the line of claims had failed to do what was essential to entitle them to the lands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it appeared perfectly clear to the committee that each one sought the decision and report of the Judiciary Committee merely as an aid to proceedings to be taken elsewhere. It is essential to proceedings to be carried on either in the courts or before the proper Secretary; and as the committee did not feel itself at liberty to be thus used, and thought that it was not due to decide the rights of either one of the parties, it simply decided that it ought to be released from all further consideration of the matter, and remit each party back to the claim that he might have before any tribunal. And there the committee have left the matter. There is no member of the House that can have any knowledge of the case that would not see the propriety of the course taken by the committee. Is there not ample opportunity for either claimant to make good its right be. fore the proper Secretary? And if it fails to do so, each or either one of them can go to the But let neither have the sanction of a committee of a legislative body. The case belongs to the executive department and to the courts of the country, and one should have no more advantage given to it than the other.

courts.

But that is not the question here. The question here is whether something in lieu of the minority report shall be allowed to override the action of one of the respectable committees of this body. I may say that for my. self, as an humble member of the committee, I listened attentively to everything that was said before the committee. I entertained a conviction, as clear as any conviction I ever entertained in my life, that it was precisely a case where a committee of a legislative body had no right to interfere, and that interference was unjustifiable if not even worse, and in that opinion I stood by the side of the respected chairman of the committee.

Mr. BINGHAM. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDREDGE.]

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent to the House that this case involves questions of too much importance even to be stated in five minutes. The committee, when this subject was first committed to them, started out under embarrassment from the fact that they were not empowered to send for persons and papers. They were required to investigate certain facts which they could