« PoprzedniaDalej »
ber of extra copies be printed as of the testimony heretofore reported by the same committee; which was referred, under the law, to the Committee on Printing.
COMMERCE WITH MEXICO.
I demand the yeas and nays on my motion. Mr. SCHENCK. I withdraw the demand for the previous question simply for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the fact that the proposition of the gentleman to reduce the Army to thirty-five thousand, if it were to prevail, would reduce the Army below its present maximum, forty-three thousand. I trust that there will be no instructions given to the committee. I renew the demand for the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; the question being first upon Mr. Ross's motion to instruct the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. WRIGHT. What would be the effect of moving to lay that motion on the table? The SPEAKER. It would carry the bill with it.
The yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was taken on Mr. Ross's motion, and it was disagreed to.
The question recurred upon the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Military Affairs and order it printed; and being put, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHENCK entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted.
EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a resolution relative to the recent attempted assassination of the Emperor of Russia.
The resolution was read, and is as follows: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the United States of America has learned with deep regret the attempt made upon the life of the Emperor of Russia by an enemy of emancipation. The Congress send their greeting to his Imperial Majesty and to the Russian nation, and congratulate the twenty million serfs upon the providential escape from danger of the sovereign to whose head and heart they owe the blessings of their freedom.
PRINTING OF TESTIMONY.
Mr. BOUTWELL, from the committee on reconstruction, reported evidence in reference to the State of Georgia; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BOUTWELL moved that the same number of extra copies. be printed as of the testimony heretofore reported by the same committee; which motion was referred, under the law, to the Committee on Printing.
Mr. CONKLING, from the same committee, reported testimony in relation to the States of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CONKLING moved that the same num
Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be instructed to communicate to this House any information he may have concerning discriminations made by the so-called Maximilian government of Mexico against American commerce, or against commerce from particular American ports.
Mr. RAYMOND. I suggest to the gentleman that he call upon the President and not the Secretary of the Treasury for this information. That is the usual form, and I believe the only form in which the head of a Department can respond. I make that suggestion for his consideration.
Mr. JULIAN. I will modify the resolution in that way.
The resolution, as modified, was agreed to.
CLERK FOR COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Mr. BIDWELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:
Resolved, That the Committee on Agriculture be allowed a clerk, at the usual compensation, for such length of time as the chairman may deem necessary, in order to make a careful investigation of the expenditures and administration of the Department of Agriculture. MURDER OF NORTH CAROLINA UNION SOLDIERS.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of April 16, 1866, the report of the Judge Advocate General in regard to the murder of certain Union soldiers belonging to the first and second North Carolina loyal infantry; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That the Governor of the Territory of Montana be, and he is hereby, authorized on and after the 1st day of September, 1866, to reapportion said Territory for the election of the Council and House of Representatives: Provided, That said apportionment shall be based on such an enumeration of the qualified electors of the several counties as shall appear from the election returns in the office of the secretary of the Territory and from such other sources of information as will enable the Governor, without taking a new census, to make an apportionment which shall fairly represent the people of the several counties in both Houses of the Legislative Assembly of said Territory; and the Legislative Assembly elected in pursuance of this act shall provide by law for the election of a Council and House of Representatives as directed in the act of which this act is an amendment. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the acts of the so-called Legislative Assembly elected without authority of law, and in pursuance of the proclamation of the acting Governor, which met and began its session in the city of Virginia on the 5th of March, 1866, be, and the same are hereby, declared disapproved and null and void; and no money now appropriated, or which may hereafter be appropriated, by the Congress of the United States for defraying the
expenses of the territorial government of Montana, shall ever be paid to any person claiming to have been elected to the Council and House of Representatives of the Legislative Assembly of said Territory for services as members or officers thereof, at thesession begun and held as aforesaid, or to defray the expenses incurred by said Legislative Assembly for
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I call the previous question on the bill and amendment.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered, which was upon agreeing to the substitute.
The question was taken; and the substitute was agreed to.
The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, 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.
BOUNDARIES OF NEVADA.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, from the Committee on Territories, reported back Senate bill No. 155, concerning the boundaries of the State of Nevada, with an amendment.
The bill was read. The first section. provides that, as provided for and consented to in the constitution of the State of Nevada, all that territory and tract of land adjoining the present eastern boundary of the State of Nevada, and lying between the thirty-seventh and the fortysecond degrees of north latitude and west of the thirty-seventh degree of longitude west of Washington, shall be added to and made part of the State of Nevada.
The second section provides that there shall be added to and made a part of the State of Nevada all that extent of territory lying within the following boundaries, to wit: commencing on the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude, at the thirty-seventh degree of longitude west from Washington, and running thence south on said degree of longitude to the middle of the river Colorado of the West; thence down the middle of said river to the eastern boundary of the State of California; thence northwesterly along said boundary of California to the thirtyseventh degree of north latitude; and thence east along said degree of latitude to the point of beginning; provided that the territory mentioned in this section shall not become a part of the State of Nevada until said State shall, through its Legislature, consent thereto. The amendment was read, as follows: Add to the second section the following proviso: Provided further, That the possessory rights acquired by citizens of the United States, in mining claims discovered, located, and originally recorded in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by miners in the Pah Ranagat and other mining districts in the territory incorporated by the provisions of this act into the State of Nevada, are hereby declared to be valid subsisting mining claims; but nothing herein contained shall be so construed as granting a title in fee to any mineral lands held by possessory titles in the mining States and Territories.
Mr. KASSON. I would inquire if this act would make the titles to these mining claims any different from what they would be if this act should not pass.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. In the Territory of Utah, where it is supposed this Pah Ranagat district is situated, there is no law regarding mining claims. And if this bill should pass without the amendment proposed by the committee, as soon as the information should reach the district the mines now located there would be liable to have their claims jumped by persons who would at once enter them under the mining law of Nevada. And it is proposed that the possessory right to those claims shall remain the same as if they had been originally discovered in Nevada; but they are not thereby
to have the title in fee.
Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I concur entirely in the propriety of the object which it is desired to accomplish; but I fear that the manner in which it is proposed to be accomplished will interfere with any legislation that this Congress may determine upon touching the valid
I cannot consent to such a motion as the gentleman proposes.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. ASHLEY,] the chairman of the Committee on Territories, ought not to urge this matter against the wishes of the Delegate from Utah without giving him a fair hearing. This bill proposes to take off eighteen thousand square miles from that Territory; and I think it only fair and just that the Delegate representing the Territory should have a full opportunity to be heard on this question.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I demand the previous question on the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
ity of those mining claims, unless the gentleman will consent to have the amendment so modified as to provide that the titles shall remain as valid as if this transfer of jurisdiction were not made. If the gentleman will consent that the amendment shall be put in that form, it will be safe; but it now declares that those titles shall be valid; and I fear that if the amendment be adopted in its present form, it may stand in the way of legislation which we may hereafter desire to enact.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. If the gentleman will examine the amendment, I think he will find that it is not justly liable to the objection. which he raises. Both the Mining Committee and the Territorial Committee are unanimous in favor of the adoption of this proposition. Mr. KASSON. Let the amendment be again
The Clerk read the amendment.
Mr. KASSON. The point which I make is that instead of the language, "are hereby declared to be valid," the amendment should read, "shall remain as valid and subsisting as if this act had not been passed." By the language which I propose, we shall avoid precluding ourselves from making any modification as to the extent of the claims, if we should choose to attempt hereafter a general system of regulating these mining claims.
I may remark that I take some special interest in this question in consequence of examinations made during my trip to the mountains last year. The amendment which I propose will accomplish, as I think the gentleman must admit, the entire purpose which he has in view, while it will avoid the danger that I certainly for one apprehend from the present language of the amendment.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I have no objection to the amendment which the gentleman suggests. The Mining committee, of which I am a member, as well as the Territorial Committee, have had this matter under consideration, and are unanimous in favor of amending the bill in this way in order to secure the interests of parties who have made large outlays. I have no objection to the insertion of the gentleman's proposition.
Mr. KASSON's amendment to the amendment
was read, as follows:
Strike out before the word "valid" the words "are hereby declared to be," and insert in lieu thereof the words "shall remain as."
Mr. WRIGHT. I desire to ask whether our action in declaring possessory rights valid is to affect the legal title to those lands.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. We desire to negative entirely the idea that it shall have any such effect.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. This is a question affecting the Territory which I represent here; and from the reading of the bill I have not been able to trace distinctly the line of division proposed. I therefore ask the chairman of the committee to state to what extent the committee propose to dismember the Territory of Utah. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. They propose to take off eighteen thousand square miles.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. Will the gentleman be kind enough to give it to me in degrees? Is it one degree east and west?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Yes, sir. Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. Moving the boundary from the thirty-eighth to the thirty-seventh degree?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Yes, sir; taking eighteen thousand square miles, leaving the Territory of Utah with eighty-eight thousand square miles, whereas it now has one hundred and six thousand.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until it shall have been printed?
The SPEAKER. It would be, if the gentleman from Ohio yields for that purpose. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I do not yield for that purpose. This is a Senate bill; it has been printed in the Senate, and is now on our files.
39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 149.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof Mr. KASSON's amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I_now yield to my colleague from Maine [Mr. RICE] to offer a further amendment,
Mr. RICE, of Maine. By instruction of the committee, I move to amend by striking out the following words:
To the middle of the river Colorado of the West; thence down the middle of said river to the eastern boundary of the State of California; thence northwesterly along said boundary of California to the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude; and thence east along said degree of latitude to the point of beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say that the effect of that amendment is to exclude from the portion of the territory to be attached to Nevada that portion in the Territory of Arizona, so that all the territory annexed to Nevada by this bill will only be the portion taken from Utah.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, demanded the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. I ask the gentleman to consent to the printing of this bill before action is taken on it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It has already been printed and is upon our files. I yield to the gentleman fifteen minutes of the hour to which I am entitled under the rules.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a speech, but I feel it due to my constituents to elicit for them as much information as I can why this dismemberment should take place.
From the reading of the report of the House committee, as well as from the report of the Senate committee, upon which that body has acted and passed this bill, I have not been able to find any tangible reason assigned, indeed any reason at all, for the course which is attempted to be pursued. The bill presented to the Senate, as I understand, was drafted by one of the Senators from Nevada. It was there referred to the Committee on Territories, and I believe specially referred to him, and by him reported favorably to the Senate, when the Senate, acting in accordance with the report, passed it.
I will say that during the pendency of this matter in the Senate I never received any notice, nor did I have any opportunity of appearing before that committee to represent the views of the citizens of Utah touching this matter which so vitally affects their interests. I have had an opportunity of appearing before the House committee, and there stated my objections to this matter.
It is not, Mr. Speaker, only in behalf of the people of Utah that I object to the dismemberment proposed, but to the principle that is to be established. I believe the course of legislation now proposed is without precedent in the history of the country or its legislation in reference to the Territories. On the simple action of a committee thousands of square miles are taken from one Territory and attached to another without assigning a reason or consulting the people who are to be transferred. It does appear to me a position of this
kind, transferring land from one Territory to another, with the inhabitants thereof, is reducing these people, and nothing more nor less, to the condition of serfs; and in behalf of my constituents, the people of Utah, I here most solemnly protest against it.
According to the amendment of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. RICE,] that part of the bill which proposes to dismember Arizona is in mercy stricken out.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. has not been adopted.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. On the principle of equal legislation the amendment should cover the whole ground. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. be no bill.
Then there would
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. There ought not to be. I deem it almost next to useless to refer to the fact that the people of Utah were the first to break a path from the Missouri river to the center of this continent. We claim to to be the pioneers. We claim to have taken the germ of everything now in that country, over the broken roads and there planted them without any expense to the Government. We have there built up a State of one hundred and fifty thousand people; we have built up two hundred and fifty grist and saw mills; we have established three cotton factories; we have grown two thousand bales of cotton; we have opened up one hundred and fifty thousand acres of arable land, from which not only that State but all the Territories adjacent draw their supplies.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I must resume the floor.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. I ask the House, in the name of justice, and in respect to the. rights of a people who have done as much as any other to sustain the Government, to reject the bill.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I yield ten minutes to the Delegate from Arizona.
Mr. GOODWIN. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Maine will prevail. The bill, as amended, would provide for taking a portion of Utah and annexing it to Nevada, striking out so much of the Senate bill as provided for the annexation of any portion of Arizona.
This bill came to the House of Representatives from the Senate. While it was pending before the Committee on Territories in the Senate no hearing was had on the merits of this question. With my consent no hearing was had at that time, though I was notified that the bill was pending, for the reason that I desired to hear from my constituents in relation to the matter. When the bill came before the Committee on Territories of the House a full hearing was had on the merits of the question, and the committee, after hearing, decided to strike out so much of the bill as related to the Territory of Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is not the most convenient tribunal before which to present a question of this kind. A question regarding the dismemberment of a Territory should be decided upon evidence and facts, and not upon simple statements made in the course of debate; and the question was so regarded by the Committee on Territories of this House. I hope that the House will adopt the recommendation of the committee on this subject.
I can only state very briefly, in the time allotted to me this morning, the substance of the argument, the points that were made be fore the Committee on Territories. It would be impossible to go over the argument in full.
The first objection to taking this portion of the Territory of Arizona and annexing it to Nevada is this: there is no natural connection between those Territories. This portion of the Territory of Arizona is part of the watershed of the Colorado river. All the streams running through that Territory empty into the Colorado. The people receive their supplies up the Colorado river. The principal mail route into Arizona runs down through a settle
ment about two hundred miles distant from Prescott, which is the capital of the Territory. All their connections and business are with the Territory of Arizona.
Now, if they were annexed to the State of Nevada they would be obliged, in order to reach the capital of the Territory, either to go round by San Francisco or to go up nearly to the point of the overland mail route before they could get into the route leading to the capital of Nevada. There is no natural connection between this country and the State of Nevada. It is separated from that State by a portion of the great desert, which presents an almost impassable barrier. It is so perfectly barren that it is called "Death Barren." That forms the boundary between the two.
square miles; New Mexico has 121,000 square miles; and with the dismemberment which we propose from Arizona, we still leave that Territory 121,000 square miles. Thus the territorial area of Nevada will be 104,000 square miles, Utah 88,000, Arizona 121,000, New Mexico 121,000, and Colorado 104,000.
In addition to that, the annexation of this territory to Nevada makes the boundary line of that State a navigable river. The head waters of navigation will then be within the State of Nevada; they will have an outlet to the Gulf and to the sea; and as they have less arable land susceptible of cultivation than either Arizona or Utah, I think it due that we should annex this territory to the State of Nevada.
There is another objection to this bill. It establishes a new precedent in legislation. While the consent of the State of Nevada is made a condition-precedent to the annexation of this Territory, no consent is required on the part of the people of Arizona. They are obliged to take upon themselves the burden of a State government without their consent. I would be perfectly willing that this bill should pass if the people of that portion of Arizona can be permitted to vote on this question and decide it by a majority. And I propose to offer, if this amendment should not be adopted and the bill should pass in its present shape, an amendment of that kind. And sir, I know, and gentlemen who advocate this bill know, that if the bill does pass in this shape there will be an almost unanimous vote of the people of that portion of the Territory against it.
It may be urged that there are but few people within this Territory. Last year there were fifteen hundred people at least upon the Muddy river and its branches, and I am informed by the Governor of Arizona, Mr. McCormick, that there are now nearly twenty-five hundred people within the Territory, and that by the middle of this summer there will be five thousand.
The burden of a State government is sought to be imposed upon these people without asking in any way their consent, and I believe that is establishing a wrong precedent.
Mr. GRINNELL. With the permission of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. ASHLEY,] I desire to say that I have a friend living upon this portion of the Territory proposed to be set off, and if we are to yield to the vote of the people whether it shall be annexed to Nevada, I see no objection whatever, inasmuch as Utah has a much larger portion of arable territory. At present I do not believe it is as well governed as Nevada, but if we are going to yield to the people, to common sense, and to the laws of nature, they would go there; and if eighty thousand square miles is not enough for Utah, as it is at present constituted, I think we had better take off a little on the north. I hope we will by all means give Nevada a slice, thus securing more arable land to that State which is well governed and is now yielding a very large revenue to the Government.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. In a moment I will yield to the gentleman from Nevada, who is more interested in this matter than any other member of the House. I want to say, in reply to the gentleman from Utah, [Mr. HOOPER,] that when I was on a visit last summer through his Territory, President Young told me he had no objection whatever to this proposed dismemberment of the Territory of Utah. There are but few, if any, of his people living upon the territory proposed to be transferred.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to know who President Young is? Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Mr. Brigham Young is president of the church.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. .Oh! Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I favor this measure and am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Maine, because the bill equalizes the Territories and makes the area of Nevada, which is now but 80,000 square miles, by the additions taken from Utah and Arizona, 104,000 square miles; Colorado has 104,000
I will state that at the time the Territory of Nevada was erected, but few of the members of the Committee on Territories understood anything of that country; it was comparatively unknown; we only knew it as a mining country. Since that time I myself have been through the Territory of Utah and the State of Nevada, coming back by the southern route; and I think I understand the wants of the people of that country; and I am sure the Speaker also understands them. I hope, therefore, that the proposition made by the Senate and sent in here will be adopted, and that the amendment of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. RICE] will be voted down.
I now yield, for a moment, to the gentleman from Nevada, [Mr. ASHLEY.]
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. Before the gentleman from Ohio yields the floor, I desire to ask him a question. I would ask him whether he thinks that, from a trip across the country, he knows more about that country and the wants of its people than a man who has lived there for sixteen years.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I do not know that a man could pick up the same amount of information in the time I was there that a man could pick up in fifteen or sixteen years; but I know that the information I obtained was from reliable gentlemen, and that I am quite as disinterested in this matter as the gentleman can be who represents the Territory of Utah. I now yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, it was for a long time understood in Nevada that we had this territory that it is proposed now to take from Utah. Some of the maps showed it; a map which the Delegate from Arizona had here showed it. But the law turned out to be different.
The reason why we want this territory for Nevada is that our people from Nevada have discovered mines in that degree of latitude, and we are occupying the country now. I live in the eastern part of Nevada myself, and I know of but one Mormon living in that degree of latitude. The Mormons have always been averse to mining; they have crushed it out in that Territory, and I can tell this Congress that our people who discover and work mines there do not wish to be under the control of the government of Utah; and I tell you that it is for the benefit of the United States that they should not be. All of Nevada was made out of the Territory of Utah. They opposed the organization of the Territory of Nevada in the beginning.
Mr. HOOPER, of Utah. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I believe that when the Territory of Nevada was organized I was the Delegate from Utah, and so far from opposing the measure, I acquiesced in it. And let me repeat here that it is merely as a matter of principle that I object to this measure.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. The Territory of Nevada was here three years before she could be admitted. And if Utah was in favor of it, as well as the people of Nevada, it is a little strange it took so long to get her in.
pays a tax of $286,000. Utah has a popula tion of eighty thousand, and pays but $41,000 tax. The people of Nevada pay taxes at the rate of $5 70 each; the people of Utah at the rate of fifty-one cents each, or about one eleventh as much as the people of Nevada. Let members judge which is the most benefit to the United States.
Now, our people are occupying this strip of territory, which Utah does not need and which we do. The State of Nevada has not to exceed fifty thousand inhabitants, while the returns of the collector of internal revenue show that she
The gentleman from Utah [Mr. HOOPER] speaks of the principle of the thing. I should like to know what principle is violated by this bill, when the organic act of Utah provides for reserving to the Congress the right to take a portion of the territory to be annexed to some other State or Territory. And that is the case in regard to the organic act of Arizona. The Territory of Utah has twenty-five thousand square miles more than Nevada has, and the district proposed to be annexed to Nevada is a mining territory. The people of Nevada are a mining people, while the people of Utah are an agricultural people. We need this strip of territory; our interests are identical with the interests of those who inhabit that strip of territory. Utah will then be left with eighty-eight thousand square miles, which is seven thousand square miles more than Nevada now has.
In regard to Arizona, I will say that there is a point of land across the Colorado river, running up between Nevada and California, of about six thousand square miles. It has been very little occupied until lately. Since navigation has been opened, a few persons from Utah have gone down there and settled at the head of navigation on the western side of the Colorado river. They are opposed to being united with Nevada, because they will then be under a State government, and not under a territorial government, where they might have more influence.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I must resume the floor now, and ask for a vote upon the amend ment of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. RICE.] The question was taken; and upon a division, there were-ayes twenty, noes not counted.
So the amendment was not agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a third time; and having been read the third time, it was passed.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, 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.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, from the Committee on Territories, reported back, without amendment, House bill No. 179, amendatory of the organic act of Washington Territory, approved March 2, 1853.
The bill was read. The first section provides that after the next annual session of the Legis lative Assembly of the Territory of Washing ton the sessions shall be biennial; members of the Council shall be elected for a term of four years, and members of the House for a term of two years, and shall receive the sum of six dollars per day instead of three dollars, as heretofore allowed, and the same mileage now allowed by law.
The second section provides that each House shall have authority to elect, in addition to the officers now allowed by law, an enrolling clerk, who shall receive five dollars per day; the chief clerk shall receive six dollars per day, and the other officers elected by said Legisla ture shall receive five dollars each per day,
The third section provides that the first election for the first biennial session under this act shall be held at the time of holding the general election for the Territory in 1867,
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I call the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
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. ASHLEY, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed;
and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
to say that in this immense region, east of the Sierra Nevada mountains, there is not one acre in ten thousand that can be used for agricultural purposes without irrigation; and in all that country there is not in any living stream or lake sufficient water to irrigate one acre in every ten thousand. The only hope of redeeming this land is in having these artesian wells dug, in order that the lands there may have irrigation.
Mr. STEVENS. May I ask the gentleman a question?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Yes, sir. Mr. STEVENS. Does the gentleman expect that irrigation for agricultural purposes will be furnished by artesian wells?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It is the only hope. Mr. STEVENS. Is it any hope at all?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I do not know whether sufficient water can ever be obtained in this way; but I do know that some of the finest regions in the Old World have been opened to cultivation by means of the irrigation furnished by artesian wells; and I know that in this vast country, ranging from Mexico to the northern Pacific, there is not one acre in ten thousand which can ever be brought under cultivation unless by the aid of artesian wells.
ARTESIAN WELLS IN THE TERRITORIES. Mr. RICE, of Maine, from the Committee on Territories, reported back, with an amendment, House joint resolution No. 32, to facilitate communication, with certain Territories.
The question was on ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read the third time.
The joint resolution was read at length. It provides that whenever any loyal citizen of the United States shall make and establish an artesian well on the line of any mail route in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, and the Colorado desert of California, at least ten miles distant from any spring or stream of living water upon such route, and a like distance from any well which may be established thereon by virtue hereof, he shall be entitled to one section of the public land, not including mineral land, embracing such well, the same to be marked out and designated in a compact form by such citizen; and upon filing with the surveyor general a sworn notice of the fact that such well has been established, with a particular description of the premises so marked out and designated, the same shall be treated as reserved land, and after the lapse of three years from the date of such establishment and upon satisfactory proof made to the said surveyor general of conformity to the foregoing stipulations, and that pure water from such well has been constantly furnished without charge to the public traveling upon such route, the inceptive right of the claimant shall be affirmed, and upon the extension of the lines of the public survey, the boundaries of such section shall be adjusted according to the lines thereof.
The second section provides that effect shall be given this resolution by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who shall have full power to revise and finally determine all rights and claims arising under the same, and to furnish evidence of title to such reserves, by pat: ent or otherwise, with such conditions incorporated therein as may be necessary to secure and perpetuate the purposes of the grant; provided that no more than six hundred and forty acres shall be granted in the case of any one well; and provided further, that no grantee or beneficiary under this act shall be allowed to enter any lands under any homestead act of the United States.
Mr. RICE, of Maine, obtained the floor, but yielded it to
Mr. GOODWIN, who moved to amend by inserting after the word "well," in the fourth line, the words "at places where water cannot be procured by other means; so that the clause would read: Whenever any loyal citizen of the United States shall make and establish an artesian well at places where water cannot be procured by other means.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I have no objection to that amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I desire to inquire whether this is the bill we had before us some time ago proposing to give a square mile of land to any man who digs a well.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. No, sir; by the amendment which has just been proposed, it is provided that these grants shall not be made, except in cases where water cannot be procured by other means. Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman would reduce the quantity, so as to give only a quarter section or one hundred and sixty acres in each case, I do not know that I would object to the bill. As it is, I move that the bill be laid on
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. RICE] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I demand the previous question, and yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the committee.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I am very certain that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would not desire to have this bill laid on the table had he ever traveled over those plains. I undertake
Mr. HIGBY. I desire to state, in connection with this question, that in San José valley, in the State of California, there are several artesian wells which have been sunk to a great depth, and which give an abundant flow of water. And in the city of Stockton, in the county of San Joaquin, an artesian well has been sunk to the depth of nine hundred or a thousand feet, giving a stream of water which rises twelve or fifteen feet above the surface.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I resume the floor to demand the previous question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the House will refuse to second the demand for the previous question. I desire to know from the gentleman from Maine whether, under existing law, there is not provision by which title to a portion of the land on this mail route can be obtained from the Government. Mr. RICE, of Maine. No, sir.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I understand there is. I can get the book in a minute. They are entitled to preemption. Mr. RICE, of Maine.
Under the homestead
bill they may be.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the previous question will not be seconded.
On seconding the previous question there were, on a division-ayes 67, noes 35.
So the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered to be put.
The amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Mr. RICE, of Maine, moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I ask that the Committee on Territories shall have another morning hour after the call of the select committees. When the committee was called before I was absent on account of sickness.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object.
AMENDMENT OF TERRITORIAL ACTS.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio, from the Committee on Territories, reported back House bill No. 508, to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
During the reading of the bill the morning hour expired, and the bill went over until the next morning hour for public business.
COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES-AGAIN. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I ask that the Com
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDonALD, its Chief Clerk, informed the House that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses upon the bill (S. No. 26) entitled "An act to encourage telegraphic communication between the United States and the island of Cuba and other West India islands, and the Bahamas."
Also, that the Senate had passed a bill (H. R. No. 280) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.
Also, that the President had approved sundry acts that originated in the Senate.
On motion of Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, House bill No. 280 was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
RELIEF OF CONTRACTORS.
Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to take up from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 220, for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vesselsof-war and steam machinery.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask to have it read. It involves the payment of millions of dollars for the benefit of contractors. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I cannot yield for all that.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest to the gentleman that he had better allow a day or two for some friends to amend this bill. There are reasons why a great many of us cannot now vote for it, but we may amend it so as to pass it. I hope the gentleman will consider whether it is prudent to take the sense of the House upon it now.
and then, if a majority of the House prefers to take up the tax bill, they can postpone this measure and take that up. The matter will be within the control of a majority of the House. It seems to me that to refer this bill to the Committee on Territories would be to kill it. Mr. BINGHAM. That is what is intended. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand that that is what is intended, but I do not desire to see it killed. If any gentlemen here have opposition to make to this bill, I am willing that they shall have a fair opportunity of presenting their views to the House.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I cannot yield for that purpose unless we fix, say to-morrow after the morning hour, for its consideration.
Mr. ROSS. I think we had better have it postponed, say to-morrow two weeks.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois objects.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then I insist on the demand for the previous question on the passage of the bill.
On seconding the demand for the previous question, there were-ayes 45, noes 57.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Speaker appointed Messrs. ASHLEY, of Ohio, and LE BLOND. The House divided, and the tellers reported -ayes 46, noes 63.
So the previous question was not seconded. Mr. RICE, of Maine. I now move to refer it to the Committee on Territories.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I hope it will not be committed unless the House is disposed to reject it entirely. I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I desire myself that some day may be assigned for the consideration of this important question, and I hope it may be an early day. I do not wish to send this to the committee if it can be avoided, but rather than be driven to a vote upon it to-day, I shall insist that it go to the committee. But I trust the chairman of the committee will name an early day for the consideration of this bill. There are great principles involved in it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I will name Monday, after the morning hour.
Mr. ROSS. I call for the special order. The SPEAKER. This is before the House now, by its order to proceed to business on the Speaker's table.
Mr. ROSS. Can I ask for the reading of the bill?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can demand it.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. What is the special order?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that there are two special orders in the House, made some time since, operating after the expiration of the morning hour, one to establish the grade of general in the Army and the other in regard to the pay of officers of the Army, both coming from the Committee on Military Affairs. On Tuesday next, immediately after the reading of the Journal, the constitutional amendment reported from the committee on reconstruction is made the special order. On Wednesday and Thursday, immediately after the reading of the Journal, the two bills reported by that committee are also made special orders to continue until disposed of. Besides that, there is the tax bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, which has been made the special order in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for next Monday, after the morning hour.
That is the condition of the business of the House with regard to special orders.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Then I ask that this bill be assigned for next Monday, after the morning hour.
The SPEAKER. The special orders now made can only be overridden by unanimous
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I shall object, if it is to interfere with other special orders.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. If it should be made a special order for Monday, could it not be postponed by a vote of a majority of the House? The SPEAKER. It can.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Very well; then I cannot see why the House should not consent to let it be made the special order for Monday,
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I make the prop osition that we go on with the bill now, and if gentlemen have anything to say, or have any amendments to offer, do it now.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. the question before the House?
The SPEAKER. The question is on referring the bill to the Committee on Territories. Mr. RICE, of Maine. I demand the previous question on that motion.
Mr. ROSS. I desire to hear that bill read before we are called to vote upon it.
The bill was read.
Mr. CHANLER. Is it in order to move to lay the bill upon the table? The SPEAKER. It is in order.
Mr. CHANLER. Then I make that motion. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I demand the yeas and nays upon it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Before the vote is taken, I ask the Chair to state the question to the House distinctly, so that it may be understood.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CHANLER,] that the bill do lie upon the table. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Which would kill the bill.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 29, nays 109, not voting 45; as follows:
YEAS Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Blaine, Boyer, Chanler. Coffroth, Darling, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Aaron Harding, Harris, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Pike, Raymond, Ritter, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taylor, Thornton, Winfield, and Wright-29.
NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke,_Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cullom, Defrees, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps, Plants, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner,
B. Henry D. Washburn, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-109.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bidwell, Cook, Culver, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Eggleston, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Hale, Hayes, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Marston, Marvin, McIndoe, Nicholson, Noell, Pomeroy, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Rogers, Rousseau, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Taber, Thayer, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Van Aernam, Ward, William B. Washburn, and Wentworth-45.
So the House refused to lay the bill upon the table.
During the roll-call,
Mr. CHANLER said: My colleague, Mr. JAMES M. HUMPHREY, has paired off with Mr. POMEROY.
The question recurred upon seconding the demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would state that if the previous question is seconded and the main question ordered, and the motion to refer is then voted down, the previous question would not be exhausted until the bill has passed its third reading.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I hope the gen
tleman from Maine [Mr. RICE] will withdraw his call for the previous question and let the question be taken upon the motion to refer, and I hope the motion to refer will not prevail, but that we will go on with the consideration of the bill to-day.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I will withdraw the demand for the previous question.
The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. RICE, of Maine, to refer the bill to the Committee on Territories.
The question was taken; and upon a divis ion, there were-ayes 53, noes 56.
Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called the yeas and nays on the motion to refer.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 64, nays 74, not voting 45; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ancona, Baxter, Bergen, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyer, Buckland, Chanler, Conkling, Darling, Dawson, Denison, Dixon, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Grider, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Henderson, Higby, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Jenckes, Julian, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, McRuer, Morrill, Morris, Newell, Niblack, Paine, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stevens, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, Thornton, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Winfield, Woodbridge, and Wright-64.
NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cullom, Defrees, Deming, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Plants, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Shellabarger, Spalding, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Welker, Whaley, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Windom-74.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Cook, Culver, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Donnelly, Eggleston, Goodyear, Hale, Hayes, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Marston, Marvin, McIndoe, Nicholson, Noell, Pomeroy, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Rogers, Rousseau, Scofield, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Taber, Thayer, Trimble, Van Aernam, Ward, William B. Washburn, and Wentworth-45.
So the motion to refer was not agreed to. The question recurred upon ordering the bill to be read a third time.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I now propose that this bill be considered in the House. If any gentleman desires to be heard upon it I will yield a part of my hour to him.
Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is very liberal, seeing that the previous question has been refused him.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Well, I have the floor now.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well; go ahead. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ASHLEY] makes a speech, I suppose we can answer it.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. On the 24th March, 1864, the Congress of the United States passed an enabling act authorizing the people of the Territory of Colorado to form a constitution and State government prior to their admission into the Union. Enabling acts were also passed for the Territories of Nebraska and Nevada. I drew up those enabling acts and introduced them into this House; but finding that the Committee on Territories would not be reached in time for action on them in the Senate during the second session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, I carried them to the Senate and had them introduced there, and they passed that body; but this House failed to pass them at that session. At the first session of the ThirtyEighth Congress the same bills or enabling acts were again introduced into both the Senate and House, and became laws. The bill authoriz ing the people of Colorado to form a constitution and State government became a law, as I have said, on the 24th of March, 1864.
My object in drafting and urging the passage of those enabling acts was twofold: one to