this body, and I paid more attention to the debates at that time than I have done since, because they were fresh to me, and I confess that when the subject was under discussion at that time I had a little suspicion that there was something about the measure which in point of results would produce a schism afterward. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PoмEROY] I remember offered an amendment to the bill of 1866, which I will read. On a certain day in June of that year the bill was taken up on motion of the Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, and the Chair stated the question to be on the amendment proposed by Mr. PoмEROY, to add to the first section the following proviso:

"And provided further, That should the Union Pacific Railroad Company, eastern division, under the provisions of this act, file their map locating their road upon a different route from that indicated in their map heretofore filed in the Department of the Interior, then and in that event the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, or their assigns being authorized to connect with the said railroad under the several acts to which this is an amendment, may be, and are hereby, authorized to continue their road westwardly from the point provided for in the aforesaid acts to a connection with the Union Pacific railroad at some point east of the one hundredth meridian of longitude, and for that purpose may have the same provisions and be subject to all the restrictions and limitations of the said Pacific railroad acts."

There was a distinct proposition to add to the bill of 1866 exactly what this company now asks for; that is in effect a double subsidy, leaving one subsidy to the Union Pacific, eastern division, to the one hundredth merid ian, and giving by that amendment another subsidy in express terms to this company for the same distance. That was the proposition. The honorable chairman of the committee (Mr. HOWARD] said, in reply to. that:

"It was intimated yesterday that the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from Kansas required a further appropriation of money or of subsidies in order to carry it out. The amendment itself was never before the Committee on the Pacific Railroad; and that committee is in no sense responsible for the measure. If that be its effect, I most respectfully and earnestly suggest to the honorable Senator to withdraw the amendment, so far as this bill is concerned, because it must surely give rise to considerable discussion and loss of time, and present his amendment in the form of a separate measure, and let it be passed upon on its merits, if it has merits. It is quite sure that in the present state of things in this body there is danger of losing the whole bill if the Senator insists upon that amendment,"

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY] responded:

"I did not suppose that this amendment would endanger the bill. My point was this: the road haying been located in one valley in my State, and the land withdrawn from market, and parties having acquired interests there, great injustice would be done them unless some company were authorized to build a road there. I thought I would submit the matter fairly to the Senate. If the Senate conclude that no injustice will be done anybody, then, of course, they will vote the amendment down; but I wish it distinctly understood that parties have acquired rights under that location that they cannot be divested of, either by Congress or any other body, without repairing the damage. I thought that was so, and I believe it is so. If the Senator has read the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, which was submitted to the Attorney General and approved by him, he will see precisely the point I am aiming at."

The debate went on:

"Mr. HOWARD. I think I apprehend the point. The Senator cannot doubt that Congress will be entirely willing to do complete justice to all those individuals who may suffer pecuniarily in consequence of the passage of the bill now under consideration. I should be quite willing at all times to grant any relief which justice requires to those persons who have thus located in that region.

"Mr. POMEROY. If Congress is ready to make up for all those losses, there will be no difficulty.

"Mr. HOWARD. But I do not see the propriety, exactly, of incorporating such a provision as that in the bill now under consideration. It is in itself a separate and distinct proposition, and it ought to be so treated, as it strikes me.

"Mr. POMEROY. The Senator may not understand that this amendment is germane to the bill; but I do not agree with him on that point. This bill now proposes to change the location of the road-nothing else; but that is not the point I am objecting to. The point I am objecting to is, that when that is done, justice ought to be done to the parties who have taken it for granted, under the previous bill, that this road was to be located in the valley of the Republican.

Mr. CONNESS. The provision of law now is, that the Patific railroad, castern division, shall be located

through the valley of the Republican river, and the Senator from Kansas says that because of that provision may persons have bought the even sections of land of the Government, and paid the enhanced price of $2 50 an acre for them, and that if this bill

shall pass authorizing the company to vary the route,

to change the location to the valley of the Smoky Hill river, those settlers ought to be compensated by the Government, and not required to pay $2 50 an acre for their land.

"As suggested by the honorable chairman of the Pacific Railroad Committee, of course the Government will make such a provision if we pass this bill. "But the best part of the proposition of the Senator from Kansas now comes in. He says that in lieu of the benefit that would thus be conferred upon the settlers, it is but fair to allow a company that the honorable Senator or his people have up there to extend their line so as to authorize them to join the Union Pacific railroad, and also to have bonds of the United States, at the rate of $16,000 per mile, in addition to lands. If there is any proposition settled, at least for this session, so far as the Pacific Railroad Committee of this body can settle it, it is that they will authorize no addition of bonds to be paid to any company building or engaged in building a branch of the Pacific railroad. That question has been deliberately examined upon a bill presented by the honorable Senator and urged by him, and the committee have reported upon it. Now I submit to him that the Senate cannot-of course he has a right to get a vote, and I hope he will get a vote upon it-the Senate cannot, at this session at least, authorize an addition of bonds to branches of the Pacific railroad such as is contemplated by his proposition."

Then the matter went over for awhile, but it came to be discussed again, when Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, said:

"I move to strike out the first section of the bill. I wish to correct the remarks of the Senator from Kansas. Do I understand him to say that if the bill as reported shall pass his understanding is that the road of which he spoke, running west from Hannibal, will have the right, under the existing law, to connect with the main trunk at the one hundredth meridian?

"Mr. POMEROY. No, sir; not under the existing law. They have the right to connect on the Republican where this company filed their map, not at the one hundredth meridian.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Do I understand the Senator to say that they will have the right to connect at some place within the main stem of the road?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir. "Mr. KIRKWOOD. Where?

"Mr. POMEROY. At a point on the Republican river about one hundred miles west from the Missouri river. They have located their line to that point and filed their map and issued their bonds. Mr. HENDERSON. Who has done that? "Mr. POMEROY. The assignees of the Hannibal and St. Joseph road."

Then the thing was further debated, pro and con, and we finally come to this result: Mr. POMEROY again said:

"Though the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company had the right to build a branch under the provisions of the act, they had to use a charter to be obtained from the Legislature of Kansas, from the fact that a company in one State could not be authorized even by an act of Congress to build in another State except with the consent of the State and by using a charter of that State. The law says that they shall have land and bonds for only one hundred miles. It does not say that they shall not build any further, as the Senator seems to claim. This company located its road and filed its plat on the Republican. The Hannibal and St. Joseph road had notice then, and all the world had, that this company was going up the Republican."

He then proceeds to state the case, that they had gone out to connect, and then he says:

"That is why that company have been opposed to any change, because they were satisfied with the legislation as it was; and if the other route is taken, the Smoky Hill route, it requires further legislation to enable them to connect somewhere else.'

friend will correct me if I am wrong-that in July, 1866, he was president of the Central Branch Pacific Railroad Company.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, I think I was nominally president of the company until a month or two after that. Since then I have had no interest in it whatever.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am not complaining of what my friend from Kansas did, because he did right as to presenting this question to the Senate then; but what I say is, that if there was a doubt on the construction of these statutes, if it was claimed by the Central Branch Company that this legislation of 1866 was going to operate injuriously to them in such a way as to give them a claim upon our justice or bounty, it was the duty of my friend from Kansas who had the interests of the road at heart and who had a knowledge of all its affairs, to propose the very amendment that he did. Now, what I complain of is-after having stated that my friend did his duty, I now come to my complaint-that that Senator, being the responsible organ and agent of the company, having stated what he claimed its rights to be at that time on this floor, voluntarily withdrew any objection to the passage of that bill of 1866 and withdrew his amendment, which provided for the very thing they want now, so as to let that bill pass, without telling us either that he gave up for the company the claim that they had or else that he should demand of us in the future this justice that he thought was denied. Mr. POMEROY. For some reason, the Senator says, I withdrew the amendment. I will read the reason assigned at the time. Mr. EDMUNDS. What page is it? I was trying to find it.

Mr. POMEROY. Page 3256 of the Globe: "I believe the pending question is on the amendment that I submitted. I have conversed with very many of the members of the Pacific Railroad Committee, and as they desire to report upon this proposition separately, not connected with this bill, I do not desire to press it against the wishes of the friends of this measure and of our railroads. I will therefore withdraw the amendment."

Mr. CONKLING. What day of the month was that?

Mr. EDMUNDS. June 19, 1866.

Mr. POMEROY. I will only add that when the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN] shall make his remarks, he will state to the Senate that he, as Secretary of the Interior, instructed me that the rights of this company would not be impaired by my withdrawing the amend

ment.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We will take the evidence of the rights of the company from the officers of the Government in some more official way. If we can get at that, I should like to see that opinion of the Attorney General and the report of the Secretary of the Interior on this subject. It would be well worth studying, perhaps.

Now my friend from Kansas says that he withdrew this amendment, acting in the interest of his company, because, as he stated, the committee desired to report upon it separately. Let me read a little further in the same connection.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator will not say that in doing it I was acting in the interest of the company. I was acting as a Senator in the interest of my State. I was not here acting in the interest of any particular company; but I thought, for the interest of my State, it was best not to embarrass a bill which had for its object to build a line through the whole length of that State, and learning that it would not interfere with the rights of anybody else, I did withdraw the proposition.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator means to say, I presume, that I was acting as a Senator from the State of Kansas.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I mean to say-and my

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think if the Senator had told us on the 19th of June, 1866, that he had offered this amendment in the interest of

as a matter of justice to them, and that he withdrew it at the request of the committee, but that if that bill passed, his company whom he represented would demand the same justice of Congress that they are now demanding, there would have been quite a different result in the action of 1866. I say the members who

voted for that act of 1866, or acted upon it at all, (and I do not remember which way I voted,) when this question was raised would have been very slow, as the chairman of the committee said, and as the Senator from California said, to report or recommend any bill which would have given any company a pretense of claiming any further subsidy in bonds. That was what appeared in the debate.

My friend says that he withdrew this amend ment, acting in the interest of his State, in order to let the bill pass which could not have passed with it, because the committee were going to report upon it separately. Let me read what was said on that subject.

"Mr. POMEROY. For that reason, if that meets the concurrence and views of the friends of this measure and of the Pacific Railroad Committee, as I understand it does, I withdraw the amendment,

"The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment before the Senate is withdrawn.

Mr. GRIMES. Am I correct in understanding the

Senator from Kansas to say that the members of the Pacific Railroad Committee have informed him they will report back his proposition in an independent

bill?

"Mr. POMEROY. No, sir. I said they preferred to consider it as an independent measure. I did not say what they would report, for I do not know; they have not made their report yet. They may make it, and when they make it we shall be able to tell what it is.'

Mr. POMEROY. They have made it now. Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes. Now, what I am complaining of, as I said before, and I trust gentlemen will not feel uneasy about it, is this extraordinary state of things: we had the other day, if I remember correctly, when the chairman of the committee got up this bill, a speech in its support from him, in which he characterized the legislation of 1866 as a gross outrage and injustice upon the rights of the company of which my friend from Kansas was the president, and it was to repair that injustice, to make amends for that outrage and wrong upon their rights that this legislation of 1868 was asked for; not that the general good of the country required that we should subsidize this local road, but that through the almost criminal misconduct of Congress in impairing the vested rights of the company of my friend from Kansas, we were bound to make it good as damages, compensation, restoring to them the rights that we had unjustly deprived them of; and then when I asked my friend from Michigan if he did not report this very bill of 1866, and if it did not go through under a debate managed by him, he coolly replied to me that he did not see what that had to do with the question!

I say we have a right to complain. I do not complain that a report of this kind was made in 1866 by my honorable friend from Michigan, because, as far as I can see, it was a report that did not alter the state of things, and was a proper and correct report. All that I complain of, in the proper and parliamentary way, is the fact that my friend is urging this bill with so much zeal to atone for the "outrage" of 1866! In that he is mistaken. There is the trouble about it. I say that when my friend from Michigan reported a bill from this same committee in 1866, which passed into a law, and the president of the company that is now supposed to have been affected by that, proposed an amendment which would have remedied that entirely, but which would have cost the Government $2,500,000 to do it, and voluntarily withdrew that amendment and suffered the bill to pass, it is with bad grace that that company come forward to demand compensation for an injustice done to them, because we cannot come to any other conclusion than that that injustice, if it was one, was done by their voluntary consent. It is true my friend from Kansas is a Senator and represents his State. It is also true that as the president of the company he must have had knowledge that that bill was under consideration. Of course he had, and as such his company was charged with knowledge of it; as such he rightfully and properly brought forward an amendment which would do all that he now claims the company have a right to ask. That is all perfectly right; but what I say is that it is unjust now to insist

upon our passing this bill and giving this company $2,500,000, when the other bill which they complain of as an outrage was suffered to go through this body by the voluntary assent of the responsible organs and officers of the company. That is the proposition, and I think it will be difficult for Senators to answer it.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator may not have understood me. I said that after consulting with the committee and the Secretary of the Interior, being informed first that the committee desired, as I said, to report the measure in a separate bill, and being informed by the Secretary of the Interior that that bill did not deprive this company of their rights, I withdrew the amendment. That is the point. The committee have now reported a separate bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That does not alter the question at all, so far as this bill is concerned. We find that the Kansas company, the local road of which my friend is the president and responsible organ, for reasons that are satisfactory to itself, induces its Senator, the Senator of its State, who properly represents its interests as one of his constituents, to withdraw any objection to the passage of the bill of 1866 that is now characterized as an outrage. I say if it is an outrage now it was an outrage then. That is my proposition.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. On that point I should like to inquire of the Senator from Michigan, if the Senator of Vermont will allow me, whether this $1,000,000 of which he speaks was $1,000,000 expended by the company of their own money or $1,000,000 which they realized from the Government bonds and subsidies ?

Mr. HOWARD. Certainly they could not have realized it from the subsidy, because the subsidy papers had not yet been issued to them. They probably raised it by first mortgage bonds in part. I do not know how much stock they had actually paid in.

Mr. EDMUNDS. May I ask of my friend from Michigan how much stock money has actually been paid now into this company?

Mr. HOWARD. As I am not a member of the company, and have nothing to do with it at all in its private matters, I do not see that that is a very reasonable question to put to me. I am not presumed to know how much stock has been paid in by each individual stockholder.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you know, whether you presume to know or not?

Mr. HOWARD, I will not answer the question, because I think it is one I cannot be expected to answer.

Mr. POMEROY. I will answer it. I can tell.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I decline to yield to my friend from Kansas, as I have not finished with the Senator from Michigan. This is a singular state of things. Here is a committee, one of the most influential and respectable and re

Mr. EDMUNDS. You mean you are now only a director, and not the president.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes; I own one share I believe; but I mean that I have no personal interest in the matter.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That perhaps is quite immaterial, except of course on the mere voting question, though my friend will judge for himself about that. But so far as the interests of the company are concerned, I am sure they have a sufficient number of friends who will protect them. The Pacific Railroad Company has become the friend of this company, although it was not in the year 1866.

Mr. SHERMAN. There is one matter which I suppose the Senate would like to understand; and that is, when this act of 1866 was passed, how many miles of this railroad had actually been built, and how much money had actually been expended on this road.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I tried to ascertain that from the chairman of the committee when the bill was up before, but without success. Mr. POMEROY. I can tell you. Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. HOWARD.

will allow me

I should like to hear it. If the Senator from Ohio

Mr. SHERMAN. I mean at the time when the "outrage" commenced.

Mr. HOWARD. At the time of the passage of the law of 1866, I understand the Senator from Ohio to say

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HOWE in the chair.) Does the Senator from Vermont yield the floor; and if so, to whom?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not yield. I will hear an explanation from the chairman of the committee. Such as my friend from Ohio wants.

Mr. HOWARD. I am not able to give any precise information as to the amount expended at that time; but I am credibly informed about a million dollars; I think between one and two million dollars at the time of the passage of the act of 1866-not at the time of the passage of the act of 1864, which was the question the Senator from Vermont put. They had been at work for two years.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How many miles had been built in 1866, when this act passed?

Mr. HOWARD. I am not able to say. Mr. POMEROY. Forty had been accepted by the Government at that time, I understand, and about sixty built. I think that was about it.

based upon an equity, as they say, in favor of this company, on account of its having been led into an expenditure which now will go for nothing unless we can relieve them, on account of our legislation in 1866. In the course of the debate it becomes material to inquire how much this company have been led in; how much they have expended really of money that the United States have not furnished them with, or they have not got on the strength of property the United States granted to them in land; and we ask my honorable friend, the chairman of the committee, and he says that is a matter foreign to him, and he declines to answer the question. There is no power, certainly, in any individual member to compel my friend to answer the question; and I should be the last man to try to exercise it if there

were.

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator desires to know, I can tell him.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not just yet. I want to ask a question which I think the chairman of the committee will answer. May I inquire of him, if he is willing to answer, how much money has been raised upon the bonds of this company, upon the road?

Mr. HOWARD. I am not able to say how much has been raised upon the bonds of the road.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How much has the road cost altogether?

Mr. HOWARD. I will answer in part these specific interrogatories which the Senator from Vermont puts to me. He seems to act as if he was interrogating the committee on a bill of discovery in which there was some fraud

hidden or some concealment.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, no; I merely want to know the facts.

Mr. HOWARD. I refer to the general air and manner of the Senator. Now, sir, the amount of Government bonds issued to this company, as certified by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 15th of June instant, is $640,000. They had the right under their charter to issue precisely the same amount of first mortgage bonds. Whether they have actually done that, I do not know; but the presumption would naturally be that they had done so. That is all I can say in answer to the question.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We are not likely to get much information, evidently, from the committee as to the condition of this company.

Perhaps the committee are right, or the chairman is right, in supposing that the condition of this company, what it has done with its means, how much it has advanced on the credit of our bonus, is entirely immaterial to this question, and that this equity that is now pressed on our attention is one that depends upon some more fanciful and imaginative theory than the hard and naked fact of money advanced upon the strength of this legislation; and so we must endeavor to get along in the dark, so far as the committee is concerned, as well as we cau. I should have supposed, when a company came before the committee and desired legislation of this character, that one of its first steps under the direction of the committee would have been to make a plain, straightforward, and honorable showing of what it had done with the $1,500,000 that it had received from the United States; how much money it had raised upon the Government bonds; how much stock it had actually paid in; how much money it had expended in the construction of the road; and generally what its financial condition was, in order to show fairly to those who were to pass laws for its benefit that it had an equity; that it had expended money in good faith under this legislation; that it had taken all the steps that the law authorized it to take, and had made no improper use of the funds that had been bestowed upon it; and to show that without this legislation it would be left in a condition in which it might justly complain. But it appears that the committee did not take any such view of it; perhaps the company is not to blame for it; and all that we are favored with in the way of information is exactly what is contained on the face of the bill; and that is, a bill to give to this company $2,400,000 of United States bonds for a supposed outrage and I think I use the very language my friend from Michigan did the other day-that we committed by the act of 1866 in authorizing the Eastern Division Company to file its designation of route and its maps by the 1st day of December, 1866; because that is all we did. Mr. POMEROY. Does the Senator desire any information about what has been paid in by this company?. I will answer at any time, if he desires it; but I do not wish to interrupt

him.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not know that my friend from Kansas is a member of the committee.

Mr. POMEROY. No, sir; but the Senator asked, "Can any one tell?" I say I can.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to hear it, certainly, as I do not wish to do this company any injustice.

Mr. POMEROY. I desire to state in a single word what was true up to 1866. For the last two years I know nothing about it. But on their own stock, on the stock subscribed, the amount paid in then was three hundred and sixty-odd thousand dollars. What they have done since, I do not know. I know they pay in a great deal. But up to that time, that is two years ago, when I did know something about it, they had paid in three hundred and sixty-odd thousand dollars of their own stock subscribed by the company.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Then it would be much cheaper if there were an equity here, a demand on our justice, to refund this $360,000 or $500,000, if that be the amount these gentlemen have now really advanced, and let the Government take the railroad for a Government military one, to carry supplies out to the Kansas Indians and the troops, than it would be to authorize the building of two hundred miles more, and giving $2,500,000 for that. If the business of that country, in the State of Kansas -for Senators must bear in mind the road is there and nowhere else-is not enough to war. rant the building of a line of railroad where this line of railroad wants to go, then it appears to me that it is rather an unwise business for Congress to undertake to prop it up by subsidizing it. The theory of these subsidies is that Congress has a second mortgage on the

property for the amount of the subsidy, and that therefore the road-inasmuch as the company may make a first mortgage for the same amount-ought when done to be worth double the amount of the subsidy; and if the road will not pay expenses when built, if it will not pay a profit on its stock when built in the interest of its stockholders in the State of Kansas, how can we be asked to furnish subsidies for building it? The theory upon which we have furnished subsidies so far has been that we were aiding in the construction of a line of immense magnitude, which was to bind the distant parts of the country together; and as such that theory was probably sustainable. But here, without undertaking to stop any of the lines we authorized to build westward for this connection, it is proposed to add one more branch from the one hundredth meridian, entirely in the State of Kansas, subject to the laws of Kansas, existing under the laws of Kansas.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator may not be aware that if this road is built any further it will be built in the State of Nebraska, and not in Kansas; it is now up to the Kansas line.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It goes into Nebraska. I do not see that that helps it. If this line of road in the States of Nebraska and Kansas, going out to the main line, in addition to the lines already existing, will not pay, if it is not worth anything, why is it that we are asked to put up our money in aid of its construction? It is not a national line, if it does go into both of these States; it is not a Pacific line; it is a local line, to which we were induced to give a subsidy for one hundred miles in the first place under the condition that we should never be called upon to give any more; and now it comes forward and says that, because we extended to the 1st of December, 1866, the time of this other line to file its designation of route and its plat of survey, there has thereby been committed an outrage upon the company, in the language of the chairman of the committee, that we are bound to make good with $2,500,000

more.

As I said, Mr. President-and I do not want to take any more time about this matter-I began to investigate this case, listening to the accounts of its friends, who are gentlemen of respectability; and I do not blame them for getting the money if they can. I began it with a sincere desire, because they were persons introduced to me by friends of mine, to help them if I could justly and conscientiously; but the more I studied, the more I looked at it in one aspect and another, listening to the very accounts that those who urge it proceed upon, the more I am convinced that it has no ground of equity or law or justice upon which they have a right to claim it. If they can satisfy the Senate that great public considerations, such as induced these other subsidies, should lead to our aiding in the finishing of this line, that is one thing; but all I have said upon it depends upon the claim upon which it is made to rest by the chairman of the committee as merely a remedy which we are bound to apply for the outrage that we committed two years ago, when, if we committed any outrage at all, we did it with the eyes of the company y -wide open, in the presence of its president here assenting to it without any protest.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, I am very much gratified that the Senator from Vermont has informed the Senate that this is a subject that can be comprehended by a person who is not a lawyer. I therefore have some hope of presenting a statement of the case so clearly that those who, like myself, make no great pretensions to knowledge of the law, may comprehend it.

to the law of 1862, which provided that a railroad and certain branches should be constructed, forming a through aud connected line of uniform gauge from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean. This law provided that this work should be constructed by four distinct companies; one chartered by the law itself, called the Union Pacific Railroad Company. That was charged with constructing the line from the one hundredth meridian to the eastern boundary of California, and eastward from the one hundredth meridian to some point on the western border of Iowa. Another company, the California Central Railroad Company, Í think it was styled, was charged with constructing that part of the line lying between the Pacific coast and the eastern border of California. A company now known as the Union Pacific railroad, eastern division, was charged with building that part of the work lying between the mouth of the Kansas river at Kansas City, on the western border of Missouri, up the valley of the Kansas river, in a northwestern direction, and up the valley of the Republican river, being a branch of the Kansas, to the one hundredth meridian, the starting point of the main-trunk line. And still another company was charged with constructing that part of this work lying between the town of Atchison, on the Missouri river, and the valley of the Republican river, supposed to be about one hundred miles in length, and so named and limited in the law.

Now, I desire to read the exact text of the law of 1862, in order that we may comprehend the character of the work thereby authorized and the difficulties that immediately arose in carrying into effect the provisions of this law. The first clause I will read is in section nine:

"And said railroad through Kansas shall be so located between the mouth of the Kansas river, as aforesaid, and the aforesaid point on the one hundredth meridian of longitude, that the several railroads from Missouri and Iowa, herein authorized to connect with the same, can make connection within the limits prescribed in this act, provided the same can be done without deviating from the general direction of the whole line to the Pacific coast.'

I will read in this connection from the twelfth section of the act of 1862:

"The whole line of said railroad and branches and telegraph shall be operated and used for all purposes of communication, travel, and transportation, so far as the public and Government are concerned, as one connected and continuous line."

It is also provided that

"The route in Kansas west of the meridian of Fort Riley, to the aforesaid point on the one hundredth meridian of longitude, to be subject to the approval of the President of the United States, and to be determined by him on actual survey."

It will be observed that it was the intention of Congress in passing this law that this road and branches should be operated as one through line. The law says that the road and its branches shall be operated as one connected, continuous line from the Missouri river to the Pacific coast; it provides that these branches shall be so located as to enable each of them to make a connection within the limits specified; and in order that one of these companies should not defraud or obstruct another company in the location of its road, so as to derive advantages from this connection, the final power to locate was put in the President of the United States, and he was authorized, if necessary, to do this on an actual survey of these lines. I am admonished by my friend from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] that this law is mandatory; the President is required to do it.

It was the intention, therefore, as it seems to me beyond all cavil and doubt, that each of these branches and the trunk line should be so built as to connect and be operated together as one road. Another provision in the law requires that the gauge shall be uniform of the main line and the branches from the Missouri river to the Pacific coast. Now for the dif

Mr. President, in the first place let us refer

shall pass over the points of difficulty except that which seems to me to be directly pertinent to the question raised here in the Senate. The seventeenth section of this law provided

"That if said roads are not completed, so as to form a continuous line of railroad, ready for use,

from the Missouri river to the navigable waters of the Sacramento river, in California, by the 1st day of July, 1876, the whole of all said railroads before mentioned and to be constructed under the provisions of this act, together with all their furniture, fixtures, rolling stock, machine-shops, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and property of every kind and character, shall be forfeited to and be taken possession of by the United States."

Here are four distinct companies authorized to build some parts of this work; it is required to be completed within a given time; and if each branch and the whole road shall not be completed and operated within the time limited the whole of the property of each and all the companies is to be forfeited to the United States. Under that law these companies did just so much as was necessary for them to claim that rights attached; but as the Senator from Vermont has very properly stated, neither of these companies invested much money. They did just so little as was practicable in order to secure the right to construct the road, and came to Congress pointing out this difficulty, among others, that if one of these four companies should be in default at the end of the time named, although each of the other companies might complete its part of its work, yet the companies not in default, as well the company in default, would forfeit all the money they had invested. They asked Congress to remedy this defect, to remove this barrier. They told us that they could not induce capitalists to invest money in this way, placing it beyond the control of the company in which the capital was to be invested. The Committee on the Pacific Railroad attempted to cure this among other defects which it is not necessary for me to refer to on this occasion, by providing first that each and all of these companies might consolidate, and in that way become one company, so that the interests of all should be merged in one organization, and in that way, if possible, obviate this difficulty.

But as they supposed Congress had not the power to compel these companies to thus consolidate, they provided that if any of these companies should not thus consolidate, and if any one of them should fail to build that part of the work assigned to it within the time named, any other company building its part of the work within the time specified might proceed to build that part which the firstnamed company had failed to construct.

Senators will perceive that the whole purpose of this section, section sixteen of the act of 1864, was to enable any one of these companies, should it be a single company, to go on and build this work if each and all the other three should fail. The only question is whether Congress did thus provide. They intended to do so; and if Senators will read that section of the law of 1864 I think they will find that it is clearly provided that any company not being in default, after having constructed its part of the road, may proceed to build any part of the line which any other company may have failed to build.

This is as the law stood in 1866. It is manifest, it seems to me, that if the act of 1866 had not been passed, there would have been no necessity for this bill, If the Eastern Division Railroad Company had on its own motion diverted from the line of the Repub. lican river, there could be no doubt in the case. I may observe here that that was the line on which they had located their route. They had filed their plat in the Department of the Interior showing the line of the road. So had the Atchison and Pike's Peak Company and the Union Pacific Railroad Company's branch line to the western border of Iowa. These maps had been filed, showing the lines of these branches, had become a part of the record, and each company had been investing its money with a view to form the connections at the general points indicated.

The Eastern Division Railroad Company concluded that it would be to their interest to change the route of their road from the Republican to the valley of the Smoky Hill river, and they applied to the Interior Department for that purpose. The question of their right

to relocate their line so as to build the road in another direction, breaking up the connections that had been formed under the previous action of the other companies, was referred to the Attorney General, and he held, as I think very properly, that the company had not the right then to change its location; the time had passed when it had the legal right to do so. Hence if the law of 1866 had not been passed, and the Eastern Division Railroad Company had failed to build that part of the line between the western terminus of the Atchison line and the one hundredth meridian, as it seems to me no Senator will contend that this company would not have had the right, after completing its one hundred miles, to take up the work at the end of that hundred miles and secure its connection at the one hundredth meridian or east thereof.

The only objection urged against this, if I understand my honorable friend from Vermont, was that in the law of 1862 there is a provision that this Atchison Railroad Company should in no event receive lands and subsidy for more than one hundred miles. I confess I was surprised at the labored manner of the delay on this clause of section thirteen of the law of 1862. That section provides, first, that the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company may build a road from St. Joseph, by way of Atchison, toward the valley of the Republican river for the distance of one hundred miles next west of the Missouri river, and grants lands and subsidy for that distance. Then a proviso is added:

desirable, the said company may construct their road, "Provided, That if actual survey shall render it with the consent of the Kansas Legislature, on the most direct and practicable route west from St. Joseph, Missouri, so as to connect and unite with the road leading from the western boundary of Iowa at any point east of the one hundredth meridian of west longtitude, or with the main trunk road at said point; but in no event shall lands or bonds be given to said company, as herein directed, to aid in the construction of their said road for a greater distance than one hundred miles."

It will be seen that here is a grant made which is put in the alternative. The company may build one hundred miles of road west to the Missouri river, from Atchison westward, or they may, if the Legislature of Kansas will permit it, build the road directly west from St. Joseph, but even in that case they shall only have lands and subsidy for one hundred miles; they shall have no more lands and no more bonds if they shall adopt the latter named line than if they adopt and build on the first-named line. That is all, as it seems to me, there is in this section; and be it observed that is the law of 1862. It is claimed that under the law of 1862 this company could have built the line up the valley of the Republican river if the Eastern Division Railroad Company had failed. It was to cure that inability that the law of 1864 was enacted. That was one of the things complained of. The Atchison Company said, "We may build our road and the Eastern Division Company may not build theirs; we shall then be left with the western terminus of our road out on the prairie without any connection; the money we thus invest will become worthless; we desire to have some provision put in the law that will enable us by putting in more money to realize the proper returns from the construction of this road if the Eastern Division Company should fail;" and the law of 1864 was enacted to cure this defect and give them this right, and as I think no Senator will maintain that they would not have had that right unquestionably if the law of 1866 had not been enacted.

Mr. President, you must construe a law in connection with the facts as they exist at the time of the enactment of the law. At the time of the law of 1864 the line of the road of the Eastern Division Company had been located up the valley of the Kansas river and the valley of the Republican river, and within a very short distance of what turns out to be the end of one hundred miles from the town of Atchison, on the Missouri river, affording the Atchison road an opportunity to connect. The law

of 1862 provided that their final and definite location should be under the control of the President of the United States, and that he should provide that they should be so located as to secure this connection. Then the law of 1864 comes in and provides that if the Eastern Division Railroad Company shall not build that part of their line lying between the end of their road and the one hundredth meridian, the Atchinson and Pike's Peak Railroad Company may do so; that is, they may put in additional money, and in this way secure from loss their former investment.

The Senator from Vermont maintains, however, that under the law of 1864 this Union Pacific Railroad Company, eastern division, had the right to form its junction with the main trunk line at a point west of the one hundredth meridian; but he failed to notice the fact that the law of 1862 provides that the beginning of the trunk line shall be on the one hundredth meridian between the north border of the valley of the Platte and the south border of the valley of the Republican, and provides that the Eastern Division Railway Company's line shall be so located as to connect with the end of the line of the Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company.

After forming that connection, it would become impossible from topographical reasons, for them to fail to go in through this gate-way between the southern border of the valley of the Republican and the northern border of the valley of the Platte; and the intention of the committee, as I well remember it to have been, was to provide for the contingency of its being found inconvenient to bridge the Platte river on the one hundredth meridian, or east of it, so as to form this junction. It was supposed it might be found to their advantage to build a few miles westwård in order to obtain a better crossing of the river, either for the main-trunk line, if it should conclude to cross to the south side of that river, or if it should continue up on the north side it might be more convenient for the Eastern Division Company to build a few miles westward in order to secure a proper place for a bridge for a crossing at that very difficult stream, for every one acquainted with it knows it is one of the most difficult rivers to bridge perhaps in existence. So it was provided that they might do so, but in that case they should have no additional lands or bonds for that part of their line west of the one hundredth meridian.

Mr. President, these facts as they exist and the law, as it seems to me, perfectly harmonize with the construction I place upon the rights of this Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company, now known as the Central Branch Pacific Railroad Company. The Eastern Division Railroad Company did not disguise their pur pose; they came here with an open hand and open heart; they told the members of this committee plainly their purpose was not to form a connection with the main-trunk line, but to build off in a southwestern direction. They attempted to deceive nobody. They asked for just enough legislation to enable them to do this; and as the facts then existed and as the law then stood, all that was necessary to be done was for Congress to grant them the right to relocate their line. Previously it had been located within the proper connecting distance of the western terminus of the Atchison and Pike's Peak railroad. They got the right from Congress to relocate the line, and relocating the line they placed it where they told the committee they intended to place it. No Senator can be ignorant of the fact that they stated here openly and in the newspapers to everybody that they had found gold on the Smoky Hill river, and they thought the timber was more abundant; they thought had they secured a better line on which to construct their road.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask whether I understood him correctly on one point? Do I understand that this Eastern Division Company stated to the committee, at the time they applied for this change or for the law that was passed in 1866, that they did

not design to join the main trunk, but to locate in a different direction?

Mr. HARLAN. Perhaps I may have uttered it a little too strongly. They did not disguise it from me, and I think they did not from anybody. They published in the newspapers their reasons for desiring the change.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We never heard it stated in Congress when the bill was up that there was any such design.

Mr. HARLAN. The law itself provides that they may so locate their road as to form a connection fifty miles west of Denver?

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is a connection with the main trunk there. Now, the idea that they did not desire at that time to join the main trunk, but to go off south, is news to Congress.

Mr. HARLAN. It may be that they never said in words that that was not their purpose. I think it was their purpose then to build a branch road.

Mr. FESSENDEN. They either concealed it from the committee, or else the committee concealed it from Congress.

Mr. HARLAN. I was not a member of Congress at that time. I do not wish anybody else to be held responsible for any utterance of mine; I only state the facts as they came to my knowledge, giving my source of information; and if any one will read the law of 1866, in connection with a knowledge of the topography of the country, he must know that it was the intention not to unite with the main trunk line ever.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What, then, is that language put in the law requiring a connec tion at a point not over fifty miles beyond Denver?

Mr. HARLAN. A distance of fifty miles west of Denver puts it west of the Rocky mountains, and anybody acquainted with the topography of the country must know that they never intended to build a branch road two thirds of the way across the western half of this continent for the purpose of uniting with the trunk line Pacific railroad. It was not a doubtful question to me at least, that the purpose was from the beginning to build to Sauta Fé, and cross down into New Mexico and Arizona-a work by the way, I think, far more important to them and to the country than to build a mere branch road to the city of Denver, or uniting with the Pacific railroad west of that point. It would be a reflection on their own sagacity and their own common sense to suppose that they ever intended to build this main line so as to become a mere branch to the Union Pacific railroad proper. I do not see how it is possible that any man of ordinary intelligence could have been misled by the character of the bill. But, then, if any one had examined the law carefully, he would have seen, as it seems to me, that if Congress authorized this company to change the location of its road so as to break up the connection formed with it by the other companies, they thereby defeated the object of the law of 1864, for that was to enable each one of these companies to invest its money safely, so that it should not be under the necessity of losing all the money it had put into the construction of any part of this work if another company failed, but might, by adding thereto, make the whole investment profitable.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Why can they not connect now?

Mr. HARLAN. It would cost the United States probably just as much to enable them to connect with this Santa Fé road as with the other; but their purpose never was to go to Santa Fé. Their purpose is that indicated in the laws of 1862 and 1864, to build a branch of the Union Pacific railway directly across the continent to San Francisco.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Suppose this act of 1866 really tells the truth, as we thought it did when we passed it, that the eastern division was going to Denver, or some place near Denver, what is the practical difficulty in the line you are speaking for connecting with it now?

Mr. HARLAN. I suppose it would require about the same length of road to form a proper connection with that line which would be necessary to form a connection with the main line.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How far is it from the end of the one hundred miles to Fort Riley? Mr. HARLAN. I do not remember. Mr. RAMSEY. About one hundred and fifty miles.

Mr. HARLAN. If it is one hundred and fifty miles, it is the same distance provided for in the pending bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friend from Minnesota, who lives about as far off Fort Riley as I do, will look at the map I think he will find it is about four hundred and fifty miles.

Mr. RAMSEY. I only live four or five hundred miles from it, and the Senator lives as many thousands.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How far would it be directly west in the line of this present road before it would hit the route of the eastern division but for the act of 1866?

Mr. HARLAN. I suppose it would not hit it this side of China. The eastern division road diverges off southwest.

Mr. EDMUNDS. "But for the act of 1866," I said.

Mr. HARLAN. I remarked during the Senator's absence from his seat, that an examination of the map would show that it was practicable to form the connection in one hundred miles.

Mr. EDMUNDS. built it one hundred miles under the act of 1864. Now, projecting it from there west, how far would you have to go before you hit the eastern division if it had been located under the act of 1864?

But you say you have

Mr. HARLAN. Not an inch; because the law, as I read from the text itself, provides that the President shall so locate these lines of road as to form a connection within the distance specified, and authorizes him to employ the necessary engineer force in order to obtain information.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you understand that that means that the distance specified is within one hundred miles, or east of the one hundredth meridian?

Mr. HARLAN. The "distance specified" between what points?

Mr. EDMUNDS. East of the one hundredth meridian. The statute does not mean that the connection is to be formed within the one hundred miles, but that they are to have a subsidy for one hundred miles and form a connection east of the meridian of longitude specified, the one hundredth meridian. Ithink my friend will come to that opinion himself if he will look at the statute.

Mr. HARLAN. No, Mr. President, the Senator is as much in error as he was when he contradicted me when I attempted to correct him while he was on the floor.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Just about. I agree with you as to that.

Mr. HARLAN. I have read the text of the law itself. I will read it again:

"Said railroad through Kansas shall be so located between the mouth of the Kansas river, as aforesaid, and the aforesaid point on the one hundredth ineridian of longitude".

That is, the eastern division road shall be so located

"that the several railroads from Missouri and Iowa, herein authorized to connect with the same, can make connection within the limits prescribed in this act, provided the same can be done without deviation from the general direction of the whole line to the Pacific coast."

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does my friend understand that to mean that all those roads have got to connect within one hundred miles, or inside of the one hundredth meridian?

Mr. HARLAN. No, sir; and the question itself indicates the want of information of the Senator. Another clause in this law provides that a branch railroad, which I have referred to before, may be built from Sioux City so as to form a connection with the main trunk line at the one hundredth meridian or east thereof.

Then

The law of 1864 provides that the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company may build a branch railway from the mouth of the Platte river westward, so as to form a connection with one or the other of these lines. another clause of the law of 1862 provides that a branch road may be built from the city of Leavenworth to the town of Lawrence; but on that line there are no lands or bonds given as subsidy, and there are no bonds given on the Burlington branch road.

Here, then, are six branch roads: one going up the valley of the Kansas river, now known as the Eastern Division Railroad Company; one from the city of Leavenworth to Lawrence; the Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company; the Burlington line; the Omaha line, and the Sioux City line. Subsidies in bonds, however, were to be given conditionally to the Sioux City line, and positively only to three of these branches, what is now known as the Omaha branch, the branch west from Atchison, and the branch up the Kansas river. So the Senator will see that I am not wrong, and he is. The law was intended to enable the President to control each of the companies so as to bring their several branch roads in connection with the main trunk line or with each other within the limits named.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to ask my friend again whether he understands by the language he read that all these roads which he speaks of are to have connection within one hundred miles, or whether the word "limits" means within the limits of the one hundredth meridian?

Mr. HARLAN. It cannot mean anything else than that this Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company shall have this connection within one hundred miles, and that the other branch roads shall have their connection with the main trunk at the one hundredth meridian, or with some one of the branch lines at a point east of the one hundredth meridian.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How can my friend maintain that construction when the very same word is applied to all of them, and the very language of the act is that all these roads shall have an opportunity to connect with the eastern division within the limits named. Must you not apply the word "limits" to all of them alike? Can he say that as to one of them it means inside the one hundredth meridian, and as to others it means within one hundred miles?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes, sir; because as to one of them the exact number of miles is named in the law, and as to the others the exact distance is left to subsequent survey, which will result from the topography of the country and the interests of construction.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will my friend be kind enough to read that part of it which relates to the one hundred miles?

Mr. HARLAN. I have read it. Mr. EDMUNDS. Does it speak of anything only a subsidy of one hundred miles?

Mr. HARLAN. That is all; that a subsidy should be granted for only one hundred miles. I am sorry my friend did not listen to that part of my remarks.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does not the charter of the Atchison and Pike's Peak railroad, now called the central branch, provide for building a road from Atchison to Pike's Peak across the whole State of Kansas?

Mr. HARLAN. That may be so. The Senator is doubtless quite as well informed on that subject as I am. The charter received by this company from the State of Kansas may authorize them to build a road to Pike's Peak, which means, I think, Denver.

Mr. EDMUNDS. If when that act was passed this company was authorized to build across the whole State of Kansas, and the law said it should have a subsidy for only one hundred miles, how does the Senator reason it out that the word "limits" there, when applied to where it shall make the connection, refers to the subsidy and not to the distance provided by the charter?

Mr. HARLAN. It seems to me the answer