blow, flung a handful of dust toward heaven attesting the avenging gods, and from this dust rose Marius Marius less great in having exterminated the Cimbri than in having quelled in Rome the aristocracy of the nobility."

There were never words more sublime in sentiment or more beautiful in rhetoric uttered in the classic age. Burke was never grander in the British Commons or our own Webster in the Senate. And, sir, mark the conclusionthe beauty of the prophecy and the purity of the philosophy: "Privileges," said Mirabeau, "must have an end-the people is eternal." The wisdom of that prophecy and philosophy is not unprofitable in this discussion.

And now, Mr. Speaker, without proposing to speak of the details of this bill, I must refer to it in general terms, as gentlemen on both sides have given all the data necessary for a proper conclusion. I have, sir, the most profound respect for the chairman of the committee on the judiciary for his learning, his integrity, and his patriotism, and yet I find in his bill, as expounded upon the one side and the other, that this land is to be taken from the people by artifice and not by fair dealing. Old charters are revived, life is given worn-out and fanciful grants, and with apparent attempt by indirection to revive a munificent grant of this government. There is running through the entire bill evidences of the want of title and covenant, surely things of interest to this people.

It was the intention of the American people to enjoy this rich heritage given to them by the States and held in trust by the federal government for so many years. If there be no doubt on this subject, the covenant of the government binds it. Let this question go to the courts, where my learned friend, the chairman of the judiciary committee, can be

heard and the legal and just rights of the parties can be fairly adjudged.

This is scarcely a question for a popular assembly. This is not the place to decide a question serious as the one under consideration. We perform our duty by maintaining that the grant has lapsed by the failure of the corporations to perform the covenant they made. This question can be settled by the calm deliberation of the courts provided by the constitution. When the court sits upon the question involving the rights of American freemen I trust, sir, the judges will put on ermine that will be spotless. And if the courts decide that the contract with the companies is of such character and requires this means for its fulfilment, I say the American people will bow in submission to the decision. I repeat, "Keep thy covenant;" but if the court should find that there is management and artifice and indirection in the attempt to acquire title to this land, then decree back to the people of this country the lands that belong to them.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of money invested in railroad corporations in the United States is upward of $7,000,000,000 and that does not include the land granted by Congress. In contrast to that the taxable property in the United States is something more than $17,000,000,000, not including the property free from taxation by this government and many of the States. Of the 200,000 miles of railroad in the world we have 120,000 in the United States; we are grid-ironed with railroads.

Who is sensible to the fact that they have advanced the national power and consequence and contributed to the ease and comfort and happiness of our people, united jarring interests, afforded facilities for the interchange of commodi

ties, promoted trade and commerce and the social intercourse of our people?

If the railroad system of the United States prior to 1860 had extended their lines to the south, instead of the west, on the isothermal lines, I doubt if we would ever have had that terrible and unhappy war in which so many of our people perished and which left so large a part of our rich country in poverty.

It is fortunate for this country that the vast amount of capital invested in railroads and the enormous wealth of the few men who own most of the capital stock cannot combine together and make common cause in the government of this country. The citizens who control the railroads of this country are generally enlightened men. They know too well the value of this government in the protection of their interests to attempt such a thing. If they should combine they could control this government and mold its destinies for the future. They could say who should sit in this chamber and in the august body at the other end of the Capitol, and what citizen should occupy the palatial residence at the other end of the avenue; and who should be upon the benches of the courts; and, if united, with their vast power they could say who should compose the court of last resort of the American citizen, a court that has power to interpret laws, a tribunal that in power and influence is to the individual American citizen next to his God.

Who would be the keeper of an insane asylum if the inmates could combine; who would undertake the task? But, sir, they cannot combine because reason is dethroned and the inmates madmen; nor can the railroad companies combine to dominate this country by their wealth, the num ber of people connected with them, or their power. Ambi

tion, rivalry stands in the way of their combination, and as yet there is a degree of patriotism which to an extent controls those in the management of the railroads and the vast capital invested in them.

But, sir, it might come in the future; and while it is scarcely proper to expect such a calamity, there is a time when it is fair to object to a combination such as is presented in this bill enriching railroads with lands which should be taken back and given to actual settlers under the beneficent legislation of our country to soldiers who so gallantly served it in its great peril.

Why, Mr. Speaker, the 200,000,000 acres given to corporations would make seven States like Pennsylvania, and the gift of this vast domain to railroads can scarcely be said to make your country strong. I read in a newspaper that a syndicate of a railroad corporation had in the West 10,000 acres of wheat. I presume that two hundred men could put the seed in the ground and reap and garner it with the modern machinery used in husbandry. Ten or fifteen men could watch and care for this great farm during the winter; but what becomes of those not so employed? Where do they Their homes are not there, nor can they settle upon lands. Thrown out of employment they must become what are known in this country as "tramps," and the man who would work for a living if he could get employment is remitted to the highway and to want. Under the ragged clothes of a man called a tramp there may beat a heart as faithful to the government as yours, and no man with proper feeling will refuse a crust of bread to hungry humanity thrown out of work and cast upon cold charity, even though he be called by the opprobrious name of tramp.

go?

I cannot but think it will be better for this country to be

in the hands of small land-owners, especially when as at present power is so centralized in this federal city, and when the jurisdiction of the courts of the national government has been so extended that the people scarcely find a settlement of their rights of property and person in the State courts. Why, sir, I can remember when the American citizen no more felt the power of the federal courts than the air he breathed. When money is centralized in the hands of a few, when a few men dominate and control the business of the country, I tremble, sir, for its liberties and wonder if monopolists shall be allowed to shape its future.

The authorized permit of the government, by statute, and arbitrary assumption if enlarged will, in time, absorb the States and their sovereignty, and the pernicious anti-republican and despotic espionage, under which internal revenue is collected, may be extended to all departments of the government.

Twenty-five million acres of land were recently purchased by foreign people in one body, it is said, by some reports, by fraud. I learned last September in California that an English and Scotch company had purchased a vast tract of the red timber land of that State likely to become of great value and not too much of it to monopolize. I know full well, Mr. Speaker, that if you divide the property of this country it could not remain divided. Every one who has a sense of justice in his soul but would look with horror upon the division of property as an act of communism and socialism. To divide would place the idle and the vicious on a level with the intelligent and industrious. From the former it would soon pass away and the balance would be restored. In addition, the absence of all laws of primogeniture is the surest protection against the accumulation of vast landed estates.