is very plain; they have the right under the law of the United States to build one hundred miles

Mr. EDMUNDS. They have a right to the subsidy, not a right to build at all.

Mr. HARLAN. They may have additional and other rights under the law of Kansas. It is not material to the solution of this question whether they have or not.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Does my friend maintain that Congress gives the Atchison and Pike's Peak road authority to build anywhere in the State of Kansas, or does the act of Congress only say that if they do build they shall have a subsidy for one hundred miles?

Mr. HARLAN. The exact location of the line of their road may be controlled by the charter that they derive from the Legislature of Kansas; but that does not affect the question now pending. We confer on this and other companies certain rights. We have an object in it. We desire a through line. We desire that each of these branches shall form a connection with the main trunk line for the purpose of carrying the freights of the United States; and we provide that if they do not form this connection, do not build a road so that the main road and the branches can be worked as one continuous line they shall forfeit all the money they invested. In the face of that fact the Senator comes here and asks if it was the intention of Congress to control the location of the line of that road.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir. I asked the Senator if he supposed that Congress under took to grant any authority to build a road in the State of Kansas, or if Congress only undertook to aid a road which, under the authority of Kansas, should be built.

The

Mr. HARLAN. I must be supposed by the Senator to be duller than I think myself. I will not enter into the constitutional question whether the United States can charter a railroad company within the limits of a State. I have heard very learned arguments on that subject upon this floor, but I have never participated in them for obvious reasons. Senator himself may be quite competent to argue that question, but it is not pertinent to the issue now before the Senate. The question is what did Congress intend by the law of 1864? Did Congress intend to enable this company to invest its money safely? It could not do so without being provided with a connection with the main trunk line, or the line of the Eastern Division Company, and to give them that right of connection the sixteenth section of the law of 1864 was enacted.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, if my friend will permit me to interrupt him for a moment, I wish to remind him that I did not open to him a constitutional question. I merely inquired of him as to the purport of the act of Congress, whether we undertook to confer on this company authority to take private property and build a road; or whether, taking up the company as we found it already authorized by the law of Kansas to build a road, we provided that we would give it a subsidy in case it should make a certain connection. Then I wish to ask him whether, alluding to the word "limits" in the law, this connection could not be just as well made if the eastern division went up the valley of the Republican by extending this road more than one hundred miles until it should strike that road, as well as to have this road bend so far to the east that it should strike it exactly at the point of one hundred miles? That is what I wish to get at.

Mr. HARLAN. If the Senator will turn his attention to the seventeenth section of the act of 1862 he will ascertain what the purpose of the act of 1864 was in this respect, as I read during, I think, his absence from his seat. It is provided that if this main trunk line and branches are not built within the time specified so as to form a connected line, they are to forfeit all the money they invest.

Mr. EDMUNDS. All the rights the United States gives them; not the State rights, I take it.

Mr. HARLAN. That may be so as a question of law; I shall not attempt to solve that question. The fact is here on the face of the law, if the Senator will turn his attention to it, that the law of 1864 was enacted to enable these companies to safely invest their money to avoid that necessary forfeiture growing out of the default of one of the other companies over which they had no control. It cannot be contended, it seems to me, by any fair-minded man that that was not the intention of the law, if he will examine the seventeenth section of the act of 1862 and compare it with the sixteenth section of the act of 1862. That being the intention of the law, then the practical question arises whether the facts that now exist justify this company in claiming the right to form that connection. Had the act of 1866 never been passed, and had the Eastern Division Railroad Company failed to build on that line, they unquestionably would have had that right, to save the money previously invested in the one hundred miles of road, by making an additional investment in the construction of the remaining part so as to secure a connec tion with the main trunk line. Then if under the act of 1866 they are deprived of this right, they are deprived of it by the act of Congress, which, so far as they are concerned, is equiv alent to the act of God, for they have no power to control the act of this body except through the influence of reason.

Mr. President, if this were a question arising between great and powerful nations instead of the Atchison and Pike's Peak Railroad Company, composed of a few private citizens and the United States, if it were the Government of France or England or Russia, whose equitable or legal rights were being trifled with, a Power capable of vindicating its rights, of coercing nations that should attempt to trample upon them, would anybody for a moment hesitate to come to the conclusion that Congress would grant them what was intended by the law of 1864? But here are a few private citi zens who happen to have a few thousand dollars in money, and the Government can take these rights from them if it chooses. They have no means of redress, as I suppose. They do not choose to attempt the use of any other means of redress than the power of reason and appeal to conscience, and hence they are here.

in point of fact, the eastern banch was first located through Kansas?

Mr. HARLAN. I am unable to answer that question.

Mr. HOWARD. I can answer the question. Mr. HARLAN. I shall be obliged to the Senator from Michigan if he will give the information.

Mr. HOWARD. By looking at the report of the committee in this case it will be seen that the map of the eastern division was filed in June, 1865.

Mr. HOWE. Now, I wish to ask whether that line was not, when it was first located, located up the valley of the Kansas and the Republican Fork to the one hundredth meridian?

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. And that would not 'enable the central branch to connect with it within one hundred miles, would it?

Mr. HARLAN. That renders it necessary to make an explanation. The law of 1862 provides that the company shall indicate the general route of their road, subject to a final location growing out of the necessities of the topography of the country, as the facts may be developed by engineering. This Eastern Division Railroad Company located the general line of its road up the valley of the Kansas and the Republican branch of the Kansas river to the one hundreth meridian. The final and definite location grows out of specific surveys, grows out of engineering estimates, and was never made; and it is that final and definite location that is put under the control of the President, and he is authorized, as the Senator will see from reading the law, to do it after actual survey, not by drawing a line across a map indicating the general location as it would be indicated by the land surveys, but that he shall do it by actual survey and shall then do it so as to enable these companies to connect within the respective limits.

Mr. President, the last point I propose to speak upon is a reply to some observations submitted some time since by the honorable Senator from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] when this question was pending before. He, doubtless honestly, believes that if this company had equitable rights, judged by the construction of the law, they had not judged by the existing facts, for he recited that under this law they were entitled to alternate sections of public lands on each side of the road within a limit of ten miles; and I think he figured up the amount of lands that they would thus derive, and also informed the Senate that they had purchased part of an Indian reservation, amount

They say: "Under the law of 1864 we have invested our money in good faith; you promised us a connection with the eastern division railroad; you directed the President to so locate that line as to secure this connection, and on failure on their part to build their line you then authorized us to build up the valley of the Republican river to the one hundredth meriding to some hundreds of thousands of acres, ian, and thus secure a connection and save our investment from loss. We should have had that right but for the subsequent legislation, the legislation of 1866." If they have not the legal right to build the road under the law as it stands, it is in consequence of the act of 1866, in consequence of the act of this Government, the act of Congress, over which these private citizens had no control; and they are here, as it seems to me, very properly asking that their rights may be preserved, or at least that their equities may be considered. If they have no legal rights, construing the law technically as my honorable friend does, they surely have equitable claims. In justice you are bound to give them the opportunity to make additional investments and secure the property that otherwise would become perhaps a total

loss.

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him for an explanation on one point?

Mr. HARLAN. With great pleasure. Mr. HOWE. I understand him to insist that the law required the President to locate the line of the eastern branch Pacific railroad so that this central branch could connect with it within one hundred miles of Atchison. I understand him to say that that is the law. Mr. HARLAN. I think that is the effect of it.

Mr. HOWE. I wish to understand when,

which was supposed to be of great value, and then that they had raised from the United States $1,600,000 in Government bonds, and that under the law they had authority to issue their own bonds as the road progressed to an equal amount, making $3,200,000 in bonds. Hence, to sum up, this company own $3,200,000 of bonds, a vast amount of lands, being the alternate sections on each side of the road, and two or three hundred thousand acres growing out of a purchase from some Indian tribe, and that they are therefore vastly wealthy; or as we should style it on the frontier, they have "a good thing" as it is, and they need no relief.

Well, Mr. President, in point of fact it turns out that they do not derive a large quantity of land as alternate sections. I believe the whole quantity is about two hundred and thirty thou sand acres, and the amount that they would have derived under the law of 1862 has been largely diminished by a clause in the law of 1864 providing that the location of certain college scrip made by the friends of some of our New England Senators here should not be interfered with by the location of the lands granted to this road; that is, that the locations made intermediate between 1862 and 1864 should remain valid. In this way the company lost a large amount of land that otherwise they would have possessed under the law of 1862.

But it is said that they own $3,200,000 in bonds. How much are they worth? The bonds of the Government are not granted to the company; they are loaned to the company, The company is bound to pay the interest on these bonds semi-annually from year to year, and when matured to pay the principal. How much are their bonds worth? They issue their promises to pay to the amount of $1,600,000. Who pays these bonds? The company will pay the interest on them as it matures, and the principal when the bonds mature. That is to say the company are in debt $3,200,000, and that is figured up here as evidence of vast wealth held by this company. Why, Mr. President, suppose these bonds were all in the pocket of my friend from New York, and he held them in his pocket until they matured, the interest must be paid by him each six months from year to year, and when the bonds mature he must pay the principal, of what value are they to him? I never knew that it enriched a man to give his promise to pay bearing interest.

If he holds his own note against himself, of what value is it to him? It is valueless; and most men when they acquire possession of their own paper obligating them to pay money, destroy it as soon as they have the legal right to do so. How is it if they receive the paper of another party, and are bound when they receive that paper to pay interest on it, and to pay the principal when it is due? It is no better than their own paper. In the end the company must pay this $3,200,000, if it has ever been issued; but the chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad read from a paper just now, which I believe he received from the Secretary of the Treasury within a few days, showing that they have drawn but about six hundred thousand dollars, I think, of Government bonds.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is a mistake. This company have got their whole $1,600,000, or else I am very much at fault.

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator from Michigan can furnish the exact information, I apprehend.

Mr. HOWARD. I will read from a communication dated "Treasury Department, June 15, 1868," a "statement showing the amount of United States bonds issued to the several Pacific railroad companies; the amount of accrued interest thereon to date, and the amount paid by the said companies under the fifth section of the act of July 2, 1862," and among the items is issued to the Atchison and Pike's Peak railroad," which is the old name of this corporation, "$640,000" of United States bonds, and the interest accrued upon them is $67,661 74.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now give us a statement of the amount of bonds issued to the "Central Branch Union Pacific railroad," the new name of this corporation.

Mr. HOWARD. It is the same corporation

under a new name.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I know it; but what I wish to get at is whether that statement covers all bonds issued to this company under all names, or only covers the bonds issued under its old name.

Mr. HOWARD. It goes by this name. This is the same corporation.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I know; but since those bonds were issued, its name has been changed to Central Branch Union Pacific," its present name. My friend from Michigan will find, unless I am very much mistaken, that in order to accomodate this company-it was perfectly right that it should be done-when its name was changed, all the bonds issued afterward were issued under its new name.

Mr. HOWARD. I think not. This communication was sent to me in answer to a resolution passed by the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, asking for specific information as to the whole amount of Government bonds issued to the Union Pacific Railroad Company and each and all its branches, with a statement of the interest accrued upon the bonds thus issued,

and the interest repaid to the Government. I have not by me at this moment the letter which I addressed to the Department, but I will read the letter of the Secretary, dated June 15, 1868:

"SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, relative to the amount of bonds issued to the several Pacific railroad companies, the accrued interest thereon, and the amount repaid to the United States by said companies. In reply, I herewith inclose a statement

giving the information required."

The fact of the change of name is perfectly notorious.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, this is immaterial, for if they have not, as I suppose they have not, drawn the whole of the bonds, they may draw them, for they have built the whole one hundred miles, and, therefore, are entitled to them. I only mention it incidentally as a passing fact. They may draw the whole of them, and they may issue an equal amount of their own bonds; but of what value are they? They give the company credit for the time being, and that is all. The United States, therefore, has merely loaned to this company the $1,600,000 of bonds, and the company accepting the provisions of the laws of 1862 and 1864, is bound to pay every dollar of it when matured; so that instead of being capital on hand, it is a debt owed. Now, to ascertain how much the company is worth as a corporation, I apprehend you would assess the value of their lands, the value of their road-bed, their rolling-stock, and their equipment, and deduct therefrom the amount of their debts; then deduct at least the $3,200,000 which they owe in bonds, one half of it to the United States, and the other half to private holders.

Mr. HOWARD. I beg to make a correction in reference to the statement which I read before. The whole amount of bonds issued to this corporation is $1,600,000, and they were issued to the corporation under different

names.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend will permit me to say that his own statement shows it is just as I stated before. Six hundred and forty thousand dollars of bonds were issued under the name of the Atchison and Pike's Peak railroad, and the balance, nearly a million, under the new name, Central Branch Union Pacific.

Mr. HARLAN. I am very glad to be accurate, and I am obliged to Senators for correcting me as to this fact; but, as I before observed, it makes no difference; for if they had not received these bonds they had a right to draw them under the law; but drawing these bonds, they merely obligate themselves to pay them when they become due. It is an advantage to the company in this way, the credit of the United States in the money markets of the world is better than the credit of a company, and therefore to hold the paper of the United States with authority to negotiate it enables them to raise money when perhaps otherwise they would not be able to do so on terms so good.

thus expose what I deem a logical fallacy in the use of its effect.

Mr. CONKLING. As the Senator is addressing this argument for my benefit especially, will he allow me to make an inquiry? Mr. HARLAN. Certainly.

Mr. CONKLING. The argument is conclusive, I think, and that I may understand the full force of it, I wish to ask the Senator whether it proves this: that the larger subsidies a road receives the poorer it becomes in respect of being the more in debt; so that the Union Pacific road having received, as this statement shows, an enormous subsidy, is the most unfortunate, the most largely indebted, and comes the nearest to being insolvent of any corporation that we know anything about.

Mr. HARLAN. Why, certainly, Mr. President, it is so if their property is not worth an amount proportionately great, just as if the Senator should pay $100 for a horse that was worth but fifty dollars; if he went in debt fifty dollars and bought the horse he would be in a less ruinous condition financially than if he went in debt $100 for the same horse; but if he bought a horse worth double the former with his $100, I suppose his financial condition would not be changed; and so with these roads.

Mr. CONKLING. So that to complete the statement, if I may understand it, if the road receives from the Government lands and the right to mortgage those lands to the amout of $16,000, which is a first lien upon them, and then receives in addition to that $16,000 more in the credit and obligation of the Government, it is poor by reason of that fact. The Government having created the basis of its own mortgage, and allowed the company to make the incumbrance upon that the primary lien, and then donated them $16,000 a mile besides, which goes, and properly goes, into the statement of the public debt which the Government owes, because they have done that, and then had an understanding with the company that the Government is to be indemnified against the interest, and they are to provide for the paper in the end, they become poor by the operation! If that is what the Senator means, I confess I cannot comprehend him.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, I do not mean any such thing, and never said any such thing, and nothing that I have said can properly be tortured into any such thing.

The Senator says, "if the United States grants land to the company." Why, sir, he knows as well as every other Senator that the grant of land is absolute. If the company build the road they get a title in fee to the land; and I never said, and did not intend to be understood as saying, that the more land you granted to a company the poorer it becomes; nor did I ever say that the more bonds the company borrowed the poorer it would become if they were properly invested. I said it would be an advantage to the company to hold the bonds of the United States, if it was necessary for them to borrow money, because the credit of the United States is worth more in the market, or is supposed to be, than the credit of any one of these companies. Holding the bonds of the United States to negotiate, they could borrow money on better terms, and consequently could build the road at a cheaper rate, and their franchise on that account would be the more valuable.

It may not be to the interest of the company to make these naked statements of fact; but it may and probably is necessary to make them in order that we may arrive at their true condition in a financial point of view; and as that was supposed to be material by the Senator from New York, I have felt it to be proper to

But when this work shall have been commatured, and when the company comes to foot up its assets and liabilities, I ask the Senator to tell me if it will not be compelled to deduct from its assets the bonds as one part of its liabilities. To be sure, if it should break up, if it should become insolvent and not be able to pay its debts, then the Government could not collect the bonds. But suppose the money is invested properly, and the road is worth al that it costs, and these stockholders put in a part of the money out of their own pockets; they sell the land for money and put that in, negotiate their bonds and Government bonds

and risk their money in the road, then in order to ascertain the wealth of the company you must put down the value of the road completed with the rolling stock and equipment, and deduct from that value the liabilities, and these bonds are a class of those liabilities, must be paid by the company, and, in the end, after the road shall have been completed, the more they owe, whether to the Government or to private parties, the worse they will be off as a matter of course.

Mr. CRAGIN. Will the Senator allow me to suggest a question?

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly.

Mr. CRAGIN. It is whether the wealth of this company and its ability to pay its bonds to the Government and to individuals does not depend largely upon whether it is enabled to make connection with the main trunk, and thereby make its property valuable and be enabled to do business?

Mr. HARLAN. Certainly, Mr. President, that is obvious to every one. If it would be to the advantage of the company itself, it would be to the interest of the holders of the company's bonds and the holders of the United States bonds or the parties issuing the United States bonds. If the company's property would be worth more per cent. after investing more money and forming this connection, then the probabilites would be increased that the Government would lose nothing in the end.

Mr. President, I am sorry to have detained the Senate so long in attempting to present my understanding of this question. I would not have done so had it not been for my failure to apprehend the force and pertinency of much that was said by the Senator from Ver

mont.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, when this bill was first discussed this session my opinion and prejudices were both against it; but I was requested to examine the law, and I thought it was but just that I should do so. I have examined it as well as I have had the time to do; and the more I have examined, the more I have heard it discussed, the more my first impressions have been staggered. I will not say that I have yet to come to a definite conclusion that I must vote for the bill, but I am very strongly inclined in that direction, and I will express the views I now entertain about it, crude as they may be.

In the first place, I cannot avoid this consideration as one of policy, that this company now holds or is entitled to receive upon the construction of one hundred miles $1,000,000 of the bonds of the United States. The safety of this Government in its loan of credit to this company will depend upon the value of the work.

The road has now a terminus upon the Missouri river and one out in the wilderness. Having such termini, any Senator can see that its work cannot be of any great value. It must have some connection; as every Senator knows, the value of a railroad depends upon its connections. To make the road a security sufficient and ample for the advance made by the Government, for its $1,600,000 advance, some value must be given to it by securing to it another terminus. We all know that the security is not now. I think it is proper for me to consider that in my decision upon the bill.

It is also, I think, proper for me to consider, as a representative from Indiana, that the southern part of that State and its great railroad enterprises are interested in the southern branch of the Pacific railroad. If our only connection with this road is by Chicago, then we have to go, in order to reach it, from the latitude of Indianapolis, one hundred miles, while if we have a road constructed from Atchison so as to connect on the one hundredth meridian with the great road, then we are almost on a parallel. Our main roads through Indiana running westward would connect with the roads in the latitude of St. Louis, and thus give us connection with this road and a connection with the great Pacific road without taking a circuit of one hundred miles to

the north to reach the Omaha branch. So that it is proper, as a representative of the State of Indiana, that I should consider that fact, which I regard as important.

If I had been a member of Congress in 1862 I have no thought that I should have voted for the Pacific railroad plan. When I was in the House of Representatives, ten or twelve years ago, I expressed my views upon the subject. I thought there ought to be one main road running from St. Louis to San Francisco, a central road for the Union, and let private enterprise make the other connections.

But

I find this plan upon the statute-book, and it is only for me now to inquire what are the legal propositions growing out of the law.

First, it is apparent that this was intended to be an entire system, the main road from the one hundredth meridian westward to the eastern line of California, with a branch from the mouth of the Kansas river to connect at the one hundredth degree of longitude, with a branch from Atchison to connect with that road. And this was an entire enterprise, one entire road, although constructed by different companies. It was regarded as an entire work, so that if any one of the companies should fail in the construction of its road the entire work should be forfeited. If it was a system and a plan surely it was intended that there should be connections; surely it was not intended that this particular road running westward from Atchison should be a part of the Pacific railroad plan and yet have no connections with that road.

Such, in my judgment, is the fair construc tion of the legislation of 1862. And what is the express provision upon the subject? It is that the road from the mouth of the Kansas river shall be extended to connect with the great road at the one hundredth meridian; and there is one feature of that provision to which I wish to call the attention of Senators. The location of the whole of that road was not left to the discretion and judgment of the company, but when you get out to a certain point it is then placed under the control of the President of the United States, and I believe that in that respect this particular road is different from any other portion of the Pacific railroad plan. The route in Kansas west of the meridian at 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." I ask Senators why that provision in regard to that particular part of the routent in the law. Is it not that the President of the United States shall protect this Atchison brauch in its connection? because the provision I have just read follows what I will now read:

"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."

What do these provisions amount to? That the road from the mouth of the Kansas river to the one hundredth degree shall be so located that the road from Atchison, running westward, may make a connection with it, and to make that entirely secure and not to leave it to the discretion and judgment of the company, the President of the United States shall control it upon actual survey. Is it not very plain that it was the purpose of the act of 1862 to secure to this Atchison road a suitable connection at a point supposed to be about one hundred miles west from Atchison?

Mr. HOWE. I wish the Senator would point out where he finds the evidence in that act, the act of 1862, that the Atchison road was to connect with what we now know as the eastern division road at all, anywhere. What evidence is found in the act of 1862 that it was intended that the Atchison branch should connect with the Kansas city branch?

Mr. HENDRICKS. It was not absolutely

80.

The Atchison branch had a discretion to connect with the Omaha line, but that was left to the judgment of the company itself. Now, I will read to the Senate what I think is the provision of the law and give to it the construction that I think is proper:

"That the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company of Missouri may extend its roads from St. Joseph, via Atchison, to connect and unite with the road through Kansas."

That is the eastern division, as the Senator calls it. This Hannibal and St. Joseph company may connect it with the road through Kansas. The road through Kansas is the one that had one terminus at the mouth of the Kansas river and the other at the one hun dredth meridian of longitude. I will read this again:

"That the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company of Missouri may extend its roads from St. Joseph via Atchison, to connect and unite with the road through Kansas, upon filing its assent to the provisions of this act, upon the same terms and conditions in all respects, for one hundred miles in length next to the Missouri river, as are provided in this act for the construction of the railroad and tele

graph line first mentioned, and may for this purpose use any railroad charter which has been or may be

granted by the Legislature of Kansas."

Now, I will ask the Senator from Wisconsin to give his attention to the language that is here used. The Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company may extend its road; not may make a departure in a south western direction, so as to connect with the Atchison road, if it should take a southwestern direction, but it is authorized to extend its road. The Hannibal and St. Joseph road is an eastern and western road, running almost upon a parallel of latitude. An extension of that road would be a western road. Then we have this provis ion that the Hannibal and St. Joseph road may be extended from Atchison until it shall connect with the road running through Kansas. Where shall it connect? At such point as an extension will intersect the Kansas road. Taking the thirteenth section of the act of 1862, in connection with the provisions of the ninth section of the act of 1862, and it amounts to this: the Hannibal and St. Joseph road may be extended westward from Atchison until it shall connect with the road running through Kansas, and in order to secure that result the road running through Kansas from the mouth of the Kansas river to the one hundredth degree of longitude shall be so located as to allow that connection; and, to make that entirely clear, the President of the United States shall have the control of that part of it from Fort Riley to the one hundredth meridian, and he shall decide upon it after actual survey.

Mr. HOWE. Now, I wish to ask the Senator from Indiana, as I am not familiar with the geography of that country, if the President should undertake to locate the line west of the meridian of Fort Riley, so as to enable the Atchison branch to connect with it within one hundred miles of Atchison, if he would not have to deflect considerably east of that meridian?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not understand the question.

Mr. HOWE. The question is this: if the President had undertaken to locate the Kansas branch from a point west of the meridian of Fort Riley, in such a way as to enable the Atchison branch to connect with it, and to connect within one hundred miles from Atchison, would not that location have been necessarily deflected very much to the east ; in other words, is not Fort Riley west of a point one hundred miles from Atchison?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I cannot answer that question, for I have never measured it, nor never observed the measurement made by any body else. The Senator from Kansas, looking to the map, says that it would not be much more than fifty miles from Atchison to a line running north and south from Fort Riley.

Mr. HOWE. Fort Riley is near the junction of the Republican and Smoky Hill Forks,

is it not?

Mr. HENDERSON. No, sir.

Mr. HOWE. How far is it from there? Mr. HENDERSON. You are asking for the junction of the Republican with the Smoky Hill?

Mr. HOWE. I am asking how far Fort Riley is from the junction of those two rivers. Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is at the junction. Mr. HOWE. Do I understand Senators to say that the junction of these rivers is not one hundred miles west from Atchison?

Mr. POMEROY. It is not one hundred miles west from Atchison in a straight line.

Mr. HOWE. I will ask the Senator from Kansas to have this geographical question settled: have not the one hundred miles of road been already built from Atchison, and is not the western terminus of that road in the valley of the Blue river?

Mr. POMEROY. A little beyond, fourteen miles beyond.

Mr. HOWE. I ask the Senator if the valley of the Blue river is not east of the Republican Fork?

Mr. POMEROY. Not east of the mouth of the Republican Fork where Fort Riley is. Mr. HOWE. But it is east of the Republican Fork?

Mr. POMEROY. It is.

Mr. HOWE. East of the Republican Fork; so that the one hundred miles have been built from Atchison and have not reached the meridian of Fort Riley.

Mr. POMEROY. The mouth of the Republican at Fort Riley is much east of the valley of the Republican on the meridian of Atchison; one hundred miles out from Atchison does not reach the Republican valley, although it reaches the meridian of Fort Riley, because the Republican river comes in from the southwest. Although one hundred miles does reach the meridian of Fort Riley and goes beyond it, yet it does not reach the Republican valley on that meridian. That is the state of the case. Mr. HENDRICKS. The question suggested by the Senator from Wisconsin is one whether the plan adopted in 1862 was practicable or That I cannot answer.

not.

Mr. HOWE. That was not my question. Mr. HENDRICKS. It is certain it was the intention of Congress that the road from the mouth of the Kansas river running in a north western direction should be so located as that the Atchison branch might connect with it and might give some value to it. That is the legal proposition in the act of 1862; and to make that secure it is placed under the control of the President of the United States.

Mr. CONKLING. I should like to be informed upon this point: suppose that is the meaning of the law, that the eastern division was to be so built that the Atchison and Pike's Peak road could connect with it within one hundred miles; will the Senator explain to me why it was that the Atchison and Pike's Peak road ran so far to the north that no matter where the eastern division ran, they could not connect within one hundred miles? Why did they not go down in a direction toward Pike's Peak, which would have taken them to a connection with the eastern division where the eastern division now lies on the ground?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will call the attention of the Senator from New York to the language of the thirteenth section of the act of 1862, to which I called the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin a few minutes ago. The provision in regard to this road that is now claiming protection at our hands is, that it may be an extension of the Hannibal and St. Joseph road; and that language, I understand to mean, in its ordinary and proper construction, an extension in the same direction, and the Hannibal and St. Joseph road being a road running from the east to the west, this branch is a road running from the east to the west.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, let me inquire of my honorable friend if he does not know that the very thing this road did was to run almost at right angles to the Hannibal and St. Joseph road, right down the river to Atchison?

Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly; and that is

not an obscure question, for the language of the law I read shows how that is: "The Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company may extend its roads from St. Joseph via Atchison;" and that required that departure from a western line. That departure is provided for in the section itself. Then an extension of a road ordinarily would mean a continuance of it in the same general direction.

Mr. CONKLING. Certainly, the Senator and I agree now; but I beg of him to enlighten me on this point: why was it, having run down to Atchison, and it being a road to run then in a general westwardly direction, that they pointed it so far north that one hundred miles would not bring it in connection with this eastern division, whereas if they had gone towards Pike's Peak they would have effected their junction east of Fort Riley, in which event it would have been wholly immaterial to them whether the eastern division went up the Republican Fork or down the Smoky Hill. I cannot understand why it is that they picked out the particular location which, in any event, within one hundred miles prevented their gaining a connection.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator, before I answer his question, allow me to ask him

one?

Mr. CONKLING. Certainly.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Why is it that in regard

to so much of this Kansas road as is northwest of Fort Riley, the location of it is placed under the control of the President of the United States-and that is the only part of the railroad system provided for in that law that is placed under his control-what was the purpose of taking it from under the control of the company and placing it under the control of the President of the United States?

Mr. CONKLING. I am not sure that I understand the application of the question which the Senator puts to me. He says what was the object in intrusting to the President of the United States the ultimate approval of the location or the ultimate fixing of the location. Is that the point?

Mr. HENDRICKS. That is the point. Mr. CONKLING. I do not see what possible application that has to this case.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I will try and answer it myself.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not understand the scope or drift of it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Inasmuch as the law

provided that there should be a connection, and it was a very important thing, and the pre cise point could not be fixed, therefore it was provided that the point where it would be likely to take place should be under the control of the President, and that that part of the road should be so located as to allow this connection. The very fact that that part of the road is placed under the control of the President of the United States in its location is evidence that Congress expected the connection should take place at some point northwest of Fort Riley.

Mr. CONKLING. So that we are to understand, then, that if the road, in place of lying where it does, pointed two or three degrees further north, in which event there would have been a gap of one hundred and fifty miles before it could have touched this other road, then there is an equity which would oblige us to go on and bridge that span? Would not that follow from the same reasoning?

Now, that I see the point of the Senator, I beg to answer the question which he put before. I suppose the purpose was to give to the President a certain supervision of the location-not that the President was to cause a survey to be made, but that these parties in interest were to cause surveys to be made, the ultimate approval of which, fixing the route, was committed to the President of the United States. They went on and surveyed this route, and being in general feasible, he approved that. But does the Senator mean to imply that if they had surveyed, deflecting a little further to the south, so that the terminus of their one hundred miles would have brought their road

in contact with the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western road, the President of the United States, under this same power, should not and would not have approved that? And if so, then practically the whole thing was committed, as we know it was, to the discretion of the parties who were doing the work. If they committed any very wild transgression the President, no doubt, would have interfered; and it was only to guard against that that the power was committed to him.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The power to control the location of the road from Atchison westward is not in the law given to the President of the United States; and why not? Because the interests of the company would compel that company to seek the best connection possible, not by running in a southwestern direction, and thereby increasing the distance to the common point of the great Pacific road, but by seeking a direct western connection, in the language of the law an extension of the Hannibal and St. Joseph railroad, a useful connection with the road running from the mouth of the Kansas river to the one hundredth degree of longitude.

Mr. CONKLING. Then they should have gone further north.

Mr. HENDRICKS. They might have desomewhat; but the use of the language in this parted, perhaps, from an exact western line law which you find here indicates a purpose on the part of Congress to establish a line westward from Atchison.

Now, Mr. President, the act of 1862, in its contemplates that this Atchison branch shall general scope and in its particular provisions have a suitable connection. To say otherwise would be to attribute great folly to Congress. That Congress should grant a subsidy of such dred miles westward into the wilderness and great magnitude to a road running one hunstop there is to accuse Congress of absolute stupidity. Congress intended this connection for useful purposes, not by running, as is suggested by the Senator from New York, in a southwestern direction, and thus increasing the distance to the common point at the one hundredth meridian of longitude, but by a western road to make a connection with this road which runs through Kansas.

The next question as a legal one is, does the act of 1864 change the law in this respect? I understand the Senator from Vermont to

base his argument upon the proviso to the ninth section of the act of 1864. I do not give the construction to that proviso which the Senator does. It is:

"That any company authorized by this act to construct its road and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the initial point aforesaid, may construct its road and telegraph line so as to connect with the Union Pacific railroad at any point westwardly of such initial point, in case such company shall deem such westward connection more practicable or desirable.

The Senator argues that that authorizes a general departure from the line contemplated in the act of 1862. I do not so regard it, What was this provision intended for? That if the company, when it came to locate this branch, should find that a connection exactly at the one hundredth meridian of longitude could not well be made, then they might make that connection somewhat to the westward; how far is not said; but to the westward, if necessary, leaving that discretion in the company-not a discretion to change its whole line; not a discretion to change the line so as to prevent and make impossible a connection of one of the other branches-but such a departure in regard to its northwestern terminus as might be indicated by the character of the country, the character of the river that they had to cross near there, or any other consideration that might control the judgment of the company. So, sir, I do not understand that the proviso to the ninth section of the act of 1864 has changed the law of 1862, but it leaves it as it was, that this Atchison branch shall have a proper connection.

Then we come to another provision, which

in my judgment is very important, in the act of 1864. The sixteenth section of that act, in the first place, provides that these companies may consolidate one after another until perhaps the whole enterprise shall be under the control of one company. That perhaps was contemplated in the sixteenth section of the act of 1864. Then it provides that if any two of these roads shall become consolidated and shall construct their roads, and some other road which forms a necessary link in the great work shall not be constructed, this consolidated company may construct such road and have the benefit of all the provisions of the law in favor of the company whose road it has thus constructed. That is found in this language:

"And in case, upon the completion of such consolidated organization of the roads or either of them, of the companies so consolidated, any other of the road or roads of either of the other companies authorized as aforesaid, (and forming, or intended or necessary to form a portion of a continuous line from each of the several points on the Missouri river, hereinbefore designated, to the Pacific coast,) shall not have constructed the number of miles of its said road within the time herein required, such consolidated organization is hereby authorized to continue the construction of its road and telegraph in the general direction and route upon which such incomplete or unconstructed road is herein before authorized to be built, until such continuation of the road of such consolidated organization shall reach the constructed road and telegraph of said other company, and at such point to connect and unite therewith."

And then it is provided that for the construction of this additional road the companies thus consolidated shall have the benefit of all subsidies. Further on it is provided:

"And in case any company authorized thereto shall not enter into such consolidated organization, such company, upon the completion of its road as herein before provided, shall be entitled to, and is hereby authorized, to continue and extend the same under the circumstances, and in accordance with the provisions of this section, and to have all the benefits thereof, as fully and completely as are herein provided touching such consolidated organization."

Taken altogether, that section means just this if any separate company, that being the company authorized to construct a road with which its road is to form a connection, shall fail to construct that road, this company may con. struct it in its stead, and in the construction of that part of the road shall have the benefit of the subsidies. It seems to me that that is the plain reading of the sixteenth section of the act of 1864. This is consistent with the general plan that these several roads shall form one system connecting several points upon the Missouri river with the Pacific coast. As I have said, I would not be in favor of such a system; but I find these provisions upon the statute-book.

I find that in 1864 Congress said to this Atchison road, "Construct your hundred miles; you shall have your subsidy; connect at that point, or any point near thereto, with the Kansas road, and thus have your connection with the main great Pacific road; and if this Kansas branch is not built so as to give you the connection with the great Pacific road, you may continue your road from the hundred miles northwestwardly until you make the connection yourselves, and in the construction of that part of the road you shall have the subsidies."

In my judgment, that is the construetion of the law, though I am not as confident in it as if I had had more time to examine it. Unless I hear some reason that shall disturb my judgment thus formed, I expect to vote for the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suppose it is hardly expected that we can get to a vote on this question to-night. I therefore move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. HOWARD. I believe that pensions are the subject of consideration for to-morrow; but I wish to say that I shall consider the bill which is now before us as the unfinished business on Monday, and shall call it up and see if we can get a vote upon it. I wish to have that understanding, if possible.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the motion to adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, June 19, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

QUARTERMASTER'S DEPARTMENT.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with the acts of April 20, 1808, and July 17, 1862, a statement of contracts made with the quartermaster's department during May, 1868; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

SUPPLY OF GAS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the president of the Washington GasLight Company, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House of the 17th instant, a statement relative to the amount of illuminating gas furnished the Government during the year ending June 30, 1866; which was referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is that which was pending at the adjournment last evening when the House had ordered the bill (H. R. No. 1100) to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate the carriage of passengers in steamships and other vessels, and for other purposes," to be engrossed and read a third time. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL] is entitled to the floor.

SAMUEL N. MILLER.

Mr. O'NEILL. I yield for a moment to my colleague, [Mr. MYERS.]

Mr. MYERS. I ask unanimous consent that Senate bill No. 454, for the relief of Samuel N. Miller, be taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on Patents.

Mr. ELIOT. Is it desired to have that bill acted on to-day? If not, I hope that we shall go to the Speaker's table and refer all the bills upon it after the morning hour.

The SPEAKER. The Committee on Patents is entitled to the morning hour to-day; and the Chair supposes that is the reason why the gentleman wishes the bill referred.

Mr. ELIOT. All right; let it go. There being no objection, the bill was taken ond time, and referred to the Committee on from the Speaker's table, read a first and sec

Patents.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, requesting the return of House joint resolution No. 44, relating to the sale of the marine hospital at Evansville, Indiana.

It further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill of the Senate No. 425, granting a pension to George Bennett.

It further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to Senate bill No. 377, to change the times of holding the district and circuit courts of the United States in the several districts in the State of Tennessee.

It further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to Senate bill No. 164, to provide for appeals from the Court of Claims, and for other purposes.

It announced in conclusion that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 1059, to relieve certain citizens of North Carolina of disabilities.

ADDITIONAL BOUNTIES.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill (H. R. No. 1279) in relation to additional bounties, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted.

Mr. UPSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted; and also

moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, subsequently said: There is a misunderstanding in relation to laying the motion to reconsider on the table, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be regarded as not agreed to. Let the bill be read, in order that it may be understood.

No objection being made, it was so ordered, and the bill was read at length. It provides that when a soldier's discharge states that he is discharged by reason of "expiration of term of service" he shall he held to have completed the full term of his enlistment and entitled to bounty accordingly.

The second section provides that the prohibition of bounty in the fourteenth section of the act of July 28, 1866, to any soldier who shall have bartered, sold, assigned, transferred, loaned, exchanged, or given away his final discharge papers or any interest in the bounty provided by this or any other act of Congress, shall not apply in cases where the full amount of bounty has been advanced by States, counties, or towns, to the soldiers or to their families.

Section three provides that the widow, minor children, or parents, in the order named, of any soldier who shall have died after being honorably discharged from the military service of the United States, shall be entitled to receive the additional bounty to which such soldier would be entitled if living, under the provisions of the twelfth and thirteenth sections of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government, for the year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes," approved July 28, 1866, and the said provisions of said act shall be so construed.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I now enter the motion to reconsider the reference of this bill.

ERIE AND ONTARIO SHIP-CANAL.

Mr. BANKS, by unanimous consent, presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, in relation to a shipcanal connecting Lakes Erie and Ontario; which was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and ordered to be printed.

JOHN II. OSLER.

Mr. BOYER moved that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of John H. Osler for relief, and that the same be referred to the Committee of Claims.

The motion was agreed to.

NEW YORK WAR CLAIMS.

Mr. KETCHAM, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill (H. R. No. 1278) providing for the appointment of a commission to examine and report upon certain claims of the State of New York; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

WILLIAM REYNOLDS.

Mr. KETCHAM moved that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of William Reynolds, asking to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in defending himself against unlawful arrest and prosecution as a deserter, and that the same be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to.