have to take possession of the island, let this amendment be adopted. Sir, in this way this little donation, this insignificant little affair may cost us several million dollars in case it becomes necessary for us to resume the pos session of the island. Is not that manifest to everybody? I do not expect that this amendment will prevail; but the thing is so plain that it cannot be avoided, nor can it be explained away. It is intended to be left in that position; this amendment is to be voted down; so that if we have to take possession of it, as this board of engineers say we ought to keep it in the first place, then we have got to pay this railroad company for their improvements. That is all there is of it.

Mr. CONNESS. No, Mr. President, I did not say, nor do I care whether it is voted up or voted down; but I protest and give notice to my friend from Indiana now, in all conscience and good nature, that he is not authorized to attribute to me language that I have not used, nor motives that do not exist in me; nor do I think it is right for him to denounce as iniquitous a measure that has been sustained and supported by a large majority of this body. I think that is going a little too far. I beg the honorable Senator's pardon for saying that much; but it so seems to me.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. MORTON and Mr. ANTHONY called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. HARLAN. I wish to say one word in relation to this amendment. I supposed when the Pacific railroad bill was enacted into a law in 1862, and when the Government undertook to grant lands and subsidies, supposed to be worth one or two hundred million dollars, that the nation had some interest in the construction of this work; but even at that time learned and able Senators on this floor placed

at once when they are taken possession of by the Government before any use whatever has accrued to the grantees. Would it not be very monstrous in that case to provide that, however early the taking possession might be, it should be without any sort of compensation, and without an application of the constitutional provision to which the Senator refers?

Mr. DAVIS. The remarks of the honorable Senator from Iowa induce me to believe that the interpretation given by the Senator from Indiana who last addressed the Senate on the subject is about right. This railroad company is asking for a great privilege, to make one of its termini upon this island, and to have the liberty to erect its necessary buildings upon it. It is entirely in the option of the Government to impose any conditions they may please upon this temporary use of this island by the railroad company. The conditions that this amend ment propose are not unreasonable. They are just; they are proper. Let them be distinctly named to the corporation; and if the corporation does not choose to accept the use of the island upon these conditions let them decline it. It is no great privilege to the Government to have the terminus of this railroad located and its buildings erected on this island. It is for the benefit of the corporation; and if the island should be required at any future time or in any future exigency of the country or the Government for the purposes of defense and fortification, let the company place the island just as they found it. It is not for the benefit of the country; it is for the benefit of the corporation that these various buildings, machineshops, depots, and everything of that kind are to be built. If they are not willing to accept the grant upon those terms for the temporary use of the island let them decline it, and let them hunt another location.

I say it is absurd, it is monstrous, it is impu dent for the company to ask the use of the island and to erect such buildings as it chooses and require the Government to pay millions, if you please, or whatever may be the sum of the cost of those buildings when they are to be removed. Sir, there is a sovereign right that the Government has to give or withhold the use of this island from this corporation. The idea that if this island is required at any future time for the necessary important military defense of San Francisco or of the country, the Government should be required, when ap

barriers and embarrassments around the bill which prevented any one of the four companies charged with the construction of this work from moving an inch for two years. I need not name now what they were. Every Senator who is conversant with that legislation probably will remember it as vividly as I do. And now, when it is proposed to give this railroad and the United States a terminus where produce and freight can be shipped and unshipped without the embarrassment of unnecessary taxation and unnecessary expense of handling,propriating the island to that use, to pay milable and honorable Senators here are disposed to embarrass it by clogging the bill with unusual provisions. Does not every Senator know that if private property is taken for the public use the Constitution provides that the owners shall be compensated therefor; and why should we place in a bill here a provision that these private individuals shall not be paid for the private property they place on the public lands, and in that way render it impracticable for the company to put the terminus of the road where the nation and the trading world demand that it should be put?

All that is granted here is merely the right to use the land on which to build their railroad track and railroad depots; and Senators want to place barriers in the way of proceeding to construct that work that will frighten men from building the work where it is needed by the nation and by the world. It does seem to me that if a majority of the Senate are not enemies to the construction of this work where it ought to be constructed, they ought not to place these unnecessary barriers in the way. We grant $480,000 a mile in bonds; that is, the use of them, the loan of them, to enable this company to build its road over the public land; we grant them the land, the right of way, and then grant them the right to condemn private property and pay for it at its appraised value.

Mr. CONKLING. I wish the Senator would allow me to make a suggestion? Beyond what he says of the inequity that strikes me as remarkable about this amendment is this: these erections may be made very expensive, as we know they are to be, and the time may come

lions and millions to this company for the pur pose of removing any structures that it may choose to build upon the island is impudent to the last degree. Instead of being unjust, it is liberal in the highest degree for the Government to extend to this company the use of this island, and to say to it, "When it is to be resumed by the Government for any purpose, it must be put back in the same position as when the company found it, without charging upon the Government a large sum of money to remove buildings that the company may put upon it. Unless this amendment or something equivalent to it is attached as a condition to this temporary use of the island by the corporation, I, for one, will vote against the bill.

Mr. HOWE. I feel called upon by the present aspect of the question to apologize to the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] for some remarks I made to him in the opening of this debate. I put the point to him rather strongly that this bill, as it stood, was simply a permission to this railway company to occupy our land there while we did not want it, with the right in us to take it back and use it ourselves when we did want it. I would not have said that to him if I did not think that it was what the bill meant. So it had been interpreted to me by an honorable Senator. Mr. CONNESS. That is precisely what it

meant.

Mr. HOWE. So I understood the Senator from California to say was the true meaning of it when I made the statement to the Senator from Indiana; and as such I was willing to vote for it; but

Mr. NYE. Let us see if we cannot get through with this bill. I want to know if this amendment prevents our removing the structures from off the island?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Not at all.

Mr. NYE. Then provide for that, that we may have the right to remove the structures, and I think there will be no objection to the amendment.

Mr. HOWE. That is perfectly fair. Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit me to say one word?

Mr. HOWE. Certainly.

Mr. CONNESS. I said, having charge of the bill here, feeling somewhat concerned in it, as I do, that I did not care whether this amend ment was voted up or voted down. The Senator, as he states the case, states precisely my understanding of it. If this bill were not to provide a great public convenience I should not be its advocate.

Mr. HOWE. With that understanding the Senator from Nevada says he is perfectly willing that the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. NYE. With the understanding that we can remove the structures at any time; that the Government shall not hold the structures, and not pay for them.

Mr. CONNESS and Mr. STEWART. Never mind that; let it go.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Several SENATORS. Withdraw the call. Mr. CONNESS. I did not call for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The call for the yeas and nays can be withdrawn by unanimous consent. The Chair hears no objection.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. COLE. At the suggestion of two or three Senators I offer an amendment to insert as an additional proviso the following:

And provided further. That this act shall not impair the rights or claims of persons in possession of the Island of Yerba Buena at the time of the late military occupation thereof.

The objection, it seems, to a provision similar to this, which was discussed a few minutes ago, was to that which was added to it. This is a provision very nearly the same as that which is contained in all the Pacific railroad bills. I think there can be no objection to this.

Mr. CONNESS. I have not the slighest objection to it. I had objection to the other provision connected with it.

Mr. COLE. I incorporated in the former amendment a provision in reference to the laws of California, because, as I then stated, the laws of California provide an easy way by which rights of this character can be ascer tained and determined.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate, as amended, and the amendments were curred in.

con

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the vote is taken I wish to make just one remark. It is now proposed to pass this bill without information as to the extent of this island, as to its value, as to its connection with the coast, with the statement of one of the California Senators, who lives in the city of San Francisco, that there is no difficulty on the part of this company in reaching deep water without occupying this island. In view of an adverse report by the Engineer Bureau of the War Department, when Congress is officially informed by the War Department that no such structures ought to be allowed upon the island, that the necessity of it for military purposes in making a proper defense of that great harbor on the Pacific coast forbids this use, we propose to give to this rich corporation an island of immense value; of

what value the Senate is not now informed, but of great value: because I say that this occupancy, so far as it shall extend, amounts to a gift. In the face of this report, in the face of the statement that an approach to deep water can be conveniently had by this company, and that there is no absolute necessity for this appropriation of the island in order that this company may enjoy its franchises already granted, we propose to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I think the Senate should hesitate before doing it. The most important harbor next to New York that we have, the most important island perhaps that we possess, the most important piece of ground owned by the Government, perhaps, is to be turned over to a corporation that has had given to it in bonds and in lands a greater gift, of larger value than perhaps has ever been given by any Government in the world-a corporation whose stock has now, as I understand, run up to a very large premium; and this is to be given in the face of the report of the War Department that it ought not to be done in view of the proper defense of a great harbor.

Mr. HOWARD. I regret that the honorable Senator from Indiana should take such a view as he does of the effect and operation of this bill. He speaks of it as a measure giving to a rich corporation this almost invaluable island, holding out to the world the idea that the com. pany are by virtue of this bill to have the whole of the island. Certainly, if the Senator has reed the bill, as I have no doubt he has, he can have drawn no such inference from its language. The direct contrary is true. They do not hold the title to the extent of a pepper-corn of this island.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I said so far as this island would become occupied under this bill, it was equivalent to a grant.

Mr. HOWARD. Very well; I am glad to hear that modification of the Senator's remarks.

Mr. HENDRICKS. It is no modification. It is just what I said before.

Mr. HOWARD. I certainly understood it in a different sense at the time the Senator was

addressing the Senate. The bill is, according to its terms and on its very face, a mere license to use such portion of this island as the proper military authorities may esteem unnecessary for military purposes in time of peace. Sir, is that giving away this important island? Is it making a large donation to a rich company? I will not characterize the remarks of the honorable Senator from Indiana, because I think him incapable of willfully and perversely misstating the contents and meaning of a bill which is before us for discussion. I therefore hope

we shall come to a vote.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 28, nays 8; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Drake, Fowler, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Williams, and Yates-28. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Edmunds, Hendricks, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Trumbull, Vickers, and Willey-S.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Norton, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle, Welch, and Wilson-22.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. CONNESS. I desire to correct a verbal error in the bill which has just been passed, so at to make sense of an amendment made on the motion of the honorable Senator from Maine. It now reads, "That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to authorize or grant any subsidy for any road built under this act, or to increase the subsidies in bonds accruing," &c. The object was to prevent a subsidy in bonds, and I desire to insert the words, "in bonds" after "subsidy."

Mr. EDMUNDS. How much land do they get by this?

40TII CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 231.

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution, which provides that the word "and," where it occurs in the act to which it is amendatory after the word "export" and before the words "actually contracted," be changed to "or," so that the corrected act shall read, "intended for export or actually contracted for.'

Mr. SUMNER. That was the original language o the bill, and it carries out the intention. I hope there will be no question about it. Mr. EDMUNDS. I object to its consider. ation.

Mr. SUMNER. I hope not. It is very important that this correction should take place. The bill has passed, and here is a mistake, and there are only sixty days within which these exportations can be made, and the time is running out now. I hope the Senator will withdraw his opposition.

Mr. COLE. I should like to hear the joint resolution read again.

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution. Mr. SUMNER. There can be no objection to it. It carries out the original idea of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made, it must go over.

Mr. EDMUNDS subsequently said. A little while ago I objected to the present consideration of a joint resolution to correct an act of a certain name. I am assured by the Senator from New York, [Mr. MORGAN,] who reported the original bill, that this correction is right. I do not see it in that light myself; but I defer to his superior judgment and withdraw the objection that I made to its present consideration.

Mr. SUMNER. I hope the joint resolution will be put on its passage.

By unanimous consent, the joint resolution was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The joint resolution was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BILL INTRODUCED.

Mr. JOHNSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 588) for the relief of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

ALEXANDER J. ATOCHA.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of yesterday is now before the Senate, being the bill (S. No. 488) to amend an act entitled "An act for the relief of Alexander J. Atocha," approved February 14, 1865. This is a private bill that was left unfinished last evening.

Mr. CONNESS. I move to lay that over, to postpone it.

Mr. CONKLING. That is not necessary. That bill is not the unfinished business.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I thought the Chair called up the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I suggest that that bill be passed over informally, and that we take up the appropriation bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be passed over informally if there be no objection. The Chair hears no objection.

EVENING SESSION FOR PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask the Senator from Maine to permit me to make a motion that the Senate take a recess at five o'clock until half past seven o'clock this evening.

Mr. ANTHONY. For what purpose? Mr. CONNESS. To consider private bills. Mr. FESSENDEN. There should be a specification of the purpose, for considering private bills.

Mr. CONNESS. That is the object. I have none at present myself, but I know other Senators have, and they are crowding us at all times, and we cannot get along with public bills of great consequence unless we get them out of the way.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If it is understood that nothing but private bills shall be considered, I do not know that I have any objection.

Mr. CONNESS. That will be the understanding.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to know whether the appropriation bill was the order of the day and the unfinished business?

Mr. CONNESS. I understand it to be now before the Senate.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If it was not, then I was exercised for two hours on that subject without any particular reason.

Mr. CONNESS. The motion now is that a recess be taken for the purpose of considering private bills this evening.

Mr. HOWE. A large number of private bills have been reported to-day from the Committee on Claims which will not be ready for consideration this evening.

Mr. CONNESS. There are others that may be considered, and then they will be out of your way.

Mr. HOWE. Very well; all right.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on taking a recess from five o'clock until half past seven o'clock to consider private bills.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN subsequently said: I move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate agreed to take a recess from five o'clock to half past seven this evening. It is entirely too hot to sit here to-night.

Mr. RAMSEY. The thermometer is now 87° in the Hall, and will probably be 90° before we get through.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to; and the question recurring on the motion for a recess, it was not agreed to.

CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Now, if the appropriation bill is not the order of the day, I suggest

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The appropriation bill will be taken up, if there be no objection, and the other bill postponed. The Chair hears no objection.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on. the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. PATTERSON,] which has been read and debated.

Mr. CONKLING. Let us have the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to have the amendment reported.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the amendment paying for lands in Maine and Massachusetts. It was discussed at length yesterday.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll, and Mr. ANTHONY answered to his name.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Idesire to know if that is the amendment relating to the claim of Maine and Massachusetts?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is the amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I had the floor assigned to me upon that question when the bill went over yesterday.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania had the floor when the Senate took a recess yesterday. If there be no objection, the Senator will proceed.

Mr. MORTON. I should like to hear the amendment reported.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to insert, as an additional section, the following:

And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of executing the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, concluded on the 9th day of August, 1842, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the State of Maine, for ninety-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-five acres of land assigned by said State to settlers under said article, a sum equal to $1 25 per acre; and to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for twenty-six thousand one hundred and fifty acres of land, a sum equal to $125 per acre: Provided, Before said sums are paid the States of Maine and Massachusetts shall agree with the United States that the settlers upon their public lands in the late disputed territory in Maine entitled to be quieted in their possessions, as ascertained by commission heretofore instituted by said States, shall have been or shall be quieted by a release of the title of the said States.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, this is a claim which has been before the Senate on several occasions, commencing, I think, in the Thirty-Fourth Congress. I will very briefly call the attention of the Senate to the history of this claim, or the leading points in it, and then I propose to submit an amendment.

On the 3d of March, 1857, Mr. Iverson, from the Committee on Claims, moved an amendment to an appropriation bill relating to this demand. That was ruled to be not in order, and was not entertained.

On the 14th of July, 1860, a similar amendment was moved by Mr. Simmons, from the Committee on Claims, to the bill making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1861. It was decided by the Senate not to be in order-yeas 22, || nays 26.

On the 25th of February, 1861, Mr. Simmons again moved the amendment to the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1862. It was again decided by the Senate not to be in order-yeas 16, nays 23.

On the 3d of March, 1863, a similar amendment was moved by Mr. DooLITTLE, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1864. It was determined in the negativeyeas 14, nays 24.

This is the history of this claim in the Senate, with the exception of two bills, to which I will now refer. On the 4th of March, 1864, Mr. DOOLITTLE, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill (S. No. 156) to carry into effect the fourth article of the treaty of Washington concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 9th of August, 1842. There was no action on that bill.

On the 11th of January, 1866, Mr. MORRILL introduced a bill (S. No. 68) to carry into effect the fourth article of the treaty of Washington concluded between Great Britain and the United States on the 9th of August, 1842; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported on the 13th of March, 1866, and passed the Senate on the 21st of March, the same month.

The present amendment is substantially similar to the former amendments to which I have

referred and the bills to which I have also made reference. It provides for the payment to the States of Maine and Massachusetts of the claims of settlers to lands on the disputed territory. I believe the amount of money to be paid, at the rate of $1 25 per acre, the Government price of public land, will amount to something like one hundred and forty or one hundred and sixty thousand dollars. The amount of land is a little over ninety thousand acres. By elaborate reports which have heretofore been made to the two Houses of Congress it appears that there are several claims held by the State of Maine, or preferred by her upon the attention of Congress, all connected with this treaty of Washington, and all of them, with a single exception, falling under the terms of the fourth article, or alleged to fall under the terms of that article. These claims have all been contested. They are now quite old, and in my judgment they deserve more of investigation than they can possibly receive when presented in the manner in which this claim is presented, as an amendment to a general appropriation bill.

But, sir, for the purpose of quieting all further controversy on the subject of these claims of the State of Maine, I would be willing to waive objection to the present appropriation if I could be perfectly secure against any further demand by that State, or by the State of Massachusetts, which formerly had jurisdiction over this country, and in behalf of whom there is some allegation of claim made. I propose, therefore, as an additional proviso to the amendment that which I send to the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment to the amendment will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

And provided further, That the appropriation hereby made shall be held to conclude and extinguish all asserted claims of said States of Maine and Massachusetts, and of all settlers, owners, and claimants against the United States under the fourth article of said treaty of Washington, or in relation to depredations upon the lands or territory mentioned in said article, or to interest upon expenditures incurred by the State of Maine in defending the same prior to the negotiation of said treaty.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I will state as briefly as I can the nature of the claims which are thus preferred as they are set forth in House report No. 119, Thirty-Eighth Congress, first session, a report made by Mr. John H. Rice, from the State of Maine, a very elaborate and interesting report, exposing in full all the demands made on behalf of his State. In the first place, there are demands made for depredations committed in this disputed territory between 1832 and 1839, at a time when the State of Maine did not assert her jurisdiction over the territory, as it is alleged, upon the request of the Government of the United States. British subjects came into the territory during those seven years and cut off a considerable quantity of timber from the lands. It is alleged that the loss was incurred by the owners of the lands because the State of Maine did not protect them, and that her default in protecting them was in consequence of a request made to the State authorities by the President of the United States. The amount of the damages so claimed on behalf of individuals is very large; it has never been ascertained; and the claim is now so old in date that no intelligent investigation of the subject can ever be had. But it is a claim gravely proposed in a congressional report, and as it relates to the same subjectmatter as this amendment I propose to conclude it and to avoid all discussion hereafter by naming it in the amendment which I have proposed.

Again, sir, the State of Maine, under another article of the treaty besides the fourth, was allowed her expenses incurred in attempting to defend her title to this disputed territory, Her account for outlays was, under an act of Congress, audited and settled at the Treasury Department, and she was paid the whole amount which she had expended. She was also under a special act of Congress paid all interest which she had paid upon loans to raise money to

meet those expenses; but she claims, or has claimed, that in the calculation of interest at the Treasury Department on her expenditure she was not allowed as much as she ought to have been. The accounting officers of the Treasury settled her accounts according to the usual rule, according to the legal rule upon which accounts were adjusted in that Department in the absence of particular directions from Congress. The State was paid the principal of all her expenditures, and was paid the amount of interest upon the loans which she had made in order to meet those expenditures, but she was not allowed interest upon the interest which she had paid, or upon the principal which she had paid, and she insists that the calculation shall be made according to the principle which obtains in the settlement of accounts between individuals; that is, that a payment to her shall be first applied to the interest, and afterward, if there be any balance, it shall be applied to the principal. Instead of that she was simply paid the amount of her expenditures as a principal sum and the amount of interest which she had paid on her loans as a principal sum also; and the accounting officers of the Treasury did not allow her aŭ additional amount which she would have received of the principle which obtains pretty generally, I believe, now in the settlement of private accounts had been adopted. That is also a claim of hers under the treaty of Washington.

I am disposed, therefore, in voting this very considerable amount of money in this somewhat irregular manner, overruling former decisions of the Senate upon the question of order, and taking this claim as valid without particular investigation or debate, to make sure at least that we are completely done with claims under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington and under any part of that treaty, so far as the State of Maine and the settlers upon her lands in this disputed territory are concerned.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Let the Senator confine his amendment to claims under the fourth article of the treaty. The amendment goes much further than the fourth article.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The amendment applies not only to matters that arise under the fourth article, but the claims of the State of Maine, which is founded upon a distinct article of the treaty. The Senator, I understand, desires me to exclude the latter clause.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask the Senator if he would be willing, as this claim is made under the fourth article of the treaty, to confine his amendment to all claims arising under the fourth article of the treaty?

Mr. BUCKALEW. If the Senator moves an amendment of that kind the Senate may decide the point.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The idea upon which the honorable Senator founds his amendment is one, I think, that it is hardly just to apply to any bill; and if he will just bring his mind to consider it for a moment, I think he cannot avoid coming to that conclusion; and that is, that if the State has a claim here to be considered upon its own merits the Senate are willing to allow that claim, provided the State will give up all other claims which it may have against the Government upon other grounds. I ask the Senator whether that is consistent with his idea of justice and right. I ask any Senator whether it is consistent with the idea of justice and right. We make here a specific claim arising under the fourth article of the treaty; the Senator's amendment is substantially, "We will pay that claim provided you will receive it in full of all claims arising not only under that fourth article, but under any other article of the treaty." Is that just as a principle?

The Senator says that considering how it comes up, that it is a matter here upon au appropriation bill, it is a sort of bargain. Sir, it is on an appropriation bill; but is there any want of time to consider it? When it has been brought forward heretofore it has been at a late period of the session, sometimes on the last

ing this territory was repaid to her; but she was not allowed interest upon that interest at the Treasury. Of course she could not obtain that under the act of Congress which was passed for her relief. What, then, is the nature of this claim for interest? It was not covered by the treaty of Washington; nothing was covered but the principal sum of her expenditures. She received them. Then she appealed to Congress, and a law was passed authorizing the payment to her of the amount of the interest which she had paid upon her loans, and that has been paid to her; every dollar of it. Now, what is the présent claim? That Congress, by another act or joint resolution, shall authorize the accounting officers of the Treasury to calculate interest upon the interest which she paid, shall take the principal sum and the interest originally paid into one account, and shall allow her an original amount of interest upon a particular mode of calculation, such as it is said was authorized in a former case of a claim by the State of Maryland a great while ago, the only precedent in our history which the researches of gentlemen have enabled them to bring forward as justifying such an allowance. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The same rule was applied in the case of Georgia.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I am alluding to the only one mentioned in this report. How much was the amount of that? In 1864 the amount was $211,547; the additional interest- desired by that State to June 1, 1864, was $211,547 48, to which would be added now the interest for four years more upon a principal sum of $130,792 22 making a present claim of over a quarter of a million dollars. Is not this a little remarkable? Here an outlay originally made by the State of Maine for her own interests in protecting her own territory, asserting her own title, vindicating her own boundary, not instigated by the Government of the United States, in fact incurred under discouragement from the State Department and the President, made on her own account, was generously refunded to her by the treaty of Washington; and afterward upon an appeal to Congress the interest which she had paid upon loans to make that unauthorized outlay-I mean unauthorized so far as the Government of the United States was concerned-was also paid to her; and yet here is a claim accumulating rapidly in amount and now swollen up to $250,000, or about that amount of interest as it would be calculated according to the statement in this report.

The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] says that I appear desirous to act otherwise than as a judge. I suppose the gentlemen who represent the State of Maine in the two Houses of Congress, on a question of this sort, are to be taken as representing their own State; representing it particularly; prepared to vindicate its interests, and, so far as possible, to make good the claim which has been preferred in its behalf. All that I am desirous of doing is to secure to the Government of the United States so much of security and of immunity against doubtful, contested, and State demands as I can, when this subject is brought before me and I am obliged to vote upon it. I did not bring it here. It is brought here by the State, and I regard the present amendment as a compromise. I am willing to take it in that point of view. Although I am not satisfied that these claims, made on behalf of the State of Maine, are good and valid, that we are bound in point point of law, in point of moral obligation, to pay them; yet, as it is a contested matter and as different opinions prevail, and as a generous course on the part of the Government in a case of dispute with one of the States is wisdom and policy in the main, I am agreed to compromise these several claims which have been pressed upon our attention by paying this large amount of money, provided this will make an end of it.

I am willing to do what a man in private business often does in his difficulties with his neighbors; where there are differences of opinion. Where there are matters of contest, the parties meet together and each side gives up

some of its pretensions, and getting to a common ground conclude all dispute and difficulty. That is for peace and good neighborship; and in the long run men who act in this manner are to be reckoned as wise and prudent in their day and generation. In that way I would act now in Congress. This State presenting these three or four claims through her representatives, through committees that have been inspired by her arguments and her reasoning, is now to be treated; and all the matters in dispute which are introduced here ought to be concluded at one time.

Now, what is the result? I might have gone over this record and shown several other bills that Congress has passed paying money on claims of Massachusetts and Maine. I paid several thousand dollars a few years ago to quiet two townships in Maine. There have been appropriations for war expenses of 1812 at different times by Congress. There has been no disposition to deal harshly or to deal unjustly with these States, and particularly the State of Maine. But what will be the result if you do not adopt this amendment of mine? The inevitable result will be that those interested in the State of Maine in these claims will continue to press them on the attention of their representatives, and we shall have bills hereafter introduced for their payment. The argument pressed upon one will be persisted in after perhaps repeated defeats. We see that claims grow stronger by the lapse of time. The very claim covered by the present amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire has been ruled out of order several times, and was rejected upon one occasion. The excuse is that it came up at the end of a session when there was no time to fully consider it. I think that objection applies here. This ought to be brought up by itself and voted upon by itself, and ought not to be put on an appropriation

bill.

What I desire is that we shall be done with this whole subject of claims from the State of Maine with reference to lands disputed about, and in regard to which the boundary treaty of 1842 was made, and that in paying this sum of money now we shall have in part consideration for it peace for the future, security against renewed demands, against future debates and the consumption of public time to the injury of the interests of the people and States. I should like a settlement. I am unwilling to vote this money on any other principle. Mr. FESSENDEN. All I want to say in reply to the Senator from Pennsylvania is that his whole argument goes to the extent it did before, and that is that he understands himself as making a compromise. I do not ask the Senator to make any compromise of a doubtful claim. I ask the Senate to pass a claim which is not doubtful in my judgment, and which has been reported favorably upon over and over and over again, so that I do not agree to his idea. He may vote so if he pleases, but the question is whether we are entitled to this particular specific claim, and the Senator's amendment that we shall not have it if we are entitled to it unless we give up all other claims that we may have not only arising under this treaty but outside of it, is not fair. They are terms not imposed on anybody. The Senator seems to talk as if he never heard of a claim being before Congress before, as if this were a new thing. Why, sir, they are here every day, of one sort and another. All I ask now is to confine the amendment of the Senator to the article under which we make the claim, the fourth article, and I hope the Senator will be willing to do that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY.) The Chair understands the Senator from Maine to propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania by striking out the words

Or in relation to depredations upon the lands or territory mentioned in said article, or to interest upon expenditures incurred by the State of Maine in defending the same prior to the negotiation of said treaty.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, sir.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not in order strictly, but if there be no objection the Chair will entertain the motion to strike out.

The motion to strike out was agreed to; there being, on a division-ayes 21, noes 9.

The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. BUCKALEW, as_modified, to add to the amendment of Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire, this proviso:

And provided further, That the appropriation hereby made shall be held to conclude and extinguish all asserted claims of said States of Maine and Massachusetts, and of all settlers, owners, and claimants against the United States under the fourth article of said treaty of Washington.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not see what right the State of Maine has to make any such agreement, or why it is just to conclude the claims private persons may have against the United

States.

Mr. SUMNER. I think the amendment is entirely out of place and had better be voted down, and let us come to a vote on the original proposition.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I can answer the proposition of the Senator from Maine. This claim is made on behalf of settlers, citizens of that State, under the treaty.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Not at all. It is not made on behalf of settlers, but simply made to enable the Government of the United States to give releases to certain settlers that they agreed to give releases to. Now, the Senator offers an amendment that if you give releases to these settlers, or enable the United States to do it, it shall be in full for all claims not only of the State of Maine under that article of the treaty, but of all private persons, whatever may be the nature of their claims. Those words ought to be stricken out, and if that were done I should have no objection to the proposition.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The Senator does not understand me. What I mean is that the State of Maine makes this demand in the interest of her settlers; she herself may make any adjustment she pleases with them; but at the same time as the claim is made on behalf of them, it is perfectly proper to conclude the whole subject. The claim is made under the fourth article of the treaty, and I understood from the Senator's former argument that he was willing to conclude the whole subject under that particular article.

Mr. FESSENDEN. So I am, so far as the State of Maine is concerned. Any claim that the State of Maine may have under the article I am perfectly willing to conclude; but if a private individual has a claim against the United States under that article or any other, I am not willing to conclude that; and it is not right to do it. Therefore, if the Senator will strike out these words I have no objection that the State of Maine shall be entirely concluded as to all her claims under the article. I move to strike out these words.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is not in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania to the amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. ANTHONY. On this question I have paired with the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. MORTON,] who was obliged to leave on account of sickness. I am in favor of the appropriation and he against it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have paired with the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON.] I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire and in favor of this amendment. I do not feel at liberty to vote for this amendment because I do not know which way the Senator from Maryland would vote if he were here.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 13, nays 22; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Chandler, Conkling, Davis, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, McCreery, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers-13.