Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

As to the inequality which gentlemen complained of, it had its existence in the present law, and not in the proposed modification. The existing law made a residence of five years necessary for the alien who arrived here after its passage, and eight years for him who came among us after the enactment of the law of 1798. So far, therefore, from an inequality being introduced by this bill, it was thereby removed; and all aliens who arrived here since 1798 were placed upon a like footing. The law of 1798 made a residence of fourteen years necessary to citizenship, and a declaration by the alien of his intention to become a citizen five years before his admission. It cannot then be imputed to the alien as a neglect, that he had not declared his intention before the law of the last session passed, as only four years out of the fourteen years probation had elapsed, and nine were given him by the law to prepare himself for his mystical and regenerative process. Besides, a declaration before the period required by the law was an affair of hazard; it was a proscription which the alien made of himself, inasmuch as it announced his alienage to the Executive, and thereby exposed him to transportation under the alien law.

The spirit, nay the letter, of the law of the last session, was in favor of the present bill; for five years only was the probationary term; its first condition was more a matter of form than of substance. In every point of view, therefore, he thought the bill ought to pass.

The question of postponement was then taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the negative yeas 40, nays 42, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William Hoge, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Ebenezer Mattoon, Thos. Morris, James Mott, Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, of New York, Josiah Smith, John Stanley, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, George B. Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NATS-John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts,

John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, of Virginia, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. GRISWOLD said he moved to recommit the bill to a select committee for two reasons; the first was, because the bill repealed the fourth provision of the naturalization law, that required that every applicant should renounce his allegiance to all foreign Governments, and declare his determina7th CoN. 2d SES.-19

!

H. OF R.

tion to become a citizen. One great object of that provision was, that after the alien law shall have made this solemn declaration, it should be recorded in court. Thus he places himself under the eye of every citizen, as to his good behaviour; thus he calls upon the people to bear testimony to his good character, and that he is shortly to become a citizen of the United States. In this hasty manner this provision ought not to be repealed. If it is thought proper to repeal some of the other provisions, the declaration ought to be made for at least a month or a year preceding the admission to citizenship; but at the third reading of a bill it is impossible to amend it.

I have another view in this motion. In consequence of the suggestion of the gentleman from Kentucky, it is questionable whether there has not been some imposition on the House-whether the petitions laid on the table have not been forged. It is certainly very extraordinary that the same petition, with that first presented, (with the exclusion of the exceptionable paragraph,) should come forward, with so little delay, from a distance of three or four hundred miles. I wish the select committee, to whom the bill may be referred, to inquire whether this imposition will not warrant the House in not proceeding further, until they know the petitions are genuine. I therefore move that the bill be referred to a select committee, instructed to inquire whether the petitions were in fact subscribed by the persons therein named.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the question would be divided.

The SPEAKER, according to a rule of the House, first put the question on the committing the bill to a select committee, which was lost-ayes 38, noes 42.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on the passage of the bill, and decided in the negative-yeàs 37, nays 42, as follows:

Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. CaYEAS-John Archer, Theodorus Bailey, Richard bell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, James Holland, David Holmes, Geo. Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Thomas NewSouthard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John ton, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

ard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Sam'l W. Dana, NAYS-Willis Alston, John Bacon, James A. BayJohn Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William Hoge, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Ebenezer Mattoon, Thos. Morris, James Mott, Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, of New York, John Smith, of Virginia, Josiah Smith, John Stanley, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, George B. Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

!

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GRISWOLD wished to submit a motion which had grown out of the debate. He thought it proper that an inquiry should be instituted respecting the alteration of the petitions from certain aliens He therefore moved the appointment of a committee to inquire whether the petitions from sundry aliens were in fact subscribed by the persons therein named.

Mr. JACKSON hoped the House would not agree to take up this motion. As gentlemen appeared to have a wish to procrastinate, in order to frustrate a great deal of important business, necessary to be transacted, he hoped they would not be indulged. Mr. GRISWOLD called for the yeas and nays. Mr. NICHOLSON said the motion was extremely useless. He did not believe that a committee could make the inquiry in twelve months. How is it to be done? Is the committee to go to each individual named, or are they to call witnesses before them to prove his hand-writing? He believed this the wildest scheme that had ever been imagined. For his own part, he had examined the petitions: they appear to have been cut into two parts; the offensive parts have been cut out, and the names remain as at first. Whether the person who had done this was guilty of an offence, he could not say; but he would say the offence was pardonable, as he had done nothing more than strike out what was offensive to the House. it was impossible for any committee to make the inquiry, he hoped the resolution would not be taken up.

As

Mr. S. SMITH said, if he were called before the committee, he might find it a very difficult task to satisfy their inquiries. A certain petition had been presented to the House, which, on account of its language, they had refused to commit. About a week after, a similar memorial was brought to him, from Baltimore, with the offensive part cut out; and I, said Mr. S., presented it as I received it. I supposed the memorialists had themselves cut it out. I received another memorial containing the offensive language. I did not think it my duty to present this memorial. I wrote to Baltimore, and received authority from the memorialists to strike out the offensive language. I did so. Now, what do gentlemen want? Do they want to perplex the House in the transaction of the public business? If they do, I hope their views will be frustrated.

Mr. GRISWOLD.-The course pursued by the gentleman from Maryland was correct. If he was instructed by the petitioners to vary their petitions, he was undoubtedly authorized to do so. But I do not think the practice ought to be countenanced for members to vary petitions without special instruction, in order to make that palatable to the House which was not so when presented. Such a variation materially changes the petition, and though the same names may be preserved, they never can be considered as having been subscribed to the new petition. The taking a name from a letter and annexing it to a promisso ry note would not make the note legal-it would be a forgery. So, taking a name from an old and annexing it to a new petition, is also a forgery.

FEBRUARY, 1803.

My object is to inquire whether any such thing has been done in this case. I repeat it, that if all the petitions presented have been altered in the same way that has been stated by the gentleman from Maryland, the procedure is correct. But if a different course has been pursued-if the petitions have been changed without authority, it is a course of proceeding which this House ought not to countenance. I do not know that the facts can be had. It is probable, however, that what has been done has been done in this city; and, so far, facts will be within our reach. At any rate, no injury can arise from appointing a select com

mittee.

The SPEAKER said he had not till this moment attended to the new rule of the House that precluded all debate respecting the determining the priority of business.

Mr. SMILIE. Is it not proper, when gentlemen are implicated in the remarks already made, that they should have an opportunity to explain? Mr. S. was about to proceed, when

The SPEAKER called to order, and said there could be no debate on deciding whether the resolution should then be taken up.

On which, the question was taken without further debate, on taking up Mr. GRISWOLD's resolution, and decided in the negative—yeas 33, nays 49, as follows:

YEAS-James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, John Davenport, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Michael Leib, Ebenezer Mattoon, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, of Virginia, Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David Thomas, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

Theodorus Bailey, Robert Brown, William Butler, NAYS-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorf, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, John Fowler, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mctt, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., Israel Smith, John Smith, of New York, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

[It is here proper to add the remarks which fell from Messrs. SMILIE and LIEB on this subject on the 2d of March following.

Mr. SMILIE. The manner in which I have conducted myself as a member of this House is known to every gentleman. But if they should judge of my conduct by a paragraph which ap peared on Monday last in a paper published in this District, they would certainly conceive that I ought not to have a seat in this House. In order

FEBRUARY, 1803.

Military Land Warrants.

that the thing may be understood. I will read the paragraph to which I allude. [Here he read a paragraph which appeared in the Washington Federalist.]

H. of R.

An engrossed bill in addition to, and modification of certain propositions contained in an act for admitting the people of the Eastern division of the Northwestern Territory as a State into the Union, was read a third time, and passed-yeas 62. Mr. RANDOLPH defended the bill.

A bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1803 was read a third time, and passed.

bar of the House; and offering certain new propositions of compromise with the United States. Referred to a Committee of the Whole to whom was referred a bill for settling claims to lands north of Tennessee, and ordered to be printed.

As to all the speeches about my not being an American, I care nothing about it. I have never known that it was a crime not to be born in America. But after having been forty years in the country, I think it is too much to be called a foreigner. But, sir, to be charged with direct for- A letter was received from the claimants, and gery-a crime so disgraceful-is more than I de- their agents, of lands ceded by Georgia to the Uniserve. It is founded on the supposed circum-ted States, declining to appear by counsel at the stance of my having endeavored to introduce certain petitions to the House which had been refused, on account of some offensive expressions, and that I had been concerned in taking out those offensive parts. A little recollection will convince gentlemen that I had no concern with them. The first petitions that I presented from Chester county the House refused to act upon. When I presented the second petitions, I said, expressly, that they were similar to those presented before, and that I should move no order upon them. But, in order to put the matter beyond all doubt, here are the petitions themselves. I shall lay them on the table, and if any gentleman has doubts, he can satisfy himself that they have nothing to do with those which were altered. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) explained the matter to the satisfaction of the gentleman from Connec-quarter, Mr. Moultrie retired. ticut (Mr. GRISWOLD.)

I do not make this as a complaint to the House, but I mention it as an explanation of my own conduct.

Mr. LEIB.-The facts relating to the petition which I presented from Carlisle county are well known. The House refused to act upon them. Some time afterwards, I presented a number more, with the exceptionable passages taken out. The fact was this, sir: the petitions were sent to two gentlemen, then in the city of Washington, who had been appointed as a committee to act in behalf of these aliens. One was Mr. Clay, who has been elected as a representative to serve in the next Congress from Pennsylvania, the other was Mr. Duane. They took such order upon them as they thought proper. They were altered, and in this form I presented them to the House; and I felt myself authorized to do it. If any gentleman chooses to make an alteration in a petition which does not alter the prayer of it, to whom is he responsible? Is he responsible to the House or the person who has entrusted him as an agent to present it? In this case, would he be responsible to the House or the aliens who were concerned? But I did not take it on myself to do it myself, but took it to the authorized committee, who made the alterations.]

TUESDAY, February 22.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a report from the Secretaries of the Treasury and of War, and the Comptroller of the Treasury, respecting claims of Nova Scotia refugees. Referred to a select committee of three.

Mr. BAYARD offered a resolution altering the period of the sitting of the Supreme Court from the first Monday in February to the first Monday of August. Carried-yeas 38, nays 33. Referred to a select committee.

On motion of Mr. HUGER, leave was given to a description of claimants, other than those who had previously applied, to be heard in person or by counsel at the bar of the House this day.

When Mr. Moultrie appeared, as counsel of the said claimants, at the bar, about half-past one o'clock. After speaking about one hour and a

Mr. NICHOLSON moved the reference of the petition of Alexander Moultrie to the Committee of the Whole on the above subject.

MILITARY LAND WARRANTS.

The House took up the bill respecting military land warrants.

Mr. DAVIS hoped it would not be adopted without inquiring whether the land proposed to be given to General Lafayette was the same as was given to other Major Generals. It was true he had rendered services to the United States, for which they had made him an allowance. There were other claims, in his opinion of greater force, made day after day, without being attended to. If this provision were annexed to the bill he should vote against its passage; though, otherwise, he would be glad to vote for it. If General Lafayette was entitled to this land, he wished to see the business regularly conducted. We are now making provision for persons who have legal claims. It is right, therefore, to separate these subjects. Let us attend to one, first, and afterwards consider the other.

-

Mr. DAWSON. When, on yesterday, I had the honor to submit this amendment, I indulged the pleasing hope that it would have received not only the vote of this House, but would have met with the patronage of all-of all the friends of justice, and of those who remember past services; and that it would have been adopted without delay and without debate.

In this I have been wofully disappointed. My fond anticipation was immediately damped by a gentleman from New York, on whose friendship I did count, and do now expect; and the amend

[blocks in formation]

ment, instead of finding sympathizing advocates, has met with an unexpected opposition; instead of finding friends proud to reward past services, it has met with enemies, seeking for reasons to withhold justice.

Mr. Chairman, the search has been in vain; the grateful, the patriot mind will remember those services, while the reflection on a wish to withhold justice will be left as consolation to those who have made the search.

Sir, it was my wish, and it is my determination to support this amendment solely on the grounds of services rendered to us. Whatever may have been the conduct and the situation of General Lafayette since our Revolution, humanity may lament; but, sir, it belongs to us to pay this tribute to justice, if not to gratitude.

Sir, on yesterday, I stated what was known to every gentleman of this House, that this gentleman at an early period of life, animated by the love of liberty, left the pleasures of an enticing Court, encountered the danger of winds and waves, and entered into the service of a country known to him only by name, and endeared to him only by its devotion to that flame which he felt himself. In this service he continued until the end of our war, submitting to all the hardships and fatigues of the field; leading our armies to victory, and exposing himself to every danger; and this without any compensation, and at the sacrifice of the greater part of his private fortune.

I stated more-that that fortune is now much reduced; and this is what I do know. Yes, sir, I have spent two days with this adopted child of America on his little farm. I saw him surrounded by an amiable family, but not with wealth. I heard him pouring forth his best wishes for the prosperity and happiness of this country; and I witnessed his constant exertions to promote its interests. It may not be improper here to remember what I do know. Some short time before I went to France, the First Consul applied to Mr. Lafayette to come to this country as Minister. He replied, "I am by birth a French citizen, by adoption a citizen of the United States. I have served in that country, and am so attached to its ' interest that I doubt, if a case of difficulty should arise. whether I should do justice to my own; if I did, I am sure I should be suspected, and therefore I will not place myself in that delicate situation."

6

And now, sir, what is it that it is proposed to do for this gentleman; for him who rendered you services without emolument, and risked his life without hesitation; to this citizen of the United States; and not a foreigner, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been pleased to call him? It is to give to him what we give to others; and what he never would have received had it not been for the reverse of his fortunes. And shall we hesitate? I trust not.

Sir, this is not only a question of justice, but it is of feeling; every soldier, every officer must feel for a fellow-soldier and a fellow-officer, and every citizen for a fellow citizen; and such is Mr. Lafayette.

FEBRUARY, 1803.

Whatever may be the fate of that amendment, if it shall be adopted I shall feel proud for my country. If it shall be negatived, I shall have the pleasing reflection of having discharged a duty to my country and to my own feelings.

Mr. T. MORRIS said that the opposition he had made was more to the manner than to the matter of the motion. He thought it improper to decide upon it at so late an hour, and when there was scarcely a quorum of members within the walls. I have, said Mr. M.. no objection to the grant. On the contrary I think it ought to be made in consideration of the circumstances of General Lafayette. I should indeed have wished that it had been the subject of a distinct bill. The value of gifts of this nature depends as much on the manner in which they are made, as on the gifts themselves; and I think the donation would, in this case, have been deemed more honorable, if a special bill had been passed, instead of inserting a clause in another bill. If there were time to bring in a distinct bill, I should now vote against the amendment; but as I am unwilling to hazard the object altogether, I shall vote for it: expressing my regret, at the same time, that the gentleman who has viewed the distressed situation of General Lafayette had not sooner brought the business forward.

A debate of short duration ensued, between Messrs. S. SMITH, SHEPARD, DAWSON, and BACON, in favor of the amendment, and Mr. Davis against it, when it was carried without a division.

On engrossing the bill for a third reading, Messrs. SOUTHARD, and SHEPARD spoke in favor of, and Mr. VARNUM against it—carried, and ordered to a third reading to-morrow.

OHIO SCHOOL FUND.

An engrossed bill in addition to, and in modification of, the act entitled "An act to enable the people of the Eastern division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes," was read the third time.

Mr. GREGG said, that when the resolutions on which this bill is predicated were before the House, he had very briefly stated some objections which he had against adopting them. A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) had offered some arguments to obviate his objections, but they had not produced that effect in his mind on the contrary. by reflecting on the subject since that time, he was now more fully convinced that the opinion which he then expressed was correct.

At this late period of the session he had no wish to bring on a lengthy discussion, nor had he any expectation that, by anything he could say, he would be able to prevent the passage of the bill. The strong disposition which the House had discovered in its favor, and the unprecedented rapidity with which it had been hurried on the preceding day, left him no room to hope, that any efforts of his could check its progress. He would however remark, that it was very unusual for a

[blocks in formation]

bill of such importance to be acted on the same day on which it was printed and laid on our table, and of course before members could have read it over, and made themselves acquainted with its provisions. It would be vain for him to propose amendments, because the bill was not susceptible of such amendments as would induce him to vote for it. He thought it wrong in principle, and he did not believe it would be found expedient in its effects.

H. OF R.

the last session of Congress, authorizing the people of the Northwestern Territory to frame a constitution and State government themselves, he thought very exceptionable. The terms prescribed in this bill, were, in his view, much more so. The manner in which they were brought forward, rendered them so. They were dictated by a small portion of people who had assumed the power of imposing terms on the Government, and of telling it how the public property must be disposed of. If He had always been accustomed to consider Government has not the power of managing its the lands of the United States a common prop-property its own way, if it must thus submit to erty, in which every citizen of the Government such terms as any particular portion of the people was equally interested, and to which they all had may from time to time see proper to prescribean equal right. These lands were generally con- what is it? Nothing but an empty name. The sidered as a fund out of which the public debt, exemption of the public lands from taxes for five contracted during the Revolutionary war, was to years, that was spoken of as an equivalent, he be discharged. The cession of the lands, made by considered as nothing, or at least as very inadethe States which claimed them, was for the com- quate. Upon the whole, although he had no prosmon benefit, and as such they have always been pect of preventing the passage of the bill, he thought considered. He had before him the act of cession himself in duty bound to protest against the princimade by the State of Virginia of the very land ples and provisions which it contained. in question, the preamble of which he would beg leave to read, and to the particular expression of which he hoped gentlemen would attend:

"Whereas, the Congress of the United States did, by their act of the sixth day of September, 1780, recommend to the several States in the Union, having claims to waste and unappropriated lands in the western country, a liberal cession to the United States of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit of the

Union ;

"And whereas this Commonwealth did, on the second day of January, 1781, yield to the Congress of the United States, for the benefit of the said States, all right, title, and claim, which the said Commonwealth had to the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio," &c.

Let us attend to the expressions here used. Congress asks the land for the "common benefit of the Union:" Virginia reiterates the sentiment. and says she yields it for the "benefit of the said States."

Farther, the Indian title to these lands has been extinguished by money taken out of the Treasury of the United States. Every person in the country has contributed his proportion of tax to effect that object. The citizens of Maine, or any other district, are therefore, in this respect, also equally entitled with those of Ohio, to all the benefits resulting from the sale of these lands. With what face of justice can we then put our hands into this common fund, or lay hold of any portion of these lands, and apply them to the use and benefit of the people in one part of the country, to the entire exclusion of all the rest, as is contemplated by this bill? What authority have we to give the people of Ohio land equal to a thirty-sixth part of their whole State; or to expend on the improvement, of their roads, three per cent. of all the money arising from the sale of public lands in that country? It appeared to him an assumption of power which did not of right belong to them. It was an act of usurpation which he had not been able to discover any principle whatever to warrant or justify.

The conditions expressed in the act passed at

The bill

Mr. RANDOLPH was happy to hear these sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He concurred with him completely in his premises, although he differed from him, in some degree, in his conclusions. It is true that the grant of land made by Virginia was for the common benefit of the whole Union. It was considered when made, and is still considered, as a common fund, for purposes in which the general benefit is concerned. It was with that view that as a member of the committee which brought in the bill, he was favorable to it. But before he proceeded to consider its merits, he must be indulged with a few words on its progress to a passage. had been reported on Friday, and then ordered to be printed; the original draught had been mislaid; a new copy had been required for the press, and it had consequently not been laid on their tables till yesterday; though any member anxious to have procured a copy, might have obtained it on Saturday. The gentleman informs us that it passed to a third reading on the same day, (Monday.) True, because no gentleman protested against it. Did the gentleman expect that the friends of the bill would have risen and objected to it. They, on the contrary, inferred that as no objection was offered, none existed. And why did they draw this inference that there was no objection? Because the report, on which every syllable is predicated, passed with but one dissenting voice, that of the member from Pennsylvania.

Now let us examine the merits of the bill. According to the doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the broad principle he has assumed would vitiate the original principle of appropriation for schools under the ordinance. Mr. R. believed that the appropriation while it protected the interests of literature, would enhance the value of property. Can we suppose that emigration will not be promoted by it, and that the value of lands will not be enhanced by the emigrant obtaining the fullest education for his children; and is it not better to receive two dollars an acre with an appropriation for schools, than seventy-five cents

« ForrigeFortsett »